1. See Citizen, 1, 2. 2. A general policy, insuring every person having an interest, and con- taining no warranty of neutrality, covers belligerent as well as neu- tral property. Hodgson v. Marine Ins Co. Alex. 100 3. It is no defence for the underwri- ters, that payment of the premium is enjoined by a court of chancery. Id. ib. 4. A misrepresentation, not averred to be material, is no bar to an ac- tion on the policy. Id. ib. 5. A misrepresentation, to have that effect, must be material to the risk of the voyage. Id.
6. It is not necessary, in an action of covenant on a policy, that the de- claration should aver that the plaintiff had abandoned to the un- derwriters. Id. ib. 7. If the insurance be against all risks, "blockaded ports and Hispa- niola excepted," a vessel, sailing ignorantly for a blockaded port, is covered by the policy; the excep.
JOINT DEBT. See Bankrupt, 1, 2.4.
A discharge of an insolvent debtor, under the laws of Virginia, by two magistrates, one of whom was in- competent by reason of interest, is void. Slacum v. Sims, 363
1. A writ of error does not lie from the supreme court of the United States to the district court of the United States for the district of Maine. United States v. Weeks, 1 2. In an action of trover, if the judg ment below be in favour of the de fendant, the value of the matter in dispute upon the writ of error in the supreme court of the United States, is the sum claimed as da- mages in the declaration. Cook v. Woodrow,
18 3. A corporation aggregate cannot li- tigate in the courts of the United States, unless in consequence of the character of the individuals who compose the body politic; which character must appear by
7. Although the claims of a state may be ultimately affected by the de- cision of a cause, yet if the state be not necessarily a defendant, the courts of the United States are bound to exercise jurisdiction. Id. ib. 8. The inferior court of common pleas for the county of Hunterdon, in the state of New Jersey, in May, 1779, had a general juris- diction in all cases of inquisition for treason, and its judgment, al- though erroneous, was not void, inasmuch as the court had juris- diction of the cause. Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 173 9. The courts of the United States are all of limited jurisdiction ; and their proceedings are erroneous if the jurisdiction be not shown upon them. Id. 10 In Kentucky it is a good ground of equitable jurisdiction, that the de- fendant has obtained a prior pa- tent for land to which the com- plainant had the better right, un. der the statute respecting lands and in exercising that jurisdic. tion, the court will decide in con- formity with the settled principles of a court of chancery. Bodley v. Taylor, 191 11. Time will be given to procure affi- davits as to the value of the matter in dispute, so as to ascertain the jurisdiction. Rush v. Parker, 287 12 The circuit court has jurisdiction in a suit in equity to stay proceed- 6
ings upon a judgment at law be tween the same parties, although the subpana be served upon the defendant out of the district in which the court sits. Logan v. Patrick, 288 Although the plaintiff be described in the proceedings as an alien, yet the defendant must be expressly stated to be a citizen of some one of the states; otherwise the courts of the United States have not juris- diction of the case. Hodgson v. Bowerbank,
303 The trial of seizures under the act of the 18th of February, 1793, “for enrolling and licensing ships or vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same," is to be in the judicial district in which the seizure was made; without regard to the district where the forfeiture accrued. Keene v. United States,
15. See British Treaty,
16. An appeal from the district court
of the United States for the dis- trict of Maine, in a case of admi- ralty jurisdiction, does not lie di- rectly to the supreme court of the United States, but to the circuit court for the district of Massachu- setts. Sloop Sally v. United States, 372
In all cases in which the district court of Maine acts as a district court, the appeal is to the circuit court for the district of Massachu- setts. Id.
pre-emption right on the east side of a road, the 400 acres allowed for the settlement right must be surveyed entirely on the east side of the road, and in the form of a square. Bodley v. Taylor, 192 5. The call for the settlement right is sufficiently certain, but the call for the pre-emption right is too vague, and must be rejected. Id. ib. 6. A defendant in equity who has ob- tained a patent for land not inclu- ded in his entry, but covered by the complainants' entry, will be decreed to convey it to the com- plainants; but the complainants will not be required to convey to the defendant the land which they have obtained a patent for, which was covered by the defend- ant's entry, but which, by mistake, he omitted to survey. Id.
1. See Deeds, 1, 2, 3, 4. 22.154 2. Lands included in the Zaneville district in the state of Ohio, by the act of the 3d of March, 1803, could not, after that date, be sold at the Marietta land-office. Matthews v.
1. See Account, 1, 2, 3, 4.
2. Five years' adverse possession of a slave, in Virginia, gives a good ti- tle upon which trespass may be maintained. Brent v. Chapman,
3. See Kentucky, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 4. See Evidence, 3.
5. See Equity, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 262 6. The certificate of survey is suffi
cient evidence that the warrant was in the hands of the surveyor. Taylor v. Brown, 234 7. That clause of the land law of Vir- ginia, which requires the survey to be recorded within two months after it was made, is merely di- rectory to the surveyor; and his ne- glect to record it does not invali- date the survey. Id. 235 8. It is not necessary that the deputy surveyor who made the survey, should make out the plat and cer- tify it. It may be done from his notes by the principal surveyor. Id. ib. 9. A survey is not void because it in- cludes more land than was direct-
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |