Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Foreign Attachment.

20. It is no ground for dismissing a foreign | E, by the endorsement of the bill. Corser v. attachment, instituted in the circuit court, that Craig, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 424. the plaintiff had sued out another attachment against the defendant in a state court, and afterwards discontinued it. Ibid.

21. A judgment debtor is not liable to be attached as a garnishee, under the foreign attachment act of Rhode Island. Franklin v. Ward, 3 Mason's C. C. R. 136.

22. By the foreign attachment act of Rhode Island, [Digest, 1798, p. 208, sec. 4,] if the garnishees are discharged upon their disclosure, the suit is to be dismissed against the principal, as well as against the garnishees. Ibid.

23. Judgment in a trustee process against the defendant as a garnishee of the plaintiff, is no defence in a suit for the debt, if the plaintiff in the original trustee process has, by his neglect to comply with the local laws, put his judgment in a state of suspension, so that execution can no longer issue upon it, and it cannot be revived by a scire facias. Flower v. Parker, 3 Mason's C. C. R. 247.

24. As to the true nature and extent of the trustee process, authorized by the statute of Massachusetts of 1794, ch. 65: it seems that it does not authorize an attachment of any property which is not tangible, and might be levied on execution, if discovered, or of any debts or credits, where the trustee sets up any title or claim adverse to that of the debtor; for example, where the trustee claims under a post-nuptial settlement by the debtor. Picquet v. Swan, 4 Mason's C. C. R. 443.

25. Where persons, sued as trustees in a foreign attachment, assert an adverse title to the property in a third person, as her separate property, they are not bound to answer how they have disposed of it for her use, from time to time. Ibid.

26. A trustee may, in a foreign attachment process, set off against a debt or claim due from him to the debtor, any claim he has against the debtor, which she could set off in an adverse suit at law brought by the debtor himself. Ibid.

27. Where an attachment is laid on money in the hands of a third person, interest ceases from the time of the attachment until it is dissolved; but when a debtor, who is also a creditor, lays an attachment in his own hands, interest is chargeable during the continuance of the attachment. Willings v. Consequa, 1 Peters' C. C. R. 301.

28. A having funds in the hands of B, drew a bill of exchange in favour of C, who endorsed it to D and E, to whom he was indebted, and the bill being protested for non-acceptance, D and E brought a suit against B, the drawer, in the name of C, the endorser; and before judgment, an attachment was laid upon the funds in the hands of B as the property of C, and judgment obtained against B, as the garnishee. Held, that the attachment will not affect the right of D and E to recover the amount of the bill from the drawer; the right to the funds in the hands of he drawer, being completely vested in D and

29. Property, in the hands of a third person, he having a lien thereon, is not attachable in a suit against the general owner; but if the lien be waived, the objection does not lie in the mouth of the general owner. Meeker v. Wilson, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 419.

30. If chattels are sold on an execution, the regularity of such sale cannot be contested by mere strangers. Ibid.

31. Notice of an assignment of chattels in a judgment creditor, where possession has never been taken under the assignment, does not affect the right of the sheriff or the creditor to seize the property in execution, as the property of the assignor. Ibid.

32. Process of foreign attachment cannot be properly issued by the circuit courts of the United States, in cases where the defendant is domiciled abroad, or not found within the district in which the process issues, so that it cannot be served upon him. Toland v. Sprague, 9 Peters, 300.

33. By the general provisions of the laws of the United States:-1. The circuit courts can issue no process beyond the limits of their districts. 2. Independently of positive legislation, the process can only be served upon persons within the same districts. 3. The acts of congress adopting the state process, adopt the form and modes of service only, so far as the persons are rightfully within the reach of such process, and did not intend to enlarge the sphere of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts. 4. The right to attach property to compel the appearance of persons, can properly be used only in cases in which such persons are amenable to the process of the circuit court, in personam; that is, where they are inhabitants, or found within the United States, and not where they are aliens, or citizens resident abroad, at the commencement of the suit, and have no inhabitancy here. Ibid.

34. In the case of a person being amenable to process, in personam, an attachment against his property cannot be issued against him; except as a part of, or together with process to be served upon his person. Ibid.

35. A party against whose property a foreign attachment has issued in a circuit court of the United States, although the circuit court had no right to issue such an attachment, having appeared to the suit, and pleaded to issue, cannot afterwards deny the jurisdiction of the court. The party had, as a personal privilege, a right to refuse to appear; but it was also competent to him to waive the objection. Ibid.

36. An attachment commenced, and conducted to a conclusion before the institution of a suit against the debtor in a court of the United States, may be set up as a defence to the suit; and the defendant would be prohibited pro tanto under a recovery had by virtue of the attachment, and could plead such recovery in bar. So, too, an attachment pending in a state court, prior to the commencement of a suit in the couri of the United States, may be pleaded in abate

Foreign Governine t.-Foreign Judgments, and Foreign Sentence.

war authorizes, and which the new government may direct against its enemy. Ibid.

7. The government of the United States having recognised the existence of a civil war be tween Spain and her colonies, but remaining neutral; the courts of the United States are bound to consider as lawful, those acts which war authorizes, and which the new governments of South America may direct against their eneny. The Divina Pastora, 4 Wheat. 52; 4

ment. The attachment of the debt it. such case
in the hands of the defendant, would fx it there,
in favour of the attaching creditors, and he de-
fendant could not afterwards pay it over the
plaintiff. The attaching creditor would, in such
a case, acquire a lien on the debt binding on the
defendant, and which the courts of all other
governments, if they recognise such proceedings
at all, would not fail to regard. The rule must
be reciprocal, and when the suit in one court is
commenced prior to proceedings under attach-Cond. Rep. 388.
ment in another court, such proceedings cannot
arrest the suit. Wallace v. M'Connell, 13 Peters,

126.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

1. If a merchant vessel of the United States be seized by the naval force of the United States, within the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign friendly power, for a violation of the laws of the United States, it is an offence against that power which must be adjusted by the two governments. The supreme court has no cognizance of it. The Ship Richmond v. The United States, 9 Cranch, 102; 3 Cond. Rep. 294.

2. By the conquest and occupation of Castine by the English, that territory passed under the allegiance and sovereignty of the enemy. The sovereignty of the United States over the territory was of course suspended; and the laws of the United States could no longer be rightfully enforced, or be obligatory upon the inhabitants who remained and submitted to the conqueror. United States v. Hayward, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 485.

3. No foreign power can of right institute or grant any courts of judicature of any kind within the jurisdiction of the United States, but such only as are warranted by, and are in pursuance of treaties. Glass et al. v. The Sloop Betsey et al., 3 Dall. 6; 1 Cond. Rep. 10.

4. When a civil war rages in a foreign nation, one part of which separates itself from the old established government, and erects itself into a aistinct government, the courts of the Union must view such newly constituted government as it is viewed by the legislative and executive departments of the government. United States v. Palmer et al., 3 Wheat. 610; 4 Cond. Rep. 352.

8. Unless the neutral rights of the United States, as ascertained by the laws of nations, acts of congress, and treaties, are violated by the cruisers sailing under commissions from those governments, captures by them are to be regarded by us as other captures, jure belli, are regarded; the legality of which cannot be determined in the courts of a neutral country. Ibid.

9. The constitution of the United States gives jurisdiction to the courts of the United States, where foreign states are parties; and the judicial act gives to the circuit court jurisdiction in all cases between aliens and citizens. King of Spain v. Oliver, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 429.

10. The Cherokee nation is not a foreign state, in the sense in which the term "foreign state" is used in the constitution of the United States. The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 5 Peters, 1.

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, AND FOREIGN
SENTENCE.

1. A foreign sentence of condemnation as good prize, is not conclusive evidence that the legal title to the property was not in a subject of a neutral nation. Such sentences are only conclusive evidence of their own correctness, and leave the title of the property condemned, open to investigation. Maley v. Shattuck, 3 Cranch, 458; 1 Cond. Rep. 597.

2. Such sentence is only evidence of its own correctness; and not of any particular fact, without which it may have been correctly pronounced. Ibid.

3. A condemnation by a foreign court, the origin of which is not shown, must be presumed to be that of a legitimate tribunal. But when the source of its authority and constitution appear, it ought to be examined; and if it be contrary to the usual mode of constituting courts, it shifts the burthen of proof upon the party who would support the condemnation, particularly as it is more easy to prove the legitimacy of a court, than to disprove it. Snell v. Faussait, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 271.

5. The same testimony which would be sufficient to prove that a vessel or person is in the service of an acknowledged state, is admissible to prove that they are in the service of such newly created government. The seal cannot be allowed to prove itself, but it may be proved by such testimony as the nature of the case admits; and the fact that a vessel or person is in 4. However conclusive the sentence of a forthe service of such government, may be estab-eign court of admiralty may be of the facts lished, should it be impracticable to prove the seal. Ibid.

6. If the government of the United States remain neutral, but recognises the existence of a civil war, the courts of the Union cannot consider as criminal those acts of hostility which 64*

which it alleges, those facts not amounting to a justifiable cause of condemnation, the court will look into the facts of a case, and draw from them such conclusions as they will authorize. Fitzsimmons v. The Newport Insurance Company 4 Cranch, 185; 2 Cond. Rep. 78.

4 v

Foreign Judgments, and Foreign Sentence.

5. If a claim be set up under sentence of con- nal in Louisiana, is not void because it was made demnation of a foreign court, the supreme court after the cession of the country to the United will examine into the jurisdiction of that court; States; for it is historically known that the acand if that court cannot, consistently with the tual possession of the country was not surren law of nations, exercise the jurisdiction which dered until some time after the proceedings and it has assumed, its sentence is to be disregarded: adjudication in the case took place. It was the but of their own jurisdiction over it, as it depends judgment, therefore, of a competent Spanish triupon municipal laws, the courts of every coun- bunal, having jurisdiction of the case, and rentry are the exclusive judges. Every sentence dered whilst the country, though ceded, was, de of condemnation by a competent court having facto, in the possession of Spain, and subject to jurisdiction over the subject-matter of its judg- Spanish laws. Such judgments, so far as they ment, is conclusive as to the title to the thing affect the private rights of the parties thereto, claimed under it. Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, must be deemed valid. Keene v. M'Donough, 292; 2 Cond. Rep. 98. 8 Peters, 808.

6. In every case of a foreign sentence con- 14. That a sentence is avowedly made under demning a vessel as prize of war, the authority a decree subversive of the law of nations, will of the tribunal to act as a prize court must be not help the appellant's case, in a court which examinable. The question whether the vessel cannot revise, correct, or even examine that was in a situation to subject her to the jurisdic-sentence. Ibid. tion of that court, is also examinable. Ibid.

15. A valid sentence of condemnation, propery

nation or not; the original taint is restored by the property coming into his hands. The Gran Para, 7 Wheat. 471; 5 Cond. Rep. 328.

7. The sentence of a foreign court of admi-authenticated, may afford protection to a third ralty condemning a vessel for breach of block-person: yet if the captured property is found in ade, is conclusive evidence of that fact in an ac- the hands of the offender himself, it is immate tion on the policy of insurance. Croudson et al.rial whether he can produce a regular condem v. Leonard, 4 Cranch, 434; 2 Cond. Rep. 162. 8. In an action upon a policy on property warranted neutral, "proof of which to be required in the United States only," a sentence of con. 16. It is incumbent on a defendant, who claims demnation in a foreign court of admiralty, upon a vessel under condemnation by a foreign tribu.he ground of breach of blockade, is not conclu- nal, to prove that the tribunal was properly con sive evidence of a violation of the warranty.stituted; if this is not done the condemnation is The Maryland Insurance Company v. Wood, 7 Cinch, 402; 2 Cond. Rep. 548.

9. A sentence of a foreign tribunal, condemning neutral property under an edict unjust in itself, contrary to the law of nations, and in violation of neutral rights, and which has been so declared by the legislative and executive departments of the government of the United States, changes the property of the thing condemned. Williams et al. v. Armroyd et al., 7 Cranch, 423; 2 Cond. Rep. 556.

10. A French tribunal at Guadaloupe had jurisdiction of property seized on the high seas for breach of the Milan decree, and carried into the Dutch part of the island of St. Martin's, and there sold by order of the Dutch governor of St. Martin's, before condemnation, without any authority from the French tribunal at Guadaloupe. Ibid. 11. The American owner cannot reclaim, in the courts of this country, his property which has been seized and condemned in a French court under the Milan decree. Ibid.

a nullity. When the condemnation is by a foreign court, it will be presumed to be legal, if the constitution of the court be known. Snell et al. v. Faussatt, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 271.

17. The erection of courts in all civilized countries is the act of the sovereign, although he may delegate the authority to subordinate agents. Ibid.

18. A certificate of the proceedings of a foreign court, under the seal of a person who styles himself the secretary of foreign affairs in Por tugal, is not evidence. Church v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 187; 1 Cond. Rep. 385.

19. Foreign judgments are authenticated, 1. By an exemplification under the great seal; 2. By a copy, proved to be a true copy; 3. By the certificate of an officer authorized by law, which certificate itself must be properly authenticated. These are the usual, and appear to be the most proper, if not the only modes of verifying foreign judgments. Ibid. 238.

20. If the decrees made in the colonies, are 12. It appears to be settled in this country transmitted to the seat of government and registhat the sentence of a competent court, proceed-tered in the department of state, a certificate of ing in rem, is conclusive with respect to the thing that fact, under the great seal, with a copy of itself, and operates as an absolute change of the the decree, authenticated in the same manner, property. By such sentence the right of the would be sufficient prima facie evidence of the former owner is lost, and a complete title given verity of what was so certified. Ibid. to the person who claims under this decree. No court of co-ordinate jurisdiction can examine the sentence. The question, therefore, respecting its conformity to general or municipal law can never arise, for no co-ordinate tribunal is capable of making the inquiry. The decision in the case of Hudson and Smith v. Guestier, is considered as establishing this principle. Ibid.

12 An adjudication made by a Spanish tribu

21. Copies of the proceedings of a foreig prize court, are admissible in evidence, whe certified under the seal of the court, by the deputy registrar, whose official character is certified by the judge of the court, and that of the judge by a notary public; being a court, this is the proper mode of authenticating its proceedings. Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Crauch, 335; 2 Cad Rep. 273.

FOREIGN LAWS.

Foreign Laws.

22. The record of condemnation of a vessel, with foreign intercourse, and of that which is in a court of vice admiralty, is not evidence, per invested with the powers of war, seems to asse. The seal does not prove itself, but must be sume a character of notoriety which renders it proved by a witness who knows it; or the hand-admissible in the courts of the United States. writing of the judge or clerk must be proved; | Ibid. or that it is an examined copy. The certificate of the American consul is not sufficient to authenticate it. Catlett et al. v. The Pacific Ins. Co., Paine's C. C. R. 594.

23. In order to prove a condemnation in a foreign prize court, is only necessary to produce the libel and sentence. Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 5 Cranch, 206; 2 Cond. Rep. 347.

24. A paper purporting to be a record of the proceedings of a foreign court, cannot be read in evidence, without it has the sanction of the seal of the officer by whom it was made out; there being no proof that he had or had not a seal. Talcott v. Delaware Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C. R.

449.

25. Under the clause introduced into policies of insurance, relative to the sentence of a foreign court of admiralty, the foreign sentence is not conclusive in the courts of the United States to falsify the warranty, which the assured is still at liberty to vindicate. The underwriters may, nevertheless, read the proceedings of the foreign court as evidence; though not as conclusive evidence. Calbreath v. Gracy, 1 Wash. C. C. R.

219.

4. The written laws of foreign countries must
be proved by the laws themselves, if they can
be procured; if not, inferior evidence may be
admitted. The unwritten laws or usages of suck
and when
countries may be proved by parol;
proved, the court have a right to construe them,
and to decide on their effect. Consequa v. Wil
lings, Peters' C. C. R. 225.

5. The rate of interest in China is so wel
established to be twelve per centum per annum,
that the court will not require it to be proved.
Ibid.

6. Foreign laws are facts which must be proved before they can be received in a court of justice; they must be proved upon oath, unless they can be verified by some such high authority, that the law respects not less than the oath of an individual. A certificate by a consul is not a sufficient verification of them. Church v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 187; 1 Cond. Rep. 385.

7. The bankrupt law of a foreign country, cannot operate a legal transfer of property in this country. Harrison v. Sterry et al., 5 Cranch, 289; 2 Cond. Rep. 260.

8. If foreign laws and regulations respecting trade be not proved to have been in writing as 26. Where a party claims in the admiralty, public edicts, they may be proved by parol. under a condemnation in a foreign court, the Livingston and Gilchrist v. The Maryland Insu libel, or other proceeding, anterior to the sen-rance Company, 6 Cranch, 274; 2 Cond. Rep. tence, must be produced, as well as the sentence itself. La Nereyda, 8 Wheat. 108; 5 Cond. Rep.

400.

27. The legality of a capture is open for question until a decree of competent jurisdiction passes for condemnation as prize; then all courts and parties are estopped to say the capture is not legal. Miller et al. v. The Resolution,

2 Dall. 1.

28. In an action upon a policy on property warranted neutral, "proof of which to be required in the United States only;" a sentence of condemnation in a foreign court of admiralty, upon the ground of breach of blockade, is not conclusive evidence of a violation of the warranty. The Maryland Ins. Co. v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 402; 2 Cond. Rep. 548.

FOREIGN LAWS.

1. It is to be presumed that the courts of every country will regard their own laws, and that their judicial decisions will conform to them. Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch, 1; 1 Cond. Rep.

229.

2. The laws of a foreign nation, designed only for the direction of their own affairs, are not to be noticed by the courts of other countries, unless proved as facts. Ibid.

3. A decree which has been promulgated in the United States, as the law of France, by the joint act of that department which is entrusted

370.

9. A suit cannot be sustained in the United States, on a contract between foreigners, made in a foreign country, and upon which an action would not lie by the laws of that country. Camfranque v. Burnell, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 340.

10. A discharge under a foreign bankrupt law, is no bar to an action in the courts of this country, on a contract made here. M'Millan v. M'Neill, 4 Wheat. 209; 4 Cond. Rep. 424.

11. Massachusetts.-The circuit court is not at liberty to enforce the municipal regulations This rule is of a foreign country, or to take cognizance of any frauds attempted on them. now too stubborn to be controlled, and has been so long established that it has become almost a formula in our text books. Per Story, justice. The Anne, 1 Mason's C. C. R. 511.

12. In two cases only can foreign laws affect the contracts of American citizens: first, when they reside or trade in a foreign country; and, secondly, when the contract, plainly referring to a foreign country for its execution, adopts and recognises the lex loci. Searight v. Calbraith, 4 Dall. 325.

13. It must be admitted as a general proposition, that the laws of one country cannot, in themselves, have any extra-territorial force; and whatever force they are permitted to have in foreign countries, must depend upon the comity of nations, regulated by a sense of their own interests and public convenience. Le Roy et al. v. Crowninshield, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 151.

14. The same reasons which have conduced

General Principles.

to the establishment of the rule, that personal | the defendant is bound to show that the contract contracts shall have the same solidity in every was originally made at Teneriffe. Green T. country, have engrafted on that rule another, Sarmiento, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 17. that the same law which creates the charge, is to be regarded if it operate a discharge of the contract. lbid.

15. A discharge from the debt under the bankrupt laws of the place where the contract is made, is good in every other place, when pleaded as an extinction of the debt. Ibid.

16. No court gives effect to the local laws of another country or state, in respect to the forms or force of process. When the right exists, the remedy is to be pursued according to the lex fori, where the suit is brought. Hinkley v. Marean, 3 Mason's C. C. R. 89.

17. Whether the British regulations respecting the colonial trade be consistent with the law of nations or not, the effect of them, and the decisions of the courts upon them, are the same to neutrals as if they were so. Kohne v. The Insurance Company of North America, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 93.

18. A law of a foreign country, which protects the party to a contract from execution, will, in the courts of the United States, protect the same individual from arrest upon the same contract. Camfranque v. Burnell, 1 Wash. C. C. R.

340.

19. Written statutes and edicts of foreign countries must be produced; common or unwritten laws may be proved by parol. Robinson v. Clifford, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 1.

23. The judgment obtained against the defendant in New York is conclusive, and extinguishes the original contract; and the discharge of the defendant in Teneriffe is no bar to this action. Ibid.

[blocks in formation]

1. The owner of goods cannot forfeit them by an act done without his consent or connivance, or that of some person employed or trusted by him. Peisch et al. v. Ware, 4 Cranch, 347; 2 Cond. Rep. 137.

2. A municipal forfeiture under the laws of the United States, is absorbed in the more general operation of the law of war. The Sally; Porter, Master, 8 Cranch, 382; 3 Cond. Rep. 177.

3. The forfeiture of goods, for violation of the non-intercourse act of March 1st, 1809, takes place upon the commission of the offence, and avoids a subsequent sale to an innocent purchaser; although there may have been a regular permit for landing the goods, and although the duties may have been paid. The United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch, 398; 3 Cond.

20. Insurance on goods on board the Concord, at and from her port or ports, place and places of loading in Honduras to Liverpool, warranted free from loss, in consequence of, or detection on account of any illicit or prohibited trade. The vessel was captured in the bay of Honduras by a British vessel, as a prize, on the allegation that she was taking on board mahogany of larger dimensions than was allowed to Ameri-Rep. 187. can vessels; and while on her passage to Jamaica, she, with the capturing vessel, was lost. Held, that the privileges to cut mahogany are given to vessels under the treaties between Spain and England, 1762 and 1783. What is the proper construction of those treaties and of the proclamation and laws relative to the trade under them, which have been issued or ordained by the British government. Graham v. The Pennsylvania Insurance Company, 2 Wash. C. C. R.

113.

21. The laws of a foreign country, where a contract is made, will be regarded by foreign tribunals as to the obligations of the contract, and as to its discharge. Webster v. Massey, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 157.

22. The defendant was discharged by the bankrupt law of Teneriffe, in 1801. In 1796, a suit was instituted against him and another, in New York, by capias, and a judgment was obtained against him on the verdict of a jury in 1797. A suit was instituted in 1810 upon the judgment, to which he entered the plea of bankuptcy, and a discharge by the laws of Teneriffe Ebsequent to the rendition of the judgment. To support the plea of bankroy in this case,

4. A forfeiture under the third section of the act of 28th June, 1809, ch. 9, will overreach a bona fide sale to a purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice of the offence. United States v. The Brigantine Mars, 8 Cranch, 417; 3 Cond. Rep. 198.

5. A municipal seizure cannot be justified or excused upon the ground of probable cause, unless under the special provisions of some statute. The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362; 5 Cond. Rep. 612.

6. A court of chancery is not the proper tribunal to enforce a forfeiture; the remedy for the same being at law. Horsburg v. Baker et al., 1 Peters, 236.

7. The act of the 30th of March, 1802, having described what should be considered as the Indian country at that time, as well as at any future time when purchases of territory should be made of the Indians; the carrying of spirituous liquors into a territory so purchased, after March, 1802, although the same should be at the time fre quented and inhabited exclusively by Indians, would not be an offence within the meaning of the beforementioned acts of congress, so as to subject the goods of the trader, found in com pany with those liquors, to seizure and forfeiture.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »