Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http: //books .google .com/I
sObyGoOl^lc
looi^le
/^5
V. j
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
D.qilizMbyG001^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
COMMENTARIES
AMERICAN L AW.
Bt JAMES KENT.
TWELFTH EDITION.
0. W. HOLMES, Jb.
POnRTEENTH EDITION.
JOHN M. GOULD, Ph.D.
» *BB O. •■ RBVMBD STATUTBB," 1
BOSTON:
UTILE, BEOWN, AND COMPANY.
sObyGoOl^lc
Entervd leeordiDg to Jlct ol Congreai, Id ths jear IBTI,
Bt Jamb« Kknt,
la Iht Office of Ibe IJbnuiui of Coogreu, M Wuhingtan.
Eatcred ictording to Act of CoDgreaa, in the year 1881,
Bt James Keht,
Id the Office of the Librariui of Congrew, at Wuhlogton.
Ciipgrigk, 189$,
Bt Ectats of James Eibt.
Q^yright, 1901,
Bt Ebtatb or Javeh Keht.
a, * Co.. BoraoK. U. 8. a
«&9T3
sObyGoOl^lc
"WILLIAM JOHNSON, Esq.
Deab Sir,
hf compiling these volumes, (originally intended, and
now published for the benefit of American students,) I
have frequently been led to revisit the same ground, and
to follow out the same paths, over which I have so often
paased with you aa a companion to cheer and delight me.
You have reported every opinion which I gave in term '
time, and thought worth reporting, during the five-and-
twenty years that I was a Judge at Law and in Equity,
with the exception of the short interval occupied by Mr.
Caines's Reports. During that long period, I had the hap-
piness to maintain a free, cordial, and instructive inter-
course with you ; and I feel unwilling now to close my
labora as an author, and withdraw myself finally from the
public eye, without leaving some memorial of my grateful
sense of the value of your friendship, and my reverence
for your character.
In inscribing this work to you, I beg leave, sir, at the
same time, to add my ardent wishes for your future wel-
SiTCf and assure you of my constant esteem and regard.
JAMES KENT.
:q,t7,:rb;G00<^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
PBEFACE TO FOUETEENTH EDITION.
The masterpiece of Chancellor Kent haa now become so
interwoven with judicial decisions that these commentaries
upon our frame of goTemment and system of l^ws will
doubtless continue to rank as the first of American legal
classics BO long as the present order shall prevail. It is
worthy of*note that, in the preparation of this edition,
notwithstanding the rapid development and extension of
doctrine in our growing country, the statements of this
jurist, though long since made, have rarely been found
criticised or curtailed in final decisions. The thorough
and lucid annotation of Judge Holmes in the twelfth edi-
tion, which- placed the work fully in harmony with the
later researches and the current of more recent decision,
has in all respects been preserved and retained, as first
published, in this edition. The notes of Mr. Barnes in the
thirteenth edition, which though not so elaborate, added
much of value, are now chiefiy enclosed in brackets and
followed by the letter B. In this form, when directly
relating to matters discussed in the notes of Judge Holmes,
they are added thereto; in other cases they have in the
main been added, with the same designation, to the older
notes. Certain of Mr. Barnes's notes, based upon decisions
which have been overruled or more carefully considered in
recent cases before courts of the highest authority, are now
omitted or briefly incorporated in the new notes, in order
;abyGoo<^lc
"mam
Tiii PBEFACE TO THE TWELFTH EDITION.
has been scrupuloualy restored, except that whenever a diffeience
between the proofs and the sixth edition has occurred in a cita-
tion, it has been corrected in the proper abhreriated form. In
this way a lai^ proportion of the author's citations has been
verified ; and it is believed that the present revision, together
with the care which former editors have bestowed, has insured
their accuracy.
In order to make the author's arrangement cleiir, the principal
headings into which he divides each chapter are distinguished by
full-faced type ; the subordinate heads are printed in italics ; and *
when, as happens in a few chapters, these are again subdivided,
the heads of the last subdivisions are also printed in italics, but
enclosed in brackets.
The star p^ng, which is that of the second edition, and by
which the book ought always to be cited, is put at the top of the
page. It has been thought advisable to present the cases cited in
the four volumes in one table, for the same reason that one index
is better than four.
I wish to express my gratitude to my friend, James B.
Thater, Esq., upon whom has rested the whole reeponsibility
for my work to the owners of the copyright. He has read all
that I have written, and has given it the great benefit of his
scholarly and intelligent criticism. I have further to acknowl-
edge the valuable aid which my friends, Henbt Pabkman and
Joseph B. WabheB, have given me by selecting from the cases
cited in the eleventh edition most of those which have been added
in brackets [ ] to the author's notes in the fourth volume. Mr.
Fabkhan has also made, under my supervision, such additions as
were necessary to the index.
O. W. HOLMES, Jb.
OCTOBEB B, 1878.
;abyG00<^lc
PREFACE
TO THE FIRST VOLUME OF THE FIRST EDITION.
Having retired from public office in the summer of
1823, 1 had the honor to receive the appointment of Pro-
fessor of iJaw in Columbia College. The trustees of that
institution have repeatedly given me tbe most liberal and
encouraging proofe of their respect and confidence, and of
which I shall ever retain a grateful recollection. A similar
appointment was received from them in the year 1793 ;
and this renewed mark of their approbation determined me
to employ the entire leisure, in which I found myself, in
further endeavors to discharge the debt which, according
to Lord Bacon, every man owes to his profession. I was
strongly induced to accept the trust, from want of occu-
pation ; being apprehensive that the sudden cessation of
my habitual employment,' and the contrast between the
discussions of the forum and the solitude of retirement
might be unpropitious to my health and spirits, and cast a
premature shade over the happiness of declining years.
The following Lectures are the fruit of the acceptance
of that trust; and, in the performance of my collegiate
duty, I had the satisfaction to meet a collection of inter-
esting young gentlemen, of fine talents and pure chnr-
acter, who placed themselves under my instruction, and in
whose future welfare a deep interest is felt.
' I waa appointed Recorder of New York in March, 1797, and from that
tiiDe nntil August, 1S23, I was constantly employed in judicial duties.
;abyG00<^lc
X PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. '
Having been encouraged to suppose that the publication
of the Lectures might render them more extensively
useful, I have been induced to submit the present volume
to the notice of students, and of the junior members of
the profession, for whose use they were originally com-
piled. Another volume is wanting, to embrace all the
material parts of the Lectures which have been composed.
It will treat, at large, and in an elementary manner, of
the law of property, and of personal rights and commercial
contracts ; and will be prepared for the press in the course
of the ensuing year, \mles8, in the mean time, there should
be reason to apprehend that another volume would be
trespassing too far upon the patience and indulgence of
the public.
New I^ork, November 28, 1820.
;abyG00<^lc
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND VOLUME.
When €be first Tolume of these CommentarieB was pub-
lished, it was hoped and expected that a second would be
sufficient to include the remainder of the Lectures which
had been delivered in Columbia College. But, in revising
them for the press, some parts required to be suppressed,
others to be considerably enlarged, and the arrangement
of the whole to be altered and improved. A third volume
has accordingly become requisite,' to embrace that remain-
ing portion of the work which treats of commercial law,
and of the doctrines of real estates, and the incorporeal
rights and privileges incident to them.
It is probable that, in some instances, I may have been
led into more detail than may be thought consistent with
the plan Of the publication. My apology is to be found
in the difficulty of being really useful on some branches
of the law, without going far into practical itlustrations,
and stating, as far aa I was able, with precision and accu-
racy, the established distinctions. Such a detail, however,
has been, and will hereafler be, avoided as much as pos-
sible ; for the knowledge that is intended to be communi-
cated in these volumes is believed to be, in most cases, of
genera] application, and is of that elementary kind, which
is not only essential to every person who pursues the
science of the law as a practical profession, but is deemed
* This appeared in 1828, and a fourth volume was required, and appeared
in 1830.
;abyG00<^lc
xh pbefaOe to the second YOLmiB.
useful and ornamental to gentlemen in every pursuit, and
especially to those who are to assume places of public trusty
and to take a share in the business and in the councils of
our country.
Nkw Tobk, November 17, 1887.
NoTK BY THK Author. — When Uie N. Y. Btvued Slatutet ore cited la
this vork, the first edition, of 1820, is general!; referred to; and if the last
edition, of 1S46, be referred to, it is cited as Nev> York Rmnttd Stalultt, 9d
edition; and if the citation of the Sd edition be bj the page, the reference ja to
the new paging at the top of each leaf. WheasTer I have had occasion to
refer, in this new edition of the Commentaries, to any of the New York stat-
atee, I have always cited from the 3d edition; but, in other respects, the refer-
ence to the 1st edition of the New York Revised Statutes remains undisturbed^
and I have not thought It worth the trouble of alt«ring that reference, inas-
much as the paging to the first edition of the statutes ia preBerved in tbo
margin to the 3d edition.
;abyG00<^lc
CONTENTS.
0? THE LAW OF NATIOMB.
J^crtmx J.— 0/ AtFenndatioH and Hidorj 0/ tie Lav o/Natim 1
LMCTtnaJS.~OftieBigbiaadDatiai/Nalimi$iiiaStal4^PMet. ... 21
1. K^t of Interference with othar Statei SI
8. Joriadictian otst Adjoining Seu 36
3. Righta of Commaroe -. 83
4. Right of PMMge otbt Luid M
& Bight of NaTJgsble Riven S6
e. Snrrendw of Fugitive! 86
7. AmbMudon SS
IjiOnu UL — Of At Dedamtiim, aul otter Earfy Mtamnt q/* War .... 47
t Auiitmnce to Alliea in Wu 49
% Dedantion of War 61
3. Protection to Enemj'a Propeitr C6 '
4. CooflacaUon of Pn^ier^ 6B
6. Cotdaotion of DebU 62
6. InterdictiaD of Commerce 06
IjmcnnVf.— Of OmVananKMdt of PnpertjiUaliUtB Captor* 73
1. Dranidle In tlie Enemy'i Comti; 74
% Beaidencs In it ' 76
& CtrioniBl Trade 81
4. Propartrn T^iaute 80
lacnmB V.— O/OteRi^ifBtaigtrmlt 89
1. Moderation a DnQ' 90 1
a. Law of Retaliation 93 |
5. FriTateering 9B
4. Friiea 100 I
6. Rautom BQh 104 j
6. lUght of FoMliminiom 108 '
D.qitizeabyG00l^lc
ST CONTENTS.
iMyrv** Vt — 0/ At Ry/iUamdlMui^NaiinJM 116
1. Keutnli muit be impartial 116
2. Nentral Territorr intioUble 117
S. Enemy'i Property' in Bentnl Veauli 124
4. Heutral Property in an Eoemy'a Tend 128
Lkctdbs VU.~-0/BeMlnetiimi^pcnIftiiml7V<idt 136
1. Contraband of War 1B6
5. BlockadM 143
8. Bightof Search IfiS
XjKCtvta yUl.—O/TTUca, Ptu^Mrt*. and TnoHet^Ptact 168
1. Of Trace* 169
2. PMaporti 162
& TreatiM of Peace 106
4. Of Territorfu Ceded or Acquired 177
lMTTXnxl2L — <yO_ffateitagaiiutAaZme^Naticmi IBl
1. y iolatloD of Paaiporta 182
2. Tiolattou of Ambanadon 182
8. Finer 183
L SUre^nde 191
;abyG00<^lc
OF THE OOTEBNIIENT AND COMSTrrUTIONAL JUBISFBODENCB OF THE
DHITED STATSB.
Imtrxvam T.— 0/ Uu Batars of Ae AmaiMt Unim 901
iMCtJiWRXL — O/CaKgraM 821
1. Of Ibe DtTiakn into Two Hchum SS2
i. Of the SeutD SOt
& Of tha Hotue of BepnMDtatlTW 228
4. Pririleges of the Two Hoomb 2S5
&. Kttumer of FUaing Lava 288
•. Preudenl'i Negsttre 239
ImclvaM'm.— OfJmlidaiCautniaiiiiitofliePiiKenitfCoi^nm S48
1. 0( Priori^ of P>7iDaitcUiiiMdb7tbe United BtatM 343
2. Power to locoiponMe a, Bank 218
8. TuaUon 2M
4. Preempltea et ladimn Loiida 267
6. Effect <d State Jodgmenti 260
0. Power of Coagrew over the HilUa 282
7. Power irf CongreM at to Intenial L
XnL—O/du
1. Doity of tbe OfOce .' 271
2. QaaUflcatiom 273
8. Mode erf ElBctloD 273
1. DnntiaDOfOfBce 280
6. SappHi 380
Bl Fowen 282
7. IQ« BeipOHiUlitj 286
XlV. — iy iltt Jtididmy Dtpartmad 290
1. Of the Appointment, Taiare, and Support al Hia JodgM . . . SBl^Se
2. Ita General Pawn* 296
8. Jnrledlctlon of the Supreme Court 296
4. Joritdiction of the (^rcuit Courti 801
6. Jnriadictlon of the Diitrict Court* 803
6. Joriadictioa of Auziliarj State Coorti 800
7. Of Attomeri and Conn«el 809
& Of Clerki SOB
«. Of ManhaU 800
;abyG00<^lc
XVi CONTENTS.
Lbcturb XV. — Ofihe Ongitudand ApptOattjMritJtiiiioaoflhe SiqntmeCoiat . S18
L lU Oiigiiwl Juriadicdon 811
2. Ill Appellate Juriidiotlon in Cmci pending in State Coorta . . 816-321
8. It! Fowen in Cmm of HantUunui 321, !J22
4. It* OrlginalJariMlictioD where a State 1» » PartJ S28
6. Ite Appellate Juiudiction regulated b^ CoDgreu 824
0. It* Appellate Joriadiction conflned to Caaei under the Coutitnliaa,
Treaties, and Law* S36
7. It* Appellate JorisdictioD to Matter appearing on the Record , , , S2S
8. lu Appellate Jnriadiction exiata, thoi^ a State be a Par^ .... 827
Imoivm* XVl— 0/lU Jia-itdictim of the Federal ComtB in Rap^elleAaComMm
Lam, and in Bxtped to Partiet 831
1. Common Idw Jurisdiction in Criminal Caeea 881
2. Common Iaw Jnriadicdon in QtU Caaea 841
8. Jnriadiction when an Alien ia a Fartj 848
4. JnrladiotioD betweon CitiEOD* of Different State* 844
EL Jariadictica when a Slate ia int«i«ated 860
LMmJiKKXVU.— (^dK DutHaaiid TerraiirialCmcrt$i^lUVnAtd8taU» . . 863
1. Of tbe Diatrict Court aa a Price Court 866
2. Ila Admiralty Oriminal Joriidictlati 860
8. limita of ita Admiralty JuriidictioQ 866
4. Jnriadiction aa an Initance Court of Admiralty ..•....■ 378
6. CiTil Jnriadiction of the Diatrict Courta 381
6. TenitOTial Courta of the United Statea 883
Lktubb ZVUL — 0/the OnKitrTtnt Jtiritdicti«» of ik Stafa (?awnaua(t . . 887
1. Of Concurrent Power* of Leglalation 887
2. Of Concurrent Judicial Power 8%
IJOTtrM XIX — tyCowfilMlwwfltibirictMiiif aiilfct fWarao^rttSMWraf St<gM 407
1. Of BiU* of Credit .... * 407
2. £cpa«l>be(sLawa 40S
3. Tbe State* oaonot contrcl the Bxerclae of Federal Pomr .... 409
4. Nor impair the ObUgatiMi of Contncta 413
6. NorpaMHataralizationLawi 423
e. Nor tax HaliaDal Bank* or Stock* 42«
7. Nor exerdie Power over Ceded Flacea 42»
8. Power to regnlat« Commerce <...> 481
9. Frogrea* of National Joriapnidenoc *39
^cibyGoOl^lc
OF TRK TAJUOUB BOUBCES OF THE KUNIGIPAL LAW OP THR
BETEBAL STATES.
Lbcthkk XX. — OrSiiiAK«2Jn> 447
1- Iawi Bepngiuuit to tbe CoMtitadon Told 448
i. PowBi of the JndlduT to daclue tltem Void 449
3. Wfaen a. Statute tkkM Effect 454
4. Acta, PnUic and Fiirate 459
fi. BoIm for the lDteri»etktlon of Statntei 460
fl. Effect of TempoTBTj StitatM 466
7. Statute FenaltiM ' 407
hmorvKtXXL~0/a^»orttcfJ>idiiaalDteitioiu 471
I. Sonne of tbe Common Law 471
5. Foice of Adjudged Cmm 478
9. Notice of tbe Prindpkl Bepoft* at Law 480
4. Notice ta tbe Friodpd Beport* in Equity 489
& btenttiiig Cbaract«r of Reportt 496
latirmm'XXn.— Of AePnmapidPMicadimMi^ At Co»Mm Lam 499
Lbcitbi tyiti — 0/ rt* OivU Lam 616
1. Eul7 Soman Law 610
3. Ttw TweWe Tablei . 621
8. The Pnotorlan Law 628
& Imperial Beaoipti .
6. Jnitiiiiaii ....
BtoCode . . .
InaUtatae . . .
T. Lcee la the Orfl Uw
aitaBerlral ....
;abyG00<^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
fHis mwginal pagei are refaned to.}
A. ..A.
li. TS
Abigail, The
1164
A.».a
ii. 76
Ableraui i>. Booth
L 401 ; li. 82
Au>. BenbHD
ui. 51
Abom V. BoHOrth
iii. 116
AbbcTx. Wb«d«r
It. 870
V. Smith
iU.427
AbbieC. 8tobb«,'n»e
iU.317
iLiao
A. & W. Spngne Hunf
Co. p. Hoy t
11.188
'i.896
p.Plertoro
U. 407, 406
AbUn >. Bnniej
iy.238
V. W. D. Tel. Co.
11.011
Abbot ■>. Am. Hud Bnbbw Co. IL 812
e. WOklD*
It. 616
>. Bnere
iLsee
Abntham* v. De«klii
11.260
Abbott «. atarr
ii. 497
.-.Kidney
il.206
Abbouford, The L S09, 466 j Hi. !31
t>.Myen
111.49
Abbott, feport.
W. 420
Abrmth e. N. E. Ry. Co.
ii.284
D. Allen
W. 471. 472. 478
Ab«>ru. French
il.888
V. Bait. Mid B. Stccm Fu±Bt Co.
Acatoe v. Burni
Ui. 174, 306, 228
11.800
Accident Ini. Co. *. Crud«] ii). 309
V. tUjUy
ii.l67
Accomac, The
iiL 207,248
r.BiwbtiMt
iiOOO
r. Broome
ill. S21
U.366
». CoDTetM
11. 193
Acebal V. Lery
il.4n
p. Cott«goatT
ill. 461
Acker a. Ph^x
111.234
p. CDiti* & Co. Huitif. Co. i. SB6
11.389,466
...EMexCo.
It. 278
a. WlthereU
iiL 432, 488
:;iKr'
lL2ei
Adennu) t,. EmoH
li.416
i». 490
cHkenck
11.64
f.Jahiu<>n
111.46
e. Himilcker
iT. 176
1.466
Ackland V. Peiirce
ULBO
.. HkB
It. 467
Aokley SchcxJ Diitrict v
H.U iU.S9
e. S«bor
IIL 271, 278, 277
Ackroyd d. Smith
iiL410
r.8fa«t>«d
11. 477
I-. Smithun
U. 280
p.WiDcbMter
11.164
Acorn, The
ii. 40
B- WooUey
11.494
Acoeta t>. Rotnn
ii. 216
Abbott'* Appeal
111.89
Abdnt-HMtUi V. Pun
L^76; ii.48D
fU.440
AbMl r. Cnlbenoit
L861
ActfTe,The
Ui. 180
11. 611
Acton f. BInndell
Ui. 480
Abel p. Sntton
iii. 63
-.White
H. 166
Abell, Ex pGrtt
Ui.66
•>. WoodgUe
U.688
„. Penn. HnL Ltfc In.. Co. iii. 266
Adair ». Brimmer
iT.307
L846
».LoK
iT. 80
Aberdeen, The
ill. 248
t>.H1)aiilel
li. 624
Ab<adeea Town CorocU
».8haw
U. 80T
OniTenity
iT. 148
Adam e. Newbiggliig
111.66
111.218
Adam* t>. Adami
It, 114, 348
Abemethy v. Church of the Pnrituu
o.Alkire
iv. 467
ia.402
». Amei Iron Co.
It. 306
V. HntchboD
ii.879
■r. Alkdrewi
UL463
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CABG3.
Adanw V. Angdl
V Bemll
It. 148
il. 2S6
li. sao
Adam, and KnuiagtoD Veatry. In rt ^^
u! BelUire a Co.
Adam. & Lamberf ■ Caw
ii.2S3,
ii. BrooghtoD
ii.3B8
iv.aio
r. Brown
iv.iee
Adamion, Ex parU
iii. 66
V. Biiforf
It. 447
iv.686
r. Burke
it. Ma
o.JarrU
ii. 478
V. CnoU & Co.
m. 156
Adanwnla Fibre Co., The
iii. 76
r. CIupUD
i». 614
Adcodc D. Fleming
iii. 1S4
K. Clutoo
i].fiS4
Addawer CurMtjoe B. Pero«!boy« U.81
cClem
U.696
Adderley r. I»soa
il.487
u. ConoTor
It. 467
Addi* B. Baker
iU. 182
r.CordU
lil.110.117
>^, CampbeU
iL476
t.CorrUton
It, 194
«. Knight
iii. 68
...Crww
ill. 477
Addiion D. AddlMD
It. 278
lil.825
B. Cox , .
It. 807
iii. 433
». Gandawqui
11.882
1.. FMley
iT. 61S
AddT B. GeU
Adefa, The
It. 614
B.Reld'
i.466
i. 117
B. E1tap«trick
ii. 610
Ade aide, The
L 147, 148
o.Fl«5er
IT. 110
Ade ina. The
iii. 232
». IVothioglum
iii. 4S6
Ade lo. The
LT8
D. Gibner
It. 474
Adkiog B. Columbia Im. Co. iU. 860
v. Gueiwd
IT. '209
Adle ». Metoyer
lli. 78, 86
D. Hal&rdi
1.864
Adlerr.Kewcomb
1.309
:;sr
ii. 438
Admiral, The L 146, 160; ui. 232
W. 39
Adolph, The
i. 43
n. Homojar
iii. 138
Adone e. SeeligMn & Co.
A. D. Patohin-TTbe
11649
r. Howftwi
ii, see
iiL248
V. HnmeB
It. 470
Adrian b. McCaaklU
iii. 80
r. Horit
ii. 106
Adrlance v. LwraTe
i. 87
0. IrTing Nut. Buk
li. 4G1
Ad.it ■>. AdBit
It. 68
». Jones
ill. 84, 124
Adutt, In re
1.37
t. King
iii. 76
Advance, The
ilL188
V. LeUnd
iii. 9a
Adf e ■>. FeuiUeteaii
11.416
o-UndeU
It. 122
.£o1iii, The
Iii. 248
X. LiodieU
ii. 477
JEtna In.. Co. e>. DaT«y
111.378
v. HmckeuEle
ilL 206,331
B.rranoe
m. 382, 869
D. Muining
ic. 389
v.JackMin
(ii. 876
V. MlDlck
U. 604, C06
0. Paul
iU.341
V. New Orletuia Steun Towboat
A. P. Pike Hanuf. Co. c.
iii. 876
Co.
ii. 000
Cleveland
r.Ptlmer
ii. 107
Stone Co.
11.866
i>. Fukn
It. 194
African Company v. Bnll
iii. 281
cPeMO 111
414, 427. 429
African Society v. Vaiick
11292
». Peon. Int. Co.
iU. 37^ 278
African Steam^fp Co. b
Swanty
V. PitUbwgh In*. Co.
iii. 174
iii. 217, 381
V. Republic CoDDt7
i.SOS
AgMO, Ex parte
ill. 41.43
V. Royal S(^ Stwm Packet Co.
lli. 248
Agu V. Fairfax
iT. 364
iL U8; iii. aoe
Agar EUi., /» n
U. 193, 185
E>. Shewalter
iii. 66
Agga. B. PlckereU
iT. 187
V. Sophia, The
iii. 106
Aginconrt, The
ui. les
«, Story
iT. 64
Aglaia, The
1^248
E. Valontme
i», 122
Agne. L Gntoe, The
Hi. 248
u Vo»
il.80
Agf* Bank b. Barry
It. 170. 170
B. Warreo
iU.88
Agn aad Uartennu'* Bank, U rt
0. Warren Ina. Co.
Iii. 269
111. 84
r. Wheeler
U.624
V. Leighton
Agrical«.The
Ui.86
V. Whittleiey
il.682
lil. 176
r. Wilde.
iLseo
Agricultural Bank v. CcRnmerdal
i..Wini»
It. 683
%ank
Iii. 08
r. WiBCMwrt Bank
li.274
Agricultural Ini. Co. b. Clant? iii. 276
V. Wright
Iii. 04
UI. 876
„Gooi^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
alto.]
Afiuii, Tfat iii. 248
a£ CboD^ Inn 1. 891
Ah One, Eipartt L 489; li. 39
A. HeBton, Tfae L 889; iii. 104
Abem n. HeCuthf it. 186
Ah Kow D. Nunmn i. 891
Ahlberg ■>. Ahlberg ii 87
Ah Lang, In n ii. TI
Abirod V. Odionn ii. 494 ; W. 162
Ahrenfeldt v. Ahreofeldt ii. 194
Ah Tap, In n ii. M, 71
Aigfaortb, The i. 101
Aiken v. BaiUer iii- 68
V. Smith It. SG
AilfinM B. AikmBD ii. 430
Ailcabnrr c PkttiMa 1. 4S8
Aicu, The i. 44, 76, 87
AiMli* V. Martin ii. 39, 41, 60
Aiuwotth D. Bitt Ui. 468
e. Walmilej Ii. 366
Ainr V. HarriU lU. 21T
Airitan v. Hudra iL 67
AitcbeMHi V. Endlew Chain Dredg« i. 369
Aitchiwa b. Lofan ilL 248, 840
Alton r. Stephen i. 46B
Akab*. The iii. 248
Akerblom d. Price iii. 196, 248
Akerle; ■. White iv. 110
Akerij D. Tiiaa i. 808
Akemian e. HnmphtBj iL 646; iit. 207
Akin E. Jonee iii 81
AUbama, The 1. 309
AUtMuna o. Boir 1. 361
r. Geoi^4 Iii. 427
AUUma, Ac Br- Co. o. Litde ' iL 606
Al)tb«nM Q. S. B. Co. V. CuroU ii. 269.
286
■. Hill iL 76
AUbama Mid. Rf. Co. v. Martia iL 260
Alamaago v. Snpwriion iL 274
Alanii v. CaMoava It. 80S
Alaika, The 1. 869
Albui7, Tbe L 809; iii. 104
Albao; v. Dnt? iL 49
Albany Bridge Caee L 480
Albanj Co., 8nperTiu)n of, v. Dnrant
1L443
Albaay Fire Ini. Co. v. Bay It. 881
AlbaiiT Fint Pnt. Chnrch e. Cooper
ii.449
Albanj St, Cm* of U. 340
Albee v. CarpMiter It. 278
Albert V. Alien ii. 448; i*. 418
p. PeiT7 U. 198, 220
V. Winn il. 173
Albert Croebr, Tbe Hi. 172
Anwrto, Tbe L 870
Alberu B. BMhe ii. 260
Albion Lead Woib v. WnUanubDrg
dtr F. lai. Co. liL 376
Albrecfat v. State L 400
Albretcht V. StumunD i. 78
Albdcbt V. Smith 1. 418
n. Teal 1. 303
It. 166
iii. 375
AIciDOua V. Nisrea L 07, 160
Alchome r. Goaune
SaTille
igren
Alcock V. SmlUi ii. 469 ; UL 91, 96
Aldboronsh v. Trye ii. 476
Alden V. Carleton ii. 336
D. Hart iL 408, 478
d. Jobnaon It. G24
V. N. Y. C. B. R. ii. eOO
Alderton v. Peel i. 488
B. White It. 144
Aldin t>. Clark lU. 448
f. Latimer ir. 478, 4B0
Aldred'i Caee Ui. 441, 448
Aldrich v. MtD». Co. i. 816, 326
V. AU>ee il. 606
V. Anchor Coal ft D. Co. U. 286
0. Bennett IL 193
D. Grimea U. 286
D. JackMm iiL 86
cKlnner 1261; iL 100, 121
D. Uanton iL 70
e. Warren iii. 79
■>. Wilmarth IL 612
Aldridge, Ex parte ii. 123
Aldridge, /■• n Hi. 33
V. Aldridge ii. 126, 466
V. Q. Weetem R. Co. iiL 439
V. Johnaon il. 492
Alert, The Iii. 188
Aleiander, The i. 161 ; ill. 176, 364, SOI
Alexander V. Alexander ii. 619; It. 839,
344,340
V. Baltimore Ini. Co. iii. 328
V. BuroUMd iU. 88
e. Canw It. 113
V. Caoidwell ii. 300
e. Deneale 11. 621
e. Dnke of Wellingtoa 1. 367
t>. EUiMn It. 870
t>. Galloway ill. 196
r. Greene U. 608, 609
n. Haikini ii. 461
V. Hodgei It. 122
V. JanteaoD It. 463
D. Hahon iii. 482
V. Morgan 11. 143
«. SeMcr U. 286
r. Slmmi iii. 166
V. Solly It. 871
r. Warrance It. 80
V. W. D. Tel. Co. ii. 611
Alexander't Cotton I. 78, 01. 367
Alexander GlbeoD, The v. Portland
S. Co. ill. 206
Alexaadra, The 1.128
Alexandre d. Maohan 1. 200
Alfen, The llL 248
Alfl V. Radam 11. 866
Alford and Lea'* Case it. 466
Alfred V. Harnnl* of Fitzjamea ii. 249
Aloer 0. North End 8. Bank ii. 438, 448
AlRambra, The Iii. 200
Alice Tainter, The Hi. 101
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
fltevuilul (•fMu* n
NitO.]
AUdk, Tbe i. 290, 8(0; 814
Alid»,TI»
AluMido, The
Aline and FauiT, The L 166
AlkuiB. Beui 1266; U. 832
K. New HwnptblTC Id*. Co.
— *"-'-- 'l
Ya'si
AllMn r. Heber ir. 607
AUw v. BackhouM Iv. 148
Allan and SMwart v. Cradlton of
Stein U. 614
AUaTd V. GreMert a 494
V. lAine It. 104
Allbutt V. Oenent Conncil L 286
Allcock V. HoorfaoDaa It. 96
Allegre n. Hairland Ini. Co. iii. 269,
260, 274, 284
Allein n. AgricnltnrU Bank Iii. 72
Allen V. AddinKtoa ii. 489
V. Agnew lU. 477
t>. Allen 1. 413 ; U. 192, 2S6. 261
V. Anthot)]' i*. 190
r. Atkinion Iv. 461
V. Backboiue Iv. 75
B. Baker tl. 468
c. Baitlett It. 113
r. BeniMt U. 610
«. BernrbOl il. 461
*. BlDDt i. 262
V. Bradibaw ir. 380, 616
V. Centre Valler Co, Ul. 66
e. CheeTer lil. 48
D. Chonlean U. 477
«. Cobnm il. 160
e. Commercial Idi. Co.
V. Demareat
v. Dimdai 11. 110
v. EdniUDdaon iii. OB, IDS
r. B*anl Ui. 437
V. FamawoTth ill. 421
e. Hike ill 462
V. Frazee Iv. 440
V. Q. W. A F. Smith Inm Co.
V. Hammond ii. 409
e. Hyde U. 84
V. Jackwm ir. 180
V. Kemble HL 96
■>. Kennedr It. 478
r, KtDK tii. 100
e. Lardner IL 286
V. LeaTeni Iii. 64
e. Litde W. 606
«. HcCrMur iii. 80
D. Hackar ill 217
0. M'EeaD II. 302
c. H'Emq ii. 276
' e.Manifleld It. Ill
It. Mercantile Ini. Co. Iii. 224, 270,
831
Allra K Mooner H. 343
v. N«wbuTT i.869
■>. Ogden U. 620
B. Poole It. 870
V. Praj i». 68
B. Rawaon ii. 366
r. RIgfatmere iU. 124
V. Bomph ii. 1S2
t>. Sackrider 9L 217
t>. St. Loola Ina. Co. iii. 240
V. St. Louis NaL Bank Ii. 681
V. Scnnr ii. 364
». Seckbam lil. 448
P. Sewall 11. 608, 600
X. Smith il. 696; It. 440
V. South Boilon B. Co. ii. 2S4
r. SuteBank liL 116
V. SuUiTtui R. R. It. 461
B. Snjdam IlL 82
V. Taylor lU. 410
e. Teiai & P. Rj. Co. IL 106
V. Tniiteei of Aahley School
Fnnd IT. 2T8
B. United Statei i. 297
V. Watt ii. 12S
D. Weill ill. 66
V. Willard ii. 260
V. Woodmff It. 186
n. Wootuocket Co. II. 800
AUen, Letaee of d. Pariah It. 433
Allen'i EaUle It. 461
Alley o. BotaoQ II. 646
r. Winn 11. 146
Allgood B. Glbaon Ul. 413
r. WiUiami il. 480
Allhnien v. Borriea Ui. 63
D. Brooking I. 407
Allianca, The SI. 364
Alliance, The 1. 830
Alliance Bank b. Caray 11. 468
V. Keanley Iii. 46
u. Tucker lil. 46, 47
Alliger V. Mail Printlna Aai*n iL 16
AUin r. BobinMm 1. SOS
Ailing u. B. & A. R. R. Co. iL 600
B. Cbatfletd It. 68
B. United State* L 207
Allii V Billing! U. 461
D. Jonea ii. 291
V. Ninlnger It. 471
p. Voigi ii. 612
AIUmid v. Alllwn Ii. 366 ; It. 467
D. 8rl*t(d Marine Id*. Co. iii. 226,
268,270
0, DaTidfon III. 63
t. Drake U. 122, 233
B. Veny Hi. 37
Allman r. DaTi* ii. 496
Allihonae u. Raouay 11.458
Allaop B. Alliop IL 16
Alliton B. Tbompaon It. 467
AllmpB. AlUnp IL 481
Allwood I-. HawldoD Iii. 08
Alljn p. Mather it. 16
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Uaat^ n. Uoare ii. 229
Almj D. C>lifonii> 1.438
D. Greene It. W
>. UurU i. 407
Abw s. PlumiMT a 610
Atpn^ V. HuDt a 467
Alphk, The Ui. 23S
Alp>, The ill. a02
Abus Lomine, Tlw iii. 206
Aliberrj b. iUvkiiu ii. 49 ; It. S6
AInpt D. EfkM ii. 603
AlKip «. Tb« Comm. In*. Co. iU. 276, 'JUb
AlMoo, lU il. 4S6
B. AlilAD It. 96
„. H«cb. U. lu. Co.
Ahv. 0regor7
■. NoniMD
>. Stoker
AltcnbnrKF. Com'tb
Alloo B. Hirruon
Alwau Sacond N»l. Bank
Alirincluni Union
Committee
Alrafa, The
Alrtnj V. Powell
AtTM " ■
111284
iv. 451
ir. 461
B. Hodj
l«on
Aliroad V. Kuckman
AnuDD D. Damm
Ambler v. Amei
V. Norton
U. 44], 620
Cbeihire Llnee
1.462
iU.207
ii. 426
ill. 461
iL 468, 469
It. r
il. 22
ii. 581
L29tl, S02
V. Whipple L 260 ; U. 120 ; ill. SO
Ambnae B. AmbroM It. 43
V. Hopwood ill. 99
t. Keiriton 11. 146
AmbroM Light, The L 144, 165, 183
AoHidle, The 1. 197
Anielie. The ilL 130, 174, 197
Am Ende v. Sesbniy 11. 300
Americ*, The I. 370; iii. 170, 199
Amrriei lift Am. v. Boosher ii. IS
Aimricui Ace. Co. v. Reigui Ui. 386
Americu Bank b. BoUini ii. 123
AoL Bank Note Co. t>. EdMm iii. 61
AoericM B. M. Co. r. Croinian iii. 0-^
Am. Bell TbL Ca b. Brown Tfll. Co. ii. 306
B. Olnbe Tel. Co. il. 366
B. McKeeaport Tel. Co. ii. 366
B. Unlled SUtee ii. 866
^mHtean Bible Soc b. Wetmore il. 288
Amtricto Central loe. Co. b. U'Crea iii. 376
in. D. T. Co. ». Walker ii. 561
Aii.Emi)(nu)tCo.B. CaU 1*. 469
Am. EoploTen' L. Ini. C». v. Barr iii. 869
Ak Eiclt. Bank b. BlaDChard iii. 70
A(D.Ri|>.co.B. Sud* ii.eoe
cSi^th il. 600
Ab, El M. Bank 0. Oregon P. Ca Hi, 81
AMricu Flbn ChanMii Co. "
Ui. 300, 803
1.260,384
iii. 173
iii 171
Ah, Fmitora Co. p. BatetTlIle
Ah. Giiaim Co. v. U. 8. Gnano Co. i
Am. HuTow Co. V. Bhafbr \
ii.3
487
■ uBnftmdlix]
Am. In*. Co. u. Bt
o. Canter
D. Center
B. Cotter
B. Dunham iU. HU6
D. FranciB iii. 3S1
B. Griiwold iii. 281
B. Iniler iii, 802
e, Ogden iU. 288, 289, S22, 881
Am. Life 4i H. Ini. Co. v. Bobeitibaw
iii. 869
Am. Linen Thread Co. o. Wortendjke
Ui.68
Am. Mirror Co. v. Balkte; iii. 24
Am Mortgage Co. b. WnfAt 11. 236
Am. Hnt. Life Ini. Co. b. Owen ii. 283
284,285
Am. Nat. Bank v. Am. W. P. Co. ilL 89
f. Junk Bro>. H. Co. iu. H, 106
V. Spragne iii. 61
Am. Net & Twine Co. b. Worthington
i. 248, 467
Am. P. Co. B. Dreecher 11. 561
Am. P. T. Co. B. K«her Ii. 866
Am. Rapid TeL Co. v. Coim. Tele-
plione Co. 11. Sit
Am. Steamihip Co. tr. Toong il. 461
Am. Snret^ Co. v. Panly iii. 26S
Am. Tobacco Co. v. Oae>t ii. 866
Am. Towing Co. t>. Qerman F. In*. Co.
iii- 260
Am. T. R. Au'n r. Oocher il- 878
Am. U, T, Co. V. Daughterr il. Sll
Am, Wood Paper Co. v. Fibre Di>-
integrating Co. 11. 386
Amerlque, The iii. 248
Ameriscoggin Bridge n. Bragg iii. 462
Amerman o. Deane It. 480
Amei V. Blmit Ii. 684, 638
B. CannoD River Mfg- Co. ill. 440
B.Eanw L 221, 851
V. Merriam iii. 91
V. New Orleans Trans. Co. iU. 1S8
■>. Schneilar iv. 112
V. Union Pac. Rf. Co. i. 342
Ameaburf c. Brown It. 16, 74
AmelhTit, Ca«e of the il. 367
Amiable ItabelU, The i. 96
Amiable Nancj. The f. 369. 864
Amicable Abc. Soc. e. Bolland Ui. 360
Amidown o. Osgood
AmmidowD v. Ball
V. Woodman
Amis p. Witt
Amorj D, Amor^
0, Fairbanks
V. Oilman
V. Kanno&skf
e. Lord
B. McGt«gor
B. Meredith
Amoskeag Bank d. Moore
Amoekeag MannC Co.
B.Eead
iU. 419
Hi. 102
Iii. 278
It. 96, 106
It. 271
1.86; 11.600
iT.336
ilLlOO
GMDCr 11.866
ill. 440
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
AoKMkMK Maat. Ca v. Spear ii. 366
Ampfaleit V. Puke iL 290
Auuinck r. Americui In*. Ca 111. 271,
8U, 376, 494
V. Bean iii. 44
Amy r. Dnbnqne ill- 89
Anj Warwick, The 1. fiS, 78, 87. 367
Ancattor v. Mayer it. 146
Aneber v. Baok of England ill. 90
Ancient Order o. Holdom iiL 889
Ancona v. Hark* ii. SIS
f. WaddeU iv. ISl
Andete c Anden It. 849
p. Oerfaard iT. 686
Andna Knapa, The iiL 196, 34S
Andenon, Caae of L 286
Ex parte L 401
V. Anderwi iL 77, 166, 430 ; HI 61 ;
IT. 466
V. Bakei i.
V. Butler'* Wliarf Co. iii. 138 ; It.
B. Cary It,
D. Clark IT.
e. Commercial UnlonAM. Co. Bi.
V. Coonler ii.
n. Cnllen ii. 146
V. Drake iiL 90, 97
tr. Dunn i. 286
t>. Edie iii. 809
t>.mcgendd U '"
0. Fou&e It. 192
V. Fnller iL 623
V. GUbort iii. 441
B. Oreble It. 870
t>. Hay U. 99
o. JackMD i*. 279
«. JeU Ii. 467
V. Kenu Dnuains Co. ii. 840
v. Lemon iii. 61
V. Loui<TiUe A 17. R. Ca L 891, 439
*. McAieeiian 11. 612
e. HuCullDngh It. 806
V. Uancheiter F. A. Ca 1. 221 ; iii- 263
0. Harr Garrett, The i. 369
V. Uar IL 468
V. Millw iii. S76
c. Morica ii. 492 ; iii. 291, 876
r. Neimith It. 120
«. Pearce
il. 820
B. Ktcher
IiL 209
V. Robert*
iT.464
e. Saint
iL366
«. Scott
ii. 602
B. Taylor
iii. 37
B. Thornton
tij.260,841
tr. Tompkint
IU.44,48
B. Walli.
iii. 326
1.. Watt*
iL164
B. Wlbam
It. 451
Andenon-i Ca*e
LS7
Anderton A Milner"* Contract, In n Iv. 86
Andrea b. Hailetine
iii. 437
B. Blachly iii. 86
B. Dietrich ii. 826
B. Newcomb ii. 402
V. Pearce iv. 472
Andrew*, Re IL 170,193; i*. ISl
Matter of ii. 227
B. Andrew* iv. 619 .
V. Bishop iT. 421
B. Boyd ir. 686
B. Butler IiL 81
B. Emraot ir. 336
B. Essex F. A M. In*. Co. i. 870 ;
11. 4S1 i iU. 26«
s. B)*ex In*. Co. IiL 208
V. E**ex Har. In*. Co. iiL 300
B. E*te* ii. 681
B. Famham It. 464
B. Franklin iii. 76
B. Ball It. 410
V. Hovey H. 306
B. Hoiie iii. 96
B. Eneeland U. 481, G20
B. Lndlow il. 684
B. H'OoOoa; It. 60S
B. Plaoten'^Bank iii. 47
B. Fond iL 460, 461; iiL 91
B. Ro** ii. 81
B. Ronyoo ii. 260
V. Salt U. 193, 196
p. Bpuriin lT.216
V. Swarti 1. SOI
B. Whitney iL99
B. Wood It. 461
Andrina, The ill. 246
Andro*, U rt IL 62
Androiconln B. R. v. Anbtun H. 581
Andrui b. Coleman It. 152
Aneroid, The iii. 164
Angelo De Giaeomo, tn n i. 87
Angelse* V. Rugeley It, 180
Angelt c. McCuUoush ii. 164
Angerhoefer r. Braditreet Ca ii. 285
Angler v. Agnew It. 161
V. Webb ■ 11. 467
Angle B. N. W. Mat. Life In*. Ca IU. 70
AnglLa, The L 101
Anglo-Arrican Co. b. I«m«ed ilL 20S
Anglo-Cal. Bank b. Ame* U, 461
Anglo-Greek Steam NaT. A Trading
Co. ii. 280
Anglo-Italian Bank r. DaTle* it. 429
Angai D. CliSord ii. 490
8, McLachUn IL 602, 639
Anlien*er-Biiich Brewing Au'n b.
Hutmacher ILOIl
v.VpXeaaa It. 110
Ankeney b. Hannon ii. 164
Ankeny v. Clark It. 116
Ann Hitrbor, The i. 369
The Brig L 466, 468
Ann D. Ricbardaon, The iU. 22S
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ttUt marghul p*rm h* ntatti U.]
AimOre«n,Tlie 1.86
Aroher p. Hudtoo
ii.229
Abu Knee, £xp<BM ii. 21fl
V. Lavender
It. 29
r. PrewoB
il.46S
Ann Lloyd, In n ti. IM
Anna, Tie L 117. 120, 367 ; lU. 217
Archer'* Caw Ii. 194: i¥. 231. 223.
283,248.253
Aniu CKthriQa, TU i 76, 77, 81, 86
ArchiUld D. M. Int. Co.
111.266
Add> Mui^ The i. 99, 156
Arctic Fire In*. Co., The
. Aujtin iii. 232
Annmble v. Pmtch jr. J3b
iii. 164
Ardan S. Co. d. Theband
iii. 207
ii. 216
Artlen v. PatlerMO
ir. 449
p. FallMi
iU. 46S
p. Sharp*
m. 45^44
Anne Wmlkar, Cue of ii 141, 162
Ardinger v. Wright
ii. 690
Anne, Tbe 1. IIT
Areedale «. Morgan
ii.48S
Aniien v. Woodnun iii. 288, 26Q
UL 89, 01
Annie Fuon, Tbe iii. 21T
Aril E. SUr Idi. Co.
iii 370
AnniitoD Flpe-Worki v. Dicker ii. 269
ir. 461
Ar^nt V. DorraoC
ir. 118
Arglawo V. Matcbamp
li.468
Ai-gaeUe*. Caae of
L37
Anler ■>. PiMhro It. 1G2
Ariadne, The
L85
AnMiiiA B. ft C. Co. V. EL Supply Co.
Ariel. The
L 7B, 86, 07
iL366
ArkBDM*, The
Lseo
AuUce V. Brown ii. 62
Arkwright v. OeU
». Hewbold
ui.488
Anitrather j,. Addr ii. 458, 469
iL490
Antelope, The i. 158, 200
Armenia Fire Ini. Co. e. Paul IU. 282
AntluiuMeti v. Dut Hi. 248
Armfield u. Allport
iiL78
AethoD V. FUber 1. 107, 867
Armitage ». Armitage
il.81
»AiitbonT D. Laphkm iii. 446
A,ago Bank 0. Union Tnut Co. ii. 488
». Saunder*
iii. 68
r. Wlckliffe
Ir. 104
AMiidel «. Chieaso tH.W.TL Co. iii. 488
ArmonU, The
ill 283
Aatoioe «. Monb»d t. 68
Armory v. Delamirio
II. sea, 666, 668
AniMi ■>. Belkup it 848; ir. 118
a.3Ba
AstonU Johanna, The L 80
Armour o. Habn
11260
0. HcUichad
iU.7»
Aaaim V. Dobbe iL 348
Armour Bra*. B. Co. v. Ktey County
AsETObM t. Smith 11. 438
Bank
ill 89
Aplin .. Porritt ii. 348
Armroyd v. UnioD Int. Co
iii. 229, 338
Apple r. Apple ir. SO
Armstrong, /« r.
1.236; ill. 84
Apple'* EaUta ir. 618
r. 203, 278, 515
Appleby .. Doda ilL ISB
V. JohoMii ii. 477
V. Baldock
ii. 620
r. Beadle
li.4ia
■>. Myen ii. 468. 681
». Beit
11.459
Appleganh 0, AMMtt ilL 109
D. Bittlnger
ir. 42S
&nWgue & Otben r. LexiiiBtao &
OUo R. B. Co. iL 840
r. Chad.ick
0. Hanhman
uLioe
ill. 70
ApptMon V. Binki tL 631
K. BuMey
iii. 88
V. Hu»ton
I».4a8
T. Smith i. 301
It. 461
AnwlUnari* Co.'i Trade Hark*, & ii. 866
uiLear
U. 227. 431
Apolla, The iii. 163. 168
■>. LewU
ii. 400
Aptbwp o. Backni 11. 67
t>. O'Brien
U. 618
Aqoili, The iL 867 ; HL 246
D. Fomeroy N. Bank
iiL78
AnhdlitHaddn,The L S6B
D. Smith
111.189
Anainta. The iii. 186
t>. Stoker
iL631
Anjot. CnrTBll iU. 218
o. 'Tharaton
U. 154
Ariwckle D. Ward ill. 446
iii 106
Anult Hotel Co. >. Wiatt U. 692
e. Traylor
L449; ii.S48
A<<hbi.hap of Canterbnry v. TappeD
o. United State*
1297
'^ *^1l 420
«. U, 8. Expreit Co.
U608
ARhlMhoii of DnhUn v. Bruertoa iL SIO
Areher, Tie iU. 8M
1-. Wheeler
It. 478
r. Wholeiey
lr.299
AnteaDnim U.4ei
Arautrong'e Fonndiy
L 984, 802, 857
■. Helm U. 4M
Anaalt n, Amanll
ir.608
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Atwood t>. Sellu
Ui-234
Auworth D. JohMon
It. 110
Atwool V. MerrywMther
ii.293
ATBgno V. Schmidt
i. 66
Aubert ». Gnj iii
292,293
A»elja V. Ward
iT. 214, 611
b.JmoU
iii. 278
ATerett v. Bookw
IU. 76
V. Maze 1. 468; Iii. 28
;i».4M
ATeriU V. Guthrie
iT. 176
Aubin p. D»l>-
iii. 460
V. Taylor
iT. 162
Aubrey, As
i.42
». wiU.
iT.2ei
Auburn e. Qoodwin
m.44fi
ATery o. Bowden
L67
U.800
0. Empire Woolen Co.
D. Griffin
Hi. 440
Auburn & C. Pluk R. c. Donglu*
iLies
iii. 469
V. MazweU
iii. 438
Aach V. Lkbouiue
iii. 487
V. Stewart
Uil02
Aadeoreid t>. EvuUl ii. MS
;iiL207
1.. Vamiekle
1L164
Auer 1^. PeDD
IT. 461
ATeion V. Lord Kinnaird
U.I80
Aoerbach t>. Le Sueur HiU Co.
ii. 291
Atoq, The
i.3«9
Ai^ust, The iU
164,207
Awde ■>. Diion
iii. 7B, 90
AaguiU V. Bnnim
iii. 461
Axford V. Thomae
iT. 461
AogTiiUpTlw
iii. 368
Axmaud v. Lund
iL360
Angutu, jh). Co. V. mttel
ii. 281
ATcrigg D. N. Y. 4 E. R. B.
ii.260
AuguiU Bank n. Bodm
liL38
111.81
AoguiU In*. & B. Co. V. Abbott
e. TUdea
ill. 116
liL 258, 316
■>. Weeki
il.430
AuKU«u S. Bank u. Fogg
11.448
Ayen, Inn I 281, 32S, 3£1
liL26
IT. Bum*
ii.240
n. HcConneU
iU. 369
D. Chicago
i.2Q9
V. UUb
LiUO
D. Lattimer
iii. 464
Aiinnia,Tfae
Iii. 232
B. So. Anit, B. Co.
li.800
Aniota, The i. 86, 288, 371
iU. 171,
Ayleifiird'i Caie
iT. 461
172
Ayleaford, Barlofo. UonU
i*. 148
Aurora Fin Ini, Co. >. Eddy
iii. 376
Aylor u. Chep
Aylwin V. Mc^aLy
It. 868
Aiubacher v. De NeTue
11.430
ii. 408
Amuo v. Boyi
ill. 64
Aymar v. Altor il
60e;lii. 301
V. CraTOD
il.496
o.Been
iii. 83, 106
Auterbert7 >^ Oldham Corp.
iii. 461;
V. Sheldon )
L 460; ill. 06
It. 480
Ayniley o. Olover
Iii. 448, 440
Anitin !>. Ahoame
ir.491
Ayrault v. Chamberl^
ui.«S
«. Aldermen, Th«
1.429
Ayw. V. C. a. Q. 4 P. Ey. Co. iii. 64
». Amhont
iii. 418
Alomar ,.. Cawlla
■ U.479
v. Ap^iag
iii. 37
Altec M. Co. V. Ripley
i. 884
p. An.tin
ii. 198
Altec*, The
iii. 248
5. Barrett It
370, 371
o.BeU li
634, 6Se
ill. GO
Babb v. Clemnn
ii.622
■>. Bradley
It. 143
Bab^k*^ ^Qoell
ILISI
».Bun»'
Ul. 76
11645
V. Drewe
iii 870
p. Booth
Ii. 179
V. OnaidlMW of BMlmd Greu
V. Eckler
ii.44I
il201
iT.46e
p.Halier
It. 1S2
V. Lawion
U. 482, 661
>. Hatch'
It. 190
B.Stone
iiL44
».HoUu)d
IU. aa
iii. 278
V. UMd
li448
Baber v. Harrii
It. 474
e. New Jerwy SL Co.
lii.232
Bach V. Owen
11.494
B. Sawyer
It. 06
V. SMte loj. Co.
Ui. 63
D. Scligman
U.468
B. Tuch
ii.400
o. Uutwl State*
i.288
Bacharach ». HcCnrruh
ii.6IO
lit 86
BMibe B. Proctor
iL66&
v-WUmd
iU. 94
Bachelder v. Fiske
It. 371
Autin'i cae*
i, 74
Back 0. Stacey a 661 ; Iii. 448
iiL172,
BackentoM v. Speioher
Backhnn«e t,. Charlton
a 614
174
iT. 166
Aortralia, The
IIL174
B. Barriion
111.82
tli.281
V. Weill
It. 2S1, 223
Antomaichl 6 Exte. v. Rueell
iii. 437
Backui i>. Lebanon
iL8S9
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CAS£S.
Bidnu >. HcCoT
e. Fra. AuV
iT. 472, 470
Bailey c. Fergnson
iu.SS
It. 278
D. Freeman
iii. 128
iv. 105
B. Uawkiai
iT. 345
V. CheuicT
iu.124
0. llemenway
It. 806
r.Cobb
u.4e8
V. Hoppin
iT. 203, 611
r.D7er
iu. 97
V. Hope Ini. Co.
111268
r. Harria
L 887 1 iii. 91
V. Jamleaon
UL432
B. Howkrd
i. 419
t.. Marlin
U.
120.280
c.RiTei
i. 803
... Merrell
11.485
ii.286
V. Milner
1.408
r. U. S. MuL Aai'll
Iii. 866
r. MiliBDberger
iii. 427
Buot r. Paniell
iii. 471
V. New York
u. 276
ii.384
V. Ogden.
U.6U
Badut'i Tnuta
ii. 429
B. O'Malioney
i. 123
V. Qnnrille
ii. 4SS
i. 467
». Partridge 13
V. RicliardBon
612; iii. 88
iT. 179
K. Rom
iT. 400
V. SimoDda
ii. 609
B<tdenfeld e. Hm«. Acc Am'd iii. 366
V. Smith
11.402
Bldenhool v. JohnwQ
ii. 226
c. Smock
iii. 77
Bkdgeley d. Brace
It. 72
P. State
U.8
;iii464
IWpr ». B,dg*r
ii. 87
p. Troy & B. R Co.
11.260
B. Gatiei«z
iu. 148
... Winn
It. 806
E. Uoyd
iY.203
(5m Baley.)
.. Phinney
ii. 240. 241
Baillie u Moudigliani
ill. 229
B«dgen V. BroughloQ
ii.480
c. trehame U
132
It. 863
c. KeatiDK
IV. 8(H
Bain V. Folhergill
ii. 479
Bidham V. Mee
iT. 828. 317
1.. Sandusky Tnuu. Co
1.369
Badiahe Analia Fablik
. Bchott ii. 467
Bainbridge, In re
iii. 66
Badkoi n. Tucker
iii. 188
t. CaldweU
11.497
B«hr e. CUrk
ii.6i«
V. NellBOn
iU.324
».PM
iil60
u. Pickering
u. 289
Baenelcnmn ». Bailey
iii. 207
Baines v. F.wing
iU. 261
BagbT B. Walker
B«b^tCa«.
ii. 4M
Bains V. The Jamea & Catherine
J. 371
ii 297. 298
Bainton .■. Ward
iT. 840
B^^ni^-Menx
11.170
Baird'a Ca»e
ia27, 6d
Ba«lehole r. Waltert
11482
Baird».BankofWailiiDgb)D
ii
288.296
Bagiey <-. B.iley
iT. 161
V. Cochrane
iU, 42
/Mdlarf
iT. 414
K. Daly
i. 869
BagnaU r. Carlton
ii. 280, 618
V. KlrtUnd
It. 433
r. YilUr
iT. 166
V. Shipmao
B. Welu
U.e80
Baggott c. Orr
iii. 417
iii 55
Baiioflincrad
iiL 207, 226, 234
Baift/nn.
1. 39, 46
Bagiluw D. BuxtoD
iii. 438
Baker, £i part. il
281
; iii 106
V. Spencer It. 219, 221. 228, 224.
It. 112
228, 304. 685
17. Atlas Bank
11,272
Bagwky t>. Hawley
il. 478
D. Barney
U
161, ISO
^^■.Ba^h^"
ill. 473
». Beuey
iv. 4«7
il. 689
0. Big Jim, Ths
■>. Bolton
ia69
Bah«.The
iii. 164, 212. 228
11.416
Bahin v. Hu^ei
il. 164
iii.f«
SSTp,?'
1.146
V. Brailin
U.149
iT. 75
V. Brown
Hi. 440
Bailey d. Bailey 1. 46
; ii. 101, 128. 436
V. Backle
Hi 136
■•.BaniM .
Iv. 179
v. Carrlck
U.22
..Bentley
11.865
t>. Carter
lil46
>. BidweU
Ul. 79
■>. Chalfant
It. 404
r-BodMbam
fll.S8. 98
V. ChArlton
111.3S
>.Boyce
ir. 68
V. Child
ii. 168
- ABorgeM
m.427
V. Commercial U. Ah.
iii. 870
B.C>dwea
ii. 34
V. Dening
Ir. 614
B. Clark
iii. 29
0. Dixie
U. 180
>. Collint
iT.480
V. Drake
11681
•■l>«nnn
Ui828
o.FalM
iii 488
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASKS.
[Tl«»Mllnl|iHiiniiiil iln]
Btker r. Qnj
iT. 17B
Bale V. Coleman
IT.21S
v.aM
iL49B
Baler ». Deaklna
iT.44»
>. HeiikeU
iLM7
Balfour e. EniMt
U. 800; lij. 27
iT.ao
K. Scott
IL4S0i IT. 182
o-Hoag
1L086
Baltonr-s CaM>
1.87
r. HoIlHliaeU
m.«a
Balkam p. WuoditoCk Inw Go. I. 84S
r. HucUiu
iiLias
Balkii Cona. Co., h n
It. 461
«. JobtuUm
ill. Ul
Ball. /> re
It. 278
«.J<.rf«n
a. 176; iT.*68
ia4T
f-Knn
u. 193
K. Gnaiid
iii. 100
p.Eiltion
i. 248
iiL42S
r.MeiKh
iiaoo
o.Hiil
It. 152
>. Uerchante' Hat.
In*. Co. 1.26;
r.Uannin
U 462
iiL287
». Sye
Hi. 440
P.M0TTil
iiLJOS
r. Palmer
iY.870
U.4e8
r.Backett
iii. 102
>.Hon
iii424
': K
iLS86
V. N. W. Ounn^ L. Co. iL aoO
Iii. 427
». Ckwood
It. 28
r. Storie
U.401
V. PoTtland
1.284
.. United StatH
Lsas
». Power
m.232
p. Warwick
It. 448
ii. 146
r. WTeth
1». 194
t>. SesTBT
ii. 636
BaU t S. F. Co. T. Kraetier B, 366
>. SeldaiT
ji. 373
U. 460
f-Shy
iT.4M
r. ProDdfoot
It. 608
r. St. Paul
ili. 461
Ballard b. Borgett
11.488
r. Suckpole
JB. £0, 61
D. Cartw
It. 811, 681
V.SIOM^
ii.2S6
r.Dywn
iii. 420
1.262
V. HcCloiker
ii. 366
D. ThiMber
It. 144
iiL440
o. Tibbetti
It. S06
T. Walker
0. 460, 610
». Union M. L lu.
Co. IB. 280. 369
r.Wari
It. 461
::?C
IT. 162
BallentiMi „. BmH
IT. 430
IT. 806
».Pojner
It. 77
F. WhitiDS
It. 449
Ballett V. Ballett
iT. 476
..TTittw^
ti. 14«
BaUew >. Claik
iL461
e. Wind
It. 143
Ballin i. DiUare
BalllngaUi v. Gloatv
a 164
i£r^
IiL66
iii 96
It. 306
Balling«r v. Wonler
iv. 166
Bakh e. JoDM
It. 389
Balloch .. Ho<^Mr
W.371
r. Smith
11.226.383
Ballock r. State
i.489
BaldB/ p. Pwktf
1L601, G02
Ballon B. BilUact
11468
Bkldrick i>. Whita)
JT. 201
c.Earle
ii. 608
B&ldrj V. Batn
a 612
Ballr c. WelU
It. 4TM. 480
Baldwin D. Baldirln
a 188
Balmam f. Shon
liL 87, 38, 67
i>. Bmok of Heirbiii7
1432; ii. 629
Balme «. Hntton
iLSeo
K. Carter
U. 136
Balaton e. Belated
iii. 443
>.CoUiiu
a604
Baltaoi ■>. Ryder
i. 86
V.Dow
iu.m
BalUc Heidiant, Tbe
106,198
r.Foiter
a 146
Baiaca,Tbe
L 44, 86, 87
p.Fraak* L 88i. 3»1. 440 ; a SQ6
Bdtimon. The
iU. 217,231
r. Friea
ii. 12
r. EwAbach
ILSOO
V. Hah)
1.422
Baltimore, «>& Co. b. Fletctier IL Stl
r. HntchiMQ
u.2a
Baltimore t ¥. T. Stami
r. Bahi-
cJenkini
It. 161
more. Ac Co.
L413
B. UTeipool, Ac S. S. Co. ii. 461
r.Neale
U.40S
r. Andiewa
L330; iLSeO
O.RotiH'
ii.241
r. Baogti
iL2fi8
-. U. S. T. Co.
iLflii
o.Cai^p
ii.3S0
•. Von Hkbmax iL 2fi0, SM ; iiL 63
r.CamJben
IL 600.606
c.WOttr
■i.22
•. Fit^iatrick
asae
».^ilbrahHl
ii.332
v.Glam
a 280. 286
V. WilliaiM
U.404
e.Hackey
a2w
Baldwin ft Cock't Cue
ir.m
v.H«r«t«
L 301330
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABEB.
[Tk* iBHfliial p*c« inn
•dto.1
ft Ohio B. Co. V. Trimble
IT. 162
I. WiUdiu iLMQ; iJL 20T
~ 1. Co. t>. Dalrrmple U. 681
t. Looej iil. 281
imore 8. D. Co. v. Sutro iv. S86
Bdiimore TnctioD Co. v. BalUnHite
Belt R. Co. 1. Sti
mitimoi« Trail Co. ir. Bkltimore i. 413
Bdtimore Tiini[nke ii. 633
Bdt. & PhiL St. Co. c. Brown U. SM
Bilt t Siuqaehmnuft B. B. v. Nublt
i. 466
BilnarD. Bute !. 413
BHDbn^ V. S. C. B. B. Co. U. 000
Bunbernr v. Oeiwr iv. IM
BuDfoid ■>. Chkdwick It. 201
D. TnraleT iii. 448
BwDpdetd «. Popham iv. Ml
Bubnrr Feermn Cue, The U. 211
Bancroft r. Hall ilL 107
f. llercbuit*', fto. Co. 11. fl04
F. White IT. 88
Baada ft Knrae Booft', Tb» i. 101, S6T
Banrw B. Bnl It. 306
Bugor ftc R. Co. V. Smitli ii. '277
Bang* T>. Utit* iU. IBS
B. LoTariage i. SOS
«. Parker It. 407
V. Smith It. S36
" LSK
iL26g
i247
iU. 106
lU. 89
fU. 10»
iii. 109
iii. HI
i. 429
laoe
Baok of Alexandria t. Swann
Bank of America e. Bank*
V. Woodworth
Bank of Aagnita v. Earle
p. UcQnit*
348 i
Bwik at Anitralaila v. Nlaa ii, 120
Bank of Bengal n. Fkgan Hi. 82
Bank of Britiah N. A. o. MiUer it. 467
Bank (A Brooklyn d. HcCheaner iii. 66
Bank at Ctuitoii n. Commeicial Bank
It. 181
Bank of CbMieaton i>.
Bank of Chenango v. Root
Bank of Clereland v. Sturgei
Bank of Colnmbia v. Fitzbagh
«. Lawrence iii.
r. Paltemo
Bank of Conlmerce b.
ir-Funa
T. 0Dt<tn Bank
Bank of Coopentown n. Wood*
Iii. 81
iu.l06
iT. 173
iii. 108
r-Bogy
Bank of Cnmberiand v. Bogbee iT. 46S
t>. Willii i. 847
Bank of EdwardaTille e. Simpaon ii. 286
Bank of England'! Case iii. 39
Bank of England v. Faraoni ii. 230
■>. Vagliano i. 482 ; iU. 82, U
Bank of GenoTa b. Hewlett iii. 107
Bank of Hamilton d. Dudley'* Leiaee
Bank
Bank
Bank
Bank
Bank
Banko:
of India, ftc. t>. DickioQ iil. 91, 102
of Ireland e. Archer iii. 86
. TmiCeea of Erant' Charitiet iii. 82
of Kanaas Citj d. Mills iil. 90
of KentnckT v. Adami Expresi
U.608
. Witter L 802, 362
of La. o. Tonmillon liL 106
of Marietta v. Pindall if. 286
of the Hetropolia v. Outtachlick
il. 291, 292
. New England Bank IL 041
of Michigan e. Ely iU. 8S
of Mobile v. Brown iii. 76
of Montgomery Co.'« Appeal
ir. 174, 176
of Montgomery Co. d. Walker
iii. 86
of Uontreal n. Page Ui. 56
o{ N. C. ti. Fowle ia 69
otNewBmnawick V. HMtert iL626
of New Soatb Wales v. Owston
Kew Talk v. Tanderhont
11.046; iii. 64
Bank of North America v. Biodge ii. 386
V. Wheeler 1. 202
Bank of Northern Libertlea u. CretiOD
Ii. 201
Bank of Orange Co. v. Colby Ii. 468
Bank of Orleana i>. Smith iii. 93
s. Whlttemora ill 96
Bank of Oweniboro v. Weitem Bank
II. 616
Sank of Penn. v. Wise iiL 404 ; iT. 408
BankoftheRepublicu.Carrington iii. 81
V. Millard iil. 88
Bank of Rocheater d. Gray iii. 96, 108
V. Jonea Ii. 64B, OSS
s. Monteatb U.030; Hi. 81
Bank of St. Albana v. F. ft M. Bank ill, 86
Bank of St. Mary's n. St. John ii. 280
Bank of Raima e. Babcock iiL 79
Bank of Sandusky v. ScoTilie
Bank r>f Scotland b. " "
p. Needell
111. 68
Bank of So. Carolina e.Bicknell
iii. 876
r. Gibbi
ii. 276
V. Hnraphreya
iii. 87
Bank of Syracnae n
Baok of L< S. V. C*
HolUster
iiL96
rriDgton
It. 806
r. CarroU
i*. 192
U, 376, 277, 291, 292.
296,290
■.DMiifd
iii 94
118,120
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASBS.
(nw nugtul ngw an nCtmd to.]
Bank of U. S. v. Duiiela iv. 2TS
V. DbtU ii. 080
V. Deveiai L 340, 347
«. DoanaUy ii. 468, 462
V. Dunieth it. OG
v. Goddud m. lOB
If. Hutitead i.342
V. Housmu) ii. 441
B. Hulh ii. itl6
D. Owen* iv. 4U
p. PluDtera' Bank of Georgia i. 802,
846.851
D. Tyler iv. 436
e. United States i. 207 ; iii. 116
Bank of Utica if. MeiMivaD It. 96
Bank of Van DiemeD'a Laod u. Bank
of Victoria iii. 88, 86
Bank of WaihingibH) u. Arkanaaa i. 419
V. Triplett U. 460 ; iU. 83, 108, 104
Bank of Waabtenaw v. MontBomerT
ii. 286
Bank of Watertown v. AtaeMon, &c.
ii. 290
Bank of Wilmington c. Cooper iU. 97
Bank Tax Can. The L 429
Bankart u. Houghton iii. 452
Banker v. Banker ii. 76
Bankhead t. Brown 11. 840
Bankin u. American Int. Co. iii. 260
Banki, Ex parla iii. 87
o. Ammon It. 466
«. Bank! IT. 682
It. Cooant Ii. 108
V. Oilwon ' iii. 64
V. Goodfellow Ii. 76; It. 508
■t. Mancheiter 11. 373
D. Ogden Hi. 427, 4S2, 451
V. Sutton iv. 48
V. Walker 11. 66, 472
Banne, The Birer iii. 427
Bannerman i^ White ii. 479
Banniiter v. Bretlaner Iii. S2S
Bannon v. Angier iii. 419, 149
n. Luts ii- 269
Bantemer o. Toledo & W. R. Co. 11. 604
Banta r. Moore ii. 429
BuiUeon v. Smith iii. 476; It. 437
Banzer i;. Banter li. 132
Baptilt A«*. V- Hart ii. 286
a. Hart'i Executon ii. 2SB
Baptist All., Tmitees of n. Smith It. 508
Baptlat Church v. Mulford li. 291
r. WItherell ui. 402
Baptiat Church of Ithaca u. Bigelow
iii. 402
, Baracoa, The 1. 869, 870; iii- 138
Barb p. Flili ii. 389
Barbaiin d. DanieU iii- 78
Barliaroux d. Wat«n 111. 109
Barber, in re iL 188
e.BaTber L843; iL 117
>. Bow«ii iT. 306
nBraot m. 206
■. (iiy It
Barber r. Dennl* U 266
V. Fleming ill. 311
V. Fletcher iii. 281
D. Harria ii. 182
V. Hartford Bank Hi. 65
r.Lamb i.42: 11.120
V. Mackrell iii. 76
V. Meyerstein U. 492, 649, 681 ; iU- 206
V, Pittaborgb, ie. Rv. Co. I. 342
V. Root li. 108
n. Roae JL 472
I.. Taylor'a Heir* ir. 418. 419
V. Wharton i. 886
V. WiUiama it. 46
Barber's Settled Estate*, In re iv. 26. 75,
270
Barbier v. Connolly 1. 449 ; ii. 840
Barbour n. Barbour It. 46, 62
V. Lyddy ill. 124
r. glepheneoD U- 206
Barbuit'a Case i. 44
Barclay v. Bank of New Sonth
Walel il- 468
■>. Cousins Iii. 271, 387
D. Gana 11. 590
D. Heygena il. 603
r. Weaver ill. 100
Barcroft o. Denny iii- 84
B. Saodgrass ill- 44
Bard v. Poole ii- 286
Bardsley'a Appeal i». 118
Bardweli v. Perry ill- 66
Barfleld b. Loughborongb iii. 87
Barford v. Street iv. 810
Barham e. TurbevUle li- 241
Baring v. Christie iii- 206
r. Clsggett iii. 206
p. Clark ill. 87
ti. Corrie H- 622
V. Day ii- 686
V. Dix iii. 60
17. Nash It. 364
D. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 111. 206, 290
Bark Antioch, The iii- 183
Bark Lilian H- Tegns, The L 369
Bark San Fernando u. Jackson i. 370
Barker d. Barker iv. 26, 203
,. Bell
,inger
-.161
'.432
',. BInkee ill- 267. 298
D. Bradley it. 466
r. Brown ii. 690
V. Bucklin ii- 468
V. Furlong S. 686, S12 ; it. 806
B. Goodair Iii. 69
V. Greenwood It. 305
B. HaveDS iii- 222
p. Hibbard ii. 240
V. Highloy ill. 166
V. JanaoD Ui- 274. 288
V. Jones It. 370
V. Keat It. 405
D. LichUnbernr iii. 81
u. Parker ir. 46
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
m. 443
iU.206
ii, 177
il. 472
Bukley e. Wilcox 111. 440
BukKbl* s. Ouratt W. 61
Butihira p. Tuilan Iv. 46
But>7 V. Wftlford ii. 400
Bnting v. Bank of Brititb North
Americ* La0a,830; 11. 27 7
t>. Bariow
ILIM
L462
h. 276
a 466
».Tm1
i.4«2
iv. 116
Buntrd,/»»
iii. 41
cAdiDui liLS$4:i*'. 608
>. BtckbAM
ii.466
>.Cuipb«ll
ii.549
f.£dwnd*
It. 70
..Fort
ii. 138
■.Grata
It. 461
e.Le*
It. 461
».Poor
iii. 436
BuirtoTScHngli
iii. 440
U. 209
BuiiM,&fiart<
i.aoa
-.BwtM* L410;il
126; Iii 452
c. BiUingiou
». Boudmu
It. 194! 369
». C»wfori
11.18
v-DiMrietofColiimUk
ii.274
...DowliDK
o.FTMlua
lr.76
U. 614, 661
>.GomMn
iii. 76
..HiTiiM
iii. 446
KKotnegar
i.413
r.Lo«r
iiL 419. 448
V. LoDdon «c Am. Co.
111369
■>. Hoora
ii.391
f, Sabroti
iii. 440
ill. 317
I. Didon M. E. lu. Co.
lit 876
B»iwt-iCwe
if. 326
Bwum S.fe * L Co. w. Blodi Bk».
T.Co.
ii. 690
BuitetD.Bino
It. 70
-. Smith
iii. 66, 88
B«drtl.Bz part*
ii. 477
>. Biroett
It, 468
o.BrandM
ii. 640; iii. 2
r. Lothv
i. S69
tr.Nei««
It. 166
B.Wnd
ii. 16
It. 421
Bmey,/»™
iv. 327
>. Arnold
iT.aM
v. Baltimore I. oOZ. 34S, SM, S49
B.Brown
liGOl
>. Globe Bank
L349
lit 427
0. Latliam
Laos
ir, Newcomb
iii. 84
V. Pareons
ii.22a
r. Paltonon iL 121
iv. 481, 434
V. Preotiu
ii. 608
■>. Sauoden
ii.226
V. Smith
iii. 64
I'. WottliiiiKton
m. 84
B»rney DwupiDg-Boat Co. v.
Niagara
Fire Lw. Co.
ill. 296
Barn. v. Wilwa
iv. 478
Bamum v. Banom il 8
V. Hempelead
Barony o(tliie.Caae of
' "' ii. 632
iii. 402
iu. 104
Barr o. Birkner
ii. 16
V. Borthwick
a492
V. Galloway
lv.80
v-Kmnb
iii. 107
V. Myen
tL608
0. New BnuMirkk
i.891
r. New York, &c R Co.
a 281. 800
1.. Pittoboreh P. G. Co.
Barre W. Co., £>
ii. 281
iii. 440
Barrel! v. Sabine
iv. 144
Barreo C. D. Co. «. Beck
ii.306
Barrera v. Alpoento
ii.23S
Barrere k. Barrore
H. 126. 128
Barret c. Evani
iii. 106
Barrett, Matter of
i.401
.. Boddio
iii. 464
V. BoitOQ
ii.462
«. Falling
ir. 64
>. Goddart
fi. 496, 646
..HaU
fi. 866, 478
p.Hopkiiu
im
t>.Manh
ir.80&
V. HcAltiilOT
ii. 494
V. New OrteMM
U427
V. Palmer
i.481
V. Pritchard
U. 407
V. Rockport Ice Co
iU.427
E. ShelbyviUo Baa
iii. 80
V. Weber
U.467
Barriok «. Boba
i.67
Barringer u, Bomi
a. 661
Barrington c. Horn
Ii. 160
Barrington'i CaM
i.469
L407
V. Detroit
U.259
D. Manh
'T.469
f. Martin
It. 190
Barrow, Ex parte
Bi. 62,60
V. BuTOW
a. 188, 241
U.Bell
111.328
V. IMAC*
iv.oa
V. Paxton U.
626 : iv. 138
v. lUcbard
iv. 480
V. Corp. of Baltimore
ill. 430
Barry, Ex pane
i. 301
i. 802, 331
V. BarrymoM
ii.614
r. Capei.
ii 467
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLI OP CASES.
V. Lowell
ii, 274
t>. Lowry
iiL446
..Hen^i
.32S; iiaao
iL 27S, 281
V. NMh*m
iii. 32
V.PtLp,
ii.S31
fSSl'SS^
iL429
iv. 02
iL891
iiiSS
Bwtlemvi b. Murcliiwn
Ii. 862
Bkrllet 0. King
ii. 28S
Bartlett, Ex parU
iiL90
K. Bailaj
r. CimJey
ii.238
U.228
». Crittenden
iLSSO
5. Harlow
iv.36S
t. HaTilud
U. S48
::i3S,
ii. 478
iv.641
' B. Myitic Biret Co.
ii.610
>.NTe aS88;lT.eOS
». PickempU
It. 806,806
D. PonneU
U. 689
o. BobiniDll
Iii. 106
i>. SntherUod
It. 826
t.. Tucker iL flffi ; lU. 76, 86
i>. Union Mnt Int. Co.
m.876
r-Tinar
1.467
«. Well.
ii.241
B. Williim.
iL 621, 628
IN Wilwn
i:4oe
Bkrtlett, petitioner
i».608
Butlej' V. Dodget
ii.S98
o. SpaaldiDg
r. Wm. Taylor, The
ILL 487
iu. 248
Bjuton D. Barton
ii.430
K. Bmcoe
iL 166, 170
t>. Hunter
iii. 88
V. Magruder
iT.806
I.. Smith
It. 116. 436
n. William. H. 360 ; iii. 44. 46
0. Woliiford
iu. 217
Barton'* Caw
iT. 105
Barton's Trnit. /■ «
ii.864
Bartonihlll Coal Co. e. McOoire jl. 280
v. Reid
ii. 260
ii.661
Barwell c. Brooki
ii. 169
Buwick V. Engliih Joint Stock Bank
ii.
284, 616. 621
Bar wick's Caae
iT. 234
Baa V. Steele
iiL 160
Ba«:om v. AlhertKn) ii. 287
It. 2B3, 608
Buhaw B. Tenneiiee
ii. 91
Baahford a. Shaw
iti. 128
Buket V. Hasietl
u. 448
BMuight V. AtUnUc & N. C. R. Co.
iLfigO
Baton II. King's H. M. Ca
iT. 461
BaM B. Edwardi
iii. 424
D-Gr^tofy
UL448
Bmi n. Taylor
tr. The 8MI«
Bauet V. Buwt
Baaiett o. Bauett
iiLe4
11.840
It. SBO
iT.406
V. Uratlon ii. 34
0. Saliabnr; Han. Co. Ui. 440
B. Sbepard«on ill. 24
Baiwtt Hound, The iii. 282
Baatin r. Bidwell i*. 109
Baatresa o. Chlckering ii. 806
BaUTia Bank v. New To^ Ac B. Co.
iu.S07
Balchelder o. Hfbbwd IU. 4^
B. Ini. Co. IU. 287
V. Ljbbej a. 612
Batchelor. /n r« U. 162
V. Whitaker It. 6
Bale a. AmberM tr. S64, 267, 20B
Bnte'i Case It. 40
Bate Ref. Co. e. Gillett IL 860
c Hammond Ii, 366
K. Suliberger i. 4ffi
•man tr. Batemao It. 162
V. Binck ill. 4S2
r. JoMoh a. 106
11. Mid Walet Bulway Co. IL 201,
800
*. Finder Ui. 61
Bate* V. Babcock a 494; iU, 37
V. Bates ii. 87; ir, 89.819
V. Bostoit ft N, T. C, R, B, It. 461
If. Coe IL 866
V. Coronado Beach Co. U, 800
V. Dand7 IL 187, 188
V. DelaTao 1. 261
D. Diamond C. 8. Co. ii. 16
V. Equiuble Ini. Co. Ul 376
e, Gillett It. 203
■, Hewitt iii. 286
r. Johnson It. 179
V. Kemplon It. 44B
V. Lane Iii. 37
D. Norcrou It, 409
D. Officer It, 608
V, Beely ii. VS
V, Shraeder ILlSliiT.SSS
V. YoiuiBennan II. 610
Bates, petitioner It. 687
Batee ft Hinet n. Bank of Alabama II, 291
Bateson v. Cboate il, 441
s. Oreea tU. 409
BatesTille Inttitule v. Kaufflnan L 66
Bath £ Montague's Case L 490, 492
Bath County u. Amy L 814, 822
Bathunt v. Errington ir. 687
Batson d. Donoran ii. 661, 687, 699, 604,
607
Batlelle a. N. W, Cement Co. iL 281
D. Toungstown Rolling Mill Co.
U. 122
Batterman v. Albright ir. 160
B. Pierce H. 472
Battersbee c, Farrington It. 306
Battersea v. Com'rs uf Sewen IIL 148
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
iffi?c»~^
iii ISO
Bayuluun v. Guy'. Hotp
BAyonnt Knife Co. v. Un
tal
It. 109
1.87
Buds t>. FtnUj
ii.866
Baya d. Conner
iiL 41
B>ttle Abbey. Cue of
1.480
'p.Hnnt
11.22
Bitun ... 8eU» iL 479, 611
ii. 441
BkitT c. Canwell
BiodiBT, £z parte
11. 021
Baieley o. Forder
ii.
146,198
lli. 06
Bazett V. Meyer
iii. 292
BaadDc c. Nicholson
11.119
Ui. 217
B.udQ7 r. Union Ini. Co.
iii. 258
Beable e. Dodd
ii. 168
bitrher p. Cnne
IT. 76
Beacb v. Beach
h.176
.. NeUKMi
i. 419
0. Forsyth
U.622
Baum B. DuboU
iii. 48
D. MUler
11.281
Baunumn r. Poit
li. 690
f. Sute Bank
iii. 86
iii.M
U.217
; iv. 414
Banmwcdl Haoufactor r.FamMi
iU. 188
iii. 138
i. 342
Beadel a. Ferry
iL661
iiL448
Banikett •>. Keitt
It. 632
Beak, In re
iL44S
ii. ■,!42
Beat V. Boston Car Spring Co.
111.470;
Bawdwi r. London, ftc. Am. Co.
iii. 365
106,866
Ba-eU ft Lno'« CMe
It. 296
V. Harehaii
ill. 232
ui. 79
B. South DeTcn B. Co.
ii.661
». E. a R. Co.
Ui,468
D. Warren
It. 484
Baxter, Ex parte
if. 449
Beale e. Fairish
iiLI07
ii. 98
tr. Symonda
iT.424
e. Browne
It. 106
t>. Thonpsoa
iiL ISO, 192
«. Bujfleld
ii. 260
Bealey v. Shaw
iii. 489, 442, 443
Beall V. BeaU
iL200
B. Ellis
m. 79
D. BrowD
ii. 479
ill. 876
». Holmes It. 686, 687, 688, 640. 641
v. HeOner
iii. 248
B. White
iL4S3
iv. 106
>. UUnd
iii. 217
Beals «. Allen
ii.820
f-Utde
Ui.gi
0. Guernsey
ii.
618.625
..Mclntira
iv. 162
D. Home Ins. Co.
iii. 876
>:KUnning
IT. 176
Beam b. Hetliodiat Church
iii. 402
». MuuMit Int. Ca
iiLM67
Beamish v. Beamish
il.87
>. Hadman
iii. 34
Bean s. French
iii. 419
B. Rollini
iii. 41
B. Herrick
il.489
.. Taylor
It, 120
t>. Morgan
IL 156, 167
,. Vincent
ii.403
V. Simpson
ii.60a
B.W«t
iii. 81
». Smitli
L803
It. 464
B»y p. Church
iiL94
p. Stnpart
Beard f. I^sby
Ui. 267
>.CoddiDgtoa 11464: iii. 81
Ii. 3.S6
Bvard o. Hc&uii U. 441, 443
It. 430
B.De«n
U.226
», L»thy
Iii. 84
0. Kirk
11.644
..McLano
i-'. *4B
V. Murphy
iii. 440
». Shmk
1.80.88
u. Westermau
Ui. 109
R Singleton
.460
Beanlen ». Moees
iii. 79
V. United SutM
.287
BeanJesley r. Baldwin
iii. 76
Bayleap. EnrgaTd
i.206
Beardroao o. Wilson
i*. 96
V. HiltiboTooeh In*. Co.
Bajler V. Ed«ard*
iii. 376
iv. 89
i.l26
D. Richardson
iii. 82
..Oreenleaf iv.
162,164
Ii. 671
». G. W. Ry.
Iii. 424
u. 492
c Haoeheiter, &c By. Co.
11.200
B.Diy
IT. 461
v. WiUiams
ii. 461
V. Hall
ii. 301 ; iii. 61
Bayliea v. Bassey
iT. 181
b. Hotchkiss
U
191, 241
e. Feltyplsce iii
223,249
V. Ontario Banic
ii. 843
Baylii e. Lawrence
ii. 19
V. Smith
u 278
D. TTiaen Ambenrt
■>. WatkioB
ill. 404
Bearinger o. PeltOD
ii.-226
ii. 140
Beane v. 840 Figa of Copper
iii. 246
Baylor ir. Smithen
ii. 522
B. Ropes
iii. 228
Baync o. United St«lM
1:243
Beasley «. Palmer
U.402
D- Wiggina
ii.4M
D. The State
ii. 241
BaysM p. Lloyd
It. 478
V. W. U. TeL Co.
iL808
50byGoO>^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Beafton p. Vmun' Buk
of Dela-
BedeU «. Caril
iL48S
ware
i.247
>>. Richmond 4b D. B. Ca
ill. aoe
Beatrice, The
1. 25, 297
o. Scruton
11.398
lleaUoD E. Haworth
iu.816
Bedford- (5« Dnke of Bedford
Bedford D. b^haw
)
Beattiep.LordEbnry
iL632
ii.40O
V.RotHD
iL626
i.,Hunt
ii.S«9
Bean; e. Benton
i.S26
■-. H-Elhemm
It. 114
u. Muiray P. M. Co.
Beatr E. Bordwell
ir. 487
». Shilling
1.465
ir. 870
Bedf ord'i Appeal
lv.278
f. Lenee of Knowler
li.299
Bedford Com. Ini. Co. r. Pubr
iii. 236
iT. 477
Bedingfietd'e Caae
iv.69
iL128
Bedoin, The
iii. 302
Beaufort. Duke of d. Berty
ii.227
Bee, The
liL246
Ii. 52, 193
Beebe b. Dudley
iii. 123
V. Brangeri
ii. 492
V. GrilBng
It. 403
». OliTain
ii. 267
1.842
V. Raevtn
iL4S5
u. Real Eat. Bank
iU.86
u. Thorpe
Beaupr^ c Nojei
ii. 173
B. Roeen
Beebee D.TLobert
iii. 41
i. 828
ii.631
Beauregard it. Caae
iiL85
(Sm Bebee.)
Ueivan «. M'DoiuwU
ii. 451
^::SS'
ii. 100
»■. Wenl
a 70
ii. 488
BtsTet, Tiie
m. m. 347
Beecher t>. Buah
iii. 25
Bearer o. Bar*
ii. 281
V. GilleU
i. 303
B. BeftTer
iL4i iv. 806
t>. Wilion
ii. 438
r. Lewis
iii. 58
Beeching v. Goner
iii. 86
Bebee c Hartford Hat F. I
iii. 89
Beecker b. Vroomaa
ii. 474
na.Co.iiL373
iv. 327
{Ste Beebe.)
Becher v. Great E. R. Co.
ii.004
11.380,840
iii- 458
Becherdaai Ambaidaat, The 1. 43 ; IIL 199
Beemao b. Beeman
ir. 806
Beclitel V. Cone
iy.451
Beer «. Hooper
i.422
Beck o. Eraiu
ii. 607
B. Walker
ii.479
u. Haiwcom
11206
U. 3t0
V. McGUlit
iI.4B
Beere a. Beere
ii. 176
II. Pierce
ii. 154
Been e. Alabama
L419
E. Stitiel
il.18
V. Arkanaaa
1.297
ii. 646, 649
V. CroweU
Ii. 610
».Haaon
ii. 206, 241
». Haughton i. 812
Beeiton t>. Beeaton
: ii.3fl7
„. People
ii. 12
ii.480
D. Ten Byck
m.456
0. Weate
iii. 440
». Warner
ii.5fl2
Begbie i;. Phoaphate Sewage Co.
Ii. 471
V. Western Union TeL Co. ii, All
Beggan V. M'Donald
m.445
Beckett V. Corp. of Leeda
iii. 432
Begg* D. State
ii.T7
V. Howe
iT. 516
Beliler b. Danieli
11.259
t.. West of EugUnd Mot. In.. Co.
Behm v. Armour
ii.259
ill. 311
V. Weatem nnion Tel. Co.
ii. 8L1
Beckford t.. Hood
il 876, 878
Behn v. Bumeaa ii. 479 ; ill. 208. 2SS.
Beckhgm o. Drake
iii. 81
2SS
H. Knight
iii. 81
B. KeiDble
ii.490
Beckliaui v. Ladner
iv. 416
Behi«ni b. Behrena
It. 682
Berkley c. Eckert
iii. 123
Behi«D«meyer o. Krdti
ii. 64
Beckman v. N. 0. Cotlon Preta Co. ii. 258
Behring Sea ArbitraUon 1.19,29
ii. 348
t>. Shooae
ii.e06
Beidelman r. Foulk
iii. 453
Beckwaite e. Nalgrore
iii. 285
Beidman v. GoodeU
ii. 616
Beckwith ». AngeU
iii. 90
Beirne b. Dord
Ii. 476
V. Corral!
Hi. 81
DeiiKl •'. ShoU
iii. 441
t>. Smith
Ui. 106
Belch r. HarTey
ir. 187
V. Talbot
ii. 404
Belcher v. Smith
iii. 123
Beckwith 'b Caie
ii. 160
Belclier aJt. Comm. of the Orphan
Becqoet v. MacCarthr
.261: ii. lao
Houae
11.802
Bedaall 0. BHtl«h & s( H Int. Co. iii. SOT
Belcher u. Farren
ii.62
Beddinger u. SmiUi
ii. 226
Belchier i>. Butler
iv. 177
Beddoe r. Wadiworth
iT. 472, 478
Belfast, The I. 869
Ui. 170
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Bdhrt BmnUnK Co. >. DohMtr iL 23S
Bellord v. Scribner ii. ST3
ficJgenluid, The i. 369
Bftkiuip. The iil. 232
BdkiMp D. Belkiuip
V. Udr Wejiud
iii. 489
ii. 164
I. Mmt. Bulk ol N. A.
iii 82. 86
V. Stewart
11.126
p. Trimble
iu. 443
t. United StatM
i. 297
BeO, Ex parte
■^.-m
c. Bartlett
iu.47e
r. Bennett
U. 76
U. 4G9
r.CaflertT
iiies
E.Cantun
in. 284
B.CartCT
It. 144
V. Chicago Bank
ill. 103
ii. 860
V. Dozier
i».409
>. GilH>D
iii. 266
V. Gougb
iii. 431
iii. 106
t. Hnmphriei
la. 167. 261
t. KoUar
iii. 128
<r. Kennedy
ii.480
..Locke
iiL64
..Long
jr. 461
ii. 818
r. McGinneaa
ii. IB
.. McNioce
iil, 81
..Mayor of KewToric
i*.8fl,46,46,
1B6. 1B7
..MorriMin
iii 61
>.Sealj-
iv.es
>. Kewroan
lii.ft6
». Ohio * P. B. B.
Hi. 407
w. Packard
iil. T6
». Phyn
Iii. 87
>. Puller
iii. 2U0
..Reed
ii. eo»
«. Reid
i. 76
.. Sa«jer
iT. 46T
.. SiDger Hasof. Co.
ii. tfl
.. Soiiih
Ui. 248. 261
.. Siocker
11. 144
.. Stowe
iii- 80
..Todd
10.451
r Twilight
.. WhiliSiMd
lr.281
il. 388
E. WilMQ
ii. 441
Bella Quidita, TIm
108
Btllain .. BeiUir*
iT. ISO
BeUamr, In n. Etder v. Puthd ii. 181
r. bdlamr
IT. 438
.. Brickenden
ui. 876
».t)ebenh«m
U.47T
o. Harjoribank*
111.88
p.Tboraton
ii. 226
Bell., t. M'Car^
ir.466
Bellaaia.. Heater
iy. 96
BeUe,The
iii. 231
BeUemire .. Bank V. S.
UI.98
1.87
■ an nlBnd to.]
Bellerophon, The U. 22
BeUinger r. N. Y. C. E. E. Ii. 340
Bello Corrunei. The i. 48
Bellowi E>. Dewer iv. 371
V. Peck t 247
Bellowg Falli Nat. Bank v. Donet M,
Co. iii. 89
BelU D. Gillespie \r. 21b, 276, 277
Beimoiit.Braiicli Bank i>. Hoge ill. 82
Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia Iron &
Steel Co. ii. 441
Belo 0. Wren ii. 22
Belihaw i>. Biuh ii. 616
Belt, In re i. 301
Belton n. Suaaier It. 624
BeiCzlioDTer v. Blackatock ilL 77
Bell r. Bell ii. 101
Bement . Flattaburgb and Hontr«al
a. R. iL S43
Bemi* v. Call ii. 168
D, Leonard It, 96
r. Wilder It. 96
Bempde .. Johnitmie il. 430
Benbo« u. Moore iv. 306
Benchlej .. QUb«rt i. 303
Bend v. Hort i. 464
Bender .. Frombergw fr. 472. 476
V. Qeorge ir. 96
B^n^ .. Jeanlet 11. 866
Benedict .. CaSe iL 109
V. Gajlord It. 466
V. Ljnch iT. 461
V. lUoatgamerr 11. 160
c. Ocean Ini. Co. iii 260
t>. Roome iL 451
V. Schaettle ii. 646
V. Stewart It. 460
V. Williami 1. 896
Benee, In n ir. 283
Benefactor. The i. 299
Beneidi ». Clark ir. SSI. 8S6
Beoett E. Coitar iii. 411
Benford d. Gibaoti iil. 454
Ben Franklin Ina. Co. n. Gillett iii. 282
Bengougb V. Edridge ir. 17
Benham v. Rowe It. 148
Benham't Tniit, In re ii. 436
Benjamin v. Porteoa iiL 84
.. Slorr iii. 432
V. Tillman iii. 77
r. Zell It. 461
Benlarig. Tlie ill. 248
Benn v. KnCxachan iii. 76
Bennerke >'. Ina. Co, iii. 376
Benner v. Equitable Safety Int. Co,
Ui. 226. 270
V. PuSer ii. 402. 498
Banners .. Clemena iii, 116
Benneaon ., Sarage It. 325
Bennet v. Darli il. 162; it. 82
i>. Jenkini It, 476. 4T6
V. Lee ii. 246
Beunett, £x/Hin« It. 48S
D. Aburrow It. 886
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
BilUngton d. WeUb
iT. 461
Bl.bopE.Coimt««of JOMJ iU.4e
BlUiB adM. The State
i. 408
E. Dexter
iiL93
Bilmyer u. Shemum
ti.441
«. Doty
iv. 96
Bilton 17. Blakelr
Bingham v. Buhj
iU.6e,6T
». Eaton
iii. 876
ii.286
V. Hall
iii. 31
B. Cabot
1.313,346
D. Jones
i67
ii.608
i:. McCeUand
ii. 488
V. WelderwM
U.aS2
V. Palmer
11.467
Bingh»ra'» Appeal
iv. 386, 836
E. PentlMid Iii 800, 804. 823
Bingham ton Bridge, The
1.419
E. Schneider
iv. 469
Binicger t.. CUrk
iil. 64
E. Selleck
iv. 2111
Biakiey v. Forkner
ii.343
B. Shillito
11.497
Binstead e. Buck
ii.856
r. Taylor
iv. 86
Bion, la re
i.801
E.wie
ii. 264
Birch (.. Benton
iL19
BUhop of Wincheiler e. Beaver iv. 186
... Earl of LiTerpool
1L610
B. Paine
iv. 186
V. ElUme.
JY. 160
Bitbop*, Cate of
i.4a6
«. Wright It. 166, 166, 157, 166. 864
Bi«pham b. Fattenon
iU. 61
Birch'* Trmtees, In n
■iLm
Bi*8eU u. Adam*
iiL61
Birchill, fU, Wilion v. BirchaU ii. 226
r. BiateU
ii87
Birckhead u. Brown
iii. 124
E. Briggi
.281; it 121
iii. 482
E. Erwin
iv. 478
D. Apploton
iii. 26a
E. Hopkiu
U. 527
1-. B&d
iL46I;iv.Se9
t.. Lewi.
lit 85
E. Brown
ii.6ie
V. MicbigBD S. * N. Jnd. a a U. 291
E. Daggett
il.621
"v. N.Tc. B. E. a
iii. 7»
E. Denni>on
iv. 178
60Bi iU.4S2,
E. Doyal
iii. lOB
461 i iv. 460
0. Eremrd
ii.6e3
I.. Steel
il.649
E. Gardner
It. 44, 46, 182
u. Taylor
BiBion p. Weit Shore R. Co
iv. 62
E. Oibb
iii. 248
iv. 891
::iifr"
iii. 462
ir. 187
Biiby ». Come
B. Donhip
V. Frankfin In*. Co.
i803
ii. 16
o. MorriioD
iii 39
Iii 106, 130
E. Mimroe
li.494
B, Janeien
i, 46
V. Pickf ord
It. 288
V. Whitney
ii.606
«.PIgou
iii. 256
BitMll B. Nis
iv. 162
Birdaall v. Coolidge
U.366
iii. 319
t>.BioliardB
iv. 336
Blachford B. Pmtoo
111.466
Birdsell r. Shaliol
Black E. AlberMD
ill. 481
BinJwj B. City F. iQl. Co. m. 376
1U.440
Bi«l»eye =. Ray
iii 66
Birdaong v. Birdsong
ti. 462
260
Birdzell v. BfrdzeU
ii. 99
E. Delaware & K Cuial Co. 11. 800
Birket v. Willan
ii. 607
E. Elkhom M. Co.
It. 46
Birkley o. PieigraTtt
iii. 2S4
0. Enrich
ii. 873
Birki D. Trippet
iii. 124
<i. Henry Q. Allen Co.
B. Herrfng
11.873
BlrminEham d. Kirwan
iv. 68
It. 537
i».233
B. Hill*
U.236
Roai iii. 419
B. LigOD
iv. 107
Blmey o. Hann
iv. 471
V. Reno
m. 81
B. N. Y. t W. T. Co.
ii. 611
V. Ro*e
i]).228
Biron e. Scott
iv, 805
B. Ship LoaUiaiw
U>. 16^
Birrel] v. Dryer
iii. 291
B. So. Pac. B. Co.
iii. 217
Bin V. Boatioei
ii. 117
B, Zacharie
ii407
Birtwbiitle v. Vardill
ii 117, 209, 430
Black'i Appeal
Black Hawk, The
li.461
Biichoff E. Wethered
ii 120, 866
ise7
BlKoe V. Jackion
iv. 508
Blackborough d. Davi*
11.418,4231
ti. Perkini
iT.256
iv. 399, 408
E. Royiton
IT. 308
Blackburn b. Crawford*
iL87
Bitbop V. AgT. Ini. Ca
D. Balkii Coiu. Co.
Iii. 870
u. Gr«r»on
b. HaaTam
iv. 164
U.490
iii 286
nBrocUei
ii. 49, 128
V. St. Paul F. A H. In*.
Co. 111. 370
iu.6e
t>.SUble*
iv. i
sObyGoOl^lc
tTh.
TABLE OP CASES.
nv. SUto i. 409; ii. 13
F. Tigora Ui. 286
BUekbnm Building Sotietr p. Cniv
USb ii. 800
Black DimoioDd C. M. Co. s. Szcel-
lior Coal Co. u. 306
BUekett p. Soral Sxcb. Am. Co. lU. 260
- ■• -^ ■ i.2r'
-- W»M> It. 687
BlacUer v. IaIm ii. 192
HM^lock f. SomU i. 802
BImAIow v. Laws iL 165
BlaekDMii p. GrMD ii. 628
BUeknuur n. Thomu ii. 642
BlKkmon d. BlKckmoD it. 66
nackmoK v. Brider ii. 82
r. Phill ii. 267
Btiick RiTer Imp. Co. v. La Cn>u«
BoaminK Co. L 469
BUckatock e. N. T. A Erie B. R. iL 260
BUckiton p. HemiwaTth Boipilal
It. 311, 470
Blackwall, The iii
Blackwell v. The Jnincea of Lair.
BlackweU'B Caie i
Blackwood p. Cutting P. Co. ii
BladM P. Uigga IL 260, 360 1 It
Bbtdaoj p. lUtcbie iii
BUgden B. Bndbaar iv
Blagge e. MilM iv
.. N. T. In*. Co.
Bluoe B. Gold
Bl^ia P. Stembiidge
Blun D. Harriaon
BUine p. Cbamben
BUt ■. Bromley
D. ClaxtoD
V. Commonwealth, The
p. Deakin
P. Erie R;. Co.
p. FofebaM
■. Harritoo ii
B, Oaborne
>. PathUiler, The
». Ridgely
■. Snodgraaa
■. Tbompaon
p. Ward
p. Weit Toiot Precinct
BltiKaa,Tbe
BUm p. Parii Oen Am. Co.
Blake,Ttae
Blake. A<
B.Baniea
E. Blake
g. BaOalo Creek R. R. Co.
iii.4SS
iii. 468
iiL61
iii. 446
iii. 200
iv. 487
iii. 161, 206
i*. 6», 72
It. 467
iii. 46
iiL461
IT, 62
iT. no
1L274
HI. 246
iii 336
m. 198, IftQ
p. De Lieaaeline
■.IHck
•.ETerett
Blake p. Ferris
V. Foiter
p. Hamburg Ina. Co.
B. Midland R. Co.
p. Nicholaon
D.Nuti«r
0. O'Reilly
p. Sweeting
D. Tliint
B. Tucker
V. Williami
Blakely, Et parte
BUkelj Ordnance Co., In n
Blakemore v. Bristol & B. R.
Blakenej e. Goode
Blskei, Ex parte
Blakeilee e. Carroll
D. Sincepangh
Blakey v. Abert
p. Johnion
Blanc V. Blanc
Blancbard. Rt 1.
P.Baker
p. Blancbard
p. Backnam
u. CutiUe
B. Colbum
D. EI7
D. Eqnitable Bafetr Ina.
D. Fearing
D.Page 11.649;
p. Porter
e. Puttman
B. RuueU LS91, 421; U.
Bland, Ex parte
V, Negro Dowling
p. Southern Pac. Ry. Co.
Biandford p. Blandford
BUndin, Re
Blane v. Drummond
p. Proudfll
Blaney d. Bearca
Blank v. Nohl
Blankard c. Galdy
Blankenahip v. Rogers
Blanton u. Vanzant
Blasco V. Fletcher
Blaidel p. Locke
Btatuh p. Wilder
Blatchford p. Chicago D. Co.
p. Christian
p. Milllken
e. Wooley
Blajmire b. Haley ii
Bleaden u. Charlet
V. Hancock
Bleakney u. F. &H. Bank
Bleck p. Bleck
Bledsoe p. Doe
Bieodenball, The
Blenldasop p. Clayton
Bleyer ^'~
iL260
It. 188
ii.477
It. 437
IL 416
iL 636.640
iii. 39
iT.203
iiL66
iii. 112
iii. 80
ii. 674
U. 366
ii. 400
11.22
11.241
ir.433
iii 70
>71 ; m. 162
111439
It. 208, 434
iii. 190
It. 464
It. 161
11.480
Co. Ui.302
Ui. 138
i ilLSOT, 228
iii. 427
141, 156. 160
II. 467
i.473; iL6
iii. 109
1L161
206; i*.96
Iii. 79
D. Blom
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASGB.
[n> muglBtl pifH ua i«<i»mI to.]
nigh, A
ii'. 461
Blum V. Wetton
111.434
Bligbt r. BUght
111. 471
Blnmantle V. Fludiburg B. R. Co. 11.600
». Hutooll
It. 846, 641
Blamberg v. Birch
lv.186
v-BocheMer
ii.67
ii. 117
BItmu) ». Brown
iv.866
Blanier v. Phamix In.. Co.
iii. 282
BliD «. Mtjo
ii.600
Blundell !>. CattM«a
UL 418. 417
BUndeU v. HagBD
ii. 26D
B. VflntOT
lil.27
Blink V. Hnbioger
ii. 200
BlDodea V. Bangfa
It. 486
Blimlon i>. WMburton
It. 278
Blunt K. 8ym«
It. 166
B]iu.ExpaTtt
i. 430
Blj-ew n. IJnited State*
u,4ao
ii. 340
1.802
^ Greelej
iii. 440
Blyth L>. Fiadgate
iii. 32
-.HiJl
iiL 442, 448
Bird V. wWm
iii. 66
V. KewMh Ctaal Co.
il. 281
iT.163
r. MatUtOD
ii. 280
Board of AMCMon b. Pollman'i Pal-
». NichoU
iii. 109
ace Gw Co.
11.888
r. We«t
ii. 176
.JameMMi
p. Whitney
11.343
)T.449
BH«MtT^iiIel
iii. 104
Board of EJq.e.MeCoinb
i. 823
iii. 63
BUTea V. N. E. Sen* Co.
111.200
Boaid of Trade, ExparU
1.467
Bloch V. Price
iU. 33, 64
Board of Trade Tel Co. D.
ii. 164
Block r. BtMldiM
ii.03O
v. Ithan
It. 480
BoardmaQ v. Boaton M. Int. Co, iii. S18
I'. Walker
iii, 72
o.Cniter
ii. 494
Blocker s. BurnoM
it. 626
0. HalHday
ii. 632
Blockley, /« r.
ir. 418
o.KeeW
a 626; iii. 31
Blodgett t.. Dnrgin li. 160 ; ifL 109
E..LBXTabe«
iT. 143
U.Moore
It. 624
^to-si.
U.402
Blofleld V. Payne
BlondeaD v. Sheridan
ii. 873
iT.eos
iy. 473
Boaat c. Firth
a 261. 468
Blood f . Goodrich
ii. 614
Boatman'i SaT. Inft. v. HoUand iU. 81
0. Howard Ini. Co.
iii. 876
Bobbett f. Pinkett
iii. 79
D. Richardion
ii. 344
Babbitt v. Urerpool & L. £ G. Iiu. Co.
Bloodgood V. Ayer
V. M. 4 H. k B. Co.
iii. 440
i>L2B2
ii. 339
Bock K. Qorrinaen
ii. 639
Bloom r. Burdick
U.426
Boddington v. RoblnMin
IT. 468
V. Helm
iii. 86
«. Schlencher
iii. 88
p. State loa. Co.
iii. 870
Bode B. Lee
ii.661
V. Van Renneiaer
i». 148
Bodek,/B r«
li.64
11.468
Boden B. Demwolf
11.259
n. Bloomer
lv.625
IL 604, 607
V. Millioeer
ii. 866
ii.681
B, NoUo
Bodine v. Arthur
It. 468
V. Waldron
It. 321, 331
Bodle V. Chenango Co. H.
WCa
BloomBeld t,. Johnilon
iii. 413, 427
iii. 876
iT. 104
Bodwell 0. Natter
iT.306
ii. 274
Boedei Last, The
L60, ae
Blouboi^ & CoroinB R R
e. Tioga
Boehm u. Sieriiog
Boebmer v. FoTal
iii 76, 78
R. R
1.342
11.467
It. 258
Bogardiu c. Clarke
iT. 608
BloMom V. Dodd
ii.608
V. Gordon
i469
Blot B. BoiceftQ
ii. 842
u. Trinity Chnrch
1.47Si ii283
Blount r. Barrow
ii. 444
Bogart V. De Buht
„. John Jay, 'The
ii. 631
0. Winter
iT. 56
i.369
Blower o. Great We»leni B. Co. ii. 800
U.443;1t. 30e
Blowen V. One Wire Bope Cable lii.228
Bogert p. llertell
iT.32S
tj. Sturterant
ii. 147
BoggeM D. Meredith
It. 870
Bloxam o. FiTre
i 492; It. 606
Boggett V. Frier
ii.l66
!>. Sanden
ii. 493
Boggi, In re
i.SQl
Bloxham f. Hubbard
Hi 147. 14E
^".Adger
iL226
BlDO Jacket, The
Bflgi^' r^atlodge
li. 448
Bluett V. Oeboroe
"1; 476
iT.39
Btum V. Mark*
li.646
Bogk V. Gaaurt
It. 186
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CABE3.
CTl»w
Bohumon d. Comb* {r. 46
Bohait u. Atkinton It. 436
Botan r. Bogne U. SSO,
■. HMdlej ii. 441
Bofan Huinf. Co. ■^ HolUi
Botanert v. Bohnert
BoboD ■. Bamtf ■ Exec. <t. 306
Bohdingk e. Inglia IL 406, 611, 644,
Boin t>. BeDtuin Iv. 162
o. Hmrtford & N. H. B. B. ii. 587
Bmler u Elephant
Bonaoniuiilt and Oliva
Boland V. iDdnMrial B. Au':
Bidander v. Petenon
Bold >. Rotherun iii. 814
Bold BtKcleogh, The
IL128; UL 218,232
Boldew&hD B. Schmidt ii. 681
Bole.,71
a. In,
iL644
B. HDllnaale
Boling D. Clark _ _.
BolingtBvke b, Swindon Local Board
iL SGO, 284
BoliTir M. Co. V. NepottMtH. Ca ill. 442
Bcdlaod t. DinwT ii). 369
Bolle* r. HBTTia ir. 517
BdliiigD.M»orof P. iiL43S
BoUii^ p. (Ullagber i. 473
Bi>Uman,£z parte 1.300
Bdlten v. Jame* I- Pe&dergait, The
iii. 364
BoltoD V. American Ini. Co. iii. 170, 300
>. Kjhop of Carliite it. 244
v.Boiton m.4ie,424
B.CaTliile i*.462
V. De Fbyiter ir. S36
B. LanbcK U. 477. 616
>. LaDcashiM & T. B. Co. U. 545
i>. Madden ii. 4BS
■. Prentioe ii. 148
Lpaller ii.e24
r. Sowert>7 ii. 801
Bomgaox r. Bevan ii. 410
Bonier ■>• Frazier tii. 106
Bona, The iii. 284
Boaapane, The iii. 172
Bonaparte v. Bonuarte U. 77, Vf>. 101
0. C. ft JL B. B. Co. ii. 3S8
Bon Aqua lap. Ca v. Standard Fire
Ini. Co. il. 277
BdoiT p. Mitchell iU. M
Bonbanu, Ex parU iU. 42, 44
Bendr. AitkiD iii. 48
t. Bond ii. 46L
B. Brig Cora iU. 246, 246, 313
e. Conway ii. 188
1. Parnham iii. 113
V. GitwoD ill. 44, 46, 46
V. NentchwHider ii. 451
V. Nett iii. 289
V. QaattlelMmiB ir.4T5
■.Beawell It. 616
Bond «. Wool
UL427
Boodrett v. Bentigg
iii. 303
Boodnrant i>. EveiMt
iU. 105
Bone E. Tharp
IU. 81
BonelU'i Telegraph Co., In
re IL300
Bonham (Doctor), Caae of
i.448
Bonian-B CaK
a 661
Bonifautu. Oreenfleld
iv. 826
Bonita, The
iii. 174
Bonithon v. Hockoiore
IT. lae
Bonnard v. Penyman
ji. 16
Bonner, In re
1.381
V. United Stale*
i.207
Bonne; v. The HoDtieM
U.6W,C04
t., Tilley
ii.281
Bonny v. Rfdgard
iT.187
Bonomi v. Backhouae
iii. 448
Bonaack Machine Co. v. Hnlw ii. 259. 366
Boneer i-. Kinnear
IT. 806
BonweU r. Auld
Ii. 616
Boniey i.. Hodgkina
iii. 138
Boody V. Daria
Boogher v. Id*. Co.
iT.466
L299
D. Enapp
li.22
Book V. Justice M- Co.
ii.4M
Booker V. BeU
iv. 478
Bool I.. Mil U. 161
286, 237, 238
Boon B. Boon
Ii. 126
e. Juliet
1463
Boone v. ChUai
It. 180
».Hariie
li.441
e. Knox
iv.369
B. StoTer
iii. 462
a 460. 481
V. N. W. M. B. Aaa'u
11.461
iii. 427
iii.SS
Booikeo. QulfloeCo.
ii. 277
Boot 0. Franklin
iii. «, 97
Booth V. Ableman
1:410
V. Arnold
ii.22
r. Baptist Church
It, 608
V. Booth W. 183
806, 307, 433
B. BriBtol County S. Bank ii. 488
.-. Gair
iii. 340
V. Meyer
iT. 180
B.Rich
i. 245, IT. 191
D. Kobinaon ii
280, 291, 299
Boothby B. Vernon
It. 40
Bootle D. Blandell
IT. 845. 421
Borah V. Archer.
iT. .366
Boraaton v. Green
It. Ill
Boraaton'a Caae iv
206,208,811
Borchieoius v. CanuUon
111.123
Bordeaux b. Cave
ii. 474
Borden i.. Pitch
i,261.ii. 108
r. Sumner
ii. 407, 534
Bareel v. Lawton
iii. 464
Borel B. Roliini
iT. ».ii
1.300.330
Boring u. Lemmon
It. 431
Bork e. Martin
It. 306
It. 467
sObyGoOl^lc
MacpherK
i.«7i
Borland v. Citf of BMti
v.Deta
0. Nichol*
Born D. Shaw
Bomeman i>. Sidllnger
Borougb of Bathunt e,
Borradaile v. Hunter
Boireklni u. Be vans
Borrow man u. Free
Bon D. Freaton
Bont r. Corey
Bore, Mailer of
Borthwick v. ETening Put
Bouuiquet. Ex parte iti, 40
Boiheru.RicbniDnd&H.LandCo. ii.SSl
Boikenna Bav, The iii. 206, 207
BoekowiCZ D. D>v» IT. 306, 871
Botle; B. CheiapeaJie Idb. Co. iii. 323
BoaoD D. Sacdford iii. 161
Bottard v. White ir. 174
Bouhardt & WiUon Co. v. Crescent
Oil Co. ii. 477
Boitford p. MorehouM It. 4S2
BoBtick V. WintoD It. 434
Bollock D. Jardine ii. 622
B. N. StafCordshire Railway U. 283
Boston, The il. 429 ; iii. 196, 313
BoBtoa V. Crowley , i. 869
t>. Richai^on ill, 413, 427, 429, 432
TABLE OP CASES.
[Tke Biiigiul Jtf 1* nfomd to.)
l 11.480
i».427
U. 296, SOO
ii. 468
i. 46, 816, 344
a 178; It. 162
ii. 193
ii. 366
r. RichardsoD
lv.807
ii, 478,
479
1.460
Boston, &c. Co., In the Blatter at
V. Smith III. 2o
Boston & H. R. R, v. Cilley i. 466
Boston & F. R. Co, d. Doberty Ui. 449
Boston & Salem Ids. Co. v. Rojal
Ins. Co. iii. 376
Boston ft W. R. R. n. Itipley iii. 464
Boscon, C. k M. R. R. v. Slate II. 290, 340
Boston Diatite Co. n. Florence Manuf.
Co. ii. 16
Boston Glass Manuf. d. Langdon ii. S11
Boston, fiartford, & Erie R. R., /■ re
11.391
Boston Ice Co. v. Potter il. 477
Boston India Rubber Fact v. Hoit Ii. 120
Boston H. Ins Co. v. Slocoiltch iU. 263
Boston Rubber Shoe Co v. Boston
Rubber Co. U. 277, 292, 866
Boston Safe Deposit & T. Co. v. Plnm-
raei iv. 641
Boston Water Power Co. o. Boston
& Wore. R. R. Co. 11. 339
Boitwick V, American Finance Co. i. 308
tr. BrinkerboS i. 316
V. Champion iii. 46
BosTit V. Brander 11. 188, 140
BosweU V. Coaks ii. 220
■>. Goodwin It. 170
V. Green U. 492
Bcsweli's Case
1.469
Boteler v. Dexter
liL 106
Botbamley v. SherMD
It. 641
Bothick V. Bothick
ii.87
Botiller v. Domingaei
L284
Botsfleld r. Ptnmmer
iii. 164
Botstord ». Bnrr
It. 306
Bottomley v. BotIU
ill. 315
V. Fairfax
It. 48
». Forbet
ii. 660
Bottoms V. Brewer
ii.340
V. Coriey
ii. 164
il. 196
Eloncher e. I«w«on IL
699i iii. 266
Boocicanlt r. Cbatterton
a 378
V. Delafleld
ii. 373
v. Fox
ii. 87S
v. Hart
11. STS
y. Wood
ii. 373
Boagbey e. Horeton
iv. SS2
Bougbton V. KniRht
ir. 606
r. Midland, Ac. Ry. Co.
iii. 440
r.U.,8.
i. 297
Bouillon ». Luptoa
iii. 288
Bouldin b. Page
Boulton V. BoS i. 460, 402
iii. 105
iL 866, 372
t..Moo«i
iiLieo
11.285
Bound V. Lachrop
iii. 49
U.226
Boarder r. Lanusse
ii.460
Bonrdillon n. Roche
iii. 46
Bourgeois t>. Chaarin
iLlOl
ii.62
Bourke, In r«
It. 203
i>. Caltanan
It. 806
V. DaTls
iii 482, 461
ii. 666
i. 67
Boustead t^. Cojler
iii. 80
Boutelle ». City S. Bank
Bouton e. Dement
ii. 441
Bovey (Ralph), Case of
BoTey B. Smitii
BoTill e. Moore
ii. 173
Iv. S34
U. 866
Bow u. Nottingham
ii. 214
Bowcher v. Noidstrom
iii. 176
Bowden v. Barnbam
1.802
V. SchatreU
iii. 66
». Vangban
111.284
Bowdoin College ». Herritt
1.802
Bowe B. Bunking
iU.458
Bowell V. De Wald
ii, 602
Bowen, Rt
It, 805
iv. 110, 118
u-Beck
i»:480
r. Collins
It. 46
V. Edwards
iv. 143
V. Guild
m. 440
V. Hall
iv. 480
B. Lewis
It. 214
V. Newell
iii 88
v. Peters
iU. 166, 164
D. Fmut
It. 46d
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
llT
[Tb. «rgiul p>«M tt. r.(*cr*d to.]
BowM ■>. SnUnn
ii-see
Boyd V. OlaM
a. 236
..Swmnder
iT.861
B.BawkiiM
il.490;iT.438
r. Vid
iii. 78
>. Kennedy
iii. ea
Bower D. HMtiDgt
iii. 91
V. McCann
ill. 68
<.Hm
iii. 448
». M'Lean
iT. 306
,p.Pe«W
«.2eO;iii.4ST
V. Martin
iv. 80
BowerhMk r. MonU
ii. 644
K. Moiea
iii. 206, 218
Bowert o. Bowen
iT. 203
V. Nebraika
i. 884 1 ii. 64
B. Enropwm, The
iii. 248
D. Satterwhito
It. 8S1, 3»6
IT. 46
D. Shorrock
11.343
iL T22. 426
D. Siffkin
U.468
Bowery 8. Bulk b. B«lt
iv. 13fi
E. United Statai
L 283. SSI
Boiret p. Howe
iii. 99, 110
». Viokrey
ii.441
IT. Shand
11. 479
Boydell v. Drummond
11. 610
Bowie LP. Berry
iv. 60. 62
Boydbn 0. Achenbach
iii. 446
r. Br.he
It. 448
B.Moore
il. 633
B. Napier
ii.820
Boyer «. Berryman
U.461
lli.24
'„.Boyer'
It. 46
Bowler t. Hnitoii
i. 260; iii. 64
„. n4i
a. 478
B. O'ConneU
11.269
Boyert v. Elliott
iii. 30
BowlM V. Dixon
ii. 226
It. 62
I^L■mbe^t
111.76
Boye. B. Bedale
11200
Ba*1e«-i Cue
It. 370
'v.Cook
It. S36
Bowling r. Arthur
iii. 106
Boylan b. BoyUn
It. 346
B. H«rri«oD
iii. 98.106
Boyle B. Adanu
iL467; iii. 172
Bowliby B. 8«*r
Bow nun v. Bowmui
iii. 440
B. Boyle
iT.SOfi. 632
ii.87
B. Rowand
iT. 70
p.Ciiicaga&N.W. Rf-Co. 1.391.439
Boy lei u. Latham
It. 64
r.Hillw
U.461
Boynton o. Clay
1L193
B. Hetiger
iii. 81
... Dyer
ii. 231
V. Hiddleton
1.461
B. UoDiler
iv. 307
B. Neely
iii. 80
u. Payrow
ii. 661
r. New Orleui*
iii. 440
Boyse, h t*
m. 76, 06
B. PhilUp.
ii, 487
Boy ion V. ColM
II. 627
B.Wrthen
iU. 421, 427
Bosarth b. Largent
iT. 190
Bowne r. Joy
11.126
Boze i>. Uavia
iT. 451
B. Potter
i».38
Brabant v. King
ii.681
Bowiinj B. Stereiw
B. f bebmad
il.486
ill. 205
Bow*er b. Bowmt
iT.eo6
V. Shaw
iT. 161, 481
«. Colby
Bewyer b, B>mpton
It. 126
It. 180
111.80
BracBTiHe Coal Co. v. People i, 391 ;
r. Judge
BowMr B. Stonghton
It. 364
!i.269
iii. 37
Br«:ken «. Beotley
a 364
Box ». Jftck*Da
ii. 136
V. Miller
It. 170
Box of Bullioo. A
iii. 248
Braekenberry b. Gibbona
It. 208
Bouin. B. Qoblet
ii. 16, 22
iT. 307
Boyce, I» n
ii.30
Brackenridge b. HoUand
U. 366; It. 488
ii.600
Bracket b. M'Nalr
U,480
t. BayliSe
iii. 188
Brackett f. Ooddard
ii. 343
B. Edward* IL *«), 461 : iii. 84
t>. Hercolei, Tbe
Ki. 195
B. ntipatiick
ii.260
V. Lnbke
U. 260
B. Holnwa
i.456
B.Walt
iv. 171
r. St. LoDit
li.283
B, Walte
11.441
e, WatMn
U.467
Bntdbuni V. Horrit
lit. 410
Boyd, Ex partt
1.283
Bradbury b. Dlckena
iii. 64
B. ArmitroDK
». Benk ot f otodo
It. 422
V. Griniell
Ui. 443
iii. 109
V. Hotten
ii.373
B.Bop.t
ii. 478
V. Morgan
Ui, 123
B.Carlion
It. 62
0. Sharp
il. 878
cCook
It. 606
Bradeo t>. Watd
U. 641
B. Dnboii
ill. 300, S04
Braden'* E>l*te, h n
i. 427
V. EngUnd
iT.804
Bradford b. Bmdfotd
1.396
r. Fraternl^ Hall An'n Iy. 90
V. CreMey
ilL427
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ii.4G9
.. Kimberly'
'ui. 37
». KiDg
r. M.dV
iL *79. 481
r. Honki
iT. 827
V. KaaUton
0.463,466
Birndfai/co. t. Pickln
iii. 2711
iii.440
Bradford Schooi of Indoitn
St i*. SOS
23U
Brsdiib ■>. OiblM iL 171, t78iiT.33&,8«7 I
e. SdwDck IT. 95 1
BradiaoBb v. De Bio iii. 96 '
V. M««degmte W. 449 |
Bradlej, Ex parU ■ L SOB, ZH
s. A Cweo of LtunlMt iii. 364
- ii.300
n. A Cweo ol
!>. Ballard
1. BojnMD
o. Bradley
r. Cheater Valley B. R. Co.
o. Covell
V. Dwight
V. Fallbrook Ir. DUtrict
■. Farrington
■>. FiilwT
V. Oibbi
V. Unnt
P.I4U
n. Nonon
v. Peixoto
e. The PMple
t>. Rbinea
t>. RichardioQ
i>. Waterhoiiae
V. Wyndlia
iL 124
It. 148
i». 114
ii. 446
11178
U. 430
li. 630; It. 170. 179
ii.807
ii. 624
Bradlle r, MaryUDd Ids. Co. iii. 307, 321,
S22, 324, 826, 326, 380, 331, 836
Bndner v. Joew* ii. 661
V. Strane ill. 46
BndiliaiT D. Beard ii. 146
V. HeatI) I. 261 ; ii. 108
ti. Irish. Ac. Jtj. Co. ii. 604
t:. VanWioUe ii. 241
Bradthaw'B Caie it. 471
Braditreet v. Heran, or Heron ilL 207, 2i8
o. Neptune In*. Co. it 120, 121
Bradttreet Co. v. GiU il. 012
Brady 0, Brady 1*. 541
D. Cnbin It. 62S
t>. Gile* II. 260
E>. Uttle Miami B. Co. liL 88
r. Todd iL 621
t>. United L. Im. Co. iii. 373
v. Waldron It. 161
D. Whitney U. 880
Bragg V. Lorio L 284
BraKK n. Haane tr. 143
Braj^e E. Dyer Iv. 617
Biaban n. Ragland iU. 106
Brainatd e. BuahDell It. 06
E. UndMHi It. 179
Braioerd n. Brainerd It. 143
Braithwaiie e. Cookaey iii. 483
Brake'! Good* it. 637
Brakeiy b. Sliaip iii. 419
Brakkea v. Mioo. 4 8t L. B. B. Co.
iiL461
Bniiey e. Goddard iii. 30
Brambeny, Inn iL IS2
Bramble E. Beidler iv. 471
D. Spiller U. 626
Bramhall r. Beckett tii. 81
E. Ferria ir. 13L
r. Sdd Hat. Ina. Co. iiL 808
Bramley c. Alt U. 638
Bramwell k. BnUnweU ii- 101
E. Ualcomb il. 382
e. Spiller ILS26
Braoch v. Doane iii. 446
r. Ward it 168
Branch Bank at HoUle «. TiUman
iii. 116
Brand d. Com'th ii. 226
Bmndto v. Bamett iu 641
Brande v. Gilchriit L 896
Brandegeee. Nat.Iiu.Co. iiL 289
Brander c. Brand* U. 364
E. rhillipt U. 640
Brandon v. Brandon ir. 687
D. Curling iiL 256
V. HantirUie Bank a 263, 366
V. Nesbitt . iii. 264
«. Robinum ii. 170; It. 181. 811
V. Scott ii. 668
Brandon's TnjiU, Be ii. 461
Brandow, Tbe iii. 248
Brandratn b. Wharton iiL GO
Brandrick ii. Johnaon ii. 16
Brandt r. Lawrence il. 470
Brannlng v. Markiiam iii. 70
Brannoo <-. Raraell III. 116
Branson e. Philadelphia iU. 452
B. Taney i». 62
Braoilan, The iii. 246
Brant r Gelston It. 221. 231
E. Wilson IT. 631
Brantford Ciiy. The iii. 207
Braabear e. Haton i. 822
E. West U. 532, 538, 534
Braahier e, Jackson it. 106
Braas e. Maitland Ut. 217, 218
c. North Dakota i. 891, 489; ii. 690
BraM & Iron Worka e. Payne ii. 366;
iii. 55, 68
Brattle Sqoara Church e. Grant It. 126^
199,263,288
Braunstein v. Lewii ii. 170
Braxton v. Braxttm iii, 81
V. Frpeman iv. 58
B, WiDslow iL 419
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Bn7 f. DadgMn
li. 178
Brickell 1.. Earier
p. Halifax Co. Com.
h-.soe
VHj;;ir^
iii. 108, 107
1.67
r Kettell
ii.081
Bricker v. Stroud
iL66«
.. H>7iw
ii. 587
BrickeEt b. Down*
ill. 44
Br>Tbroke „. luUp
lisee
Bnf nard v, Marshkll
ii! 8U3
D. Hartford
li.366
Bnoer .. Antlej
ir. 96
Bride a. Clark
iii. 80
Brizil r. Petonon
ii. 2&0
Bridge u. Bridge
U.488
ii. 87
c Eegleaton
It. 464
Bml/r. Keed
ii. 85
V. Grand JunctloD R. a
Co.
BreHted d. Fannen' L. & T.
Co. iii. 869
iU. 230
IT. 166, 104
V. McCullougb
iii. 65
Ere. .. HoTbech
i*. 326
r. NiagaralDi. Co. ofN. Y.
iii. 261
ii. 473
V. VVaine
u. 479
Breed v. Gnay
ii. 614
Bridge Co. v. Mayer
ii. 286
r. HiUhoow
iii. 118, m
V. United Sutei
1.430
i. 846
i. 326
Br««e o. U. S. T. Co.
ii. en
Bridgeport Bank v. S. Y. & N.
H,
Bicit c. Yeaton
ii. 178
B. R.
iii. 89
Breithxipt p. Bulk of Qeorei* i. 847
0. Schnvler
111.80
Brenaui a. New York
ii. 106
iii. Bl
ii. 26
Bridger v. Aaheville & S. R. Co.
U.241
r. TilQiTille
i. 480
V. Qoldamith
ii.4ei2
e. Vogt
iii. 04
■"rBiSoC
L801
.. Whitiaker
il.343
lU. 462
Brent r. 8«nk of WMbJagton i. 247
p. Hawkesforth
ii.366
Breni'iCue
iv. 238, 205
D. Hanter
iii. 2S2
Brentwood, Ac. Co., In rt
iT. 162
K. Puroell
iiL463
BremihiD E^ 8he«bui
iT. 806
V. Slieldon
L260
ii. 601
Bridge* ater, Brig
ia863
Breton'i E«Ute, In n
ii. 438
Bridgewater (Duke of) v. Egerton
Bna, Ex parte
it. 649
It. 284
V. Crter
iL 492. 620
iv. 870
t. V.D Pr«g
iii. 364
Brien d. Willianuon
L4gfi
B«ltel <-. Wilii»mi
iii. 47
Brierley. In n
Brig AlerCa o. Bla* Honu
iv.32S
Brewer ». Bionglier
>. Boaton iVatre
IT. 414
LlOO
ii.298
Brig Ann, The
1.31
rChnrchiU
iii. 228
Brig Cadmui v. Matthewi
Ul. 190
.. Curlii
iii. 483
Brig Joseph, Tho
Brig Bit J, The
i. sa
..Uroir
ii.46e
iii. 233
r.M«,hmU
It. 480
Brigella, The
iii. 296
tr. Wwmr
ii. 192
BriggB V. Brigg*
ii. 117
*. Woodward
iii. 89
t. Davii
iv. 311
iT. 144
f. French L 346, 346; ii, 468
>.BeiMdiCt
iT. 404
V. Garrett
1L.22
ill. 60. 61
p. Greene
iv.4l4
>.Hilc)i
ii. 281
n. HaU
ai. 470
■- HiU i]
.842; IT. 98
0. HiU
iT. 168
.. Hoagh
i. 414
V. Knickerbocker Ice Co.
iii. 427
.. McCall
IT. 612
r Large
iii. 477
t. SileiK«
iii. 128
V. Life Boat!
iii. 171
■r. Wsmer
ii. 660
«. Oxford
(». 78
Brewt >. IlareD
iii. 427
p. Farkman
11.524
BriiDt, h n
iL 162
V. Pennimaa ii
272,312
&in >. FoltoD Nat. Buk
iT. 100
I.. Penny
iv..TO5
(.Miller
ii, 154
B. Taylor
ii.6«l
V. Smith
iv. 270
V. United State* L 6
; iL4B8
Bridita d. N. T. lAfajette Ins. Co. ilL 375
V. Wilkinwn
111,133
Brick v. Brick
iv. 508
Brigg'. Ca»e
i. 74
V. Campbell
ill. 376
Brigham v. Claflin
1.402
v. Slaieii Iilutd K;. Co.
ii. 366
V. Dana
iiLSO
.. Whellej _
ii. 169
V. Eveleth It
869,369
H^ck PretbTtcriao ChiU'Cn,
Matter
ii. 461
(K
iii. 402
r. Sn^th
iii. 424
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
iU.227
lli. 12S
1JL445
■•.Walker
Briglit Star, Th«
Brighctey v. lAttMoa li. ST8
BrightiDui n. BrigbttUKQ iv. 278
Brighton OoardlMU v. Stnud Unioa
i.462
Brighton Hannt Cki. e. B«wliDg V.
Idi. Co. iiL 3T6
Briglitoii Market Bank v. FliObrick
uL 106. 109
Brimmer n. Bebman i. 489
BrinckeTiiofl v. Brown
V. SUrkiua
Briod u. Dale
Brine e. Feathentone
u. Inianuice Co.
BriDsloe D. HoiTice
Brink V. State
Brinkle; i>. Att.-Oen.
Brinknao t>. Biinkman
It. 168, 430, 437
It. 176, 178
iv. 616
iil. 416
U. 697, 698
Ui.284
p. Rnggeei
lej V. Oroi
iPT^^B
r. WUiUoK ir. 44t
BriDtmead v. Hairlton ii. 881
BriibBQcB^d iL4TT; iii. 60, 66, 261,271
Bdabane v. Dacm ii. 491
Briabiiw v. 8t, PanL&c. R. B. Ca iiL 427
Briicoe e. Bank of Kentucky L 406
B.King iv '"
V. Wickliffe ii
BHitol. TlM ili. 19e, 268
Briatol V. Eq. L. Am. Soc. ii. 378
v. WilBinore ii. 497
Britl«l A. B. Co. v. Uagg« U. 477
Britiol & B. B. D. Collin* il. 604
Briitol Bank v. Midland Rj, Co. Hi. 207
Briitol C. L. Co. ». The Agnes Man-
ning iii. 248
Bristol Hydraulic Co. c. Boyer iii. 440
Bristol 5. N. Co. ■>. Indemni^ M. Ini.
Co. iii. 381
Briatol W. Co. v. Uren ili. 440
Briatow t>. Conuican tii, 418
D. EaMman • il. 241
V. Towen UL 264
c. Wards Ir. 346
e. Whltmore iU. 167, 172. 868
Britain v. McKay and Bate* It. 461
D. RoMiier W. 4fil
BrltaanU, The IU. 207, 2S2
Britannic, TTie ilL 807
Briiith, &c. Co, D. Smart It. 161
Brittih Am. Am. Co. v. Law Hi. 260
D. WiUoD U. 234
Britlih ft Am. Telegraph Co. e. Col-
■on U. 477
« an nfttnd to.]
Britlih Colombia Saw Hm Co. v.
Nettlwhlp lil. a08
British Linen Co. v. Drunmond U. 462, 468
Brftiib M. B. Co. b. Cbamwood F.
Ry. Co. ii. 269
British Pritonen, The L 37
Britt r. L&wHn HI 106
Brittain v, Johnim iii. 106
Brittau n. Barnaby UL 228
Britton D. Tomer U. 609
e. Twining It. 283
f . White Manof . Co. U. 366
Broach o. Sing It. 517
Broadbent c. Ramttmtham iii. 440
Broaddui v. Tomer ir. 276, 27T
Broadnai r. Cherair A & B. Co. iii. 206
Broadway Nat Bank v. i
Broad well v. Broad wdl
Brohit p. Brobit
c. Brock
Brock tr. Bamett
t>. Brock
r. 181
L306
It. IM
il. 840
iii. 80
r. 488
«. HucUon C. N. 1
V. N. W. Fuel Co.
Brockhaut v. Kemna
Brockletby u. Temperance F. P. Soci-
ety U. 616
Brockwell p. Bollock
Broddie v. Searcy
Broderick n. Brodorick
Brodie c. Bany
V. Howard
Brogden v. Met. By. Co.
V. Walker
BrokawB.N.J.H. RATranrCo. IL
1[. 164
1. S(%S44
ilL869
lli. 101
U.209
It. eiS
UL 188, 166
ii. 477
Bromage v. Vangliai
Bratnfleld v. Crowder
Bromley v. Bmnton
p. Elliot
p. Holland
Brande u. Haren
BronnenbD^ v. Charman
BroDMHi E. Coffin
p. Siniie
V. Newberry
Brook, Ex parte
D. Brook
c ChappeU
f. Hook
V. Montague
p. Kawl
p. Smith
t>. Tan Neit
Brookbank v. Taylc
Brooke r, Lonn
V. Lonii Ini. Ci
Moilyn
iU.106
It. 206
ill 86
ilL 26, 87, 80
U. ti44
iiL 190
L 419, 422; It. 484
i. 419
li. 343
ILee, 93
It. 307
u.eid
11.26
U.16
U. 123
IU. 96
1U.124
1LI93
V. New Yorit, ftc. B. Co. fii. 2n7
V. Pickwick U. eOl, 006. 6Ci7
V. Stone iU. 876
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Brooke r. WMbingfton
iU.81,39
Brown v. ArnndeU
iii. 477
Bnoke Iron Co. v. O'Brien
11.646
V. AdciDt
ii.417
Bn»k«». Coffin
li.l«
t-.An.tin
11.632
BlDokhtTMt V. B«i^tt
It. 478
0. B. & D, Bank
It. 614
U. 274
V. Baldwin
U.839
Bmkiag V. HaodiUr
lii.282
V. Balridge
iT. 467
ftookija, /n n
1.413
i>. Bamford
a. no
Brookljn, Tbe
i. 839
It. 211
Bfookiyn B«ik t. ffwing
iii. 118
^. Barry
iu.96
iil. 170
r. Batei
It. 181
Bnwkir. Bnxb
IT. 76
V. Beliowi
ii. 477
•,Cmw
111.437
..Bemwit
It. 13S
B.D»y
111.94
V. Beat Ui. 489, 441, 442, 448
..Do?r
111. IBS
B.Bokee
ii. 138
-.PiAe
1LS66
V. Brown IL 246, 430
; iT. 461, 464,
r.BwgreaTM
iii. 76
680,637
o-Ua^eU
ii. 612
V. BnTlinghan)
It. 393. 403
>. KendaU
It. 482
B. Butler"
iil. 89
.. MmrbDiT
11.633
i>. Caldwell
Ii. 236
». Miller
11.860
». Campbell
U.44I
1. Mill! Coon^
i. 260
v. Certain Tom of Coal lU. 164
>. HiDtDm
lli. 188
lli. 427
D.Miuonri
1.826
U.Clark
iT. 29
>. Hitchdl
ui. 91
-.Clegg
m. 232
V. Oiicnul Inr Co. iii.28T
888,339
«. Cotton & W. M. Ids
Co. lu. 876
U.6»
c CoweU
It. 143
^ RejBold* m. 448
i It. 480
I'. CiunlDKbui)
Iii. 427
r. Rooney
It. 431
f-CnrtiM
iii. 1^
B. Shiltoa
It. 806
V. Daviea, or Darli
ill. 81, 91
,. Tjler
iT.4e6
D. DennlMD
Ii. 691
Broom D. Broom
iii. 87
D. Dewgv
V. De WlDtoa
It. 148, 144
Broomfield o. Southern lu. Co.
iiL881,
iii. 72
369
■7. Douglas
HI, 68
Brotherhood'! Cue
11.300
p. Downing
11.226
Brolhen n. Porter
iT.aofl
V. Ducheine
11.866
liL89
n. Dulntb, &C. R. Co.
li.286
Broogh .. Firkiiu
111.94
<-. Dupleati)
iii. 482
HI. 72
B.Dye
iT. 414
e. McQrow
1L16.22
D. Baton
i2eOi il. 120
B. HuiebesiM W.t«rworki Co. ii. 299
V. EdgingtoD
Ii. 479
BnMin*.HnU
Ui. loe
V. Fe^nS^
lU. 94, loe
BnHUKkcrp.BaSOt
U.S64
V. Foster
itt.31
..Scott
111.322
i..Freocb
iT.307
BranMud r. Bernari
U.183
r. Frewo Ralrin Co.
iU.37
Bnmwer r. Jone*
It. 480
».Fro.t
It. 175, 192
Brow r. Bottoa ft A. B. Co.
11.269
«. GtLtiaa
i.67
ii. 23
V. Gibb.
iT. 46
Brawer d. Bonlton
Ii. 366
r. GiUiam
il. 690
r.Fiiher
IE. 462
r. Oirart
iii. 287
iii. 199
0. Goddard
iii. 427
Bn»n, Cue of Wm. P.
Ii. 181
t>. Grant L 864 ; iU. 461
ExparU i. 221
801,439
«.Gray
It. 433
hrt LSK; iii.se
V. Balnea
It. 461
UMtUtot
11.403
0. Harper
11.236
11.260
UI. 73, 101
>. Ackn>7d
1L146
r.HarrU
111.226
■.Adidr
11.464
V. Hartfoid Int. Co.
Hi. 281
>. AddiMD 6. Hontital
It. 284
V. Higgi
It. 344, 611
Ui.424
D. HodgMin
11.499
>. AlHuiM, TlM
1.870
i>. Holyoke W. P. Co.
Ui454i
■.Ambtar
1U.84
It. 478
B. HoQilon
1.439
rAnnlitead .
It. 327
0. IndependoDce, Tbe
L42iUL187
».AlTOtt
i).B23
e, InUnd Rerenoe Com
'n UlBl
voi_ i.—d
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
v. JunetU it. 96
V. JodreU ii. 461
V. JohnMot Ui. 203
V. JohnitoQ ii. 70
B. JoDH U. 1T4 ; flL 06. 1B6
K. JordhEl iii. 76
V. J. WayUnd Simluai Co. ii. 441
V. KimUU il. 610
>. Edoz il. 634
V. Lapttam ir. 40, IM
V. Uthun ii. 463
tr. LeaTitt iil. 91
V. Leckia iii. S8
». LeoDud lU. 68
». Lillie Ii. 843
V. LisdMr ii. 133
V. Litton iii. 64
V. Lord It. 451
V. Lnll m. 101, 192, 198, 197, 332
v. Lnnt ir. 469
V. H'Connick iv. 98
V. McFarland iii. 37
V. M'Gnn iL 640, 642
V. Miffer iii. 110
V. Manning iii. 450
IT. Mar;laiid i. 439
B. Miles iL 451
B. MillBT ii, 648
p. Minis ii. 286
e. Uinoeapolii, &e. B7. Co. ii. 269
V. Minturn ii. 532. 533
V. Hontgomerr IL 4B2, iii. 86
V. HuUer ii. 468
V. Mnrdock ii. 840
D. MnrphM ii. 479
p. NoUmd iU. 301
B. NickenoD ii. 16
». N. T. a B. B. ii. 600
V. NMth ii. 164
V. OTertan iii. 1S4. 814
nnme i. 248
p. Plpw Ii. 366
B. Pocock iL 166, 170
V. Pollard Ii. 494
B. Postal TeL Co. 11611
c. PoweU Coal Co. iii. 207
V. Pr»tt IT. 432
». Quiltor Mi. 467
e. RamMT ii. 206
V. R«ed iii. 79
B. Reno Ed. L. & P. Co. ii. 343
B. Reves Ii. 472
V. BichardiODB ii. 468
V. Robins m. 487
B. Scherrer 1*. 624
B. SIiotU iii. 478
B. Sinis ' iiL 476. 477
V. Smart 1. 413
B. Smith U. Seo, 430 ; UI. 398
V. Sonth Boston B. Bank ir, 166
V. Spuflbrd iii. 79
D. StapTloton iii. 241
B. Stwko U. 163
V. Strode
i. 348
D. Tanner
IiL 138, 228
D. Tayleup
Iii. 307
B. Taylor
aim
B. Thayer
U, 666
B. Thissell
IiL 410
B, Thompson
IT. 522
B. Union Ins, Co.
1.167; iii. 806
V. United Btatai
f. 69, 01, 95, 402
P. Wart
iT. 608
V. Webster
i. 802
B. Wen»er
ilL438
V. Wheeler
iT.261
B. Wile7
L299
iT. 60
V. Winuissimmet Co. iL 300
B. WiKHM, Ac. B. a. Co. a 260
B. Wood U. 179
V. WoottoD iL 887
B. Wright I. 473
Brown's Caae L 297
Brown's EsUte, Re Ii. 195
Brown Chemical Co. b. H^ar iL 866
Browne v. Browne It. 203
B. Burke It. 418
B. Dext«T ii. 62
V. DouD ii. 22
B. Hftre ii. 646
B. Johnson ii. 687
B. Kennedy iii. 414, 417, 420, 484
B. Powell iii. 476
B. Scackpole iL 880.^98
Browne's Hoapital, Re, v. Stamford
iT.608
Browoell b. Brownell It. 804
B. HancbMter U. 666
B. Old C<dony RaUnwd Hi. 4S9
B. SteeT« ill. 46
B. Welch It. 113
Browning b. Andrews iii. 96
B. Bettis iT. 480
B. Coppage ii. 178
B. Home Id*. Co. 111.376
B. HaglU ii. 824
B. ProTiDcial Int. Col U. 331, 681
B. Reane ii. 76
Bruce, Case of t. SOT
B. Anderaon il. 408
B. Jones UL 881, 274
B. Lytle iii. 100
B. Schuyler L 410
B. Slemp It. 418
B. Soule ii. 18
B. Wait L 261
B. Wood ii. 138
Bruce (Lord), Case of IL 207
Bmdenell b. Blwea It. 845
Brueck b. Phesnlz Ins. Co. lU. 260
Bmen b. Kansas City Agr. Am'h iii. 88
B. Marquand iii. 48
B. Ogden i. 410
Bruin B. Knott iL 280
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Bnmiby .. Smith
ii. Ml
Bubier v. Babier
It. 103
Bionflda «. CuMD
iT. 461
RuchaD D. Sumner
iii. 39
Bnmflnp.Boberta
iii. 402
Buchanan ». Cnrry
iii 40
Bninlr *. WenciiMter Cj. Mu. 8oc.
V. Curti.
iii. 461
iL284
0. Deihon
iT. 86
Bnnnwl p. StocktoD
ii. 622
V. DroTcn' Nat Bank
ii.400
BnuuDet e. Barbw
ii. 368, IT. 282
V. LogKlroort, &c. R. W. Co. Iii. 462
Biudice >■ Bnrka
iii. 80
p. MmbJl
iii. lOB
Bnmdiie c. Poor
ii. 163
p. Ocean Lu. Co.
iii. 277
Brunt p. Taber
iii. 180. IM
p. Rackw
1.261
BraniiiK «. C>ntl & BuUhk Co. ir. 407
Bucher v. CbeUiiie B. Co.
i.842
finuiwn V. Brook.
iT. 178
Back p. Chesapeake In>. Co.
iil.2e8
■.BrtUMoD
ii. 422, 447
V. Colbath
i«0
>. Heurr
iL448
p. Cotton
iii 110
^Hon^
iii. 48
p, Dowlej
iii. 24
Bnmoick (om Doke of Brawwick)
iU. 199
■.LiUbflrid
i.45C
p. lAntz
iv. 201
United Ga«
B.Pike
It. 306
Co.
ii. 274
p. Bandera
iT. 161
Bnmt B. Brunt
p. Spofford
D. Cniied StatM
iT. 370
Bnuton r. Havkei
ii. 870, 871, 872
i.297
Bruli V. EiuleT
iT. 158
P.Winn
lil.8fl
.. Scribner'
iii. 79
V.Wood
It. 136
V. WUB
iii. 878; ir. 179
Bnokl™' r. Colei
Bucket D. Sum
iiL428
>. WilkiDi
It. 628, 624, 627
ii. 164
Bratton B. Burton
iii. 47
Buckelew 0. Snedeker
ir. B09
Bum, /■ r.
ii. 138
Bucker v. Klorkgeter
iU. 199
V. Am. Int. Co.
iii. 803
ii. 340
r. BMcbdl«r
Iv. 63
Buckev V. Backer
li461
Buckeye Marble Co. p. HarreT ii 300
..Brrfley
It. 290, 490
Buckeye State, Tlie
iii. 196
rBrru
ill42
Bnckiiunt, The
iii. 231, 232
t>.J*cktao
U. 616
Buckingham v. On-
p. Oibome
It. 461
r. Uirii
U. «6, 466
ii. 479
>. Stniit
ir. 483
li448
B17UU r. Nix
U. 638
Buckinghanuhire (Earl of)
p.Druiy
Bijint ■>. Bigeloir Carpet Co. iii. 440
ii 240, iT. 66
V. Hobart
It. 18, 74
>.Booie
ii. 477
Bockland v. Adama Exp. Co. ii 608
p. Com. Ins. Co.
m. 290, 821
V. Butterfieid
ii344
V. Croibj
iT. 143, 461
p. Johnwn
E389
>.KdH>II
ii.458
Bnckle ». MiteheU
It, 463
, >, U BanqM da Penide iii. 81
Buckley, £1 porte
iii, 41
..L€ft»er
iii 419, 448
p. ArtchM
U.614
t. UTenoor*
ii. 226
p. Barber
m. 87, 04
V. Ocean In*. Co.
iii 284
». Briggi
11.291
V. Peck A Whipple
Co. ii. 461
p. Buckley
ill 80
p. Cater
iii 60
iii. 260
p.Prarfw
iT.345
rPogk
Ui. 401
p. PumUa ii.
644,646,660
..TrJc7
11.220
Bucklin u. Miller
ii.l04
F.Wwe
iLsaa
0. Traell
il.440
Bqroe B. Brook*
11.040
Buckman p. Leri
h.600
Birdm K. Niebnbr
01.200
il. 138
■t.Ta;lor
iii. 93
V. Gowen
iU, 37
irjl^ e. DucbeM of Chando* It. 580
p. Grandy
It. 476
Btrmbo Water Co. v.
Letten lime
Bucknal v. Roigton il
616, 618, 628
Co.
iii 440
Buckner p. Pinley
Bnckitaffi-. Vial)
iii. 04
AfTeoo p. BrownjiKc
ii.438
ii. 18
r. Brrton
U. 107
BuckwoTth r. Simpaon
It. 122
P.LQCU
ii. 620
P. Tbirkell It. 8% 38, 49, 60, 128
p.Wylie
BBwlp.l)eBiiH7
U.e24
Bucy p. Pitta Agr. Worki
il, 478
ii. 183
Bndd p. New Tork 1. 391
U, 349, 6901
Bdtb p. TalTwton
iT.76
iii3
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
ii. IM
Bollock 0. Domnltt
iU.48B
p. The State
ii. 18
f. Knox U.20S1 Ir. 418
V. Union Ini. Co.
Iii. 829
iT.278
Bndd-iE*Mte,/tir«
iT. 537
p. Stonea
iT. 200
Buddington v. Bt«wut
iii. 170
v. TMShergi
ii. 4M
Budgett 11. BiDOlngtOD
Iii. 206
V. WiiUami
ii. 631
Buechner v. Colnmbtk Shoe Co.
ii. IBS
V. Wilion
lil. 430
Buehler v. Oalc
Iii. 88
Bullpin r. Clarit
11.164
Buell V. Buckinghun
Buerger t>. Bojd
ii.280
Bulmer k. Hunter
ii. 173
111468
Bulmer. The
iii. 198
Bneiec i. Bueter
fi. 461
Bolted, Ex parte
It. 161
Bufe V. Tomer
ill. 373
L420
Buffalo V. Tro7 & BoetoD a B.
Co.
Bump V. Pratt
it. 4S8
ii. 800
Bumpaa v. Gregory
IT. 482
Buflklo, &c. B. Co. V. LaTsry
i.268
Bnmpni c. Plainer
It. 179
Buffalo Cit7 Bank v. N. W. Int
Co.
Bunbury e. Bunbory
il. 463
iii
270, 381
Bunker o. Coke
i*. 610
Oil
Bnnn u. Markhan
a. 4SB, 447
Co.
ii. 284
V. Riker
iii. 277
Buffalo Steam Eng. Work* v.
Sun
V. Winthrop
It. 216, 466
Mut. In.. Co.
iii. 376
Bunnell v. Stem
a 687. 692
Bnf&lo * N. F. R E. b. Citj of Buf-
Bunten v. Orient M. Ina. Co.
iii. 268
falo
1.464
Bunting V. Hicka
V. Cepingwel
ilL 419. 440
Buffet ». Tni7 & Boatan R. R.
ii. 800.
ii. 87
604
Burbank i>. BniUnk
iT. 608
BufffDgton i>. Day
i. 42»
V. Chapin
ii. 692
iv. 306
■7. Conrad
i. 67
Buflhm o'snttum
iii. 39
V. Dennis
ii.281
U.Green
Ii. 632
B. Payne
!i.42B
B. Hanii
lli. 440
V. PilUbury
It. 480
«.MmT
11.589
V. Rockingham M. F. Ina. Co.
V. StimpMD
<. 262
Hi. 876
Bufkin u. Boyoe
iii. &6
V. Whitney
ii. 286
Butord V. McCormick
Ir. 162
Burbridge o. Manner*
Iii. 102
V. Neely
iu. 69
Bureh f. Spencer
ii. 479
Bneg B. FnDklin
Bn^'f. Buie
Ii. 1S8
ii. 463
IL438
V. Hubbard
It. 98
ii. 426
Borchell v. Claik
It. 468
Bniaion v. Thompwn
ii. 188
D. Slocock
iii. 77
Built V. Dawei
Bnrchett v. Durdant
It. 2U. 221
Bakup V. Valentine
Bulketey «. Welch
ia488
Burckle v. Eckart
iiL34
ii.681
BurdeU i>. Denig
Ii.386
Bulkleye. DerbjPUhingCo.
ii. 281
Burden e. Burien
IU.87
It. 78
B. Coming
iLsae
f. FrotectioD Im. Co.
iU.814
>>. Sheridan
iT.soe
E. Van Wyck
u. 226
W.Thayer
It. 361
Bull B. BliH
m. 128
Burdett, A>
1.9-22
r. ChuTCh
iv. 68
Burdeit B. Abbott
1.236
0. Griewold
It. 461
r. SpUibuTT
Burdick B. BuT^ick
It. 194
r. Harri*
iii. 44
It. 390
». KaMon Bank i.802;
111. 81, 88
U.128
I'. RobinioQ
11. 479
B. Garriek
It. 807
BuUard v. BeU i
302.349
Bordiot V. Murray
Burford (Corp. o^ e. Lenthal
li.6S6
". Briggt iL 164, 174
It. 608
<t.Ranl;u
Ui.88
Surge r. Smith
iT.69
V. Roger WUIiuo* Im. Co.
iU.331
Burger ». Grand B. 4 1. R. C«
ii.S86
V. Saratoga, ftc. Co.
iii. 440
B. Potter
It. 162
Bullen V. Shaip
Iii. 26
Bnrge* v. Mawbey
It. 74
Butler V. Crip.
Bullet f. Banlc of Fenn.
iii. 126
B. Wickham
Iii. 288
Ui. 116
Bnrgeu n. Alliance In*. Co.
Hi. iia
Bullinger v. Mackey
iL873
B. Bulger
iii. 88
Bullion JbE. Bank B. Otto
ii. 494
r. Bur^eii
a. 82, 80H
Bullitt u. Bchribner
iii. 72
B. Coney
ii. 824
Bnltock ». DIUer
Iv.486
B. Equitable Marine In*. Co. ill. 814
„Gooi^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
[Th.-
»|li»lI>.C«»»l«r.dto.]
BniMi >. Falrbuika
iT. 163
Burnet «. BUco
ii. 4U
B. No. Bk. of Kt.
lii. 8fi
p. Mann
U.424
r.Sdignu) '
i. 842
Burnett t>. Caldwell 111. 462
; It. 118
p. ViMlud
ill. lOS
V. Eawpe'a Exr.
p. Eeoilngton Iii
U. 164
v-WhraU iu.50G,G0B; It
«,802.
298,328
803.424
0. KlntuitoD
Ii. 137
BotkIuU c. Howud
11.641
V. HcCImt
iT. 461
Bmibmrt F. Hall
11.239
p.PbaloD
11.860
Bsrioa p. Shsrpe
iii. 210
B. Snyder iU. 26, 62
Bvbuw V. HutcbcMn
It. 194
K. Tale
il. 10
■.TuZuidl
It, 4S8
Bnnibam v. Bsrth
iT. 807
BorUl BMrd. ftc. i>. Thomptot]
iii. 467
p.Bett
iii. 488
r. H'Clun
661,687
V. BoatoQ H. Ini. Co.
111260
iL407
V. Clnndler
ir. 174
BonAB 0. ^TOWDnOfftt
iiL 106
p. KidweU
ii. 461
ihi>ke.U.itorof
11.191
p. HorriueT L 286 ; ii. 80
p. Banker Hill, Ac. Co.
L384
Bnrnbeiiel p. Meld
iiL 76
c. Buike
11. 126
Burnley p. Sterenaon
1.201
>. Dolmnsy
Iii. ill
Burnley E. C. Society v. Csmod
a261
r. HcEmr Hi. M, 106
Burns p. Bums
u. tOl
ii.22
V. Chicago. &£. By. Co,
iL269
E.Hwm
It. 618
p. Daggett
il.491
11.260
p. Grand Bapids & I. B. Co.
1.36
r. Oabom
It. 62
p. Headerlck
iT.370
.. Sooth Butoni B7. Co.
iL608
V. Eauna City, Ac By. Co.
ii.200
:;?Esr,
U.2e9
i.221
p. PouhKin
r.Bowland
ii.260
IiL 86
e. TonieT
11.193
V. SenneU
11.269
». United St«t«
i.2ff7
u.SerreU
1.289
„. Winkle
11.162
Buraaide v. Merrick
iiL 89
BoriLe'i EiUt«, /» m It
]G1, 4se
V. TirilcheU
It. 162
Bukct 0. Boude iiL
472.482
Buron v. Dennian 1
108,801
Boiken «. Whittomore
It! 336
Burr P. Burr
ILlOl
Bmkhrinr p. MntOAl Ace. Aw'n
iii. 865
V. Cowperthwait
u. 866
BiiUMider r. UwUej
iT.4fl7
V. Daryw
u. 866
B»k*p.Bnrki
iT.306
V. Smith
L288
Boileigti p. Cloii«h iT. 270, 816. 335
li. 164
«. Slott
ill. 40
Burrage. /« re
Burrall p. Acker
It. 341
Bnrim p. 8IMIIIKH)
ii. 117
iii. 66
BoricMD p. HdDtfmott
U. 122
V. Bender
It. 46
BnriPT r. BmmU
1L241
v. Jewett
ii. 868
Botiing p. Bead
It. 118
BurriU v. Nahant Bank
11.291
Bnriinpme ». BBiangune
11. 1B4
ill 109
V. FhiUipi
V. Watertowu Bank
11.622
iii. 88
ULaTl
BuiTitt E. SilliDUUi
It. 608
p-Robbini
It. 162
BuTTOush p. Foater
It. 278
It. 4U
iiL 91
Ui. 106
Burroushi p. HouMtonlc B. Co.
0. Sor»ich & W. E. Co.
V. Blchman
Ii. 284
BariinrUm lot. Co. p. Ecnnerir
Hi. 370
It. 480
U,604
ii. 462
11.106
Burrow-GUei Uth. Co. a. Barony
U.373
Bonr. C<de
1.429
Burrows, In n
It. 278
BnnMb^ p. B>iUle
1.209
>.J>;mtno
li. 120
i.I61
p. Sute
ill. 88
Bqr^bT-* Settled BrtatM, In rt
It. 160
Burroi, In re 1
804.831
BoiMiia p. Bodocuucbi Son* & Co.
Bureon p. Huntington
ilL 70
lil.274
Burt V. BrewBta', 4c. Im. Co.
111.831
Bunud p. HaggU
ii.241
:;i3.
11.366
Bnnbr p. BoDett
Bon^l p. Chown
11. 478
11.122
IL878
p. Herroa
It. 805
p. Martin
It. 18S
V. MMchantt' Int. Co.
a. 840
p. H. T. C. B. B.
B.800
V. Newapaper Co.
1L22
BttMn- p. Rkliter
U.S2
V. ntcT
1L467
BuMi p. Nat. Ini. Co.
111.839
P. WiUiMtU
L419
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
BurteDihaw t>. <SIb«t it. 581, 582
Burthe v. Denb i. 2BT
BoTtii, Ex parte i. S22
•,. Buriu iL 96, 116, 130
V. Humboldt Conntr Buik ii. 441
Bnrtoii V. Barton ii. 49
K. CaiTM ii. US, 590
>7. Engiith ill. 206, 240
II, Fuinholt
D. GalveitoD, Ac B. Co.
V. Hintruer
V. Holly
V. Hugfaei
0. luit
V. KofhkonoDK
t>. Finkeitoii
V. Sdterpl
V. Smith
0. Wookey
Barwell v. JkcVson
B. Manderille
Buty a. PhiUpot
w. Pope
Bnr/i Csm
Bu«b7 0. Chwterfield W. Co.
Bnicher «. ScuUy
BoMhinaDii n. St Loni*
Biuell TrimnMi Co. n. Steven*
BwBeld, In nt
Buih, In n
iiL869
ii. £
Ii.4S3
lii. 1S6
Hi. 462
a. 77, 95
iii. 440
ii. 16
n: Alonao, Tbe
u. B^drer
D. Bradley
k! Clark
tr. Cooper
V. Cranfl^
V. Golden
V. Keniucky
111. 116
It. 30
iL461
iii. 87,65
It. 96, 194
iL4eO
It. 171
i.803
U.2
i. 78
i>. United State* 1. 244
p. Whlteharen Tnutees ii
Buihby 0. Munday i. 412 ; Ii
Buihel V. Commonwealth In*. Co. ii
Buahey v. SiuititT iii
Bnahnel] d. Buahnell ir
V. Kenned; i
Buih; Mound v. HiKniotock iii. 432
Bn«k B. Aldam ir. 881
r. Dari* a 496, 546
e. FearoD iii. 854
V. Royal Ezch. A**. Co. iii. 300, 804,
809
Bnai e. Dyer liL 419
Bouard v. LeTeiing U. 101, 102. 106, 107
Bdh; i>. Donaldion iii. 176
Bnater i>. Newkirk IL 349
Bni>ell v. Fuller II '
V. Manhall Ui
Bu*iaTd V, Capel tlL 460, 481
Butchart r. Dre**er lU. 64
Bntcher p. Butcher It, 843
Butchers & DroTen' Bank c. Brown iii. 78
Bnlchen' ft D. 8. Co. k. Lonitrille t
». a. Co. It. 122
Butler B. American Toy Co. iii. 56
Baker It. 510
Ball !L866
Bamei it. 473
Boston & 8. 8. Co. i. 869; iii. 217
n.Breck
il. 240
t. Bnckingham
11.106
V, Butler
ii. 101, 164, 175
B. Chamber*
iLS40
V. Dorman
U. 622
i.843
V. Fitzgerald
It. 62
0. ForbM
iL113
r.Gago
L826
>•. Ga«triU
U.S4
t.. Giznm
It. 819
B. HukeU
lL4TTi tT.438
B. Heane
ii. 606
o.HnettU
iT. 216
V. Mc°Sellan
It. 408
Ui. 182. 183
B. Haple*
ii.620
r.Morgui
iiL476
«. Murray
iii. 174
K. Paige
ii. 344
B. Palmer
1466,465
... Peck
iii. 440
J. 410
■>. Richardion
lii. 466
V. BockweU
1.413
B. Shaw
iL366
r. Stcckel
il.S66
0. Stoddard
iL629
V. 8tntt«i
It. 637
p.Thoro»on
a 494
i».46
V. Trnitee*
It. 608
». Van Wyck
ii. 629
f. Week*
It. 306
Butler'* Appeal
1L490
Butler** Ca*e
11.826
Butler"* TnMt*. In r«
U. ISS
Butler & Baker** Caae
iT. 68, 464, 455
Butler SaTingi Bank o
Oiborae iii 83
Butt 0. Bachel
iii.S87
Butterbangb'. Appeal
iv. 75
Bntterfldd v. Byron
iL466
B. Forre*t«r
iU.230
V. Reed iii. 440, 449 ; Ir. 303, 283
Batterwonli i.. Crawford lii. 419
«, Hoe
11.866
w. U Deipencer
lii. 97
Bntterworth'i CaMi
iL49
Button B. Am. H. A. An'n lii. 365
V. Thomptoo
ilL 186, 188, 189
Bntt* «. Andrew*
It. 451
B. Cnthbertton
a 291
... Penny
a24B
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABBS.
m« iBUifau] pHM ■» ntecnd to.]
Botti O.Wood
Ii.280
C«hm r. Halt
a 661
B«U r. No. P«c E. Ca
1268
C«hn u. Hewiey
a 843
Bab c. HiMcMiiie
i. M2, 419
V. Hofflnfto Houm
a 366
Baitoo V. Uiter
U. 487, 490
C»hoone B. M. Co. r. Rubber, &c. H.
..Snee
m.ia9
Co.
ii.8«e
Bvby r. Phonbl Iw. Ca
iii.29e
Cahiuac u. Samini
iii. m
Buck E. Bunck
ij.Vi
CaU B. Papayam (The Amall*) iii. 217
BianU r. Laconl* Muint
Co. ii. 260
Cailiffp. DanTera
a. 666, 691
Bjun r. Bickfbrd
iv. 870
Cain f . McHiroe
It. 449
Br«d r. HolmM
iL482
Gaines v. Marley
il. 438
"-SC
i. 303
Curd V. Slme
il. 878, 880
iy.806
Cairnea v. Blnckei
a 616
». F»rm«.' tw. Co.
lii.2B2
Cainia v. Chabert
ir. 78
-.In.. Co.
iiL87e
Cairo, The
111.248
BiinctoD V. «mpMn
11.629
Cairo, *c. R. Co. r. BroToort i. 842 ;
BjoSn r. Firderick
li. 160
m.**i>
Brimm V. Hunter
Ul. 109
i>. Sterena
ia440
Brni >. H&ll
1U.S8
C. & St L. R. R. Ca
0. Wisgina
r. SorlM
fv. 624
FefTy Co.
IT. lis
BjiBB, Export*
1*02; 11.467
Caiiler o. Ecclea
11.266
>.Fni^
It. 208
Calaliao v. Babcock
a 646
I. Hcmn
i. 89
CaUis ». Marahfleld
ii.61
r. Kanua dtr.ftc B
Co. it 269
Pan Pell H. 620
I. Bcbiller
Ui. 226
CalcraftB. Roebuck
11.637
>. Vu HoeMn
u. 222, 228
E. ThonipMD
iii. 448
V. Vu TiBnhoToi
ii. 477
Calcutte & B. & N. Co. >
De Mattoi
Bjrne* n. Clkrk
il.l92
ii.402
BjwcU CMtUi, Tba
111281
Caldecolt n. Brown
It. 78, 197
Catder «. BuU
L 888, 408, 409
r. DobeU
11.629
C C. TiowniiioB, The
L870
E. Korby
i. 419
C-& Butler, The
ilL248
Cald«roD o. AllM B. Co.
Ui.207
OMOtn ». HoDt;
i», 178
Caldoell D. BaU
111.208
Ciben r. Cuopb^
C>biwM r. Hah^
a 646
o. Brown
11.260
It. 466
V. CMtidy
m. 97,98
CiUe I. Alvoid
11.34
l:^"
ai. 446
V Foley
il. 461
li. 662
CllMt .. Cbfirtto
a 490
». Harding
a 420
V. If cMMWr
i. 804
>. Klrkpatrick
iv. 472
CibMB>iik<..BaMeU
iii.106
r. IJeber
ias7
r. WunST
iil. 106
>>. Neeley
iv. 370
C»lmn.£xparte
CMhipool, iG
I. 89, 412
0. Renfrew
a 164; ia44
iii. 176. 232
B. Seolt
111.44
Crf.™i ,. CoUin.
11. 491
». Tntt
a 681
Culdick 0. SkidiDim
ilL89
Caledonia, The L 16, 86 ; iil. 206, 207
Cide V. Da*U
It. 613
Caledonia Ry. Co. v. N
Britlah Ry.
CMWl«.P»lmCT
It. 267
Co.
1.462
ii. 880
Calhoun V. Copti*
iv. 870
Ctdmu t. Peter
It. 186
B. Idnaui
i. 897
Cidogno-EwHt
V. HilUrd
11. 292
.. Eennett a «0, 617, 518. 628
CatifoTnia d. Central Fadflc R. Co. i. 268,
Cidoiu. 4 H«a FUco BtUte, /» «
439; u. S32
It. 473
e. So. Pac. Ry. Co.
California F. S. Co. i>. I
L298
ia440
npTOTed FIk
r. TindaU
ill. 477
Syrup Co.
a 386
Cidy t. Conger
ia461
a 366
V. Schults
a 81)6
CaMomla In». Co. v. Union Comprew
Cifln >. Adridn
Calber .. Woodin
liL 48, 60, 61
Co.
ai. 369, 370, 376
ia210
Catither ■>. Forbei
i».307
11.468
Calkina e. Lockwood
ii.&81
Cioer ». Luiing
It. 461
B. HunieU
ir. 163
ClglBE.Luo
m.8i
D. State
a 277
CKwin c. BaeiUa
ir. 306
CaU D. Barker
It. 364
CAiU..C»)>m
a 104
V. Ferktni
a. 161, 164
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABES,
CftUD.Ward
u. IQS
Camp «. WUtmu
ill. 424
C»U>ghui p. Ajlett
iiL9e
Camp's Appeal
if. 448
B.Mjeri
iLSTS
CampaoarTi.. Woodbus
U. 646
Calkhan v. Buri. & Ho. B. B. B. U. 260
Campau d. Campan
It. 870
u. CalUhui
1400
o. Detroit
iU.440
V. Finl N.L Butk
iii. 7B
Campbell u. Anio) ir
119. 120
0. KeDtucky Buk
iii. 106
£, Barry
U. 601
CalUune d. Campbell
ii. 42S
0. Brai^h
It. 460
CidiEiway f. Orient Idi. Co.
iii.2T2
». Browdw
It. 606
CftUen r. JuDGtion City
i. 821
0. Brown
ii. 494
^ V. Thompioii
ii. 622, 626
e. Butler
iU.e8,«0
i. 473
V. Campbell
ii. 361
o.Mmh
11339
V. Charter Oak Ina. Co.
iii. 376
CaUicot. Jn rt
i. 301
V. Colhoun
Ui. 28
ClUghftn, /« «
ii.2»
t>. Crampton
iLSe, 98
Calliiher k. BiK^fbhein
11.493
«. Deartwni
iT.143
C»llo w. Brouncker
IL269
e. Fleming
ii.480
CaUoDell u. Brlgg*
ii.466
B. Floyd
ULOS
CaUow V. Callow
ii. 162
V. Fottw Ah^
iT. 819
V. Lawrence
iii. 91
o.HaU
1.178
Calmady d. Calmady
iT.S64
r. Harding
v. HaTerOU
It. 282
Calvert IP. Oordon
iiL124
ii. 866
CalTin'i Caie i. ITS, 478, i87 ; ii. 39, 42,
». Hoff
111.81
60, M, 66
r. Holt
1.891
Calje'i Caw , iL 661, 692,
598, 696, 696,
v. Holyland
It. 198
697
p. Hooper
D. Hnr^
ii.461
Caln»o,The
iii 246
iL488
Camanche, The
iii. 246
V. Johnwn
It. 336
Cambefort i: Chapman
iii. 64
iii. 80
Cambrian Mining Co., In rt
Iv. 449
B. Kama* Ci^
It. 508
Cambridge, The
iii. 196
V. Leach i». m
108. 619
Cambridge v. AndartoD
iii. 320
i>. Mackay
ii. 194
Cunbridge S. Bank r. Hyde
iu. 60
i>. Macomb
iT. 162
Camden v. Andenon
iii. 130, 147
V. Heesir
iii. 437
V. McKoy
iii. 69
Camden Co. v. Borke
iL609
ii
402,690
Camden&A.B.Co.».Ha7-«
UR-Co.
D. Heaier
It! 871
ii. BOO
V. Hollett
iU. 65
Camden lud Co. i>. Lippinc
ott U. 427
^;H."^iL.Ii*Co. lU
It. 62, 72
Camden R. E. Co. «. Belknmi iL SOI, 606
282,369
Camellia, The
iii. 248
». PeoD. L. In». Co.
It! 488
CunelD V. Britten
111.266
e. Read
i. 299
Cameron u. Baker
!i. 216
D. RichardtoD
lil. 277
... Chicago, ic Ry. Co.
It. 369
V. Rtckardi
iii. 385
». Hodgea
i.S44
0. Shieldt
iiL4at
». Irwin
W.194
«. Bmith
iii. 443
u. Monnt
11.479
ii. 22
«. Nyatrom
U.26e
0. Sukas
ii. 241
/■ .* U. 280
c. StelD iU. 148. 167
Camidge v. AUenby
iU.83
V. United State*
1.397
CamiUe. /n n
ii.71
p. Varoey
iii. 109
0. Couch
L36e
... Walker
It. 436
Cam mack x. Jobnton
Ui. 06
V. Wilton
iii. 445
Co. iti. 800
Campden Charitlea, h rt
ir. 608
Cammeil d. Sewetl
iii. 174
Canada, The ii
170.206
Cunmer t>. Harriion
iii. 108
Canada S. Co. «. Britiah Ac Am'
itL260
Camp./»™
a 866
Canada Southern K. R Co. o.
Geb-
It. 806
hart
iL407
D. Camp
ii. 681
Canadian Baok *. McCrea
iLses
V. Coze
It. 184
Canal AppmlMra r. The People
i. 178;
0. Gnuit
m. 68,65
iii. 427
r. Scott iii. 4M,468; W. 122
Canal Bank o Bank of Albany
iii. 86,
D. Stark
It. 610, 61S
86,90
V. W. U. TeL Co.
iL611
r.Cox
rem
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Onl BMt E. H. UcClMMiieT
1.369
Carew c. Cacew
U.98
a»l Qx >. BaOnwd Ca i.
884; ii.312,'
a 196. 416
ill 402
I.. Hon.ton Ix. By. cIj.
i.380:
People
It. 186
Iil.429,434
t..Rae
m.424
Cubr 1. Porter
iT. 8*
iii. 189
Cudeer. Dmi«
il. 866
Car Float No. 1$ L 869 : ii. 269
>. W B«lee of Cotton
iii. 248
Cargill e. Bower
ii.280
Cudltr ». Lnutbrd
iv. 261
Cargo. (SMCapella,GBlain, &cl
C11UI7 r. CKmpbeU
B. Erie Bobber Ca
IT. 278
Cargo ex Argoa
Iii. 228
ii. 284
Cargo tx Laerte*
ia 206, 248
Cinfleld c. B. & 0. R. a Co.
ii.608
Cargo ex Sarpedon
Cargo » Schiller
iii. 248
r. HlnnMpolu, &a Am'd
CtDbMm„.nE\
iT.148
iii. 248
iv.467
Cargo ex Ulyiiei
iii. 248
Cun..C«i)n
iL195
Cargo tx WooauDg
Cargo of Bark Edw^*
Carbart v. Anbum
iii. 248
I. WilUoa
ii. 490
iii. 348
(^lUHiii ■. Farmer
ii.a41
iii. 441
Cuntn a. Bryce
iL 486. 468
Carib Prince, The
iii. 207
r.UMban
iU. 173
Carillo c. Bank of U. 8.
iii. 97
CuDiitgWD f. NatuU
ii.866
Cariabrook, The
iii. 206
CUDOD. A>
L87
CarletoD u. Bickfoid
Iii. ae, 38
>. N«w Orleaoi
L439
i. 262
c. United SUtes
ii.Sl
V. Davia
iii. 182
o.'TillmT*
iii. 419
«. LeightoB
Ir. 144, 468
Cuteiburr, Anfablihop of, 0.
Tappen
V. Somner
iL497
il.420
Carlej 0. Vance
iii. 97
Cu^DD London Am- Co.
iii. 296, 296
Cart XV., The
iii. 232
Oniliil r. Tillman
i. 891. 489
Cari Onataf, The
ill. 282
C!uloi>,TbB
iii. 138, 196
Carli u. Stillwater B. B. Co
iLS40
Omj ». Pattoo
ii. 148
CarliU V. CarboUc Smoke
Ball Co.
CapadoN V. Codnor
iii. 147
ii
477; 1U.8T6
CqMlariaUB. h r.
ii.480
Carlin u. Chappel
Carlirie «. BnrW
iU.4ST
Cape fat Bulk ». Stinemeti
iii. 94
ii889
C^ Packet, The
Ui.248
u. Cooper
IiL440,446
C^ebaKx. OruileHIIb
iii 207
■>. WUbart
11.684
Capebaan >. Seaboard, kc. Rj
Co. iLeos
iiL79
C$fti V. Girdkr
i».89
CmU, Ex parte
1.299
..Powell
U. 149
Carlo Alberto, The
i. 166
.. Slmi' Ship C. Ca
ii.490
Carlon ■. Ireland
iii. 82
Capdla,Tbe
iii. 248
Carloa o. Analey
iT. 430
Capdla.Ca.SOer
ia.248
Carlotta, The 1. 112
i iit 217, 247
Capes p. PedtlMm
ii.»48
Cariabad v. Kutnow
ii. 366
.. WaabtngtoD Ina. Co.
B. Tibbetti
ii.366
Capertoav.IUt
W. 461
Cariaon v. WhiterKn
Hi. 81
Cuiial Bank >. Bamea Comity School
Carlton v. Bokeo
li.36«
I^trii:tNo.26
1.326
V. Leighton
ii.400
Caplinger p. Stokea
11.280
Carlyon v. LoTerlng
Carmicliael 0. BrwUe
iii. 446
Cwer * Co. r. Wallace Broe. ML 208
iii. 248
C^pi V. Halting! F. Co.
iI.27T
V. Browder
ii. 42S
Cbppar..H.m.
U.487
D. Greer
iii. 26
It. 148
r. Hughe*
il. 101
..Capron
iT.641
r. UTerpool S. S. M. 1 Aaa'n
B. Porter
ii.620
ill. 260
Caproni V. Alberti
ii. 378
cRay
IL 481. 434
Cfl»taia Qorfon, Caae of
iT. 427
B. Tnuteea of School Unda ii 284
Cartmr g. WUlii
Ui. 419, 446
Carmlehet r. Latimer
ii.866
Ca^d<^HiIle
iii. 206
Caman v. Bowlet
iL383
/ Hope
liL162
Came ». Long
iT.288
OardeU i. HcNiel
iii. m
Carnegie n. MorriKW liL 84 : it. 244
CarduMl v. Hadler
iT.467
Caniea ». Polk
It. 62
iv. 324
Carney v. Kain
It. 2S4, 637
C»dwell.Ai
ii. 226
Caraochan v. Qoold
Ii. 481
CMiweU T. Ameticau BrMge Co. i. 439
Camwrlght v. Qray
Ui. 76
t. Sprigs
iT.448
Carolina, The
L60
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Cwolini C. E. Co. V. MoCwkiU
U. 836
Canick D. Lamu L 322
iii. 427
C»roliM N»t. Bank v. Wdlwe
liLlOfi.
Carrico p. Weat Va. &o. By. Co.
U.260
loe
Carrier Dove, The
iii. 248
Caroline. The L ISO. 15S
CairlKV. Dee
HL448
Caroline Hillw, The
liL207
Carriger t>. Whitdngton
f.Oaddin
a.$4«
CaroUne WOnuww, The
L102
iietts
Caroloi, The
111.176
It. 822, 448
Csron V. Boaton & A. B. Co.
U. 260
V. Potter
It. 461
Carondelet, The
1.128
r. The HerchanU' Ins. Co.
i.m
Carothen k. Bicfaarda
tiLSe
Carrftt v. Beal & P. A.Ca
IT. 17»
Carpenter b. Am. loa. Co.
lii. 282
Carrol v. M'Doooti^
iL128
r. Bailey
It. 473
Carroll, The
iii 281
K.BeU
ir. 618
Camril r. Blenoow
it 166
I'. BoUer
It. 261
t.. Boat^n M. In* Co.
iii. 281
v. Carpeoter'a Exec
it 173
V. Charter Oak Ina. Co.
iii.87G
V. Pint Pariah in Sutton
iT. 161
D. Granite Man. Co.
It. 408
V. German Am. Ini. Co.
iii. 876
D. Hay ward
ii6IS
V. Graham
11.492
r.Lee
11162
I: MclS^glin
ir, IM
n. Sweet
iiL 88
iii. Ill
B. Upton
lii. 106
V. Mexican N. R. Co.
U.26G
ir. 162
c.Oaks
iiL 89
Carroll Conn^ o. Smith
i.842
B. Proridence Waah. Ina.
Co.
11480
lii. 371
876, 376
Carron Park, The
iii. 234
r.Rodgeia
li.461
Carmthot v. Sydebotham
ill
176. 328
r. Schooner Emma Johnaon
i. 86S
e. Weat
iii. 91
V. Smith IL 866
; IT. 132
Carun v. Watta
ii.266
r.8otae
U.488
Caraley i.. White
IU. 230
V. United Statei
i.297
Caiaon ». Blakey
IT. 148
F. Walker
11.343
B.Blaier
IiL 418, 480
0. Wliitman
li.216
B. Canon
ii. 107
Carpenter'a Caae
lii. 376
V. Dnnham
,67,326
Carpenter 8. H. Co. e>. Searle
U.B06
v.Pnh.
It. 28
Carper v. Fitiger^
i.SOO
i>. Jeraey Ctty Ina. Co.
iii
282,376
Carr, ExpaaU
ii.489
V. UcCaslia
It. 468
11.492
B. Marine Ina. Co.
iii. 336
V. Aakew
ii.22«
r. Murray
ii. 176
v. Bedford
It. 637
■>. SteTen*
ii. 441
V. BenMD
iii.4S2
Carataira b. Taylor
It. 110
t>. Carr
11.198
Carter v. Bailey
il. S73
V. Coke
1.449
B. Bamadiaton
It. 267
V. Dooler
It. 471
B. Board of Education
It. 637
D.Pifc
1.S84
B. Boehm U. 487
iii
282,283
0. Green
It. 277
V. Bradley
iii
106,106
F. Herts
iii. 44
B. Buriey ill. 04,
106
i It. 462
». Hood
H.22
B. Carter U. 106, 47
; iii. 87.40:
».Boxle
It. 464
It. 179
V. Jeannerett
It. 277
V. Crawley
ii. 422
■>. Living
It. 181
r-Dale
It. 29
r.Low^
iT. 480
V. Dean & Chapter of Ely
ii. 289
■>. MoDteflore
ill. 282
B. Flower
iU
109. 110
B. Natl. SecnHtT BMik
11.463
B. Gibaon
trlsoe
«. Porter U. 229, 277, 540
B. Goodln
iT.4«
r. Rowland
iii. 89
B. GraTOi
U.626
». Security Ini. Co.
ill. 831
c. Grimahaw
U. 441
e. Stale i. S
; i). 238
B. Hammet
It. 96
V. Taylor a 136, 148, 162
B. Holahan
It. 146
tp. United Sutea
i.297
>. Howe Hm^iIm Co.
11.284
V. Wallace
lii. 404
t. Humboldt F. Ini. Co.
iii. 876
Carr-i Truata. In rr
iii. 138
t.. Jame*
iT. 166
Carradine b. C»OTadiDe
ii.438
V. Kalfna
IiL 421
f. Collin*
11.438
IT. 306
Carrell r. F. & M. Bank
i. 412
B. Morcot lii 410. 412. 413
Carrere d. Union Ini. Co.
iU.39a
B. Palmer
11.483
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ChrtR'>.R«d«ih
r.Kockett
>. RoantTM
a-Silber
B. Tyler
t>. Union Bue
V. United Ina. Co.
r. Wake
I. Whaller
I.White
t. WiiUrd
t. Wingud
ClTteret r. PsKhal
Cuthige Bank n. JuxH»
Ctnright B. Pultner
Cinwright r. Qieene
Cmtlien v. Cuotbai*
I. Hamphier
Ctna r. JacksoD
I. Smith
Cwtick r. Vickerj
Cmardine v. Canrwdlna W. 2M
Qu7<> Bertie 11246; ir. 130
c. Caij ii. 34, 135
E. Conrtenaj iii. 116
>. Curtis i. iM
r. Gramui ii. 460
V. HotaiUng iL 484. 497. 614
I. RawMiD IT. 142
r. Wliile UL 79, 163
r. Whitner ii 836
Cuj Uhnij B. BUm L 413
Carr-Lombard L. Co. d. Tbomaa ii. 286
C*t7 MannC Co. d. Do HaTen it. 3e6
CMbame r. Scarfe it. 31, 46, 74. 160
Cuco XnL Bank d. Shaw iU, 106
Cate c. BoQghlon il. 461
iii. 96
It. 612
ii. 603
iv. 276
iii. 94
Iii. 261
It. 161
iii. 63
Ir. 66
It. 194
It. 261
iT. 370
ii. 132
iii. 117
11696
1L164
1*. 276
It. 275
ii.407
i.357
U. 567
ii. 470
H jmrvfsnvd to.]
Cash V. Kennion
Caahill f. Wright
Cashman v, Henijr
Caiker o. Brewer
Caakey d. Brewer
Caskie v. Webiter
Cask* ol Rice (103)
Ca» D. Btwtoa & L. B.
Cauanujor i>. Strode
CasM MtuiCtitna v. FImbdIz Ins. Co.
Cat«el B. DowB
CaiMll V. Cooke
Caueli D. Stewart
CHssIds]' V. H'Keaiie
Cauid; D. Bei&at Banking Co.
n. Brookljn Dailf Eagle
n. Hune CeatriJ & Co.
V. SnUiTan
Casaillj ■>. Rhode*
Delanj
It. 166
It. 184
U. 149
>. Clark
ii. 81
i. a46
B. UaTiiJion Iii. S32. 33.1
B. Tloaijau i. 303
B. Parier iii. 461
r. Green It. 181
c Haight It. 468
B. Hartlocd F. Ina. Co. fH. 302, ST6
nUinot IT. 110
B. Horria iii. 109
B. Pbelpa iL 441
B.Seger iL494; iii. 87
B. Temn 1. 297, 869
B-ThompMn Ii. 389
B. Wtnthip ii. 531
B.W«ole7 ' ""'
Caaion r. Dade
Caatel e. Trechman iii! 206
Caatellaio v. Frealon lU. 274, 334. 376
c. ThompMin iii. 248
Caatello o.City Bank of A. il. 683
Coatilia, The iii. 187
Caitinni. /n n i. 37
Ca«lle B. Bollard iU. 46
e. Bnrditt It, 95
p. Swocder
Caatle'i CMe
Cutlegate, The
Caston V. Caiton
Caitor B. Aiclei
Castrique v, Imrle
Castro p. De Uriarte
Caawall, Ex parte
D. St«le
p. Wendell
Caswell B. Hazard
Cate B. DeTon, 4c. Ca
Cates B. Allen
D. Wadlington
Catesby'i Caae
Catharina EKubeth, Th«
Cathcart v. Robinson
Cathell 0. Goodwin
Catherine, The
r. DickiOBOQ
Catherine Chalmers, The
Catherwood b. Caslon
ii. 373
li.441
iii. 418, 431
IT. 96
i. 167
It. 463, 464
iU. 110
-. Gapet
Case UaBiit. Co. v. Soman
ii. !
ii. 84
ii. 87
i. 342
ii. 277
I. 42, 157,
Catholic Church b. Tohbein
Catlett E. PaciQc Ins. Co.
846; 111.146,258,296
Catlin V. Eagle Bank of New Haven
ii. 316, 632
B. Haddoz U. 286
v. Hayden It. 119
V. Valentine iii. 448
B. Ware W. 69, 60, 4^
)vGooi^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
CalliiiE s. KiDg IL 4M ; W. 461
Cato r. Irving iij. 13B, 228
D. Tbompion it. 461
Catoir v, WBttenon ii. 4fil
CkCon D. CatoD ii TS, 511
Catron d. Tenii. Ini. Co. iii. 2S3
CaUkUl Bank v. Gray iii. 26
Catterall n. BiDdle ii. 622, 626
CaCtlin V. Brown It. 206, 2S3
CaqjoUe V. Feirif ii. 67
Caoley u. Lawaon It. 66
Caulfleld v. MaKOire ir. 76
Caulkini v. Wliialer iii. 7S
Cauaber v. Wharton tii. SB
Caranagh v. BoatoQ 0. 274
CaTanaugh v. CaBaelmaa IL 494
Care v. CnlU UL 419 ; i*. 487
I'. HutiDga U. 494
V. Holfori i*. 630
u Mackende it. 451
CaveU D. Prince ii, 76
CaTenuh v. Sach Ii. 600
Caw B. Bob«TUon it. 608
Cawler f. Nat. B. A. Am'q iii. 378
Cayuga, The 1. 369
Cayuga v. CoDiily Bank lit 102
Cazalet v. St. Barbe ilL SIS
Ctiaaaa n. Cazaua It. 418
Cue B. Baltimore Iiu. Co. iii.
r. Beillr Ul.
Caset V. Field U
Cecil D. Butcher It
C«dl Nat. Bank v. Thnrbw ii
Cedar Fall* u. Wallac* fU. 109
Cella, The Ui. 170
CeUamare'* Caae, (Prince)
Celluloid M^. Co. 0. Cellonita Hanuf .
Co.
). Qoodyear, Ac. Co.
cBead
Celt. The
Celtic King, The
i. 802
iii, 230
„ iii. 138
Center n. American Int. Co. Iii. S80
Central Bank, Ex parit iii. 33
i<. Hammett iii. 79
Central Branch R, R. Co. b. Friti ii. 343
Central City SaTingt Bank v. Walker
iii. 26
Central Land Co. v. Laidley i. 41.1
Ceetral L. & E. Co. tr. Moore ii. 600
Central Nat. Bank d. Adame iii. 106
V. Frye iii- 41, 64
Central Faeiflc B, Co. ir. United Sutei
[.207
Central Pai^i B. Church v. Patl«rwin
iT. IIB
Central R. & B. Co. v. Qolden iL 1B6
Central R. Co.
Central R. R. B. Co. o. Maoon ii. 300
Central R. 8. Co. d. Cnahntan ii. 467
Central Saringa Bank v. Richaidi iii 86
■ ■renftmd Ce.]
Central Trans, Co. v. Fnllman'* P. 0.
Co. ii. 274. 30O
Central Tnut Co. r. Eaat Tenn. Ac
Rjr. Co. i. 342
o. Gate City By. Co. It. 181
B. HcGeorge i. 302
V. SaTano^ & W. R. Co. iiL 206
B. Texai & SL L. Ry. Co. it. 260
V. Wabaih, &c. Ry. Co. ii. 661,608
Central U. T. Co. s. Bradbury iL 011
Central Vt. R. Co. v. Boper U. 808
Central Wbarf p. India Wharf iiL 4ZI
Centre & K. T. Road v. M'Conaby
iL ais
Centurion, The L 8dS; iiL 193
Cerro Gordo, Tlie iii. 17B
_ . _ _ ^
lit 188,220
Certain Toni of Coal iiL 200
Cerreny e. Chicago D. N. Co. IL 16
Ceiiill i>. Sute iU.42B
Chace v. Chapla It. 306
Chadboume v. WiUlanu U. 164
Cliaddock d. Flummer ii. 196
Chadook o. Cowley It. 201, 276. 277
Chadiey v. Harriion iii. 37
Chadwick n. Moore i. 419
11. Trower iii. 44S
Chae Chan Fii^, In n ii. 89
V. United Butea L 284 ; U. 39
Cbaflep. Purdy 11.687 -
V. Watte iL 168
Chafifee f. Baptiit U. C. It. 614, 616
e. Boiton Belting Ca ii. 366
c. Cattaraugtu Co. Mnt In*. Co.
iiL 282
Chaffln B. HuU It. 306, 871
Chaffraii e. Lafltte iii. 26
Chalk V. Deacon ii. 181
Chalkley v. Richmond iii. 440
Challefoux v. Ducharme It. 370
Challender ir. Boyle ii 366
ChallU V. Doe ir, 283
ChalliM D. McCrum ii. 479
Chalmer a. Bradley It. 187, 311
Chalmen, Ex pane il, 646
0, Lanion iii 92
Chamberlain n. Crane It. 299
0. Dow Ui. 68
u. Donlon It. 108
17, EnSeld iiL 432
e. Gorham It. 44
V. MUw. & Mill. B. R. U. 260
V. Pettit Iii 207
V. Walker Iii. 87
V. Ward UL 282
V. Weatem T. Co. UL 217
f. Yonng iii. 78
Chamberlain of London'a Caae ii. 278
Chamberlin v. Chandler L 360, 364 :
iii. 160, 188
Chamberlyn v. Delarive iii. 83
Cbamben v. Baldwin U. 260
V. BedeU It. 118
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
ChMPben V. CbMnben
a 100, 182
Chapman v. Fruer
Ui.841
r. Crebbe
ii. 176
V. Great We>lern Hy. Co.
ii. 600
p. Filkuer
ii. 209
f. Holding
iT.448
«. Fon-y
Hi.
421, 433
17. Holmei
It. 471
IT. Griffith*
ii. 470
.. Hoakini iiL417,427
r. Kinghmm
It. 101
D. Hughei
iiL 40
r. ManL-hester & M.
K.Co.
ii. 800
17. Keane
ULioa
V. Spencer
r. rVlane
ii. 441
r. KimbaU
iii. 427
It. 327
«.Koop.
iii. 65
r. Union N»t. Bkok
v. Lathrop
li.496
Clumpaiit K. lUlMlkg^
ii. 460
V. Lipecombe
iii. 107
a»n.Kon,The
i889
ill. 248
r.Long
It. 468
Chimpioa, In n
IT. 306
f.HiUer
iii. 178
r.'Bo.t.ick
ill. 26
f.Pingiee
iT. m
ii. 611
ii.461
r! Riiibv
ii.483
r. Rockford In*. Co.
iii. 87S
Cbtmpl-lD c. Lardn
Cbunplin ». Butler
il 401
0. Schroeder
iT.88
iiL 134
V. Tanner
iT. 162
r. Champlin
iLlTe
ir. 306
It. 116
D. Pendleton
iii. 434
r. Tonoer
i». 105
I. Rowley
ii. 608
r. WiJloB
ill. 285
ClumpneT e>. Blanchard
u. 438
B. White
iii. 68
iii. 231
.7. Wight
Chapman D. t W. Co. v. Ftut
W. In>. Co.
iii. 76
Cbincellor v. PMIlipi
il. 623
idence
ChUMleloT r. Lopoi
CtaaDdleTtf. Beldan
ii.
479, 490
iii. 248
iii. 221
i.849
ii.260
Chappel D. Comfort
iii. 207
■.DeGnff
ii.3a6
r. Fulton
ii. 546
B. Brockway
11.406
r. Guniw
iii. 860
B. Brown
ii. 41S
*. GrietM
iii. 186
B. Orifflth
iU. 63
r-Pocock
It. 336
17. New York, to. B. Co.
iii. 419
V. SaDger
U.451
B. Ptirday
ii. 879
.. Sim^iu
il.286
V. United SutM
i.207
E. Worcester MnL In*. Go.
iii, 876
Chappell'i Oooda
IT. 637
CbuHlleM r. Price
ii. 854
Chappie B. Cooper
ii. 240
Chuida>.The
iii. 164
Chapron e. Caisaday
iT. 437
Chuidoi r. Talbot
ii. 188
Chapaky u. Wood
11.193
•^SJif^
It- 508
Chardon b. Colder
ill 60
11886
Charkirli, The
1.297
Chuxnne v. Fowler
Ui. 108
Charlemont v. Bpenoer
It. 606
Chuier 0. Hopkiu
ii479
Chartei, The
iii. 248
Cbiidn «. Crow
It. 203
Charlei t7. Bnrke
iT.3S6
r. Brawo
tt4e
; iii. 24
V. Charlee
iT.6e
c Fcllowe*
iii. 888
17. Dubou
iv. 438
p. Feny
i.264
17. HBBtedt
ii. 241
t.Hill
It. 57
17. Manden
ui, 01
■. Suliool Diitrict
ii. 280
17. Patch
IT. 466
r. Vt. & Mua. R. R.
iii. 8»
Charlea Amelia, The iU. 174, 232
>. WtUer
1.395
Cliarles Carter, The
iii. 175
Chiplet r. Bnuuwick B<i
K. SOC.
u. eui
Cbarlei Oreeo'i Son* v. 8a1a«
iL42
Cbiplin B. Cbaplln
It. 18, 31, 82, 44
Ch»rle> HlTer Bridge p. Warreo
r. Roger.
ii. 502
Bridge 1.466,460; ii. 277, 339; iii.
Cb«pline v. Conaot
iii, 25
458,459
ChinnaD, The
i. 123
Charleaton (City Conndl of) tp
Price
ChapmiD B. AUea
Hi. no
iii. 472
It. 62
Charlock b. Preel
ii.260
F. Biigi
11.264
Charlotta, The
iii. 246
c. BliiiUl
It. 247
Charlotte, The
iii. 248
p Bllnen
It. 284
Charlotte Cliriatine, The
1.140
i.260
Charlolle &c. R. Co. ... Qibbe.
.891;
r cCp^ U
4SDiiT
46,208
il. 274
V. CopeUnd
iii. 440
Oiarlnlle Vanderbill, The
iii. 2
>, Dnraot
ilLl»
Charlum, Tlie
iii. 170
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Ch«rltoo'» Owe
i.2S6
ChaTany r. Van Sornmer
ilLSl
ChwnMD E. Chwinaii
It. 680
ChaTasse. Ex pant
Ll42
11645
Chawner'a Will, He
ir. 147
Chtrpiot V. Sinraon
ir. 461
Chaioomas v. Edwardi
iii. 42
ii. 100
Cheap B. Cramond Iii.
27, 33, 34
Charter a. Charter
IT. 637
Cheavin v. Walker
ii. 386
11.649;
Cheeney v. Ocean 8. S. Co.
iL 269
lU. 79
Cheese e. LoTejoy
ir. 682
ir. 870
London, A China o. Dickion Ui. 91, 102
Iii. 124
Charlien A Q. Co. v. Waten
ii.260
Chartrei i>. Cairna
iL636
iii. 248
Chaie, Re
i. 244
Cheerer p. CUrk
ii.634
V. Abbott
ir. 162
V. North
iT.532
V. Alley
It. 02
e.WU.i>n 1262:11.117
V. Alliance Ini. Co.
ill. 270
Cheltenham & Swansea Railway Car-
riage & Wwon Co., in re
i.80O
U. 322,360
Chemical Nat. Bank n. Wagner
ii.300:
V. CurtU
U. 2Sl
ill. 81
v-Dening
iii. 31
Chenery r. StOTons
iT.299
V. Denny
ii. 492
Cheney a. Arnold
ii. 87
V. Eagle Ini. Co.
m. 314
V. Duke
ii. 466
■>. HamiltMi Ids. Ca
Ui.282
B. Newberry
' ir. 66
c. Hoiton
ii. 441
u. Watkios ir. 466. 494
V. Kerr Salt Co.
iii. 440
Chennell, in re
ir.807
t>. Kittr«dge
iT. 616
Chenowith v. ChamherUin
iii. 94
It. 421, 536
Clierokee, The
LlOl
p. McLean
iii. 166
Cherokee Nation u. Georgia
i. 2a7:
f. Herrmiack Buk
U. 274
ill. 381
t..Peok
iT. 161, 162
V. Southern Kansas Ry.Co.
i.268
r. Feckham
It. 891
Cherokee Tob«!co. The i
284.287
p. Perley
It. 306
Cherry i^. C<donial Bank of Austra-
V. Phillip.
ii. 164
lula
ii.632
B. Redding
ii448
r. Gre«ne
iT. 319
!>. Sheldon a M. Co.
i.302
V. Smith
ii. 465
D. SIlTentone
iii. 440
I'. Stein
iii. 448
K. Sutton Manof. Co.
iii. 432
». Strong
iii. 37
V. Tacoma Box Co.
ii.S4S
106,321
0. Tuttle
ii, 16
1:297
V. United State*
L 268, 299
D. White
1.322
u. Van Meter
i»: 143
C. & 0. Canal Co. v. Blair
iii. 115
V. Wareaw W. Co.
iii. 440
il. 467
V. Waihbuin
a 866, 690
t., Pingree
Cheshire, The
iii 468
V. W, U. TeL Co.
U. 611
L SO, 148
V. Weatmore
ii. 636
Cheshire, The Bark
iii. 217
V. WooBter
u. 366
Cbeele; v. Thompson ir
869.371
Chaw Manol. Co. o. OarTen
ii. 348
V. Welch
ir. US
Chaw Nat. Bank ■-. Faurot
iii. 80
Chesnut HiU Turnpike v. Rutter
ii. 284,
CbawmorB v. Kichard*
iii. 440, 448
"ii. 180
291
Cbiuteaiineuf d. Capeyron
Chesnutt d. Chesnntt
ii. 128
ChMtej V. Ackland
iii. 448
Chess' Appeal
■T. 201
Chateaug»y Ore t Iron Co., its i. 322,
Chesslyn a. Smith
U. 171
328
Chester, The
i. 70
Chater v. Beckett
11.494
Chester e. Dorr
iU.91
Chater. v. Bell
ilL 98, 109
B. Powell
iii. 464
Chatfleld B. Berchtoldt
ii. 429
Cfaesterfleld b. Duke of Bolton
iii. 408
r. Wfbon
iU. 440
v.Jaa.en
ii.4S3
Chatham, The
iU. 232
Chest«rman v. Oaidnsr
iT. 179
Chatham e. Br^nard
1U.434
L..Lamb
U.480
V. Tothill
It. 288
Chetali, The
aL248
Chatham Fumaca Co. v. HoffiM li. 490
Chetwynd v. Chetwynd
ii.l93
Chatteris v. Isaacson
iii. 66
Cheriot 0. Brooka
iii. 21s
11.873
Chew V. Farmers' Bank ir. 68, 70
Cbavanne* v. Priestley
ii.461
0. Randolph
i.201
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Hm BMSbal fv ai« >«fai»d to.}
Chends Idme-WDcb v. Ditmnke*
Child V. Baylie
ii. 852
ii. 800
V. Chappell
11.461; iT.467
ChBwnrag r. GHawood lii. 90
Cheyn*/. Cm ii. 566
». Eureka Powder Work* i. 262
V. Hardjman
ii. 147
Claaga r. Dreiel iii. 451
V. Hearn
iii. 438
v.Robbina L842;iL2B0
V. Hadaoo'a Bay Co.
11.296
r. SbeWonE. i. 418
V. Peart
ii. 164
Chicaco t A. Bridge Co. v. Anglo-
T. Stair
iii. 427, 436
V. SlenniDg
n. SnoM.Ini, Co.
It. 471
CbhMgD Cto Co. r. Terke. ii. 285
m. 260, 318
ChJcgo Cltj Ey. Co. V. Wilcox ii. 186,
Childe Harold, The
lii. 170
341
ir. 29
CbiMgo D. D. Co. p. Chicgo D. Co.
V. San Joee M. P. Co.
11. 16, 22
u. 378
V. Wooler
ii, 490
CbitfO 0. L. Co. H. Peopla'i Q. L,
Children's Aid Soc b. Loveridge ir. 508
Cr* ii.467
ChUdreMr. AUio
iv. 431. 434
Cbi«p>LifeIn..Co.i'.Hnnt ii. 806
V. Emory
i. 802, 348
r. Mwdle* i. 413
Child! D. Bank of Miaaourl
ii. 284
Chicago M. G. Co. v. lAke iii. 462
V. Clark
w.ae
Cfakuo P. S. Ezctuuiire b. Mc-
V. Childi
iL128
CLughiy i. 287
V. Dobbiiu
ii.236
Cbkaso. &c R. Co. D. BaTfleld u. 260
>. ChiCBKo, <c Cokl Co. ii. 451
tp.Hurd
U.277
D. KaDMi City, Ac. B. Co. Iv- 370
,. Dey i. 828, 361
r. Enekaan ii. 589
B. Fellett
iii. 41
V. Shower
11.336
„. Etui i. 380
V. Smith
It. 62
>.GIeDM7 iii. 440
». Wyman
111.89
..Hall ii.286
Chilea B. Conley
1*. 171
c. Htnwr ii. 260
B. Neh»n
11.477
>. Hoi« iii. 440
Chila V. Grrailand
Ii. 878
>. Bo;t ii. 4(»
Chiiion V. PhiUlpa
1L194
>.Iowa i.439;il.690
Chilton B. Braiden
iv. 168
*. JackwD ii. 260
V. London
iii. 400
>.JoMa i.41S
V. Progrea. Printing Co. il. 373
'.Kneirim U. 259
Chin A On, Ee
1.284
i.U>T ii. 269
r. HcGUmi L 206, 431
Chin King, Ex parti
11.62
Chin Yuen Sing. /n«
u. 80
V. MiDnnoM i. 2-21
China, The
lii, 188, 176
V. Payno HL 232
China M. Int. Co, B. Force
11.469; iii. 06,
V. People i. 480
188, 217, 248
B. Pomr iii. 427
B.Wari
lit. 271
e. PnUmw. 8. C. Co. ii 661, 687
Chimiery b. BlackbDm
ill. 184
*. Rom ii. 269] iii. 104
B. BWman
It. 1&7, 162
>. Scott Ii. e04
Chipman 8. Bluck
U. 106
r. ScuFT a 16
V. Palmer
iii. 440
B. Suflord CoDDty Com'ra ii. 277
ChippewaV. &S. Ry.Co
27, 37 i It. 161
c. 3-ett ii. 200
t>. Chicago
cWatklDi ii. 260
&i.^y. Co.
il.487
t>. Wellmsn i. 286, 439
Chirac a. Chirac
1.424
V. Wiggini VoTj Co. i. 260
Chiaholm n. Georgia
I. 2H7
lTouok ii.269
e. WillUmi
iii. 76
Chicago R;. Equip. Co. b. Uerchanta'
Chiam v. Woodi
ii. 478
K.I. Bank iii. 81
Chiiolm r. Cnlnea
i. 842
Chicago Sngar Ref. Ca v. American
Chiiauin v. Dewes
lii. 64
8. B. Co. iii. 866
Chliweli v. Horrii
It. 46
Cbkago Tniat Co. <7. Nordgren iii. S9
Chlonpek b. Perotka
iii. 432
Chick ,. Pilkbory iii. 106
Cholraley v. 0«ford
iT. 186
OildainB ... Fowler ii. 006 ; iii. 216
CbicopM Bank V. Philadelphia Bank
Cholmley'a Cage
It. 206
Cholmondeley b. Clinton
T. 167, 187, 6B7
lii. 96
Chope B. Reynold*
ill. 278
Chicot Coonty r. Sherwood i. 887
ChideU .. Gdaworthy ii. 4B2
Choteaa, The
lit. 248
Choteaa b. Jooe*
It. 469
CUw. ,. ConoTw Hi. 164
a. 681 ; iii. 7«
CWkwt.. Trimbte y. 103
B. Mo. Pm). Ry. Co.
1T.4«
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tht Buflnil pH
Chontean n. WetMtei iU. 107
Chojnaki v. Cohen ii. 866
Chretien d. Her Hoibwid ii. 181
Chri«t Church v. LiTenolo iii. 446
r. PhiUdelphU i. 41S
Cliriit'i Hoepiul n. OraiiiKer It. 268, 603
Christian v. Atiantlc & N. C. B. Co. i. 861
Chriilian C. Bank v. Goode iii. 7a
Chriatian Union c. Tount ii. 286
ChriatianiboTs, The ii. 122
ChriBtie v. Gnna ii. 600, 601, 602
V. hewis Ui. 13B, 221
Chriiimiin V. ChriHrntn
ii. 76
Cbriatmaa ». RnaieU i. 260, 262, 419 ; ii.
109,120
Chri»lopher v. AaatlD
V. Christopher
iii. 464
It. 632
V. Sparke
It. 166
CkrUty, Er parte
' j. 826, 888
0. CaaanaTe
Iii. 481
». Pridgeon
t. 342
P. PQlliam
It. 831
V. Reynoldi
ii. 474
e. Row
iii. 222
Chriit7'a Appeal
Chrysler a. Renoia
ir. 418
iii. 81
i.36e
c. Stretch
ii. 146
Chadleigb'B CaM ir. 239,
240, 241, 242,
248, 26S, 266, 269, 298, 480, 496
Chndlej p. Chiidley
ii. 128
Cliumsr D. Wood .
ii. 626
Chumaaero b. Gilbert
iii. 116
Church d. Barlow
iii. 86
B. BeJient
iii. 326
V. BrowD
iii. 123
V. Bnll
iv.68
:;SST-*''''^-
ii. 269
It. 641
0. Oilman
iT.466
.. Hubbart
i-31
«. Imperial G. L. Ca
Ii. 291
V. Knox
iii. 65
r. T^
ii. 868
1.. Morris
ir. 86
V. Slielton
i. 369
Church of Latter Day Saint* r.
Dniced Suiea
iT. 508
Church or Macon r. Wiley
ii.46S
Churchill v. Grana
iii. 438
0. Hunt
it. 16
iii. 440
It. 610
V. Martin
iii. 76
ii. 101
It. 473
Churion V. Douglaa
iii. 64
V. Frewen
iii. 402
Chwatal v. Schreiner
ir. 346
Ch; Luns e. Freeman
Ciampa Emilia, The
1.489
ill. 232
Cllley V. Fatten
i. 802
n ntarndto.}
Cincinnati v. Stone iL 260
). White iii. 433, 460
Cincinnati & Chic. Air L. R. R. d.
Harcua ii. GOO
CiDcinna^ &c. R. Co. d. Beniley Ii. 449
Cincinnati H. & D. R. Co. «. McEeen
i.SSO
I. Spratt ii. eM
Cincinnati Ini. Co. e. I>nfBeld iii. 831
Cincinnati Oyater Co. tt. Nat'l. Bank
m.88
Cine. Street RmIwov b. CnmmiiM-
rille Ui. 432
Circauian, The L 145, 160, 869 ; iii. 170
Ciaco n. Roberta 1. 439
Citiiena' Bank d. PnBh iii. 100
Citizeni' Ina. Co. v. Kountz Line iii. 166
Cilitena' Nat. Bank v. Hooper iii. 79
Cititena' St R. Co. v. Qt; Ry. Co. i. 413
Citiieni' Water Co. v. Bridgeport
Hydraulic Co. 1.41S
CiiLzenahip iL 40
CiCo, The iii. 228
City Bank, Ex parU iii. 89
V. Bangs ii. 170
V. Cottar iii. 104
V. Smith It. 126, 130
v. SoTereign L. A. Co. iii. 369
City Council of Lafayette c Holland
iii. 428. 461
City Nat. Bank b. Dqd ii. 610
0. Hunter ii.4(t0
B, Kutirorm ii. 461
V. Mahan 1. 408
City of Alexandria, The iiL 184, 232 I
City of Atlanu, The iii. 248
City of Auguiia, The iii. 282
City of Carliile, The i. 369
City of Chester, The iii. 248
City of Elgin v. Eaton , ii. 340
City of Elizabeth c. Force iii. 89
City of Frankfort, The i. 369
City of HsTerhill, The iii. 248
City of LeiingtOQ b. Butler 1. 349; Ii. Sill
City of Loganiport p. Justice ii. 680
City of London, Case against ii. S12, 313
City of London, The i. 364 ; iii. 186
City of London Brewery Co. d. Ten-
ant
1.448
City of Mecca, The i. 369 ; Ii. 120
City of Mexico, The i. 123, 125, S56
City of Morrison v. Hinkion 11. 340
CSty of New Bedford, The iii. 179
City of New York, The iu. 138, 164. 232
Cnty of Norwalk, The L 2G9, 369 ; iii. 2,
164.232
City of Norwich, The iii. 217
City of Panama 1. 802, 356, 386
City of Para. The iii. 217
City of Panona v. Lindsay ii. 16
City of Pekin, The iii. 232
City of PhiUdelphta p. GaTignin iii. 232
City of PlltBburg, The 1. 889
City of Reading d. Altbotue iiL 440
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASEIS.
[Dw BMtstukl pflM an nttmd to.]
CHy or WnUuHport V.
Common-
Clttk V. Cront
11.236
mhh
ii.391
V. Cu.hii.g
Iii. 66
ajjj.i.H,„.i^<^.,^^
V. De» Moinet 11. 291
B. DeTlin
800; iii. 89
iii. 112
arQ RiKhtt Cmm
1.209
B. Dew
It, 508
CiTUiU,Tbe
Ui.232
V. Fitch
ii. 206
CluMD,/<ir<
i. S80
». Flan»rr
ir. 806
CbbMgh r. Byerlr
W. 171
B.iTint
ii. 487
Cbder >. ThomM
iv.469
O.Garfield
U.226
CbfltD r. Beach
ii. 408
■>. Qlidden
Iil. 461
I. Bennett
ii. 681
G. Griffith U. 866, eeO; ir. 68
I. Bortoo & A. B. Co.
ill. 410, 440
B. Henry
e. H«ieki«h
ir.
143,169
■. Cupenter
i».461
1L104
Co. iil. 2fl0
... Iowa aty
iii. 89
Work! ii. 386
V. laeUn
ii.581
..Gordwi
ii. 441
V. Jammea
it. 480
>. HowemMi
i. 206, 304. 397
V. Jonea
iT. 128
>. Mejw
iL.687
r. Keliher
ii. 34S
Cliiborne .. Hendenon
iT.4e
V. Lindley
iT. 870
.. Holland
iV 307
V. Lowell & Lawrence E
R.
ii.e89
CUibo™ Coanty r. Brook* i. 842
«. McGm
iT.480
Ctaim of Financial Co.
iii. 89
V. Manuf ,'i In*. Co.
iii. 282, 288,
OancT B. Byrne
iii.418; ir. 110
373
CUn SlacLcod, The
iii. 164
r. Martin
iT.4S0
Clinton B. Bnrgeg
W. 463
V. MuB. F. & M. Int. Co
iii. 213
Clapham ■>. Ungtoa
111.238
V. Middletworth
ir. 75
B.Moyte
ii.468
ii. 22
It. 366, 483
oImotm
ii. 68U
lau.
U. 101, 212
e. Murphy
ii. 612
W.608
V. Nelion Lomber Co.
ii. 866
B. Hnrick
iU. 440
D. New Eng. Hat. F. Int
Co
111.262.
V. Paine
It. 114
876
>.B<«ei«
iii. 67
D. Faqnette
iii. 432
T.Upton
iu. 08
■>.Parr
ir. 475
a*n. The
IiL232, 248
0. Patleraon IL 164, 488 ; iii. 78
Clare r. Hanyird
ii. 480
D. Feaie
ill. 79
CkremaDt v. Carlton
m. 429. 484
V. Pinner
V. Fowell
li.480
Clmndon v. Hornby
It. 860
i. 460
Clindge B. SoaOi Stftffiirdabira T.
«. Protection Int. Co.
ia256
Co.
ii. 661, 687
s. Robbini
IT. 166
CUrila,The
iii. 282
Ii. 173
Clark, Ez port*
1. 301 ; iii. 107
n. Bcbool Dlitrict No. 7
Ii. 291
Halter of
L 37 ; ii. 49
r. Bldway
iii. 40
B. Allen
iii. 869
». Skinner
111. 488
c. Americu Cod Co.
iii. 89
D. StuaU
iii. 128
..Bartow
Ui. 483
V. Smith 11.138,622;
It.
19, 167,
r.B«nard
i.297
269,
287, 521
r.Bamea
iii. 78
B. Spr«gne
It. 403
f. BamweU
iii. 217
V. StackhoQM
iiL88
r. Bayer
ii. 193
V. SUDfleld
It. 278
>.B«^h
IT. 160
B. St Pftia
ii. 260
«.B>noey
ii. 16
V. Swift
It. 471
It, 148
D. Tarbell
11.407
B.Carr
iii. 66
». Turabull
ii.463
B. Chamber.
Ui.488
D. U. F. & H«r. In>. Co.
ill. 303
B. Child
i.260
0. United Stales
1.178
-. OaA ii. 84, 78, »7, 100, 105, 107.
0. Valentino
H, 167
114 m. 164: iV. 148
V. Van Conrt
ii.286
..Clark
It. 46
V. WHihington
ii. 202
e. Coi
IT. 391
*. Wethey
V. Whitaker
It. 466
V. Oily of Elinbetb
iii. 461
iii. 91
r. Clement
ii.429
V. WilBon
Iii. 331
..Cogge
UL 420. 421
auk-i Appeal
i.467
B- CoDToe -
iii. 440
Clark (Heira of) f. Ellis
It. 608
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Clark's EatUa, In tv
It. 886
Cleather «. Twiaden
iiL 46
Clarke. /» re
ii. 193
CleaTeland, Ac. E. B. Co. r
Hlmrod
D. Bazadone
L 824,886
Furnace Co.
11.299
B. Bradlaugh
ii.95
Clearer v. Mutual Rewrre Food iii. 309
V. Canfleld
11.438
P, Traden' In., Co.
i. 342
B. Clark
ili. 448
ClwiTe. r. FoM
11640
V. Cordis
ii. 226
Clegg P. Cotton
iii. 110
V. Crelico
i. 46
p. Fiili«ick
IiL 51
p. Cuckfleld Union
ii. 2G1
r. Hand«
It. 473, 480
t.. DickM-n
ii. 482
Clela'kd p. Cleland
ii. 469
r. Dotcber
ii. 491
il. 143
p. Eamshaw
U. 666
u.2ei
». FOM
U.492
Clement v. Brown
H. 16
e. Gray
ii. 601
p. Bruah
iii. 48
p. Gumell
lii.228
p. Canble
Ir, 403
«. Henty
lii. Ill
p. Cheeiman
iL438
V. Johnion
iii. 79
p. Chi Til
U. 1«
5.Le.lie
11.239
p. Dnrpn
V. GkiuFd
m.iBA
r. Hatthewion
i. S60
IU.449
D. More;
ii. 63
p. Jonei
11.616
iT.3V
p. Mattiaon
iL7ft
e. N. J. St«am N. Co.
11.284.4(13
u. Fheniz Ina. Ca
iii, 286
0. Ormonde ii. 418
It. 42S. 439
Clemenli v. Walker
ii, 879
D. Patrick
lii. 89
Cleaienta v. Beny
1.248
«. Ramuz
It. 451
V. Hall
iU.6l
iL600
p. London & N. W. Ry
Co. ii. 286
ili. W
P. Norri*
iu. 41, 61
V. Spence
ii. 492
p. Patke
IT. 860
Clarke'i Truiti, In rt
ii. 170, 286
P. Weliet
iT. 122
ClarksoQ V. Clarkion
It. 214
Clemit p. Watwn
ii. 269
p. De Fey Iter
ii. 231
Clemmitt v. N. Y. Life In*.
Co. iii. 266
p. Ede*
iii. 138, 221
Clemonlion d. Bteudg
L67
D. Biereoa
Ii. 604
Clendaniel c. Tnckerman
iIL906, 228
D. Weiteni Agt. Co.
iii. 870
ILSl
Clwy D. Frayer
ii.4M
Clendining o. Church
iii. 277
». Manfaalt
It. 436. 460
Cleone, The
iii. 248
Cla«on D. Bailey
a. 610, 611
Cleopatra, The
Cleph«ne v. Lord ProTOit
Ui. 248
V. Simmondi
iu. 816
of Edin-
Ctauen p. Chetapeake G. Co
ClaUop Chief, Tha
Clavenng u. Clavering
iii. 427
bu^h
ir. 608
i.369
Clepper v. LiTergood
iT. 81
iT.452
Clere. Sir E., Caae of It.
267, 299, 816.
Qaxton v. Clazlon
ii.'m
336,848
Clay, Ex partt
iii. 60
Clerke v. Harwood
L316
P. CottieU
iii. 43
P. Martin
111.73
P.Hart
aeTe V. Hill)
ii, 119
V. Oakley
lii! 106
CleTeland, In re
Ii. 864
P. Smith
P.Martin
It. 168
t>. White
ir. 30
V. Union Ini. Co.
HI, 806. 307
p. WilUn
U. 604
CleTeland, fc, R. Co. v. Bukui i. 420.
P. Yate.
[i. 604
439; IL 832
Clay Ciiy Nat Bank p. Haltey iiL 86
V. Brown
ii,269
Chicka-
V. ClOMer
ii.467
i. 468
V. Franklin Canal Co.
L2a8
Clayton o. Adanw
U. 160
p. Keary
ii.60
V. Andrew*
11.611
f. Moline I^ow Co.
ii. 612
V. Anthony
ii. 621
V. Rowan
Hi. 282
p.Blakey'
It. 112
CleTeland C. F. Iron Co.
p. Taylor
p. Corby
iiL 462
Co.
'ii.BOft
V. Stone
ii. 879
CleTeland F. & B. Co. i
United
p. Cufa
1.384
Stateg R. S. Co.
fuaes
V. WardeU
ii. 87
CleveUnd R. M. Co. v. Corriww ii. 241
Clayton'e Ciae
iT. 96
CleTe* B. WiUoQghby
m.468
CleadoD, The
iU. 281, ^2
Qiflord p. Bnrton
il. 179
Cleary v. HcAodraw
iU.234
p. Cochrane
u. le
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
CGdordcHoora
lu. 419
Coate* V. Wilson
ii. 289
c. HDDter
iii.287
Coat* V. Chadwick
ii.2a
'; Old°&>tony R. Co.
WK
V. Holbrook
ii. 8«a
U.259
V. Merrick Thread Ca
ii. 886
diftr. Rodger
ill. 100
D. Roberu
ii. 196
r. Schwlibe
iii. 369
Cobb V. DaTeoport
iii. 41S
CKftoD c. Grangiir
U. 206
D. Doyle
iii. 80, 81
aimw I. Wood
ii. 343
tr. Howard
111.208,207
aiD«. ». Cooke
aau
IT. 461
D. Eidd
ill. 472
fJink P. RwUorf
ui. 206
V. Koig^t
ii. 631
t; - loo ». Hooper
ii. 167
iT. 306
CEaioo BridgB. Tbo
1. 4S9
0. Preferred Mnt Ace Aw'n iii. 365
CUnton WcMlteD & C.
M. Co
Cobban t>. Downs ii
604 ; lit 206
Hone
ii. 290
Cobbett B. Woodward
ii. 378
OiT* r. Crew
ii. 241
Cobden v. Bolton
H.606
It. 403
Cobequid Marine Ini. Co.b. Bwteaiu
Ckwle.&
1.39
iii. 174
Qoke V. ShmfrotL
ii. 690
Cobum B. Hollia ii
475; iT.446
Clopper V. Union Bulk of MarrUnd
E. Pickering
ii530
lii
86,113
Cocheco Man. Co. v. WliittleT ii. 667
aonv. CloK
U. 1%
Cochran b. AtchiKm
lii. 88, 89
(LUmbert
ii. 843
E. Cochran
a. 99, 126
ii. 6SG
V. Fitch
i. 201
It. 98
D. QoodeU
It. 361
Ctalth, In r.
iiie.'i
E. Jones
ii. 478
».Ck»gh
a446
iT. 461
E. O'Hero
iT.B2
>. Elliott
IT. 60
E. B>tb«rg
lii 208
V. Holden
lU. 04
=. Rip7
11.639
». L. t N. W. Bj. Co
ii. 482
E.Ward
ii. 494
V. Patrick
u. 388
Cochrane p. Deener
iiS66
Ctowtoo B. Bublere
lii. 89
p. Moore
ii. 438
CloatiDu t*. Bulor
IT. 214
B. Willi.
ii. 491
F-Tnntoon
lii 196, 108
Cochrane'! Caae
iil26
Clow V. Clupaun
Ii. 154
Cock I.. Cook
ii. 128
.. Wood.
u. 623
D. Taylor
iii. 221
Clpwe»D.Clow«t
ii. 90
Cockburn p. Raphael
CockL■rof^ Re, 6ro>db«nt e
It. 608
>. I»diin*oii
iv. 179
Orores
». Fr«nk and TTillie,
The
U. 269
ii. 226
r. Hawley
It. 870
Cocke V. Bank at Tenneaue
iii. 106
Cbjd tr. Steinr
ii.
561,687
CockereU v. Aoeompte
U. 617
anfl ■>. Hot Benefit L. Ina. Co.
iii. 869
Cocking V. Ftwer
iii. 206, 296
au-D r. Brewer
ii. 366
CockraBK.Irlam
ii. 688
Qu'iCaw
iii. 471
Coekreli ,-. CholmeUy
It. 344
aite >. Bool
IT. 311
It. 89. 306
It. 472
Cocks E. Chandler
ii-sm
.. WiggiD.
11594
iii. 86
CIntton E. Atieaborongti
lii. 78
Cockshott p. BenneK
11466
drde E. United Sutei
i. 207
iii. 109
Clfde Narigaiion Co. v. Barckr
lii. 176
Codmao e. Rrans
iiL432
Qjd. S. Co. p. The Wm
Smitli
iii. 248
Codwite V. GleaMn
Hi 90
ajp., /» r.
il. 12
Cody, Re
ii.448
ir.467
Coe V. Hobby
It. 105, 107
Coak. E. Boawell
ii.2i6
V. McBrown .
iv. 161
Coal Creek M. Co. «. DaTi.
ii. 269
V. Talcott
iv. 98
Coat Bun Coal Co. o. Jonea
a 260
n. Wise
ii. 274
CoaltcT „. Hnnter
Ui. 48S
Coe's Trust, A*
iv. 131
Cottc'i Appeal
iT. 805
Coeboan v. Thompson
Osar d'Alene C 4 H. Co. e
iT.542
Coalet E. Brittlebuk
iv. 148
Miners'
..a-plio
ii.499
Union
ii269
r.CbwTM
i
T. 41, 72
Coffee B. GrooTer
1. 26, 324
>.H«nDon
iii. 89
E. Planters' Bank of Tennessee
>. Bolbrook
ii. 372
i 849. 860
». New York
ii.840
<-. Wray
Cofteen v. Bnuitoii
i*. 4se
V. Balltmi
11. 644,546
ii.seo
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
(TIm nugbwl pafw an n
>dto.1
Coffej 0. Ui^ted Stotes
Coffleld V. Sum 1. 47S
Coffin D. Cofflo
V, Dnnhun
f. JeDkint UL 31, 198
t>. LuDt It. 113
V. Ogdm ii. 866
V. Bich 1. 40e
r. Schooner Jobn Shaw iU. 248
0. Spencer 111. 76
V. Sute L4ie;liL4U
V. Suwer IU. 280
CofliDU) V. Bank of Kr. i. 419
D. CainpbeU Ui. 84
Copia V. Cogan It. 128, 249
B. Stefihena li. sao
Cogguhall V. American L». Co.
Sid
iiLSe
ii. 498
CoKiU o. Am. Excb. BMik
p. Hartford *N.H.E.R.
Cog^Di B. Fl}'the il. ■£»
Cogg* E. Bemani i. 601 ; ii. 466, 660, 661,
662,664,667, 670,671,674,675,
677, 678, 686, 698, 608
CoghlBD V. Sontb Carolina B. Co. ii. 460
Cognac, The iii. 663
ConweU v. Tibbett* It. 68
Cohea v. Hemiogwar It. 870
Cohen t. Dapont iii. 464
V. Froat li. 600
r. HoS i. 467
V. Home 11 609
V. N. Y. Hat Int. Co. iii. 266
V. ShTor ii. 220
Coheaa K. Virginia 1. 206, 297, 327, 4S0, 466
Cobn V. Be»l Iii. 461
c. Colm li. 126
0. Daridioo iii. 206
i.,LonUTiUe,N.O.*T.B.Co, ii.li86
Coiron v. MilUudon 1. 346
Coit V. Com, Ini. Co. iL 666; iii. 260
V. HaTen L 262
V. Millikin Iv. 462
CoUm I'. Pagett ii. S48
Colbome & Strawbrldge, Ex parte iit. 8S
Colbum u. MorriU iii. 464
e. Kichardi iii. 441
Colby P. Duncan i». 203
V. Kennitton i». 466
v. Udden i. 247
Colchealer, Corp. of n. Seaber ii. 310
Colciieater (Mayor and ComDaonalty
of) (I. Lowlen ii. 281, 800
Caldough V. Richardaon It. 466
Colcook V. Oarrej ii. 291
Colcord r. Swan ii. 16B
Cole D. Ac^cldent In*. Co. iii. 860
V. Bartlett iii. 244
p. B«TT ii. 402
D.Cole 11.70,90; It. 301
D. Cunningham i. 320
V. DaTiet ii. 610
i>. Kdgerlr iv. 194
p. Flitcraft ii. 122
Cole t>. Ooble It. 278
r. Goodwin U, 601, 606, 608
0. I<a Grange ii, S40
D. McKey It. 0B
V. HerchanU' Bank Iii. 12S
s. Mordannt It. 517
n. CBrien ii. 080 '
B. Pennojer ii. 286
V. Pott* It. 461
V. ReToolda Iii, 61
V. BoWl U. iSl, 465
V. Scot It. 152
c. SeweU iv. 206
t>. Shnrtiefl li. 148
V. Stoket It. SOS
V. Teny ii. 360
t>. United SUtM i. 207
K. Wade It. 325, S27
r. Wendel ■ ii. 666
B, White ii 629
Cole'i Wife V. ma Hein ii. 188
Cole Hanuf. Co. e. Collier ii. 1S2
Cole S. M, Co. o. Virginia W. Co. iU. 440
ColegraTO v. Diai Santoi ii. S46
Coleman d. Barkler it. 179
f. Cbadwick iii. 437
ir. Cocke It. 436
D.Coleman U1.S7; It. 871
D. Darling ill. 41
D. Doe ii. T8iiit. 878
t>. FIbtoI ii. 809
V. Foster iii. 462
V. Umbert Ul. 207
». N. O. In*. Co. ii. 468
0. FArker li. 44S
V. Pearce iii. 46
V. Sayer iii. 102, 108
B. Tenn. 1. 26, 67 ; il. 12
IF. Wathen ii. 378
i>. Wilmington, Ac. R. Co. ii. 260
Colei V, Allen iT. 806
D. Colea iii S8; It. 44
B. LonUTiUe, &c. B. Co. ii. 608
V. Simi i*. 480
B. Trecothick £1490,618, 638; iT.438
V. Waahington County i. 400
V. Wooding iT. 406
Colfax T. Commiuioners v. Eaat
Lake F. D. Dtatrict ii. 840
Colgan V. McEeon It. 424
Co1g1azierD.Louia>llle, ft&By. Co. ii.286
Colgrore c. Smith il. 260
Colhoon B. Snider It. 466
Collamer b. Day iii. 278
V. Foater Iii. 87
Collamore b. Oillia ii. 343
Collar Co. n. Tan Dnien ii. 866
Collard b, Harahali ii. 16
Collector, The r. Day i. 429
College of Phyaidana, Caae of the i. 466
Coilen B. Gardnw ii. 620
B. Wright ii, 632
Collenberg, The Iii, 2-26
Collet V. Collet i. 423
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CABEB.
Cbdntr. TudnbiiTehCa. m.M9
CoUer V. Merrill li.MO
CollieV CUim iL 800
CoUiR r. FMilk It. 176
r. Morrow 1. 449
CoUitr'a Cue it. 640
Cottier'* Will It. 836
CslGBgwoad r. Pace U. 64, 60
(Mliniidge p. Bofsl Ex. An. Coip. iii. 876
CdiH 0. BuTOW IT. no
>. BcDborr iii. 418
>.BUnIeiD ii. 466; It. 466
f. Bndbnr; iii. TB
r.C«rUl0
It. its
«. Cannu i*. 67
*. CkTe ii.490
». ChMtien V. G. Co. iii. 440
>. CoUini iL 84, 101 i it. 456
r. Coraon iv. 306
F. Decker tii. 39
V. Rlatone iv. 637
>. £Tani ii. 490
c. Gibwn It. 101
>. Gilbert ill. 78, 70
*. HutroDCk It. 66
*. Hozie ir. 414
■. JM:k«>n iu. 23
>. liacolD iii. 76
[. Locke ii. 466
V. Mtm^uit'a Crediton ii. 496
r«7^~
U. 62S; ill. TB
■r. Mjer.
ii. 520
C.I^blM
i. 842
t. PreotiM
iii. 422
t. Smlrh
1.466
«. Slocking
iT. 143
..Toiry^
It.SS, 44
».Tri«
lit. 80
r. Voori.ee.
Ii. 87
r.WilU>ni>0D
It. SOS
Coniiil Co. EF. Brown
ii. saa
r. Co-en
ii. 366
r.BUrcy
Iii. 452
CoJliDUD c, Fattrick
ii.466
Collii V. EnieU
iii. 78
f. I*ugher
iii. 448
Coll<imb .. R««d
iii. 39
Coll;er k Uw»
ii. 4fl2
Cobntn «. EMtera Comitiei R Co. ii. SOO
r. Picked
iT. 156
CologM ». London Am. Co. iii. 290, 297,
298
CoL Nat Bank 0. Boettcber
ColoDlal Baok ■>. Cadj ii. 449, '469
B. HcpwOTth il
«. Willan ii
Coiontal loa. Co. «. Adelaide M. Ini.
Co. iii. 271, 307
Coiando,TtM iii. 231
Cokndo Soap Co. r. Born* 11. 600
Golqaboiiii ■>. Brooki i. 46^478
p. HtddoD i. 4S2
Id*
Co. LBS
Colboon.)
Cokon V. Araot
iu. 79
e. Bonw7
UL 184, 160
ColitoD V. Gardner
iT.S87
K. Horri*
ii.221
Colt B. Colt
IT. 48. 541
V. Mechen
, iL808
r. NetterrUl
ii. 487. 610
V. Noble
Hi, 108
Calthiret ». Bejushin
iT.248
Coltman v. ChAmberla
ID
iii. IBS
>. HaU
ColCoa s. Longmeadow il. 430
Columbia, The 1. 146, 118, 161, 2S1
GolamUa lai. Co. v. Bockle? iii. S70
i>. Cooper ul. 282
K. Lawrence IU. 304, 307, 370
Columbia Mill Co. r. Alcorn ii. 360
Columbian OoTernmcDtD. Boducblld
ColumbiaD Ini. Co. ■>. Asbby iii. 234,' 230,
327
E. Catlett m. 260, 810
V. Lavrenoe iii. 270, 878, 376
E. Ljnch iii. 282
Colambui, The L 369
Calambu* Bzchange Bank e. Hines ii. 866
Columbui In*. Co. v. Fint Nat. Bank
ii.306
Columbn* S. Ins. Co. v. Wright i. 301
ColumbuB Watch Co. d. Hodenpyl ii. 441
K. Bobbin* i. 330
Columbu* & X. a B. t>. Webb ii. 2fl0
Colvaid u. Coxe ii- 443
CotTill,£z parti IlL 376
Cokin e. Burnett iii- 444
o. Fnuer iv. 632
V. JackionTille 1. 2911
V. Newberry Iii. I-W
t>. Procnrator Qenetal ii. 486
u. Reed iL 117
CoIwIU V. ReoToa ii. 3K6
Colyear i'. Counteu of If. ii. 406
Coljer V. Colyer It, 194
B. Finch iv. 179
Comb'g Appeal It. 608
Combe r. London, A«. Ry. Co. ii. 600
B. Woolf lii. 124
Combe*'* Cate ii. 081, 033; iv. 827
Comb* B. Jolly It. 614
B. Scott II 816
T- Slire«*bnry Ini. Co. iii. 873
I'. Younff It. 41
'Comeiiy* b, Va«ie ii- 400 ; ill- 819
Comer i'. Chamberl^n iT. 29
Cumenford d. Baker iii. 182
Comet, The L 108, 147
Comfort Saudi, Caae of i. 382
CoTDiufc, Kx partt it. 151
Comitii V. Parkenon ii. 42, 62
Coromendam Caae It, 836
Commerce, The i. 360
Comm. Bankv- CumlDgham lii- 86
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Hm Buugtnii j/tftt an.nltmd to.]
Comm. Bank n. Hart
11.681
Commonwealtb p. Claiy
i. 481
r. MlUer
fii. 81
... Coopo
iii. 461
Comm. Bank of Buffalo v.
Kortright
r-Deaion
1.36
ii. 291
». Delaware & H. Canal Co.
U. 304
^.Sparrow
ii. 272
v.Douglaaa
i. 418
Comm. Knk of Ky. r. Tarnnm iii. 260
V. Duane
ii.22
Comm. Bank of Lake Erie
c. Norton
V. Duffy
i. 40(1
B. E. & K. Perryman
ii. 85
Comm. Bank of Orieuu »
D.Ea.wmE.R.
i. 419
Manuf Co.
a 281
V. Ellit
U
209,340
Comm. and Famieia' N. Bank v. Fine
P. Fox
L401
Nat. Bank
iii. 82
p. Poller
i. 398
t>.GalUgan
ii. 12
Ex parte
iii. M
V. Gilbert
ii. 840
D. Gormley
ii. 149
iii. 234
... Graham IL 78, 81
108,261
B. Horrii ii. ElO; iii. 370
V. Grave*
i. 400
Iii. 282
p. Green
ii. 278
Comm. Mamif. Co. ■>. f airbankt C. Cu.
V. Hall
i.402
ii. see
p. Ualloway
i.284
Comm. MQt. H. In». Co.
B. Union
1.401
Mat. 1d>. Co.
iii. 267
ti. Hartnett
1.466
Comm. Nat. Bank v. Borch
il. 800
p. Hawei
i. 87
V. Henninger
U). 04
p. Haydeo
p. Hein of Andr^
U. 79
». Proctor
lit. 63
U. 70
Commercen. The
LH140
p. Huntley
1.489
Commercial Bank v. FfeiSer ii. M9
p. Johnson
i.891
Commercial Union Amit
Co. ».
.>. Keeper of Debtors'
Aparl^
Scammon
iii. 876
ii. SO
Comm. U. T. Co. i.. New Eoglaiid T.
p. Kelliher
L466
Co.
ii. 811
p. KennewD
1. 460
WhiteUy
p. EnowltoD
i. 478
i.822
B. Koslofl
i. 46
Commi»ionen r. Cliflord
It. 288
V. Leach
1.473
e. Glaue
ill. 401
P.Lecky
ii. 30
0. January
a. 201 ; iii. 89
p. Lewis
L244
„. KempihaU
Hi. 427
„. Lockwood
i.284
». Pemwl
ir.608
V. M'Clanaclu.0
It. 471
Commoni v. ManbaU
iT. 846
p. McCormick
ii. 12
U. IW, 208
«. MacferroD
i. 469
P. Alger
iii. 427
V. M'Keagy
ii. 206
V. Armstrong
ii. 203
i. 29
B. Avei ii. 268, 257, 468
V. Marshall
i.465
B. Bailey
«.Bain(
i. 413
p. Maion
i.469
U. 261, 264
p. Moore 11
149 264.602
V. Bakemut
ii. 277
p. HuDson
il.87
V. Baldwin
1.400
p.Naile
1».426
I.. Bennett
iii. 26
p. New Bedford Bridge
i. 430;li.290
t.. BUDdIng
il. 20
p. Nutt
ii. 194
V. BUnton
iv. 426
V. Pearson
11.697
V. Boston
iii. 432
p. Penn. Beneflcial Inst
ii. 298
K. B. & M. Ry. Co.
ii.600
u. Perry
ii. S69
V. Bracken
iii. 63
Co.
]. 418
V. Breed
ii.S40
V. Phil. & Reading R. R
Co.
1.439
p. Briitow
ii. 68
V. I^aiited
ii. 840
f. Canal Com.
ii. 293
V. Pratt
Ii. 149
0. Carroll
11.140,277
V. Pula»ki Comity Agr
&
U.
e. Ca«.y
i. 303
AM-n
ii.284-
v. Chambre
IT. 06
p. Reed
Ii. 498
p. Chapln
iii. 412
r. Ricketion
Iii. 170
s. CharlettowQ
iii. 414
P. RoKbury
iiL430
e. Chase
ii. 20, 348
0. St. Patrick Soc.
11.207
o. ChurchiU
i.466
p. Sankey
iii. 79
•.Clapp
ii.22
V. Schollenberger
L480
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CAMEa.
CaHDoiiwultli B. Scolt
ii. 12
Condon V. Mo. Pac. By. Co.
11. 269
..»uw
iii. 417
u. Vollum
11.193
t'.Sbepheid
ii. 211
Conduitt V. Sobb
iv.4»0
..81i(^
i. 460
Cone u. Dunham
ii.436
..Soutb
U. 300
0. Hartford
iii. 432
>.8iranbMk
1L624
Cone Export Co. v. Poole
ii.285
KSnmp
li. 87
Conerr v. New Orleani
i.248
^Salli^
i. 467
i. 357
». T«ylor
ii. 267
CoDgdoD V. Perry
IT. 461
.:T«npl«
ili. 432
i.228
», TeDiwy
i.402
Congreie v. ETetU
ii.402
..T™o/
11.32
». Smitli
iii. 433
.. Union Int. Co
U. 818
CoDkey u. Hart
i. 419
».T«a««r
it. 264. 266
Conklin t'. Barton
iii. 30
i.801
iu. 268
V. DaTii
IT. 891
V. W«rfweU
1L22
t.. Edgerton
It. 827
I. Wwerboron^
iL12
ConkitQg V. Tuttle
It. 113
iiL268
u. WaihingtOD OnL
iT. 846
.. Weir
iii. 464
Cooley B. American Ezp. Co.
ii.269
>. Welcome
It. 428
«. Nailor
ii.209
t. Weotx
ii.211
Coud 0. Oano
iii. 97
t. WhitiMj
Coanah v. Haie
UL477
«.WUUDki
ii. 263
Connecticut d. Bnidijh
It. 466
■-Wood
ii. 149
D. Oould
li. 373
B. Wright
i. 87
Conn. F. Ini. Co. b. Hamilton
ili. 376
t,Wyn„n
1.400
Conn. MuL L. Ins. Co. n. Akena
iii. 369
r. TouDK
L481
0. Bowler
UL 56
OreeD
u.'Burrongha
iii. 869
r. Wright
iii. 480
e. CteTeland, C. & C. B. B.
iii. 89
Woelper
V. Cuihman i.
342,418
11.294
V. Groom
iii. 369
Con^tgiue Commercikle e
L431
V. Locha
iii. 369
Charente
D. Sohaefer L 342
iii. mQ
8^
iii. 248
r. United Statea
iii. 468
Compuir of Africui Merchant!
Connell «. Reed
11.366
Brituh, ftc In*. Co.
iii. 314
Conneily v. Cheevera
iii. 64
CMDploir D'Bwwnipte de Pari*
Connelly Mannf. Co. v. Wattles
il. 269
Dmbub
"iii. 88
Connemara, The i. 299
Iii. 248
Cbmpton r. Bate*
11. 146
Conner v. MarUn
iii. 88
..BaercKrft
il.ft2
V. Mayor of New York
i.419;
r.Ban»
ii.470
iii. 464
e.MliMon
11.169
V. Shepherd It. 42. 76
f, Gilmui
iii. 88
Conn era c, Holland
It. 190
V. Oienden
It. 103
Connolly v. DaTidgon
iii. 26
r. Thorn
11187
D.Smith
1V.S7
CoDutock r. Onnd Rapid
iii. 464
li. 183
>. Ravford
ii. 403
il. 461
B. Smith
11.466
; It, 99
V. SulUTan
iii. 440
CMBMockMiU Co. D. Allen
i. 449
u. Tippett
iT. 461
Couth* v. ComTni
IT. 166
V. TraVlck
IL488
QmuIiu r. SmiOi
iii. 96
Connor-g Ca«e
1.284
il. 146
Conolan d. Leyland
ii. 164
r. Willi
iii. 89
Conolly 17. Pareone
ii. 538
Ccoatd >. Atlantic Lu. Co
i. 247. 248 ;
Conorer v. Mut. Ini. Co. of Albany
111. fi76
iL64»)
iiLS62
iT. 437
Conrad «. Atlantic Ina. Co.
It. 176
r.NicDU
i. 248
V. Fisher
ii687
r, L'mted StalM
1.297
B. Harriion
ir. 179
Concha f. Concha
li. 120
i> Ithaca
ii. 274
CoDwrd p. Rnmney
iL 76
If. Lane
ii,241
Concord Bank v. Gregg
Concord Hanuf. Co. iTBo
ii. 284
K. Starr
i». 870
wrtson
ili. 427
0. Waplea
Conroe v. Birdiall il.
i. 66, 67
CoDdit B. BaldwiD
ii. 616
286.241
^ B.Wibon
iv.l72
Conroy v. Pittaburgh Hmea
li. 22
Condon ». Brockway
iT. 116
V. Warren ili. 76. 79, 88
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tb> Bugiiial pi(
Cimwqiu V. Fuming lU. 117
CoDservs, The i 42, 128
Conaett Waterworks Co. e>. KUod in. 437
Com. Aaan. v. ATegno iU. 8
Coni. Chtumel Co. ti. Central Pftc. B.
Co. ii. 340
CoDi. Coftl Co. V. HMDni ii. 269
r. SchraiMenr ir. 480
Com. Co»1 4 M. Co. b. Clay ii. 269
Cone. Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright ii. 36G
Con«. Land & Ir. Co. e, HbwIbt iii. 461
Cone.Nat. Bank D. Pacific C.S. Co. iL812
Can«. B. M. Co. e. Walker ii. SW
Cons. W. Q. M. Co. u. Cliainpion
M. Co. i. 826
Conic E. HaiTia iii. 4S
ConsUble o. Cloberi« iii 2W
u. ConiUble iL 193
s. National 8. B. Co. U. 608:Ui. 207
Conitabte'i Caw L 866, 367 ; ii. S&9 ;
iii. 431
Conitant b. Ini. Co. iii. 267
f. SciiDTler a 447
CoDitaiitia, Tha U. 643; iii 216
CoQBtantinidea v. Walih ii 14G
CoDstinition, The I. 397
Contomera' Oil Co. a. Nnnnemaker ii. 467
Continental Ins. Co. v. .£tna Inc. Co.
V. Chamberlain iii. 370
ti. Cliew iii. 876
s. PeoD. Ini. Co. ii. 616
D. Bhoadi i. 344
V. Volnr iu. 868
CoDtinenua Nat Bank v. Townaend
iii. 86, 102
Contract Co., Inn iL 291
ConTene b, Foiter iU. 80
V. Hood ii. 366
V. Norwich « B. T. T. C. ii. AM
CoDirar, Bz parte ii 816, 682 ; i*. 307
U.e4
It. 14*, 167
98, 110. 117
B. Alexander
B. Beailej
V. Beltatt Ii. zDu
V. Cable i. 466
e. Gray iii. 292
e. PlHsniz U. L. Int. Co. iii. 370
t>. Taylor i. 439 ; iii. 421
Conirelt v. Voorheea ii. 610
Conyen e. Ennia ii. 614
B. Gray ii. 84
Good V. Cood ii. 469
(knk, Ex parte liL 66
hre U. 32
In Hatter of i. 247
V. Addiaon iL 226
r. Allen It. 364
V. Bradley ii. 206, 464, 466
If. BurliDgtMi ill. 461
r. Burnley i. 316
V. Canny ilL 37
cCbampUlnT.Co. ii848i itL436:
iv. li
Cook V. Cole ban
m. 76
V. CoUingridge
iii. 64
V. Comm. Ins. Co.
iii. 306
V. Continental Ina. Co.
iii. 876
B.Cook il
128 1 IT. 75
D. Domett
0. Duclen&ld
It. 461
ir. 387
B. French
ii. 122
B. Hammond
t>. Hart
B. HnU
17.886,389
iii. 441
V. Jenninga
iii. 228. 220
V. LUtor Ii
616: iii. 86
V. Litchfield
iii. 106
V. Mayor, &c. of Bath
iii. 449
!>. Mix
ii474
D. PanKKU
It. 616
B. Pmn
i. 489
V. Prentioe
U. 692
V. Satterlee
lU. 76
B. Soitan
IT. 169
p. Btearai
iii. 468
V. Thomaa
IT. 166
V. Toumbi
1L236
V. United Statea
i40»
V. Walker
It. 46
V. Webb
It. 62
Cook's Case
iT. 843
Cook Connty r. Gilbert
nm
Cook Co. Nat. Bank r. United 8Ute«
i248
Cooke B. Booth
It. 109
B. Chllcott
iT. 480
V. Clayworth
ii. 462
». Cooke
ii. 101
». Eihelhy
ii. 630
V. French'
iii. 108
■>. Gilbert
iT. 480
D. Hfl^
m. 449
ii494
>. Oxley
iL477
B. Panoni
ii24&
V. Iltomton
iT. 120
B. WireiM
a. 176
B. Wiae
iii 483
Cooke's Caae
ii.S42
Cooke's TroaU, /a n
11. 62. 430
Cookaey v. Bryan
It! 306
Cooley V. Board of Wardens
i489
B. Broad
iU.26
P. Dewey
iT. 413. 414
B. Golden
iii. 427
B. Minn. T. Hy. Co.
il. 681
Coolidge B. Brigham
ii296
iU. 331, 832.
883
B. N. T. Elrenwn Int. Co.
1H.290
Coombe, JSxparU
Coomber «. Jnitices of Berka
iii. 31,86
iT. 151
i460
Coombi B. Gordon
ii824
B. Wilke*
ii. 494
Coomer e. Bromley
iii. 46
Coomta B. ClemenU
ii. 428
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Coon D. Fnden
r. Sfimciue A Utica K. R.
Coone; v. Cluk
«. Rjter
Cooni e. Gallager
Coope V. E;re
Coopn, Ex porta
iii. 109
li. 260
ii.183
ii4SS
iL 460i iv. 412
B. Coopor U. 62, :
t. EkloQ
f.Galbrvth
I. QreatFaUaC. M. Co.
t. HuniltoD Mannf. Co.
g. HmKhin
ii. 336
il. 16
U. 260
ti. 181
iv. 456
a. Johuoli
V. Sen iii. ay
t. E;n>ck W. 2ia
I. Uuing Wheel Co. ii. 449
r. Urocbe ii. 170
>. Mcanrkaa iu. 44
nHuDonald iLlM,2M; i-r.2S
V. HcOfew iT. S5
v. HcNanum ii. 192
KHarOn ii. 192; W. S86
V. Han. Mat. L. Iiu. Co. iii. 369
■. HaoDin iiL 424
iii. 53, 124
t. PreibT Church
v.iUl ■"
>. BcTiialda
V- Simpuii
V. Smith
>. The Slate
I. U. 8. M. A. AM'n
». Waldegrare ii.
». W«d
B. Whitner
e. WmomBtt
Cbopei UaDuf . Co. d. Fergatoa
CiMpaTatiTe Aun. n. Leflore
Cdou R. St. Co. B. Barclajr
Coonw Uining Co. v- Sute
Cooth v. Jmckaaa
Cooli n. Detroit
B.Tawetl
Coper. Cope
v.CMdoTa a 606;
ii. !
li. 687
m. 421, 443
>i. 240
■ u« nfamd to.]
Cope D. Doherty ill. 217
V. Vallette Dry Dock L 360; iU. 248
Copeland d. Barnes iL 690
V. Copeland ii. 77 ; ir. 201
c. Draper ii. 470
r. Lewis ii. 499
V. N. E. Marine Ini. Co. Ul 287, 2H8,
Copelin e. Ins. Co.
D. Phienix Iqi. Co.
Copenhagen, The
Copia D. MiddletoD
Copland, Ei parte
V. Bosquet
Copley D. Flint
Copoua V. Kauffmau
Copp D. Herser
Coppard v. Allen
CoppeU t7. HaU
Coppin 0. Coppia
Coppins D. New York ConL
Coquard d. Werose
Cora, The
Corbet e. Corbet
V. Johnson
Corbett V. Baker
V. NorcroM
u. Poelnitz ii.
Corbin d. Cannon
D. Co. of Black Hawk
V. Oonid
«. Healy
V. Planters' Nat Bank
n. Van Brunt
Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. t
Lock Co.
Corbitt r. Stonemetz
Corbyn v. French
Corcoran p. Allen
». Webster
Cordat'i Caw
Corder d. Morgan
Cordery u. Zealy
Cardilleia, The
Cordova e. Hood
Cordora Coal Co. d. lioog
Corey d. Cadwell
V. Ripley
Corfleld v. Coryell
Coriolanua, The
Corlsh r. The Mnrphy
Cork 0. Baiter
Cork & Yonghal B. Co., fn r
Corkling ip. Mattey
Corle B. Monkhonse il. 438,
Corley r. Lancaster
Corlies b. Cummiiig
D. Gardner
r. Eowland
Corliss V. E. W. Walker Co.
Cormack v. Gladstone
Com a. Matthews
iii. 320
ii. 477
il. 179
iT. 67
a 226
iii. 24S
iv.56
Iv. 421
1V.23T
It. 188
Ui. 448
ir. 261
169, leo, lei
ir. 370
i. 849
u. 343
ir. 40
ir. 147
il. 610
IL800
iii. 206
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE- OP CASES.
[nte 111UVI114] pKff
Comeliiu, The i. 149
Cornell v. Lamb iii. Ml, 462, 463, 618
CoToei V. l-ratt iii. 94
Cornetts. Hafer 'iii. SQ
Corn EzchEoge Hat. Buik v. Schep-
pen iii. 66
Corne; v. Da Ck«tm iU. 110, U3
Cornfoot e. Fo«k« ii. 021
CominK v. Bnrdca ii. 866
V. Gould ilL 444, 448
V. TroT IroD ud NmI F«c. iii. 440,
44S
Corniih v. Acdd«iit Ini. Co. iii. 366
t>. Slnbb* ir. 122
Coma u. Blmckbnnie i. 107
Cornwall u. Richardson ii. 26
Coromandel, The iii. 24S
Corp I'. MTomb iii. 106, 107
Corp. of ColctieiWr v. Seaber ii. 310
Corp. of LiTerpool v. Wright iii. 466
Corp. o[ New Orleani v. Winter i. 349
Corp. of Saltaih v. Goodnan iii. 418
CoiT«.nce V, Corrance ii. 162
Correill v. Ham iv. 68
Correll a. I^uterbach It. 341
Corrie v. Corria ii. 193
Corrignn v. Chicago II. 340
V. Drake ii. 226
CoTTT D. Lackev ii. 140
Conair, The 1.8691 iii. 232
Corion, Re ii. 43S
u. State 1.439
Corteljou v. Uniing ii. &S1, 682, 683
V. Van Brandt iiL 432, 433, 484
Corlea; t.. Torriuwj ii. 4tiG
Corwin V. Corwin ir. 493
Corv B. Burr iii. 294, S02, SOS
V. Ejre iv. 1T9
V. Patton iii. 286
0. Seoit iii. 110
CorjeU D. nunton i'- 334
Coeby i: Shaw ii- 343
Ooigrove D. Pitman ii- 259
Cosliery «. Nugle fi. 592
CuamopoUlan, Tlie iii- 248
CiMTnopolite, The i- 164
Coanahao e. Grice ii. 448
Cosner b. McCrum ii. 184
Conman n. We»t iii- 831
Co»t« !•. Wliiteliead iii. 437
Coita Rici 0 Eriangw i- 2B7
Ccigtello V. Cniwell iii. 81
Coaler v. Clarke ir. 60
p. LoTJliard iT, 271, 272, 810, 608
u. Phomii Ini. Co. iii. 260
u. Tide Water Co- ii. 340
Coatigan t>. Mohawk B- R. Co. ii. 269
o. Penn. R. Co. It. 473
Coatin v. Rankin iii. 106
Cotel V. Hilliard iii- 108
Cothar ". FenneU ii. 031
r- Tate ii- 600
Cottage St. M. E. Chnicb v. Kendall
■ u* nftma to.]
Cotteen s. M iuiog ii. 439
Collen V. Blocker iv. 161
Cotter V. Ala. O. 8. R. Co. i. B30
». Layer i»- 5-28
Cotterell v. Purchasea ir. 142
Cottier D. Stinuon ii. 366
CottiDghatn ■>. Parr ir. 467
CottiagliAin'* Caae ii. 119
Cotton, 62 Bales of i. 78
78 Balea of i. 867
282 Baiei of t. S67
Cotton D. Brien I. 439, 466
D. Dacey ii. 122
V. Evans iii. 42
V. Fidelity, 4c. Co. iiL 260. 373
V. Heath iv. 269
D. Tharl»nd ii. 467
B. Ulmer iv- 608
V. United SUtes i. 297
Cotton Plant, The i. 367
Cotton Tie Co. o. Stminons Ii- 366
Cotton's Trustee!, In n i*. 828
Cottray d. Fennell iii- 31
Cottrelt V. Conkiln iii. 89
D. Merchant*' &M. Bank ii.SOO
B. Pienon i. 244
s. Shadley iii. 89
CotlriU V. Myrick ii. 889 ; iii. 416
Cotzhauaen d, Jndd fiL 44
Couch It. Burke iii. 46S
V. Steele i. 467 ; UI. 178 ; iv. 1 18
r. Waring iii. 112
II. Woodruff iii, 25
Coudert B. Siyre iv.473
Coughlin II. Ktiowle* It. 461
B. N. Y. Cent., 4c. R. B. Co. it. 460
CouUiette u. Thoiruuon i. 330
CouUon B. CoulMtn Ir. 219, 223, ISS
V. Holme* iv. 627
Coulter u. Norton iii. 464
('. StaCford i. 469
Conlthard b. Coalthard iL 126
Council Blufls V. K. C. 4c. & B. Co.
1.4.%
Count de Lesieps, The i 870
County oF Casi b. Johnson ii. 208
County of Glouceiter Bank v. Rudry
Hertliyr Steam Co. iv. 1S6
County of Lancaster, The v. Sharpe
iii. 207
Co. of Mobile V. Kimball i. 480
County of St. Clair u. Lovingston iii. 427
County of Warren v. Maroy iii. 80
County of Wilson u. Nat. Bank I- 302
CouDty Life Aa«. Co., In re ii- 300
Coup* Co. B. Maddick ii. 269, 661, 687
Coooind i\ Volliner iv. 461
Course e. Stead i. 846
Couraen i: Hamlin ilL 87
Courser p. Snowden U- 448
Counin ('. Ledlie iii- 70
Courain'* Appeal iii. 166
Cousina p. Phillipa It. 104
Coustun K. Chapman U 479, 494
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Coatut r. Serron
It. 331
Cox D. EeahsT
11.260
emu V. WAlkar
iT.436
c. ILedwaid
iv. 143
Coatatwt !>. HmU«
ii. 469, 626
o. Matthew!
iii. 448
Corell c. Chadwick
11. 1ft
i>. Mitchell
ii. 128
V. 6«rta
ii. 582
V. Natioaal Bank
iu. ee, 109
V, Hejman
j. 2b0
1). Parry
iii. 268
li&44
». Rcid
iii. 183, 137
r. Load
ii. 581
11. BuweU
iii. 85
ii. 415
u. Scott
ii. 138
ii. 549
V. Strode
iT, 476
Csrentr; (Citv at) v. Attorney Gen-
e. Troy
iii. 86
<nl
ii. 280
r. United State*
ii. 459
Cofers. Hyen
ili. SI
V. Walker
ii. 480
C«mt t>. Cruiford
iii. 440
Coie D. Day
o. Harden ii.
iT.334
B. TniTeri Co.
ii. 866
499, 644, 649
CoTiUe s. Gilmui
iii. 61
p. State i. 413, 489; ii.
277 ; Hi. 427
ii. S51
Coxhead V. Mullii
ii. 288
■.Nefoget
11.461
Coxon B. Great W. E. Co.
ii. 604
B.Bobem
111.238
Coy, Ex jiarie
CoTiDgton Ac. Bridge
Co. K. Een-
I«rt
i. 228. 826
Co-ui 0. fowan
1.439
Coye w. Leach
ii. 436. 436
i. 347
ii. 128
Coyle o. Smith
Coyne v. Caplea
iii. 109
iii 162
f. O'Connor
ii. 477
Cozan «. Weal Oxford Land Co. it. 469
». Prow»e
ii. 283
Crabb p. Crabb
ii. 128
CowteiTlredy
IT. 1S2
Crabtree v. Clapham
iii. 37
ii. 624
Cracknall v. JsnsoD
iT.468
..Jaffl,b«.n'
IT. 412, 613
li.340i
Cwfcn'i E>tate
iv. 170
Iii. 476. 482
CoweU K. Hicki
iv. 214
Cradock i.. Scottish Ptot. Jn«'n iv. 136
cSimpaoD
ii. 688, 640
Crilft n. I.ham
iii. 124
I. Springi Co.
ii.386; IT. 130
D. Webster
iT. 194
Onren b. Holton
iim
Cragie v. Hadley
Cragin a. LotoII
ii. 193
Cowert.£i port*
i. 460
ii.284
CowUr. Goodwin
iiL464; iT. 110
iu. 76
».IUlw.U
iii, 98
Craig D. Chiidreu
ii. 609
». BikUdk
iii. 76
D. Continental Ina. Co.
m. 217
Cowing 1-, Snow
iii. 167
D. Firat Preabyterian Church ii. 293
Cowl .. TaniDoi
IT. 162
iii. 66
Cowiu 1.. Slack
Iii. 404
u. Leelie
ii. 62, 230
Cowletr.Cowlea
Ii. 7fl, 128
r.Magee
iii. 164
». B. K. Co.
ii. 200
V. Miaiouri
i. 826, 408
f.lUsnet
iT. 163
0. Murgatroyd
iii. 278
Cowte; n. Newmarket L. Board iii. 482
v.Parkia
ill 128
0. Puliifer
ii. 2-.^
V. Pinaon
iv. 467
B.Wdleiley
iv. 75
D.Price
iii. 102
Cowliagi. UiggiiuoD
ili. 420
V. Rocheater Ac. R. R. Co. ii. 340
CowUr.CowIe
ii. 226
■>. Roch. & a B. R.
ui.482
CowaiHD B. Rogere
ii. 436
'; u'^ne. Co. 1. 86
iT. 176
Cowper, Cue ot the ConotCM ii. 1S3
ill. 261. 293
Cowpers. StOQehwn
IT. 805
t.. Vickaburg
Iii. 89
Cm >. Benoett
ti. IM
r.Wella-
iv. 488
V. Bowling
1L644
Craigallion, The
iii. 188
r. Bruce
ili. 206
Craigoish, In Tt CnigoUh
I- CbunbeTfaun
It. 886
Hewitt
'■ ii. 52, 430
..Coi
ii. 101 : IT. 76
Craiglon, The
iii. 217
w. Cnmhj
ii. 15
Grain v. MoGoon
iv. 194
V. Klliworth
11.436
Crana e. DreMer
iii. 464
F. Fenwick
iT. 162, 164
V. Hendricka
ii. 468
B. FooWanque
iT. 131
V. Mitchell
ii. 636
tr. Forreet
iii. 446
V. Springer L. Co.
It. 116
..Gwt
iT. 194
Crampton «. Ballard
iv. 807
B.H^e,
i. 183
tp. Varna R. Co.
ii. 291, 300
V. Ukkman
iii. 26, 61
CrandaU v. NeTada
i. 429, 489
„Gooi^lc
TABLE OF CABE8.
to,]
Cr.nd»ll'. AppeU
iv.eoe
Crane, Ex parte
L823
Inn
iii. 866
V. City Ini. Co.
iii. 370
V. Conklin
ii. 452
D. Deming
ii. 681; iv. 176
V. LondoD Dock Co
11324
V. roweU
ii. 4»4
V. Rebecca, Ths
Hi. 220
Crans v. Hanter
ii.aia
Cranion e. CntDwiii
It. 60
CrantioD i: Cnme
iv. 148, 1»4
V. Htnhall
iii. 200
iL4e3
Cnpo c. KeUey
iii. 407
Cnry v. Goodnum
i*. 460
Cniler i'. Binia^r
iii. 87
CMufnrd n. Hunter
UL 271, 276
Craven a. Brady
IT. 181
V. Ryder
U. 647
Craw V. H&mMy
11.42
Crawford, fle
U. 438; iv. 616
V. AogtiQ
iU. 84
B. BerthoK
iv.wa
B. Doggelt
11. 149
V. Roberta
Iti. 188
s. StirlinK
iii. 47
iv. 310
V. WiUiam Penn, The i. 169
B. William 1
ill. 212
V. WiUon
ii.480
B. Wiiherbee
Ji.46B
Crawford'* Appeal
U, 488
Crawihaw v. Sumner
Ui. 487
Ci«wihay 0. Collina
iii. 56, 63, 64
V. Homfray
it. 636
0. Maale iii. 87,
89, 64, 66, 67. 69,
' 63. 64
B. Thornton
ii.6a8
Cream City Glau Co. b
Frledlander
ii. 49S
ii.S40
Crear v. Crowty
Crean v. Hunter
11.468
Creceliui v. Bierman
ii. 22
Credtand c. Potter
iv. 170
Creech v. Crockett
iv. 118
Creed V. Hartmann
11.260
B. Kendall
ii. 196
B. Penn. R. R. Co.
ii.QOO
Creel b. KIrkhara
iT.96
Creen v. Wright
Ci«eth D, WiUon
iii. 162
It, 208
CreeTy, Caie of
i.236
Cregg, Ex porit
ii.49
Cregier, Matter of
iv.M
Cregler e. Durham
Crefghton i-. Evau
iii. 68
iii. 440
Cremer p. Higginion
Ui.47
Crenshaw, The
i. 74
Crenshaw b. M'Eierou
iii. 101
0. Smith
iv. 4T6
B. Stale River Co.
iU.443
Crenihawe b. Pearce
Iii. 217
Crerv o. WiUlami ly. 608
CreicenI City &c. Co. *. Bntchen'
Union i. 2B0
D. Planner ii. 281
I. New Orleaiu i. 419
Crescent In*. Co. b. VickiburB P. Co.
iii. 291
Creipigny v. Wittenooo L 461
Cressington. The iii. 207, 217
Cresaon b. Miller iv. 449
0. Stout IL 343
Crenze v. Hunter ii. 194, 220 '
Creveling u. Bloonubnry M. Bank iii. 88
Crewe v. Crewe U. 101
Crews V. Hatcher iv. 203
V. Peodleton iv. 468
Cribbs V. Adams iiL94. 102
V. Sowle ii. 461
Crighton E. Dahmer ii. 10
Crigler v. Alexander U. 226
Crim B. Starkweather Hi. 91
Crtppi D. Hill ii. 239
V. Talvande iii. 472
n. Wolcotl iv. 203
Crispin v. Babbitt ii. 260
Crispy B, Campau 111. 76
Criswell V. Whitney ill. 866
Critchlow v. Parry iii. 114
Crittenden d. Canfield ii. 226, 404
Croaadale v. Bright ii. 22
Crocker e. Cooper ilL 462, 463
r. Jackson ilL 314
V. LewU ii. 484
B. People's M. Ins. Co. iii. 370
V. Pierce iv. 08
Crockett b. Crshi iii. 65
V. Crockett Iv. 76
V. Dodge iii. 286
V. Scrlbner ii. 404
Croft c. Aliaon ii. 200
Ii. Arthur ii. 622
V. Hanover F. Ini. Co. il. 610 ; iii. S70,
V. Powell iv. 146
B. Wllbar ii. 482
Crotton B. Illaley ii. 481
Crotis V. WaterhousA il. dOO, 601
Croly V. Croly iv. 277
Crombie v. McOiatfa iL 261
Cromei v. Piatt iii. 106
Cromie c, Kentucky & Louisville M.
Ins. Co. iii 281
B. Lonisville Orphans' Home Soc.
ii. 287;iv. 608
Crompton b. Belknap HilU ii. 366
B. Jarrett iv. 406
B. Pratt iL 498
B. Bichardi Ui. 448
Cromwell v. Benjamio il. 146, 1U.S
B. County of Sac ii. 469; iii. 70,
80,116
D. Hynton iii. 10i» "
D. Lovetl iii. Ill
s. Seldeo iv. 467
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
CnnB e. T«bo
Craoiw V. C\uk i). 236
t. KeUogs iu. 86
CroBkhiU n. Cronkhita iii. 461
CioDkile r. Nebeker iiL 79
Cnok r. tint Nat. Buk li. 448
t. HiU Ir. 346
F. Jadii iii. 83
V. Old Point Comfort Hotel Co.
i. 266, 4S1
>. Seftford U. 291 ; ill. 487 ; it. 461
p. TdU ii. 160
B, TuderooK if. 868
Crooke b. De Vuidei ii. 361
Crooke S. A R. Co. b. Towie ii. 477
Crooktoden c. FnUtr ii. 430
Crookn- v. Bnggv IiL 428
r. Pnzler
CVookewit V. El«tcber
Crooki e. Allan
•- Crooki
*. Eennett
Croakibank tr. Bnmll
Crapper v. Cobnm
v.Cook
CnAj e. Berger
rBnaar
>. Del. ft H. Canal Co.
I. Giant
c. N. T. Mat Ini. Co.
>. Tanner
c. Wadswoith
Oodij'tCaw
Cwiby Co. ». Cons. 8. V. Co.
Croadale n. Laoigan iii. 461
CrwR V. Rolledge II. 179
CnMlej E, Archdeacon of Sodbnr; ii. 410
iT. 161
iii. 206
m. 206, 244
ir. 464
11149
U. fill
i.842
a 622
a 469
111.440
II. eeo
Iii. 91
Ui. SOS
III. SI
ir. 461
aso
>**,£r
ii. 52, 430
m. 206
a 486, 614
Andre.,
p. Beard
r. Brown
r. Clieshire
V. Crow
r. De Valle
r. Famtenditcb
V. Holliater
K North Carolina
F. Peteia
B. Weare CoramlMlon Co.
Crone e. GanlDer 11. 478
Croule/ V. Elworthj ii. 441
E. Ij^falowlei 111. 419. 440, 448, 449
Cronling v. Crouling It. 319
CRMtbwait D. Rom Iii. 43
Croatwaight r. HntehinKn il. 178
Crotua V. FriMrio ia S7
Crot^ r. Rasta ii. 226
V. Onion Mnt. L. Ini. Ca iii. 366, 369
CrowA V. Credit Fonder i. 207 ; ill. 89
B. Foirle It. 474
B. London A N. W. R, Co ii. 661
• ■n rBforred Co.]
Croncb v. Pmyear
CroactiBT D. Oakman
CrondioD V. Leonard
Croagh ton's TmiU, In n
Croiue, Ex pant
Crow D. Coon*
Crow Doff, Ex part*
Crowder v. Anitin
t>. Ke^i
Crowe V. Aiken
n. Ctaj
Crowell V, Eeene
D. Randeil 1. 3
e. Van Bibber iiL
Crown Point, OTenecra of v. Warner
iT.77
iii. 184
a 121
a 170
il. 373
m. lie
ir. 185
a 864;
a 281
11. 138
iii. 41
ia7T
a 446
Ui. 75, 79, 86
It. 811
It. 276
ia 461, 470
ii. 164
iv. 264
a 284
iii, 34, 166
Crowtlier, In re
V. Thorley
CroxtoQ ti. May
Crozier v. ElrlEer
CiDcbley i>. Clarence
Crne v. CaldweU
Cruger r. Annetrong
V. Hallidar
e, Haywood
e. Hirf^iaDgliry ... _. .
Crnikihank o. HooM of the Friend-
lew It. 641
r. Parker It. 328
Cram V. Sawyer
B. Thornley
Crnmb, Ex parte
Cramliili u. Central Imp. Co.
Crummey d. MiUa
Cramp s. Morgan
tr. Norwood
V. C. S. Mining Co.
Cnuader, Tha
CruM i>. Barley U.
Cratcber v. Kentocky L
Crutcbfleld i>. R. & D. R R. Co. iL
Cryital Ice Co. v. SheHock ii.
C. 8. Higgin* Co. e. Higglai Soap
Cuban S. Co. v. Fitqxitrick i.
Cubbini s, Ajen ti.
Cnbitt V. Porter iii.
Cacnllu D. Louiaiana In*. Co. ii.
B. Orleani Ini. Co. jil.
Cnd D, Butter ii. 468,
Cuddy V. Horn iii. 217,
Cnlbertaon v. Nelion ii'
B. Smith itl. 80,
Cnllen b. Butler lil.
Culley 0. Edwards ii^
Cullnm o. Emanuel It. 1S3,
Cullwick D. SwiadeU ii.
Gulp B. Stanford ii.
V. Wil»on It.
Colrer i>. Harper li
9. Hide & Leather Bank iii
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[niB DWrgflHll pH^H W nfBTTfld bh]
Cumberland v. WiUiion
ii.340
Currier f. Fellows
HI. 89
ii.6ii5
r. Gala
iv. 194
Cumberland Coal & Iron Co.
. Seally
r. Green
iv. 438
ii. 260
r, Rowe
iii. 87
Cumberland Co. v. Boyd
1.462
V. Studley
iv. 148
p, Slierman
iv.438
1.. Webster
iii. 87
Cumberland T. Co. v. V. El.
By. Co.
Curry v. Collins
ii. IS
ii.611
r. r^m. Ins. Co.
iii. 373,
ST4, 876
D, Curry
iv.61
Cn, II. Suliell
iii. 873
V. Fowler
iii. 26
Cumins c. Brown
ii, 549, 561
ii. 136
Cumins c. Wood
ii. 587
ii. 438
D. Vrq Wagner
iiL76
1.439
Curtin u. Barton
iii, 461
ii. 98, 101
V. Bryan
ii. 386
B. Gann
ii. 686
V. Curtii
Ii. 19S; iv. 72
D. Uodgdon
ii,430
V. Engel
ii. 164
D. Howard
1.467
V. Fielder
i. 464
■7. MiuoDri
i. 400, 419
V. Galvin
iv. 113
p. Powell
ii. 236
D. Groat
r. Slearns
iv. 261
n. Hannay
IL 470, 479, 480
V. Tliumai
ii. 498
f . Hobart
V. 64, 62
E. WLngo
ii. W
V. Hubbard
iv. 432
ii. 69
V. Leavitt
iL291
i iv. 451
Cummins i: White
ii. 4ltl
V. Lukin
iv, 2H3
Cunmer o. MlLtoa
ii. 430
V. Mundy
iv. 171
Cunard t>. Hyde
iii. 262
V. Noonaa
iii. 462
Gundy V. Undmy li. 4TT, 46-2. 4fltt
V. PattoD
ii
236,288
Cunliffe t>. Brancker
iv. 2S:t
D. Perry
iii
147. 148
ii. 62, 430
D. Whitney
i
419, 466
LI. Barnes
ii. 193
Cnrtts 1-. AspiDwall
ii
466,639
V. Ciesidv
iT. 431
0. Delaware, &c. B
R. Co.
ii.eoo
.. Conninghwn
u,87
B.Hom
iii. 70
n. Davenport 11
438; iv. 305
u. U Grange H.W. Co.
iii. 449
V. Dunn it
468; iii. 206
V. Mundy
li.233
V. Freeborn
iL 629, 633
p. Norton
1». 407
0. Hall
i.36«
0. Piedmont Lumber Co.
11.291
V. Harris
ii. 218
B. Slovin
i, 467
D. Williamson
ii.68l
V. KniEliC
iv.60
Curtis Manuf. Co, t>. Douglasa
iii. 8S
r. Mni^n « Brunswick R. Co. i. 3SS
Corliss u. Ayrault
m
419, 440
V. Mnorly it
». Nut. Bank
31, 204. 324
Cnsack 0. Itobinson
ii. 492
ii. 4ti8
Cushintr V. Blake
iv
.29,304
.-. Parker
iv. 206
V. Breed
ii
492. 690
V. llfardoD
ii. 146
V. Hurd
iv. 172
V. Switzerland M. Ini. Co. ill. 296
V. Ijiird
1.360
p. Webb
iv.467
Ui. 376
V. Willinmt
fr. 192
». United States
1284
Cnpiaino r). Perei
iii. 172
Oushing's Case
i. 98
Curd V. Miller
ii.620
Cushman c. Hayes
li. 581
Curetcin u. Moore
U. 143
V. N. W. Ins. Ca
lU
260,875
Curlew, The
1.96
Cnsic c. Douglas
i. 419
Curley o. Harrit
ii. 260
CuBick ij. Adams
iv. 110
CurlinK n. Lang
», Thornton
iii. 223
Cuater o. Delterer
iv. 487
ii. 480
Cutbuih V. Cutbuih
iii. 67
Curran ... ArkantM
i 297, 419
Cutbbert V. Chauvet
ii. 22»
Currell v. VilUn
iv. 613
r. Lawton
iii 44t
Ourren v. Taylor
iv. 394
Cuthbertson o. Irving
iv. 194
Currey, /fe iL 170; iv. 131
Cutler „. Qilbrelh
U. 470
Currie e. Bircham
ii-4S4
V. James
i*. 466
V. Bombay NU. Ins. Co
iii. 370, 302,
D. Lennox
ui.20»
SSI
B. Rae
.sesi Iii
234.248
1>. HIM
iii. 70
p. TImrlo
ill. 134
Carrier b. Currier
li.607
t.. Wlnsor
iU.34
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASiS.
Ixxiz
Cuthglil r. Stufotd
It. 419
Dalgliah p. DavidKm
iif.244
CoUcr C.Butler
11.164
Dallam v. DaUam
iv. 276
r. Copeluid
ii.63I
ii. 277
r. DiTeDpoTt
It
441,613
Dalmady d. Motteux
iii, 262
r Donghty
It
279, 345
D'Almaine v. Booaey
ii, 376
r. B.n>1eD
iii. 404
Dalrymple v. Dalrympte
U. 87, 92
(.Powell iL269,
468,474
»,.«
DalEon V. Angoa Ii. 260
u. DalloQ
; ui. 437
iv. 76
CotlerELAMamif.Co.
...aorerly iL388
i>. Jones
ii. 226
Calling r. Slokei
iii. 437
D'Alton V. D' Alton
ii. 198
Cutling'i Cue
i. HS
Daly t^. Brady
ii. 878
CntCor. Gilbert
iv. 631
c. Palmer
ii. 378
CnlH r. Brunerd
ii.604
V. Webiter
ii, 378
iv. 449
e. Wise lU. 468
; iv, 110
Otj-kr ,, Nellie
iii. 107
Dalzell u, Dueber M. Co. ii
269,866
C. W. Ring, The
iii. 248
i: Mair
iii, 260
Cjpiet, The
i. 130
Damainville », Mann
iv, 96
(^11.1^ The
iii. 854
Dame v. Baldwin
ii, 324
rj|,rc», The
iii 193
V. Dame
UL401
Cjrcniu r. MqL L. Ina
Co.
iii. 365
D. Kempster
HI. 33
CnriM.The
iii. 248
iv. 632
C»ch ». GeDerml Steun N»y. Co
iii. 21 7
Dammert v. Osbom
iv. 613
Damon v. Bryant
il. 442
Damura p. Craig
Hi. 164
Disur «. Green
Iv. 142
Dan, The
iii, 207
r MtDDing
Iv. 821
Dana c. Bank of United Stale*
ii, 315
r. New Eng. MuL Iiu. Co.
iii. 234.
II. Conant
iii. 123
288,314
iv. 806
.. Stidger
iii. 106
V. Jackion St. Whvf Co.
ill. 431
Dib7 B. EricnoD
lU, 87
V. Lull
iii. 14
Dtcotta D. IJavlB
ii. 4G3
V. Murray iv.
V. Tliird Nat. Bank, Boiton
283.819
DuT 11. Chemiul H&nuf. Co.
ii. 179
iii, 88
Dull r. Piper
ii. 22
c. Went worth
iv, 480
D^letih tr. GraDdT
iii. 47:1
Dannhy b. Deniion Nat Bank
i. 304
Diglej s. Telferry
ii. 219
Dan Brown, Tlie
ill, 170
g;jf.„.,.^D.A,^
it. 126
Danby v. Contts
iv. 468
Iii. 206
Dancer v. Crabb
ndleT >. Coofii
iii. 25
Dandof, Tremper
iv, 462
>. Houston
ii. 149
Dane D, Mortgage Ini. Co.
iii. 263
D>ilT r Reiil
ii. 233
Danlurlli i>. Durell
iii. 432
IWn,. Cowing
ii. 360
iv. 461
DtiMK ... H>le
1,42
V. Nat, Sute Bank
iii. 80
>. UDi[e<l StatM
i.42
V. Schoharie Tnrapike Co.
11.291
Duniiy F. Daintty
iv, 277
V. Smith
lv.76
UiM,The
ill. 176
Dangerfleld b. Thunton
ii, 431
D«., Day, The
iii. 179
D'Angibau, In re iv.
S17, 324
Dait-, Appeal
i», 456
Danhouee'B Eitate
Dikt c. Better
iii. 83
Dania, The
iii, 248
Dikin V. DakJa
iL104
Danid i>. Andrews
iii, 72
r. Oxter
iiL22S
I'. Daniel
lv.608
.. William.
iv, 124
r. Leitcb
iv. 46
Akou B. * L AM'n t
Logan
il. 460
r. North
iii. 448
iT,288
V. Smith
Ii, 448
lUeod r. William.
ii.354
v. Thompaon
iv, 278
Mby c. India ft London L Am
Co,
P. Toney
B.Wood
iii, 48
iii, 369
iii- 402
^ ..Pullen
ii, 470
Daniel Ball. The I. 868
869, 4^'.>
IWcoor r. McCan
iii, 76
Daniel Kaine, The ii
. 40, l.'>5
Dile<^H>II il. 696 690; iii
213, 801
Daniel King's Estate
iv, 418
>. HamUton
ii. 24. 89
Daniel) •'. Sinclair
ii. 491
c. llaye*
li,364
Daniells, Ex pant
L468
ii. 164
B.Almy'^
tr. 369
c. IfaKMeTelt
ii, 464
P. Bmwn
iv,05
Dilgltiih ». Buchaoao
iii. 878
V. CltiMns- 6av, loet, iH, 268
: iv. 467
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
DuielU B. D&Tuon It. 179
t>. Eldredge iv. ISl
c. Elliion It. 429
c. Equitable Fire Int. Co. iii. 378
r. UaiTii Iii. 288
V. NswtoD iL 408
D. Pood iL 347
e. Union Pac. St. Co. ii. 259
. t. WUaoQ iii. 46]
Donks f . Qiuckenbiuh i. 41Q
Daon V. Citj of London Brawny Co. It. 176
>. Norris iii. 69
Dannmeyer t>. Coieman li. 366
Danoui, The i. 75
Danwy b. Griffith! It. 200, 274
n. Richardson il. SBfl
Danven SaTtngi Banke. ThomHon i. 308
DsnviUe v. Amoakeag Manol. Co. il. 242
D'AquiU D. I«inbert iL 542, 64S
Daquin n. Coiron ii. 3S6
_ .. , . , i. 89
r. Hajrford U. 46]
V. KroeU ' ii. 490
Jl'Arc B. LaadoB, Ac. Rj. Co. Ii. SOB
Varcv B. AUin ii. 872
B. KeUer ir. 608
D'Aicj c. Blake It. 36, 48, 44
c. Eetobum 1. 262
D. Tamar, Kit Hill, ft CalliDgton
R. Co. ii.
Dare d. Uealhcote iii.
Dark u. Johniton iii. 861, 462
Darland b. Tavlor ii. 446
Darley d. Darler It. 6'^
Darlej M. C. Co. e. Mitchell
DarUnB, Be IL 451
B. BoatoD & W. B. R. li. 604
n. Potu iii. 88; It.
V. tUigen It. 281, SlO
Darlington ii.Ma7orofN.T. l419;iL275
v.Piiiteney iv. 831
V. Cnilcd StatM il
pHrnaby b. Watta It
Darnall a. Morebouie i
Darrsll b. So. Fac R. Col ill. 217
Damr v. M'Nair ii. ~
Dairigan o. New York, tc. R. Co. ii.
Darrington v. Bank of Ala. L 408
Darrow b. H. R. Home P. Co. li. 630
Dart 0. Dart It. 261
Dartmonth Coll. r. Woodward t. 415 ;
li. 107, 274. 276, 276, 802, 306 ; iii. 46fl
Dnrwln i:. Handley if
Da Sa'i Cue
Daih V. Van Xleeck 1. 456
Daihiell v. Attorney General ii 388; It. 608
V. Daahiell U. 282
e. OrtMTenor 11. 368
Dashing WaTe. The 1. 166
Dashwood o. BIyEhway It. 182
Dash
rood E. Jermyn
U-ITS
Dater o. Troy
Hanb B. No. Pac. R. Co
iv.43a
ii. 269
Daubjmy s. Davallon
U.63
Ii.
585, 026, 639
Danger* v. Rival
iL304
Danglierty c. Rogers
iT.687
Dauntleu, The
ii.319
Davall V. New MTer Co
iY.424
Darendorf v. West Va.
■*c. Co. Iii. 109
Davenport, In rt
,. Sodite Co.
iLl&4
i.S22
Licon
iv. 181
Runletl
liL43
Sleight
li. 614
TheQaeen
Iv. 122
Wright
iv.TO
Wv'ae
It. 498
Daveron, 7b re
iv.288
Davert 1.. Dewes
iL426
Daves B. Haywood
iv. 4I»
Uavey b. Maiy Frost, The
iii. 196
V. Turner
ii. 153
V. Ward
iv. 148
DaTid V. Eloi
iii. 166
D. Grahame
iv. 181
V. New Orleans
Hi. 461
r. Park
U, 868
V. Ryan
UL468
V. SablD
iv, 473
Davidson, The
UL lee, 197
Davidson v. AHen
iv. 152
ii 440
i>. Buraand
m. 399, 802
■>. Chalmers
Iv. 131
1-. Claylaud
1.348
u. Cowan
iv. 178
V. DavldMU
iv. 230
I. Ptew
iv.4Sl
r. GwyoDe
iii. 209
V. Lanier
ii. 441
V. New Orleuii
i.248
V. NichoU
iL490
«. Westchester G. L. Co, ii. 449
B. Willasey
iii. 270, 312
V. Young
11.236
Davie B. Briggs
L842:iL430
Daviet, Ez parte
U.56a
«. Atkinson
UL44
B. DsTiee
il.467
n. Hodgsoo
iii. 64
V. JenkiDS
ii. 164
V. Lalhrop
i. 302
B. London, 4c. Ins
Co.
U. 466, 482
e, Marshall
iit 452
B. McVeigh
iiL206
B. National M. Ins
Co.
Iii. 282, 378
B. Raoer
iv. 480
r. Rear
iU. 419, 424
V. Skinner
iiLS7
t.. Solomon
JLIS
I.. Wilkinson
lit. 122
r. Williams
iT..'»5
DaviM H. L. Co. p. Oottschalk 1. 418
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
^n* DUTfiul paffBt An rofemd to-]
D>vlM-PolierTrarti./f>
T« m. ses
D»Tii B. Old Colony E. H. Co
tl. 281,
I}iTii,Tbe 1.297, 869; ill. ITl
399,300
IhjiM,JU
iT.608
V. Pmciflc F. Co.
ir. 110
(.Abbott
iT.431
r.P«k«rd
145
*. B«nk of Tenneuee
iil. 106
P.P««B
iT. 6S
V. BsttiM
a. 398; Iv. 188
r. Prntriek
li. SIO
B. Beduima
ii.496
p. Police Jury of Concordi- 1 ITO
B. Beuoa
1.36
f. Bowe
It. 402
<T.fiowMr
li.Ml
V. Schmidt
U. 160
>.Bndle7
U.838
V. SbMTon
It. 449
».Brig&«c»
i. S70jiU.154
,-. Sbield. tt. 480, 484. 610
t.BarreU
ir. 118
n. Simpwn
Ir. 438
t. Cent. Cong. Soc.
iil. 123
V. Sladden
it. 16
It. 110
ti. Smith
It. 47S
t Cent™! Vt. B. Co.
ii.808ilii.207
V. South CuDlim
lafl
.. CbUd
Hi. 170
■>. Speed
iT. 257. 2!io
». Chriitiu
iii.sg
it. 636
r.DaTU it 120, 126, 128. 643 ;UL 24;
It. 144
i». 160
».TexM
I.S2&
p.DBnday
ir. 166
r.Thomw
ir. 144
•.Diairoodr
U.179
5. ThomMOD
0. TT«n At No. 1
ir. 118
r-Dodd^
ili.116
iii. 248
■•.Dodtoo
ili.42
■7. U. S. El. P. & I,. Co.
ii.800
•.rtodtoj
U. 236
u. Vermont Cent. Jty. Co.
il. 260
r. Earl of Strmthmora
It. 170
V. WelU
iii. 123
cEppler
lii. 80
B. WilUami
iii. 107
».E.^
ii. 434
D&tIr'b Cue
ii.32
..FdUm
lii. 439
DbtIi (LeMM of) 0. Powell
M.336
rFnnk
iLesi
DiTi. C. W. Co. p. Alert, The lii. 248
«. Gmle
111440
Dariton, h n,
1341
>. Gmrr
iii. 76
V. Chunplin
1402
•. Garratt
111210; iv. 808
11631
>. QeCcheD
m. 440
». Gardner
lT.4.'i8
r. Glddingt
ii-600
V. Gent
It. 96
V. GUbert
iii. 280
D. Gibwn
1473
>. GiTcna
W. 871
r. WiUon
It. 118
>!H^iU>
1.823
DftTone D. FMining U. S31 ;
iT. 144, 807,
a 479:111228
B2e,4:»
e. HeraingirkT
iv. 186
Davy, Ra
li. 161
». HndwD
ii.226
0. Hallett
lii. 270, 338
>.J«:k*on
il.S54
t>. MiUord
iii. 297
>. Jicqnin
il.S26
V. Smith
IT. 616
>. Johuton
iii. 152
D«w B. HeniDg
lii. 34
r.Jooei
11169
Dkwea V. BoylilMi
il 431, tM
..King
It. 371. 624
-.Cope
11622
..Krng
U. 189
«. Hamew
ii, 482
i>.Kt^
ii.866
r. Head
11433.484
i^lAiie
H. 645; iil. 68
V. Howard
ii. 191
v.Lewii
il. 20
>.Jack«Ml
116X2
>.Logu
It. 87
e. N. B. loi. Ca
lii. 376
V. M'Arthnr
tLOSO
D. Peck
ii, 499
>. UcFiriuw
ii.468
Dawkee v. De Iatsm
iii. 76
>>.Hanb«uen
1123
Dawkina e. Antrobot
U166
P.MMOD
iT. 80
,. Quit, &c By. Co.
ii.26»
P. Meeker
li. 486
v. Pattenon
ir. 148
::SE-
iil. 66
f. Panlet
11.22,30
HI 81, 91. 109
V. Bokelqr
ii 23
«. N«ih
It. 118
Dawn, The iU. 12, 180. 190. 248
<>. N«w Brig
>. Hew T(^ fa. B. C
i.880
Dewaon, In rt
It. 283
0. i. 86 : U. 269
V. Buk of WhitaluiTeii
iT.61
;sa
U.488
u. Chamoer
il 694, 696
ai.91
V. Colli!
ii. 479
kKoMm
It. 214
r. Cropp
iii. 47B
'.OTemn
It. 46
V. Dawion
11.98
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
D«w»on V. Follen
li.sea
De Anntmd b. Bohn
U.128
^Godftey
H. 67
Deal Ti, Horry
iv. 611
D. Grow
ii. 886
DeaTerB.Rice ilL473; It. 468
V. Iron lUnga B. Co
iii. 24
DeaTen v. Spencer
11269
p.J.r
DeaTes's EiUte
Iv. 532
p. ParioM
III 68 i iT.4a
ii.623
y. Wood
ii. 620
i.467
Bkf V. BuMtt
U.49S
a 146
p. BMhec
11.606
De Berkom v. Smith
iii. 30
t>. CklOD
iii. 487
De Bevoiu v. Sandford
It. 311
V. Cochran
It. 28. 29
DebiniDD v. Emmons
ii. 44S
r.D»y
Ii 128; l». 513
Debloii >'. Ocean Ins. Co.
iii. 831
o. Everett
IL ISS, 264
Deboe B. Lowen
It. 27B
V. Rolmei
ii. 622
He BoUe V. Penn. Ini. Co.
iii. 268
r. Kinnej
iii. SB
De Bolt D. Carter
iii. 451
V. Lockwood
iiL37
«. Newwk India Bobber Hanuf.
De BoQcbout V. Goldunid
ii. 626
Co.
ii. 286
De Bow V. The People
.464; ii. 272
p. Nix
ii. 472
Debow D. Ticoa
iv. 78
B.Fool
ii. 479
Debi, /n r«
LS68.430
e. Sarage
1.448
De Brai r. Forbe*
iii. 80
«. Stevent
iii. 26
De Camp n. Hamma
iii. 79
B. Swift
U. 681
De Catere a. Le Bay De Cbaomont
K. ThoDiton
iii. 89
iL634
r, Uoion India Babbw Co. ii. 866
Decell B. Lewentbal
ii.240
Dayton w. Bont
ii. 812
Deckard b. Caw
iii. 44
B. Craik
It. 106
». Trull
iu.88
i.268
B. Vandoorer
IT.IOB
V. Fiiher
m. 41B
n. Warns
aeag
r. Gaylord
ii.22
r. Wilke.
iii. 64
V. LiTingiton
iT.369
D. B. 8>«eloiaii, The
iU. 13S
De Cock, The
m. 281
iT. 807
De Cooiaa v. Pro»t
ii.642
D. Quids
ii, 366
Decorah Woolen Mill Co.
B. Greer
Deadrick V. Armour
i», 403
iii. 462
Dealey v. Muller
ii. 241
De CordoTa v. GaWeston
i.4&5
Devx r. American Mnl. life Im. Co.
De Coita B. Scandret
Iii. 286
iii. sea
Decouche v. Saretier ii. OS,
481, 469, 468
«. Comitock
IT. 118
De Couney v. Guaranlee,
&c Co.
■>. Dean
it, 448 i iT. 2U4
Ui. 470
o. Keate
ii. 587
De CrespiBny r. WeUeiley
De Cnadra b. Snann IU.
ii. 20
o. McDoweU
iii. 61
Jia, 226, 270,
V. M'Ghie
iii. 184, 833
331
it 478, 481,656
Dederick V. Foi
Ii. ;)66
e. PattOD
ii, 524
Deely b. Brigantfne Bme«t
i, 370
n. Peel
ii. 206
Deem v. MiUiken
iT. 632
■>. Plunkett
iii, 88, 44
B. Kiiinfcer
iT, 632
Ii. 168
De Ende t.. Moore
It. 438
B. SpeakmiD
iii, ns
Deere v. Manden
iu.81
", State
ii. 200
Deerfleld o. Ann.
a. 427, 428
V. Walker
It. 146
Deerin? v. Famngton
iv.469
Dean & Chapter of Fernet. CaM of
V. Wii.chel.ea
It. 371
ii. 28S, 2M, 206
Deaoe ». CaldweU
Iv, 106
B. Gnj Co.
ii. 816
166,167
0. Randolph
ii. 274
D-Eynconrt v. Qregoiy
ii.84$
DeaniTille Cemetery Auo., Uatler
Deeie, ExporU
Deford V. lUyooldn
ii.47Z
of
ii. 640
iii. 68
Dearborn n. Baytor
ii, 408
De Foreit v. Bacon
11.533
Deares. Carr
ii, 401
H. Fullon Fire Int. Co.
iU. 271, 371
D. Sontlen
ii. 146
V. Holum
It. ISa
Dearin t.. Fitspatrick
ii. 142
De Forreil p. Wright
iLsao
Dearie v. Hall
It, 180
De Francetco «. Bamnm
U. 243
De Anna* v. Mayor
iii. 878
Defrannce v. Brook.
iT. 7
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASE3.
Th Gullon V. L'Algle U. 166, 167, 031
De Giicomo, Be i. 37
De GiT« D. Gnnd lUpidi F. Co. i. 45
Degmin v. Degmui iv. 336
De Gwocxa v. Knickerbocker Ijfe
Ina. Co. iii. 369
De Grav v. Uoomouth Beach C. H.
Co. W. 480
De Gny >. Ru^ardton iv. 20, 30
De Gmoc, £z porfe 1. 290, S22
0. United Sute* i. 207
De H«hn r. HMtley iii. 267. 286, 288, 280
De Hun e. Mexican N. R. Ca i. 36
De Hiu E. Dibert iii. 76
E. KoberU iii. 76, 80
De Haven v. HelTie ii. 16
Debert s. Hairiot Iii. 102
Dehoa ». Bedfsm i<r. 490
DtboritT >. Wright iv. 478
D«bl«r V. Bmrwick It. I(i2
DMdericki V. Com. Ini. Co. iii. 8.10
Deidrich r. The N. W. U. By. Co. iii. 4Z7
DeihU V. King il. 868
Deihl I. OtteaTille ii. 269
De Jaroett e. Hkrper ii. 233
De Jamette s. HcQneen iii. 87
D^bere e. Norwttod It. 184
De la Cliuunelte n. Bank of Eng-
luid ii. 460; iii. 77
Ddacroiz tr. Cenaa ir. 470
De Lac7 ir. Ullman Ii. 348
DeUBeld i^. Hand ii. 12]
E.UliDoU i. 400; ii. 284
c. Pariah iv. 508
De La FM«t't Caae i. 46
De I« Garde b. Lempriere ii. 1»8
Delihay B. Hemphii lot. Co. iii. 873
De I^ncej B. Piepgraa iii. 459
DelancT b. Salina iv. 608
E. Stoddart lit. 261
p. Wallia ii. 824
DeUm B. Bedford lot. Co.
.. The C. ft N. W. By.
i.474
De U V^a v. Yianna ii. 46tt, 462
DeUrergne v. Norria Iv. 476
Delaware Bank v. Jarria iii. 88
Delaware County t>. Diebold S. ft L.
Co. i. 802
Delaware, L. ft W. R. Co. v. Central
Slock- Yard t T. Co. ii. 600
Delaware ft M. B. R. Co. b. Stump
Til. 418
Delaware ft S. Canal Co. ir. Sansom
ii.812
M Col p. Arnold 1. 09
Detemater ». Heath ii. 866
De Leon b. Leitch iii. 248
hExparU iii 26
Delhi B. Toutnaoi
iU. 440
De Usle e. Prlettman
iL 682; lY. 138
Deliua v. Caivthom
iL 614, 632
De Lizardi b. Pouverln
iii. 104
Deil 0. Babthorpe
iii. 422
Delliber e. Delliber
ii. 101
Delooey e. HuteheaOD
iii. 39
Delonguemare >>. Tradeunen'* Ini.
iiL378
De Longnemere f. Fire Ins. Co. iii. 812
V. S. V. Fire Ina. Co. iii. 288
V. Fbtenix Ini. Co. iii. 812
De Lovio B. Boit 1.887,370,871,877;
iU. 162
Delpboa, The iii. 248
Delude o. St. Paul Qty By. Co. ii. 259
Delz V. Winfree ii. 269
Demsndray b. Metcalf U. 682, 684; iv.
188, 180
De Mannerille u. De ManneTille iL 194,
220
Demarest e. Koch III. 33
V. Wynkoop iL 167; i». 186, 187
De MattoB V. Great Eaalem S. Co. iL 16
B. Saunders
ULBSl
De MediDB o. Orove
a 120, 480
De Meii v. De MeU
il. 120, 480
Demi e. BoMler
It. 100
Deming v. Foitec
IL 478, 479
V. Merchanti', So. Co.
Iii. 260
V. Rapid Tran.lt, The
iii. 284
Demnyille b. Davidgon County i. 409
Dempaey v. Gardner
ii.520
r!:Lk».on
W. 682
lv.484
V. Bagahaw
iv. 274
1'. Brown
ii.67
D. Caraon
It, 436
B. Clark
11.460
B.COX
It. 277
B.DeHart
ii.441
t>. Dodd
It. 62
o. Hance
tv. 126
iLlM; It. 363
B. Hill
lv.486
B. Jersey Co.
iii, 417
B. Jonea
1.243
B. Jones ft Searing
It. 404
V. Ketobnm
i».435
V. Mclntosb
iv. 113
V. Hatlack
It. 614
V. Milton
It. 514
u. Richman
iT.467
V. Robinson
iT. 16
V. Schenck
It. 279
V. Shenton
iT. 277, 282
B. Spauhius
iT. 16
V. Spinning
p. Vancleve
It. 104
iv. 608
* B. Whiteinor«
ii. 132
V. Wood
It. 276
E. Wright
Hi. 486
Den dem. Bnyaid b. Singleton i. 460
Dendy b. Waite
It. 190
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ii. 226
Denii r. Lederc
ii. 881
Deniion i>. DeniMia
ii. 101
r. Ford
fii, 464
Deun D. BBmard
iii. 162
IT. 88
B. GfclkjQ
It. 626, 537
D. Mellor
i». 640
V. Slater
It. 276
V. BpiDnlns
i». 186
DenoeU e. AtbertOD
It. 480
w. Catu
ii. 640
V. Dennett
iT. 2-JS
i>. PenobMot V. Co.
iT. 113
Dennick a. Bulroul Co-
i.342
Dennie o. Walker
iii. 101
Dennl. v. CUrk
ii. IM
v. EierDan
It. 46
DenniMD «. Alerander
t.299
F.Lett
iii, 488
B. FagB
it. 212
i.306
iii. 106
Uenoy p. Bennett
1.413
ii. 461
g. Cabot
D. Dodion
V. Faulkner ii. 469
r. Hattoon t. 466; it 13
V. Palmer iii. 110, 113
0. PiroQi
Denn; Hotel Co. d. Sebnim ii. 300
UttiooD n. Hocae & Col. In*. Co. iii. 219,
276. 312
Deoabam, /n re ii. 3SS
Demon v. Beazlef It. 608
DenitoD B. Hendenon iii. 117
Dent D. AacUoD Mart Co. iii. 448
V. Bennett ii. 488
i>. Smitli ill. 234, 236, 244, 299, 331
V, We*t Tli^liila i. 391
Dentler v. O'Brien ii. 241
Denton u. Denton IL 99, 164
V. Dnpleuia iii. 78
v. Jiduon ii. 276, 279
V. Nannr It. 46, 48
r. Peten ill. 89
Denntz v. Hendricki i. 116
DenTer & lUo Grande Br. v. Harrii
Ii, 16, 284
Depau n. Hnmphreri ii. 469, 460, 461
r. Ocean Ins. do. iU. 244, 826
De Paair r. Salem Bank iii. 80
l>epew V. WbMlftD Ui. 115
De Feytter ■>. Clendining iL864; ir.271,
311, 537
r. MIcliael ir. 124
E. SuQ Mat. Ins. Ca U. 298, 814
De Prato b. Jeiler Ii. 441
Ue Pay, Inn i. 384
Derb^ Bank v. Landon It. 181
TH Rlbeyre n. Barclay Ui. 4IS
Demiott B. Jones ii. 468
Derocher v. ContiDental Hilli il. 238
Derome c Vote ii. 226
De Koo D. Foster ii.241
» u* nfund to.]
D« Ratte b. S. T., A. & B. T. Co. ti. eil
Derry v. Peck • ii. 490
De» Arta v. Legaett iii. 115
De SauMure b, OaUlard i. 326
Deibrowe o. Wetherby iii. 98
De Serre o. Clarke It. 337
DeMibala e. Berqnier il 429, 481, 468
Deaiiae. Smith iii. 87
c Solonioni ii. 403
Deebier r. Dodge i. 349
De SilTale v. Kendall Ui. 227
Deimare v. Dnited Bute* 1 67 1 iL 430
De Smet, Tile iii. 2, 170, 8&S
De Sobry c. De Laiatre Ii. 121, 419
Deapatch, The I 167
Deipatcb Une of Packets e. Bellamy
Man. Co U. 346
Doatrehan v. Dettrehan It. 419
De Taitet n. Baring Ui, 116
De Taitett v. CrontiUat Iii. 261
D'Etchegqyen b. D'Etcbegoyen il. 430
De Thoren v. Attorney Oenaral il. 87
Delmold 0. ReeTei ii. 366
De Tollenere v. FuUer il. 686
De TreTille v. ElUa i*.277
Deiroit, The iii. 196
Detroit u. MnL Oai Light Co. ii. 800
n. Oebome i. 342
Detroit & MilwaokM B. B. >. Tan
Steinborg iii. 282
D'TJrphey o. Nelson It. 429
Dentacb d. Pratt ii. 77
De Van d. Commercial, &c. Au'n. iii. 366
DeTane b. Fennel ii. 496
DeVaughn b. HcLeroy ii. 226
De Vauz b. Salrador iii. 286, 303
DeTaynes v. Noble liu 68. 64
Devendorfe. Weit Virginia, Ac. Co, iii. 76
DeTer, Ex parU U. 460
DeTeraiu e. Fleming ii. 690
DeTercui i'. Bnckley ii. 604
u. McMahon it. 469
DeTin c. Harrii iii. 67
Devine v. Edirarda ii. 491
DeTlin r. Coro'th ii. 436
V. Greenwich S. Bank ii. 448
DeTolf, Dye Ii. 438,448
Devonabire (Duke of) v. £glin lil. 452
De Vo» B. Richmond U. 300, 621
DeTriea v. Shnmate iii. 7S
Dew B. Clark It. 60S
De Wahl h. Braune 1. 67 ; il. 167
De«ar v. Span ii. 461
Devees r. Morgan 11. 4S0
Dewey t>. Brownell ir. 106
D. Chapin lil. 6S
D. Detroit, £c. By. Co. ii. 269
V. Dewey ill. 89
B. Field U. 483
B. Lambier It. 363
De Witt V. Elaira Hoblei Hfg. Ca il. 366
V. HarTey It. 467
D'Wolf t.. B;ibbett fi. 498
i.Harrtj iL 532
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
irWcdr V. BaUai 1. 802 ; iii. 122
DickinioQ v. Valpj
Iji.43
D» Wdtt V. Archugel Ids. Co. ili. 307
V. Williams
iT.seo
r. JohDBOD it. 400, 161
p. Worceater
iii. 440
V. Harpbr iv. 62
Dickinion'! Appeal
iT. 414
t.Kanaj iu.9T
V.H. T.ElKmenliii.Co. iiL 286
DiclcB n. Brooki
ii. 16
n. Tatea
ii. 378
DtzKr E. Arnold JT. 107, 187
Dicluon 1). Dickaou ii
03; iT. 480
*. B«ud iT, 473
p. Merchants' Bl. Co.
iii. 207
c. Nebun It. 448
K. Reuter*! T. Co.
ii. 611
f. FliilUpa Ul- 470
V. Hobinsoii
It. 68
.. S.yw«rf ii. 403
p. Satterfleld
■t. 210, 278
■F.Smith 1. 302,'Ui. SO
B. Waldron
ii. 260
B.SUwut IL400;iT. Sn
Dledrich v. N. W. By. Co.
m.427
*. Sfraciue, a « N. T. R. B. ii. 000
iT. 46
Dn >■ Donhun ii. 632; It. 141, 172
Diem p. Kobliti
11.646
Deyerle p. Hunt llL 38
Diffonderffer v. Winder
ii.2ei
Diro r. Waggoner ii. 480
Digbj V. Legard
IL 280, 807
DctdlD.Odell it. 261
Digg^'aCaae
iT, 848
D*Z. FeirmiU (Conntew) <,. Marqnii
Di|glea./n«
iT. 806
af Hartford ir. 518
Diggi t>. Brovrn
iiL 87
De Zwun t>. De Zwun ii. 126
Di«a & Keith b. Wolcott
i.4]2
Dill r. Gw7 ii. 420
Dignan v. Spurr
U.468
Diua. Tlw L 77, ISl, 140, 198
Dike p. Erie Railwv
iL469
Diu i. BrooeU iv. SOT, 811
V. The St. Joaeph
iii. 284
B. QIOTor ii. 132
Dlkeman p. Taylor
iv.466
(■ Privueer Bereoge i. 99
Dilljerto p. Harria
ii. 592
Dibbp. WiJker 1.467
Dill ■). Camden Board
iii. 449
Dibble n Bowater iii. 461
DilUby B. WUcoi
Dill^ B. Collina
ii. 610
p. Bpowb ii. 600
ii,400
>. HnttoD ii. 178
p. Diliard
It. 841
>. N. T. & Erie B. B. ii. 416
DiUeber p. Home Life In* Co.
fii.282
Daible«t..FnmiM 1.342
Dilley v. Lore
It. 418
Kek 0. Fonker i. 302
Dilling p. Draemel
iii. 376
T. JUwiy iT. 194
p. Mnrray
iU.440
p. Page ii. 646
Dillingham p. Jeukina
iT. 93
p. Pltchford ii. 170
p. Snow
ii. 277
WckMoD V. WiUiami iv. 148
Dillman p. WiU Co. Nat. Bank iT. 46
Di<id p. Smith iT. 806
Dillon, In Tt
U. 448
Dickenp.Hall iii. 106
V. AlTarea
iL122
WckHUOn p. JWJIMOD iT.166
D. Balfour
iL22
P.J«diwi liLSSl
0. Brown
iv. lis
Dicker r. Popham iiL 448
t>. Bnniham
ii. 241
Dickerun p. QordoD M. 330
i>. Dillon
U. 100
>. Tillinghart iv. 108
p. Whedw iiL 63
V. Eanaai City 8. B. By.
Co. i.280
V. Lady MoontCasbeU
11.414
HekMon r. HilUard 11. 22
p. Starin
U. 09
UckBT p. Maine Tel. Co. lU, 432
Ditlon'a Cue
i. 8fl
p. N. T. Ini. Co. iiL 327, 829, 330
Dilworth V. McKelvy
iU. 284
p. Traniaon ii 340
V. Mayfleld
iii. 39
». Tbompwn It. 179
D mech p. Corlett
iii. 206
.. Tnn.p&ui Bead Ca 1. 268
p. ffalrfo fi. 468, 494
D mmett r. Appleton
ir. lis
D mmick v. Lockwood
Iv. 477
IHcUe p. Boatoo & A. B. Co. Ii. 274
D mmiR V. Eanaas City, 4o.
B. Co.
Wftou c. Beid ia 94, 107, 100. 110
ii.608
Dickinion p. Bowe* Iii. 97
Dimock p. D. S. Nat Bank
ii. 681
P. Coatea iii. 88
Dimon B. Haiard
ill. 05
p. Cod>be ii. 182 ; It. 8T1
™"e^gir"
iL340
p. DickiiMon H. 126; lU. 66
ir. 221, 533
p. Dodda ii. 477
... Mo<rr
i. 466
p. Gay lL4T8,470i iii. 260
Dingwall P. Dunater
iii. 114
r. Bartettle Hi. 44B
Dininnyp. Myera
Dinkerlocker p. Marah
iii. 318
P. Lea It. S46. 410
i.4O0
>■ Hanh iif. 84
Dinkini c. Samuel
iv. 493
>. Major, te. It. 78
Dinamore v. Duncan
iii. 70, 89
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[TIm aurfliul pAfW u* nfond to.]
DiDiy...lllinoi.CeiiLa.Co
i.802
Dobson V. Pearco
it. 120
Direclor. Tha
iii.206
V. Simonlon
11.277
Direct U. S. cue Co. v
AdkIo-
Docker c. Somea
iL2ao
Americui TeL Co.
"i. 26, 30
Dockrey V. MUUken
It. 62
Dirigo Tool Co. v. Woodrnfi
ii. 681
Dockum IT. RobinMO
iT. 617
DiBborough v. OtttcaU
U.443
Dodd V, Acklom
It. 104
Disbrow u. Dur»nt
u. 192
V. Burcheil
iii. 419
Disaeoger. He
ii. 102
V. Focht
U.206
Di.wr ». Dbwr
ir.6i»
V. Hohne
iii. 437
Disiilling Co. i>. People
iL277
iii 40
Uit«on V. DiUoD
a. 107, 117
Dodds V. Preston
10.58
UltiiiiBr D. Normui
ii. &90
Dodge F. Adami
SI. 466
Uiven«y c. Jobawn
iLsea
^.Bartol
iii. 240
Uivemy D. Loeb
iu. 86
B. Bo.toD M. Infc Co
Mi. 287
Divine <i. Mitcbum
lii. 89
V. D«Ti>
It. 870
Divver v. M'LaugbUn
1L628
«. Dodge
iT. 58
DUon V. B^dwin U
499, 614. 546
B. Emeiaon
iii. 76
V. Puller
iT. 194
c.Chic.goftA.E.Ca
ii. 269
B. Hooper
iii 156
D. Cooper
iiL34
V. Manne Ina. Co.
iii 838
V. Cynu. The
t>. DuoQ U. 104,
iii. 178
B. Meyer
ii.666
70, 178, 183 J
B. Natl Ezch. Bank
HI. 7ft. 86
iv. 162
1-. Perkina
iM5
cDoe
IT. 171
V. Tulleyi
1. 802 : i». 305
B. Eonrt ii
646 1 iii 148
», Wootiey
LS42.419
B. Gay fere
iT. 162
Dodge County v. Kemniu ii. 200
B. LondoD SduU Amu Co. ii. 366
Dodaley .. Kinnenley
U. 382
*. McCue
iT. 67
Dodion c. Hay
It. 81
V. Met. Boud of Works
ii. 274
V. State
i39i
V. Moyer
u. 371
B. Taylor
Iii, 106
V. MucclMtoa
iv. 179
V. Wonlworth
ii54&
B. Olmiiu
IT. 310
Doe e. Acklam
ii68.61
n. Firker
It. 143
r, Allen
iv. 587
B. Raanay
ii. 431
V. Allaap
It. 172
r.Beid
iii. 3U6
». Baker
IT. IH
B. Richmond, Ac. B. B. Ca ii. 604
D. Barthrop
It. 321
». Sadler iU. 286
300,802,804
D. Bevan
It. 124
r. Sarilla
1^.44
0. Bingham
D. Bird
it. 462
V. Smith
ii. 16
iT,370
V. Whitworth
Iii. 376
B. Brabant
iT.236
•'. Yalei
ii.402
B. Bradea
L287
Dixon'g Caie
il. 300
V. Burt
iii, 401
Duab r. Bank of the State
iL443
1.. Carter
iT. 124
Doan ". Dow
u. 226
e. Chicfaeiter
U.5e6
Uoane x. Badger
iT, 371
1.. Cliild
T, 537
c. Bddy^
ii. 629
V. Clare
v.lO$
D. RuweU
a 642
V, Clark
V. 412
Dob V. HaUey Hi. 24, 27, 88, 42, 43
r. Colo
v. 364
Dobberatein d. Murphy
iv. 46, 62
B. Colyear
T. 22B
Dobbin v- Bradley
iii. 124
B. Coniidiiw
V. 394
of Erie
a. Cranatoun
iL6eT
On,
i. 429
B. Cundall
tT. 641
Dobba D. Grand June Waterworki
n. DanTora
It. 84
Co,
1,466
K. Doe
U. 154
Dobbyn c. Somen
lil.419
B. DvbaU
iii. 401
Doboy & Union Td. Co. ii. De Mag-
B. Edlin
iT. WO, 622, 641
V. EggleatoD
It. 405
■thias
ii. 277
e. Elli>
It. 200, 276
Dobree v. Schroder
lil. 232
V. Eiry
It. 274
ii, 386
B. Eyre
It. 206, 825
V. Eipie
iii, 86
V. Fleming
u. 87
B. Hartford Caipet Co.
il,366
It. 811. 276
B.Ll>Xli
Iii 376
B. Garlick
It. 640
^Mnrpby
iT. 4S2. 486
B. Georgia B. E. * B.
Com. aSSB
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
im BUflnd |»«H ■» nfined U.]
DMr.GnAoD
IT. 112
Do« D. Sybourn
V. ThoniM
iv. 104
0. GwiDodl
iT.aa
iT.387
1. Harre]'
It. 229
r. Thorley
iv. 811*
*.lliwk
IT. 126
V. TimiDi
iv. 310
>. Hinke
!t. 151
p. Tomkimon
iv. 611
*. HueU
iT.118
V. Underdown
It. 206, 642
F. [l»ei«e
iv.MT
t..v«dm
H. 93. 117.200;
..flMeT
iv. 91, 104
tr. 418, 441, 613
« Howell
l7. 271
V. Walker
iv. 97, 100
e. Hattoc
iv. 887
V. Witt
iT. 123. 132
B.J»tOD
iT.229
V. Webber
i*.27a
>.Jonet
. iL.61
V. Welford
iT. 21.5
».Ke«i>
iT.387
r. WUUu
iv. 810
e. Keney
iT. 610
r. Wood
iT, 112
r. Knight
It. 465, 456
V. Woodhoiue
ir,640
:;!ri
iT. 218,221,223,224
V. Wright
It, 01, 640
iv 622
Doggett «. DIU
iii. 57
>. Lei
iv. 206, 206
e. Emerson
ii.484
It. 685
V. WiUey
iT.466
rLock
iv.468
Dogherty b. HUl
ii. 494
■.Luton
iv.27
DoulionI B. CrUpIn
Ifetierty v. Allni«n
ii. 120, 429
r. Lyde
i». 2H2
iv. 76
«. Lyne«
1*. 487, 488
Doker V. Hxley
ii. ne
c. McFu-lutd
ii. 431
Dole V. Keye*
iT. 208, 891
tP.M'lvM«
Iv. Ill
V. Lyon
ii.20
». Manning
iv,4ea
V. New Enn. Mut.
V. Olmatead
iDi. Co. iii. -m
r. MmilT
iv. 204, 324
ii. 866,600
p. Manyn
iv, -261
«. Slimpion
ii. 603
r. Moora
iv. 20«
Dolittle F. Eddy
iii. 462; iv. 118
F. Morgu
It. 264. 536
(5« Doolittie.)
». Mulotter
il.58
Ml V. Koble
u. 468
c. S.ylOT
i. 486
DoUfuM V. Fro«cb
iii. tfO
r. Se^d.
iv. 310
DoUiff V. Bcton 1 6Wne Railrowi
D. Xewoiu
iiL391
iv.467
F. Xicholl.
It. 206, 810
Dolliver v. St JoMpb
Ac. ID>. Co.
... Sou
It. 62
iii. 878
*. Oliver
iT. 2G1
Doirond'8 Caw
iL«ao
r. Pamtt
tL132; IT. 862
Dolman v. Orchard
ill. 68
iv. SOI
Dolph V. Band
ii.286
>. PiAck
iv. 330
Dolphin V. Aylward
iv.463
E. Pekrw]'
ill. 433
<-. Robin.
ii. 117
r. Pemtt
iv. 684
Domett V. Young
iii. 385
» I'eiryn
U.362; iv. 206, 274
DominickB. Michael
iLI68,iT.322,327
I. PliilUiM
ir. 1.32
D. Sayre
iv. 344
c.Pii::her
ii. 468
Don's Eeiate, Bt
ii. 93, 209
1. Portet
tv. 112,466
Donaghue b. Parkman
Ii. 636
>. Prower
iv. 370
Donahoe v. Kettell
iii, 13S, 228
n. I'roYoott
IT. 205, 2^1, 248
Donald i>. Scott
i. 2ti8, 826
F. P»ke
iv. 104
V. Suckling
ii, 681, 586
r. RiTen
iv. 276
Dannldson u. Becket
ii. 375
F. Kuake
iv. «36
V. DonHldion
ii. 4:!8
F- Robert.
ii. 620
r. Farwell
11. 514
F. Salkeld
iv. 493. 404
V. MuDowell
iii. 206
».8colt
iv. 310, 642
V. Smith
iv. 95
rScton
iv. 122
r. Sun Mntoal Ini
Co. iii. 389
B. tjbeffleld
iv. 642
V. Wilson
iT. 110
V. ShelioD
iv. 460
ii. 547
F-Sl.ippMd
iv.2l4
D. Ins. Co. of No. America IN. 342
r. Simpwn
iv. 310
>. Smitb
iT. 106, 228, 830
Clifford
iv.288
..SmyU,
lv:6»4
Done & Egerton u. Hinton & Starkey
V. SlM«d0I>
It. 112
ii. 210
». 8oyd«
iT. 434
Donegaa u. Davit
ii, m
F.St.pl.
IT. 627
». Donegal.
ii. 132
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Donenni
DmmIIuii
D. Doo^^i
DonelioD e. Poh;^
Boner v. StsoSer
Don Frtucuco, Tha
DoQlathorpe v. Porter It
DonlvftD i>. Manhkttan B,y. Co.
Donkenlej u, Lety
Donley v. Camp
Donlin b. McQiude
Donncll'D. Bennett
D. Colnmb. Ia«. Co. iii
d. Dotuiell iiL 268
D. T.ewU Connty 5
Donnelli
V. Starlight, Tlie
inelly v. CoHk
u. Donnelly
i.Btuik
irbett
iii.
iii. 106
164, 170
*]9. 422
>. Uawi
Donnington i>. HiCcbell
Donniion v. People** Caff Co.
Donahue v. Cbue
V. Comitr of Will
Donoran it. Finn
p. Laing
V. Oaliland & B. R. T. Co.
Doole n. Doole
Dooley t>. Wolcott
DooliCtle D. Bryan
0. Doolittle
e. Shaw
Doorman o. Jenkiiu ii
Doo WooQ, St
Dora, The
Dora Mathewi, The
Dontn V. Doran ii. Ul
Dorchester u. Coventry
Dore V. WilklnMn
Doremn* e. Walker
Dorg«n f. BoetoD
I'. Peotc
D'Orgeooy v. Dim
Dorin D. Dorin (t
Dorins u. New Tork, ta. R. Co.
Dorii Eckhoff, The iii
Dorison ti. Wutbrook
Dorlao v. Guie
D'Orlu V. Banker* & M. M. L. .
Dormati d. Rider
V. Ogbourno
Dormer r. Forteicue
». Kiiisht
r. William*
Dormer'* Caae
Dormont n. Famew By, Co.
Dorr, Ex parte
Dorr's Trial
Doney v. ClaAe
V. Doner U
n. Gilbert
c. Hay*
o. Hi* Creditor*
•.Kyle
431; iT. 191.837
Doney r. Smith
m. 206
«. Warfldd
It. 608
V. Wation
iii. 109
P.Wolff
iiL 76
Doney'. AppeJ
L4m
Donlieimer d. RoorUck ii. 461
Do* Hermaooi, The
L76,96,»e
Do*8 1.. Secretary
iL70
Doiwell r. Andenon
It. 806
0. Buchanan
It. 98
Dotou V. Ruiaell
iv. 104
Doit V. Cunninpon
iv.229
Doty V. Bate*
iii. 48
V. Cm & W. T. Co. Ii. 625
m. 401, 421
V. Hubbard
U.226
Doobleday ». Erea
iii. OS
U.480
Dougat ». CowlM
iii. 42
I Kemble
Ui.221
V. McCarthy
It. 116
Dougherty v. Franconto, Tha iii. 232
V. M-eolgan
V. RandalE
iT. 167
IT. 194
iii. 64
Dougbery b. Moore
Ii. 44g
Donglai, The
li.S22
Dougla*. /n n
ii. 463
u. Butler
ii. 164
■>. Doug] a*
iL 16
V. Forrest
i. 261
B. People's Bank
iii. 207
Douglu Bank, The
iii. 26
Douglass V. Bymea
ii. 340
v. Culverwell
iT. 143
V. Dougloaa
iLI2S
.,. Eyre
iii. 186
B. Ferris
ii. 226
B. Uarkrenoer
iv. 619
0. Howland
LM8; 111122,124
V. Lewis
iv. 473
V. Matting
iii. 79
i>. Reynolds
!u. 123, 124
p. Scotl
iv. 08
B. Spean
ii.510
DonlKjQ B. Matthews
U.46S
Dounce b. Dow
iL 478. 479
Doups V. Genin
iT. 110
Donro, The
L146
Dome B. Sargent
flL 166, 217
Douthit V. Hipp
iv. 186
Oonville B. Sun M.Ins. Co. of N. T. iiL 26S
Davaston v. Payne i
i. 427,432,486, 461
Dove B. Do»e
iv. 192
Dover Stamping Ca
. Fellow* ii. 866
Do* B. Blake
L 2S0 : ii. 99
V. Eysler
ii. 146
D. Gould & Cnny S. M. Co. Ii. 407
V. Hupe In*. Co.
ui. ail
n. Jewell
Ii. 226
0. Johnson
i.804
i>. T^wi*
iv. 474
r. Sanborn
U. 614
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Dow>.8tiilUi iii.S3g
t. WbeMen Ui. 260
Dswird V. lindMT liL 282
Dswd 0. Fawoett ii. 336
r. Gilchiiit iv. 118
r. WktwD ii. 4Se
Dovdea >. Cinder ii. 612
Dowdl ■. Talbot Faring Co. i. 413
>. Webber ii. 417
Ddwct*. Seeds Iv. 6S2
Davie v. Jojaer iii. 76
r. Saonden ir. 179
Dowlioe V. Allen & Col ii. 260
>. HeDniDn iii. 437
V. UcKenay ir. 451
r. H^nire ii. 164
V. National Ex. Bank iu. 41
>. SaUioUa ii. 132
Down B. JHtU ii. 264
g. Hailing ui. SI
Dnvne b. Thompion It. 194
Downer >. Cbeaeborough il. 468
c Smiib ii. 482
DowDM V. Buk ii. 480
B. Cborch iii. IW
>. OnMtoocA tr. 144, 438
*. JeiiDuiga ii. 176
Downe; «. Downer II. 00
V. Sawjer IL 269
Downbam a. Alazandiia L 316
V. Alexandria CoondL I. 439
Downie'i Will, Hatter of It. 616
DowdIdk v. Backeiutoea ill 77
p. Hanhall ir. S12, 641
t. Mount WaihingtOQ Road Co.
ii. 300
rPalnial«er ir. 181
>. Rnsar ii. 033
>. Sute Board I 418
I. Stone iL 286
«. Wtierrin It. 278
Ddwm b. Allen 1. 260
F. Planten' Bank iii. 106
1. Bon IL Gil
Dowubiie B. O'BrieD il. 824
DowDton «. Teaeer Ca ii. 866
Dowi B. Cobb iii. 207
9. Greene Ii. 649
V. HoT«wood ii. 689
rBwett iLSIO; ill. 12S
BowM F. GortMi ir. 300
Ddwmhi b. BeU It. 68
Dd7I« B.Blake It. 311
i: Cit7 of GIbjkow L. a. Co. ill. 366
« Continental Ina. Co. ii. 286
a. Cojle iT. 836
K Falconer 1. 236
B. O'Neil iii. 470
». Su Diego L. ft T. Co. IL 2TT
F. Tiioitv Church Ii. 461
F. Didon Fac Rt. Co. ii. 269 ; iii. 468
Dt^ley B. While II. 18!
Docier F. E1delit7 Co. liL366
Diaco, The Brig LSJ8; ia 366,860,361
■ m rtttmi to.]
Drainage C. Co. u. Englewood S. Co.
ii. S66
Drake «. Chicago, &c. By. Co. i*. 109
D. CuTtiB i. 260
■>. Drake It. 345
c. Ooodridge i. S4S
F. Granger Ii. 120
V. Happ IT. 118
B. Jordan i. 400
V. MitcheU U. 888:11181
«. Ramaay 11. 286
B. Shorter ii. 616
n. Stone iii 869
V. Tbyng fiL 44, 64
Draper ■>. Bane* It. 410
V. CiHnni. Int. Co. iiL 287
V. Cowle* iii. 79
t>. Jackion U. 180
v. Maaa. SUam Heating Co. iL 632
V. Rice ii. 622
V. Snow ill. 128
V. Wood iiu 79
DraTD V. Farel L 396
Dray 1.. Dray iL 870
Drayton *. BiaytOD ir. 826
Dred Scott Case L 884, 424 ; ii. 268
Dree Gebroedera, The L 78
Dreher v. .Xtna Ins. Ca lil. S76
Drehman v. Stifle L 409, 456
DrenneQ b. London Au. Co. iU. 24
Dreaael u. Jordan It. 461
Dresser d. Ediion IIL Co. ii. 430
V. Miatonri, Ac Cout Co. iii. 79
B. Norwood iL 682
Dreatier v. Baker It. 461
DreTon v. DreTon iL 480
Drew, in rt It. 480
V. Bird iii. 222
V. Drew . ii. 128
r. Fereon iiL 87
B. Hagerty IL 448
V. Peer ill. 452
V. Sixth At. B. R ii 260
n. Swift i. 300
Drewry r. Thacker il. 418
Dreiler v. McGlynn Iii. 0*
Dreyfus v. Penivian Ooano Co. Ii. 285
Drink house's Estate It. 64
Drinkwater e. Brig Spartan I. 870, 871,
S79; ilL167,221
V. Goodwhi U. 640
B. London As*. Co. Iii. 872
B. Tebbetti iU. 109
Driskell V. Hanki It. 404
Driver v. Broad u. 494
F. Edgar iT. 271
Dr. MuDroe, Case of a 480
DroTer «. Beyer ii. 34
Druce c Dennison il. 148
Druid, The UL 138, 218
Draley b. Adam iii. 440
Dnun B. Drum iti. 60
Dnunmond f. Artemin U. 373
IT. Drnmmond ii. 101
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Xht BuigEn*] i«CM ■» relnnd tiki
I>rumniDnd v, RIcbsTdi
Dnnnriglit v. Philpot
DruTj V. BamM
r. CoDnor
V. Druiy iL 243
n. Hay den
V. Smilh
Dr; <;. Boiwell
ii.ai2
Dry butler v. Birtholomew
Dabber v. Trollopo
Da be n. LewUUin
T. 65, 66, 866
iv. 278
It. 116
il. 444, 446
iu.26,34
iii.4T
U.S40
iT. 6
ii. 259
U. 136
I. Broetton
iLSlO
Dublin Corp. v. Attonej Qeneial ii. 299
Dublin ft Wicklow B. Co. c Bl«ck
il. 236
Duboii n. Bearer ill 438
D. HnU iT. 162
D. Kellj ii. 343
D. Maion iii. 89
Duboii'i Appeal iii. 4S
Duboii'i Caae L 89
Du Boil V. Kirk 11. 866
Duboa e. Jonea iu. 24
Duboie V. Wheddon Ii. 286, 286
Dnbrenil v. Rouzbu ii. 617
Dnbi V. Dubi It. 82
Dubuclet c. Looiiiuia 1. 303
Dubuque, Tl>e iiL 167, 190, 267
Dubuque & P. R. K., Ex parU i. 3Si
Ducat V. Chicago f. 439
Duchunp D. Kicholion ir. 307
Duche V. WllMD ii. 16
Duchen d'OrlAuu Ii. 430
DncheM of Ringaton'i Cm« It. 109, 120 ;
iT. 261
Ducheu of Kingston'B WiU ii. 429
Ducie 0. Ford ii. 494
Ducker r. Harnett ii- «00
Dutkelt n. Pool ii. 259
Diiililen r. Glutton Union Gnaid iii. 440
Duddy V. Gre«h*m ir. 130
Dudgeon v. Penbroke 111. 260, 288, 289,
302,307
r. Thonwoo ii. 3<W
e. WaltoD ii. 461
Dndle; c Collier ii. 286
ir. nreiffhton Ii. 343
B. Danforth U. 613
V. Dudler ii. 176
V. Mahew Ii. 368
i>. Smith 11. 601
Dudley'* C>M L 412
Dudley E. Jooei Co. e. UonBer L C.
M, Co. ii. 366
Duero, The il. 608
Duel D. Smith 11. 466
Dufaar v. Profenional L. Am. Co.
111360
DuB V. AltecthanT B. R. Co. il. 600
V. Bayard Iti. 138
Dufl 0. Badd
lL6M,e07
V. McDonougb
ii. 122
D. HacKeniia
iii. 290
DnfBe o. Hayei
Duffleld v. Brainenl
iii. 204
iii. 66
o.Duffleld
h. 287
V. Elwea
U. 447
t>. Hicki
ii. 447
Dufflei V. Dufflei
ii. 164
Duffb» p. Schwinger
y. 612
BaBr V. Daffy
It. 68
B. In.. Co.
ii.173
r. McOuincM
It. 143
t>. The People
ii. 12
Dnfly-iE>tate,/nnt
lit. 79
Duffy'. Tru.t ft
H. 138
Dufour V. Camftaoc
ir. 484
Dugan V. CuretOD
ii. 486
V. Nichols
ii. 492
p. United Statei
iu. 114
Dugdale, In rt
It. 264
Duhring V. Duhring
iii. 39
Doinneen ». Rich
111.462
Duke V. HaU
Iii. 70
u. Markham
ii.291
Duke of Bedfoid, CaN of
111, 368, 868.
Duke of Bmniwick v. King ol Ean-
orer 1. 297
Duke of Buodench, The i. 402
Duke of Deronshire v. BgUn iii. 462
Duke of Haribonnigh c. Eart Godol-
phin Iv. 18, 2ft4
Duke of Norfolk, CaK of L 492; It. 17
Duke of Somenet, ft ii. 164
Duke of Somerset v. Fogwell 111. 410
Duke of Suffolk, Caw of ir. 266
Duke. D. Faulk ir. 391
D. Spangler
Dulauy v. Middleton
iT. 28.S
Duiin B. Com'th
11- 12
r. McCaw
ii. 160
Dullei ». Read
iv. ina
Dumain v. Gwynue
il. 193
Duma*, Ex parte Ii. 624 ; ir. 81 1
i>.Jonei
iii. 258
Dummer v. Chippenham
ii. 2W)
Dnmond e. Magee
11. 140
D. United SutM
1. 402
1.. Williaowon
UL 88. US
Du MouUr I.. Druitt
ii:87
Dumpor'i CasB
It. 124
Dan V. St. Andrew'* Church
u.2gi
Dunaran u. Flynn
ill. 88,85
Dunbar v. Auguita
11.840
B. Glenn
il.SOtt
B. Hallowell
i.2BJ
B. Port Royal, &o. Ry. Co.
ii.608
B. Starkie
lY. 161
V. Tredennid:
ii.4eo
Dnnbier n. Day
Dunbritton. The
11.606
Hi- 217
Duncan, ft
1.301
p. Beriin
Iii. 88
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tba iBATfliuJ pacH ua nIttmA to-1
Dwon f. BImMM
It. 114
Dunmore (CooDteu of) v. Alexander
,. BlDDdcU
11688
ii, 477
rBnnnui
ii.584
Dunn, Alport*
i.462
rChulM
U.474
V- Birmingham Canal Co.
iii. 440
B. China H. bu. Co.
m.368
0. Dunn
i1.U9
t.C\uk
iii.44
V. German A. Bank
ii. 448
r.CouiM
iii. M
... The Queen
iii. 454
t.D>nt
i. 342
...Vail
i 410
».Mxon
ii. ie2
r. Wheeiw
iT. M08
».Dniic«i iL87;iiL87;
T. 57, 434
Dunne d. Bojd
ii. 4*8
^HiU
ii. 022
D. Ferguion
iv. 4ei
e. Lowndes
iii. 47
Dunnei! d. Miuon
ii. 024
T. Ljon
ii. 472
nonnett k. Tomhagen
ill. 196
p. M-Cullongh
iii. 98
Dunning; v. Burden
V. ileller
iT. 278
r. yintyWad Saringt Inrt.
iii. 77
iii. »g
r. Miwoari
i. 409
B. LeBTitt
iT. 146
ii. !il9
v.Mead
ii. 520
r. Ne* York HI Ini. Co.
iii. 341
p. Robert. ii 611
iii. 128
F. North & Sooth WJe. Bank
Dunnington o. United StaWa
iii. Ill
B'::£r.;,,''ffi,.u,.
11494
».Keed
iii. 167
iT. 441
iii. 449
Duniback v. Coliar
ii. 441
.. sale.
iL532
ii. 468
■L SuD Hue. Lu. Co.
iu.26e
iT. 811
(T. WTcklifle
IT. 368
Dnnaeth v. Bank of Uie United State.
iT. 194
1
T. 62, 66
Dnnd) r. Kent
ii. 633
DuDton B. McCook
iT. 186
DoDcklee c. Webber
ir. 473
Duntze v. Levett
ii. 112
Dimcomb >>. Ne> York, te. B. Co. ii. ^1
260,261
ii. 22
Duplein..). De Roven
ii. 408
iL 188
Duplewia v. Attotnej Qeneral
ii. 54
DoDcnft V. Albrecht
ii. 4^
Duplet P. Co. V. Campbell P. ft M.'
Dundu r. Bowler
i. 419
Co.
i. 330
I'. Dandaa
iv. 441
Da Pont V. Northern Pac. R. Co.
ii 300
V. Dnteni
ii. 173
Dnpont e. Dupont
ii. 101
r. Hitchcock
It. 68, 59
V. Pepper
iL4I
Donaet, The
Ui.-2S2
Dnpont de Nemoum r. Vance L 869 ; iii.
234
iii. 40
Dupuy De Lome, Tlie
iii. 248
DoDplni. The
1462
Dupuj B. D. Ins. Co.
iii. 331
ii.838
V- Weliford
ii. 226
DoDgumon r. Smith ir. 267, 283
v. Warn
ii. 430
DoDlum p. American Ini. Co.
iii.ase
Dnrando e. Darando
It. SO
». B. ft M. B. R. Co.
ii.OM
Dnrant e. Durant
ii. 101
«. Com. Ini. Co.
iii. 339
v. PienoD
iii. 56
r. Deoiun Hanuf. Co.
ii.36e
». Prestwood Ii.
413, 426
p. I^mphere
1.80
V. Ritchie 11. 160
; iv. 461
■•.Oaboni
iT.40
P. Roger.
... Smith
iii. 48
t.Piwley
iii. 24
iT.805
t. Wyckoir
iii. 483
p.-nUey
ii. 197
Diuklej o. Tan Botw
iT. 188
Dnrbin p. Redman
ir. 585
Donklin <-. KimbaU
iii.44
Durborrow'. Appeal
Burden p. Smith
iii. 65
Dantap, The A. B.
Iii. 164
iii. 109
Dimkp p. BolUrf
iT.96
Durtee o. Jonc
ii.356
p. Cm«(orf
It. 5S7
p. Old Colony ft F. R. R. R
ii. 800
r. nanlap
ii.488
Dorgin p. Lowell
Iii. 451
r. Oreen'^
iii. 48
Durgy, ftc Co. e. O'Brien
ii.646
...Inrt 8. Co. iLeOO;iil.217
Durh.m, In «
{t. 468
r.SletMD U. 491; 111436
D. Durliam
ii. 76
Smlop ». BaUbiir
iii. 208
p. Uadley
iT. 451
p^^arri.
Ml. 72
Darkee p. Board of Liq.
p. India Mut In.. Co.
i.419
f. HiBKina
ii.477
iii. 2t<2
r. MoDroe
ii. 610
p. Mom.
1.489
Itomore, Th«
iiL198
Dumford d. Degray.
iT. 434
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Durnford v. Pattonon
Ii.671;m.l03
Dyer v. PiacdUqua F. * M. Ini
Co.
Dnrour o. Motteoi
It. 6*2
iii. 234, 236. 303
DurDiiBM«n V. United SUMi i. 826
B. Sanford
1H.44S
Durr V. Bowyer
ii. 140
r. Shurtleff
It. 148
Dumwi B. Friend
iii.276; iv.«4
e. Snow la, 138. IM
Dortell V. Bederley
iii. 2ti6
li.SSOi
ii. 511
iU.469
Durrum v. Hendrick
iii. 109
i>. Walker
ii.312
DuraC D. Burton
Iii. 138
Dyett e. Central Truit Ca
iT.307
DuryeK D. Doryea
i*. 621
.It. 488
ii. 630
V. Schenck
iii. 433
0. Mut. Tel. Co.
ii. 340
Dyke v. Kendall
It. 5B
DiutiD V. Cowdrey
Iv. 118
V. Stephens
ii.226
iv. 477
DykeriB. Leather Maoof. Bank
It. 96
Dutch Church in OsrdeD St. v. Mott
11168,98
ii. 28S
Dynes u. HooTer
L341
Dutcher v. CoItbt
iii. 478
Dysart Peerage Caee
ii.87
Dathie o. HilMn
Ui. 225, 228
Dyson ». Bowcroft
ili. 290
Dntilh V. Oatua
iU. 826
V. Bilchie
ii. 602
DatlOD fn n
ii. 286
E. A. Packer, The
iii. 283
D. Oerriih
iU.4e8
Eager d. Atlas Itu. 0>.
iii. 889
>:. Howell
i473
o. Barnes
iii. 46
V. MoniMD
iii. 60
u. Crawfbrd
iii 26
0. Pool
U.46Si It. 244
B. FnmiiaU
It. 29
0. SolomouMii
ii. 409, 544
0. Grimwood
ii.20fi
D. Strong
iii. 431
Eagle, The L 369. 4aO
B. Taylor
UL 422, 423
Eagle V. Eichelbeiger
ii. 60S
tr. Wanchaner
iv. 194
V. Swayie
ir. 110
Dn*al V. Hunt
L473
I.. White
11. 608
r. Wellman
11.467
Eagle Bank t. Smitb
iii. BG
DaTall ». Craig
I.. Farmen^ Buk
y.esi
Eagle Fire Co. ». Lent
iL286
ilLUB
Eagle Ina. Co., £« parte U. 800: Iii. 27
f. Farmen- Bank o
HuTlaDd
ii. 136, 140, 142
». Lafayette Ins. Co.
iii. 279
v. Oliio L 418
ia263
t>.Harwood
ii.426
D. State
1.418
D. United Stat«i
L144
Eftgle. &c. Hfg. Co. V. Gibson
ui. 440
I>wemDgHon>«Ina.Co.i>
Oibom liL87B
Eakin D. Baub
1.466
Dwigbt V. Appleton
li.874
Eakins V. AmericMi W. B. Co.
iLSSl
0. BrewiCer
11.699
t>. Treiham
11.486
V. Centra Vermont F
. Co. i. 260
Eamesu. B. & W. R.&
iiL43S
iii. 93
c. CsTaroc
iiL188
V. Germania L. Ins. Co. ili. 870
D. Cnxier
a 81
0. Hayei
IU. 440, 461
r. Qodfrey
iL3M
r. Newell
iii. 88
V. Bw»n
ii.429
Dwi^t Printing Co. r. Botton ii, MO
V. Home Int. Col
m.267
DwiSa.Tho
Hi. 248
Bardley c Law
iii. aa
Dwinel t>. Periey
Iv. 194
Eate It. Snow
ir. 61
V. Stone
iii. 30
Earl B. De Hart
Iii. 440
Diryer v. ExpreH Co.
ii.26t)
u. Raymond
11.123
u.2ei
u. Shaw
IU. 816
u. StLoaii&8. F.B
Co. ii. 16
Earl of Ailesborr ■>. Pattbon
Earlof Dundonald d. MastermaQ
i.468
Dya* r. Buttard
U.4M
U1.40
gs:.ssr'
iU.419
Earl of Egmont v. Smith
It. 166
m.S9
Bail of Huntington v. Lord Hountjoy
D. CoTingtoD
ia.7fl
liL408
o.Dyor
ii. 812
ili. 441
H. 106
Earl of Honntagne it. Lord BMh
i490.
493
liem
V. Gravel
It. 461
By. Co.
Earldom of Oxford, Case of
ilL440
». Hargrave
tL 484, 637
ia.«02
B. Martin
IT. 179
Earle ■>. Earle
U. 101
v. Hnnday
11.269
V. Fiske
1T.«6»
■>. National B.N. Co.
iii. 217
V. Mlddleton
It. 47«
iq.l7.jrb,G00l^lC
TABLE OP CA8E8,
Evie c. OHtw
*. Rowcroft
r. Sawrer 0. 866, £
Earid V. Meaden
Eirl7 V. Black
Euneit n. Parke
li. 466
iil. 306
). 371, 372
-(■S
«tO
EtfDflt p. Wlnans Iv. 486
Eimbart e. EarDbart It. 214
EvDOMtr B. CalitoTDia Ids. Co. liL 2SS,
Etramoor S. Co. o. TTnioD Ina. Co. UL 260,
287
Eunwell, The iil 176
Eup'i Appeal ii. 861
Ewthman b. Jone* i. 261
ItOtj e. Craddock ii. 266
B. CrockfoTd iii. til
Eiat AngliaD R. Co. o. Eaatern Conn-
I>mR.Co. 1.460; ii. 300
Eut Birmin^iaiii I^nd Co. v. Deimia
ili. 89
i.4ie
Em Hareo o. HemiiiBwar iii 427
£Mt India Co. v. CuDpbell i. 36
V. Heniler ii. 620
E>*t London Waterworkt n. Baile7ii.291
Euubiook o. Scott ii. 467
Eatur r. Little MUmi B. B. it. 480
Eulerbrook e. Barker iii. 26
V. Uoion Hat. L. Ini. Co. iii. 869 '.
Eatterlj v. Qoodirin 1. 262, 422 ; ii. 430
Eutem Cherokeei' Caae i. 284
Butem Conatiea B. Co. v. Hawkes ii. 800
Eanem R. R v. Relief Sire Ins. Co.
iii. 276, 376
Eoten Townships Bank v. St
Jobnbar? &c. S. Co. iii. BH
Eutetwood V. Sute t. 288
Eaathun s. Powell It. 418
East Kiagaton d. Towle iL 13
Eastland t>. Burchell ii. 140
" " nRy. 7r
ir. 194
iii. 25
11.201
It. 467
Eistmsn v. Baichelder
r.dark
■.Coos Bank
t. Meredith
t. Potter
I. St. ADlboo; Falls Co.
''. Wadlelgb j. ^t)Z
EMlinui Co. a. Reicbenbach ii. 259
Esston, Cr/Brts i. 369, 370; iii. 218
r. Hodge i. 842
r. Houston & T. C B7. Co. 11. 259
0. Hnott ii. 70
>■■ H jde liL 76
c. MontBoueiT 1*. 461
r Worthlngton U. 824
EsA Tenn. «c R. Co. ■>. De Annond
11.258
Km Tenn. I. 4 C. Co. ». Krilj ii. 590
East Tenn. I. & C. Co. b. Winiii
U1.440
Eastwood V. Bain
ii. 490
0. Brown
516.620
V. Ken;on
1L465
^.Vincke
iv. 89<>
Eaton r. B. &c B. Co.
ii. 840
r.BoisBonaait
iii. lie
v. Eaton ii
461
; iT. 461
V. Europoan 4 N. A. R. Co.
D. Hill
ii. 260
ii.241
145, 167
Iii. 114
viMcSStn
W
V. Simonds
IT. 44
V. Tiliinghast
ii. 173
V. Walker
ii. 277
V. Vfhme It
aton 4 Hamflton B. H. v. H
i^.
160. 161
nnt
iii. 96
. B. V. E. C. B.
ii.228
bbetis V. Conquest
iT. 96
bl)w. Vale Co. Claim of
u.aoo
beneier W. Cole, Will of
iv.608
berle v. Fisher
iT.42
berle's Co. v. Jonas
ii. 389
lieretein «. Willete
iL461
. C^^aSo. V. Mannf. Ins.
ii. 366
Da
111.268
caubert u. Appleton
ii. 866
Eccleton b. Petty
Eoker v. McAUister
11 216
ii.463
Eckerlj e. Alcorn
iil. 54
Eckerson o. Crippen
Eckforf 0. DeKiy
Eckstein u. Frs^
Ui. 461
ii.230
U. 241
Eclipse, The
1.370
Eclipse Manuf. Co. t>. AdUu
li.866
1-. Holland
ii.36fl
Edsn 0. Dudfield
a 492. 603
Eddie V. DsTidsoa
iii. 66
Ed>ly, The
(.869
Eddy V. Chase
iii. 449
r. Clement
ii. 468
ii. 664
r. O'Bara
ii.
123.124
<.: St. Hars
iii. 427
Eddy'. Case
iT. 608
Eddy Street Iron Fonndiy v
den S. 4 M. F. Ins. Co.
iii. 8B2
Edelen n. Hardy
It. 515
V. Middleton
iT. 278
Eden V. Chsflee
1L5I0
B. LexiugloD 4 F. B. Co
11.416
D. Parkioion
Hi. 286
Edena b. Williams
iii. 87
Edes D. Hamilton H. Ins. Co
iii, 376
Edgar v. Donnally
iu. 39
0. Reynold)
It. 424
Edgeberry ». Rtepben*
IL372
Edgell B. Lowell
It, 464
f. M-Laughlin
U1.278
Edgerlr ,. Barker
o.Bush
iT.608
iL468
r.EdgerIy
if. 306
B. Rrst Nat. Bttik
ii.441
B. Parker
ir.846
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES,
u nurgtul p*g« u* i«f*iT*d to.]
L439
IU.46S
P. Page
111.464
0. Jenkini
m. 461
r.WoU
U. 236
«. Johnwn
i,413
Edick c. Crim
U. 478
p. Jones
U. 444
Ediee. Eutlndi&Co.
lii.90
r. Keaney
i.4lft
Edinbargh R. B. Co. p. WMichope i. 400
i..Lord
11.600
Ediion Electric Light Co. r
Bloom.
«. MoCaddon
L419
..Dfe
302.330
«. MoFaU
iii. 68
ill. 37
V. McLean
iiL468
B. Pick«ni t:i. Co.
ii. 886
B. M'Leay
V. Martini Hei»
1L471
r. U. S-E.^. Co.
ii
22,366
iv. 478
EditoD Q. E. Co. r. Canmdhm P
N.
,-. Meyrick
V. Mi&nd By. Co.
iL4SS
Co.
a 286
ii. 2B1
Edmandi c. Mut Safety F
In*.
Co.
». Morgan
It. 67
iu.3T6
r. St. Louii Perpetual Ina Co.
Edminiter c. Higgini
ii. 162
iu.26S
Edroonda b. Creoihtw
i>. 231
0. San JoB^ P. Co.
iLlS
B. Iron City N«. Back
ill. 61
«. Shermwi
iii. 194
ii.364
V. Slater
V. Wel,h
ir. 148
V. Tandy
l": 109
Edmondsion p. Drmke
iii. 124
iii. 232
ii. 118
B. The Susan
m. 196
:;»
111. 26. 84
Edmonston e. GUbert
Iii. 94
i.308
Edmund! V. Brotra
Ii. 807
Edwin, The Bark
iii. 206
D. BnaheU
Ii. 620
Edwin B. East India Co.
iii. 219
D. Mercbuti' Tnni. Co
ii.482
EeLla v. The People
i. -284
V. Hitter
ii. 286
ii. 267
EdMUu.Herrm
iT. 86»
Eels G. American Tel. Co.
ii. 611
». VandemaA
iL228
D St Jjouu, &c R. Co.
ii. 608
Edion V. MniueU
iii. 446
Eprrom, Tlie
111.262
p. FarBoni
iT. 641
Eflsnd B. Efland
iT. 46
r. Weston
iL566
Egan 0. Hsrt
ii. 840
Edward, The
i. 148
Egbert i: Greenwalt
iL209
Edward v. CheTiie
H. 164
r. LippmaDn
ii. 366
e. TreTelUok
Iii. leg
Egberts V. Wood
m. 44.69
Edward Bair Co. t>. New York, ftc. Co.
Ege r. Medlar
iT. 29
ii. 366
EgerCon u. Earl Brownlow
iT. 304
Edward Clere'i Caw (Sir)
iv. 257
p. Funeman
iii. 277
Edward Hawkini, The
iii. 248
Egglri>.N^^tt
It. 254
Edward Klein, Caae of
ii. 391
ii.477
Edwardi, Ex partt
\i. 161
Erbc™ b. Eggen
iT. 608
IniT ii
646
W.278
Eggen V. Beyer
It. 194
0. Aberayron, £c. Soc.
iii. 376
Eggerlh b. Eggerth
iL12£
i>. Barksdale
U.428
Eggleston o. N. T. & Hartem H. R.
V. Bibb
It. 50
iT. 460
tr. Brewer
il.544
Egyptian Monarch, The L 867, 369 ; ii.
B. Carter
ii. 2Se
269
t. ClianceUor
Hi. 76
Ehle e. Jndson
ii. 466
V. Com'th
Ehret V, Pieree
ii. 873
f. CunliSe
It. 148. 182
Eichhauin ... Irons
ii. 817
t..D»Uy
ui.88
Eichelberger v. BamiU
B. Finley
T. 278, 282
i>. Dareoport i 842
; il. 461
iii. 110
«.Da»ii
ii.
208,466
B. M'CwlOT
Eichenlaub «. St. JoKph
ii. 611
p. Dillon ii. 61!
; iii. 48
ii.S40
B. Dooley
f. Jwigfit
ii. 612
Eichhofl, h n
ii. 77
iy. 176
Eichhole V. BannlEt«r
11. 478
P. Edwardf
ii.l28
Ridam «. Fionegu
Eideroiller Ice Co. b. Guthrie
il.226
f. EllloU
i.370
ill. 427
iv. 110
Eifort V. BeTlns
1.303
e. Freeman IL 422
iv. 418
Eighmy B. Union Pac. Ry. Co
Eight Hour Law, h ™
EiTenbecker v. District Coort
ii. 26»
0. Grand Tronk B. Co.
ii.604
Ii. 269
«. Hale
It. 118
i. sai
B. Harben ii. 618, 62ft, 621, 622
Finer v. Deynoodt
Ii. 407
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Bdhmi o. BocbMter Ou Co.
11.281
EUicolt V. Htrtln
Ul. 79
E*ei t. Hm7M
il.467
«. Hotier
iT. 66
EUi^Bnad
U. 192
It. 237
>.EU
ii.226
Ellinger'i Appeal
EltioKtoD V. Beuiett
iii. 95
Hbena.TTMi
ili.2S2
m.440
Etei^KwiU, Jtatletof
i). 631
"dark
1L366
It. 618
Ellinwood I., Holt
iT. 148
Elder tP-Bomu
lli. 431
Elliot V. Collier
ii. 136
r.Hood
iii. 87
::SS^
iii. 78
V. Jooe»
iv. lea
iii. 47
r. LTkeu V. C. Ca
..ricCUAey
iii. 440
V. Fairhaven * W. B. B.
iii. 4S3
iy. 870
B. Fitcliburg B. R. ia
440,448
*.Boii»e
ii. 6S2
B. loce
ii. 451
Bdfrton, /n ni
11.11)3
V. North-Eaatem R. Co.
iit 4B7
Eldred r. Eldred
ii. 100
r. Royal Exch. Au. Co.
ill. 876
r. H>WH
iil.flO
V. Wilion
ill. 818
EldndgB E. Forreital
iv.40
Elliott, In ™
iL 193
Gdrcfe f. Chacon
m. 112
BlUott B.Aiken lli 464, 488
IT. 110
Eldridge V. Hill
11.602
0. Barrett
1.494
iL340
D.Bell
1.449
Becukxl Ac. Co. v. Bnuh EL Co. ii. 366
V. Broirn
1.360
Dec CoU. of 3. C.
i.301
0. Caldwell
1.463
Elcctro-Drumic Co. v. The EIm-
u. Chicago, ic. By. Co.
.384
i. 370
I.. Cordell
1.140
v. Daks of Norfolk
1.803
YuAokcD
1.462
0. Ourr
ii.flO
El(7 r. Shr«wibiii7, The
i. 369
B. Haydeo
Blord B. Teed
iii. 102
V. JohDMm
IT. 96
HgM V. LoTell i. 07
78,297
D. ROBWU U.
699.608
Hgio Butler Co. ». Elgin Creamery
EF. Swart wDOt
11.491
Co.
il.366
r. Thorau
ii. 501
EUu V. Griffith
It. 76
B. Wood
iT. 148
Elliott Bank o. W. ft A. B. R. Co. li. 2»1
iT. 75
Elliottft, The
111.248
Eliii.The
m. 197
ElllB r. Academy of Htulc
r. Am. T. Co.
11 16
EUol c Eliot
il.78
ii. 811
c. UeConnick
1. 2M
V. Brown
111.89
EnoltB.Gower
11.164
V. Bridgnorth
Iii. 419
Eli««B. Wnlff
ii.6S6
B. Cary ii.
192. 467
Elia Ann, The
41,188
B. Commercial Bank of Natchez
Elin Conlfh, The
iii. 174
li. 94. 96
Eiin Lidd, Tbe
1.370
r. Ellli ii. 96; Iii. 48
Iv. 306
Eliab«h, The t.43,86;iii.
187, 240
B. Emox M. Bridge
11.228
0. Rickeni
ill. 179
V. Hamlen
11.690
EUnbetb p. FHrement Co.
11. sne
V. Horrman
iT. 466
Elinbeth Frith, The
iii. 179
B. Hunt IL S48, 644. 616
ElMbetfa IJtne. The
iii. 246
V. Kreuttinger
ill. 876
Ellubeih Jones, The
iii. 282
V. M'Henry
11. 398
Elia Lioei, Tbe li. 206
iii. 364
e. Mancheiler Carriage Co.
IN. 419
Eiia S. Patter, The
iii. 232
B. MarahaU
11. 277
Elkr. Wilkini i. 891;
a. 64, 71
B. Maton
Ui. 76
DkhtrtCW. Co.».F,lli.
It. 122
B. Mitchell
i. 42
Elkio «. Ttmlin
ii. eiD
tr. North Am. Ini. Co.
111. 869
Bkint >. Edvsrd*
if. 194
>J.OhloL.Lia.lT.Co.
iii. 86
DkBtoo n. Booth
ii). 64
'.Page
It, 506
nk PoEnt 0. VnAa
1.884
r. Paige It. Ill, 118, 114. 118
Slrt».I*igh ^^
11.169
B. Phenii Bank
1.66
Bl>J.S(<yiiMkei',The
i. 370
B. Secor 1. 4S8. 448
EQud f. LUDd.tr
ii. 400
B. Sheffield Ga. Co.
ii. 2fi«
Elti Werley. The
1.168
B. Smith
It. 619
Ellm^ The Two
IIL 170
B. Turner li. 269, 600. 807
Hi. 161
KlIenoD r. Weitcott
It, 532
». W«rd
Ii. 281
KIlM ». 8t LouJB, *c. Rj. Co.
11.602
■-Wild iiL86. 88
Eliieott v. AlUanoe iDmrance Co
iii. 831
>. Willard
iii. 307
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
EUb't Tntiti. I* rt
li. 170
Emeraon v. Howland iii
Elliwno.atyofBdeigh
li.298
V. Proi»ietor. in Wnot iv
V. tttTiB
It. 194
V. Senter ii
E. ElU(oa
ii. 466, 633
Emert e. Miuouri i.
B. Elwin
ii. 138
Emery e. BartleK li
D. Sexton
iii. 64
V. Boiton U. Idi. Co. iii
Elli V. Toiulej
Ellsworth V. Cook
iv.437
V. Fowler i,.
iT.SO
r. Gerbier ii
Elmbuk, The
iii. a*e
r. Grocock i
IT. 152
p. Herwy iU. 138,
p. Lockwood
IT. ^
V. Hobadn ij
V. Taylor
ir. 187
V. Neighbour li
Elmer v. Crewy
IT. 166
V. Piacataqua Idi. Co. iii
11. Hall
iii. 37
B. Waie ii.
U.Locke
il. 360
Emery't Sana v. Irrlng Hat. Bank
V. Pennell
ii. 368
ii
Elmore V. Kingicote
iLGll
Emery'* TrusH, Re ii. 154
V. Stone
IL 492, 603
Emily B. Souder, The iii
Elnwtey «. Toung
iT, 637
Emiiy Souder, The iii.
Etm»lie «. Bounder
ii.3e6
Emly V- Lye ii
Elpliiek 0. Baniee
iL492
Emma Silver UiningCo.«.Gniit ii
Elwbe, The
L 101, 166
V. Lewi« ii.
Eliee D. G»tw«rd tL 670, 671, 699
E. M. McChewey, The iii
Ei«ey V. Lutyen*
iT. 469
Emmel v. Hayei ii.
P. PoiUJ TeL Co.
ii. en
Emmeni v. Pottle i
Elrton V. Comer
IT. 456
El Telefrafo
L78
V. Wiley iii
Eltingr V. Scott
iii. 284
Emmerton v. Mathewa ii.
Elton, Ex parte
ElweU u. Bender
iii. 65
Emrnei i>. Feeley iii.
Emmons v. LitUefield it,
iii. m
t>. Martin ii
241; Ui. 183
V. Seudder W.
t. Skiddy
iii.2a8
Emperor of Auatria p. Day t Eoainth
Elwe* u. Bngg Gu Co.
ii.800
i.
V. M>i*
ii, 846
Empire, The i
EI»aod V. Klock
Ir. 69, 64
Empire Awurance Corp. ii
0. WMiem Ob. T. Co.
ii. on
Employer.' L. Aa.. Co. t.. HerriU iii
Ely B. Bargeu
ii. 162, 163
Emporia b. SodeD iii.
p. Dix
■ iT. 361
Erapreai. The 1.
V. Hair
ill. 48
EmpreiE Engineering Co., In rt it. •
r. Hailett
m.288
iv.
«. Peck i
40S ; til. 185
Emalona, The i 69, 866, 867 ; ii. i
f. Wilcoi ir. 178, 174, 469
iii.
EW.BUhoporD. Eeorick
iT. 366
Elygi«, The
Iii 281
Endere b. William. ii.
Elyton Land Co. v. Denny
iT. 02
Endicott B. Endicott 1.
•>. South & North Ala. R. Co. it. 480
Emack V. Kane
ii. 10
Energia.Tlie L 40»! iU.
Emani v. TurnbnU
iii. 428
Energy, The Ui
Emanuel. The
i. 76, 76
Eneu V. CUrk |i.
Emanuel v. Bird
iii. 66
Engel V. Eureka Qob ii.
Emanuel College o. ETana
iT. 158
V. New York. te. R. Ca ii.
Emblem. The iii
240, 248, 314
Engett e. Fitch ii.
Emblyn b. Freeman
It. 807
England v. Clark It.
Embree v. ElUi
iT. 38
V. Curling Iii. 61
B. Hanna
IL 119, 123
Englebert e. Pritchett li.
Embrey n. Owen
iii. 440
V. TitJieli ii
Embury D. Conner
ii. S40
EngUih Bank o( the EiT*r Plate.
In re iii. S:
Emeric «. AlTarado it. 226
; iT. 869. 370
Bmeri. B. Woodward
1L46S
EnglUh V. Dailey Iii. 112.
Bmewon u. Blonden
ii. 179
V. Engliah ii.
V. BriRham
ii. 478
B. HarTey ii.
B. County of W.
iT. 471
B. Ijine iv.
e.DaTle.
ii 378. 880
V. Ruirell It.
>. Oalloupe
iT.806
B. Spokane Com. Co. ii
sobiGooi^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[The muKiinl PM** *n ntomA to.]
ED^lith >Dd Irith Church >nd
Un.
Ewell V. Hayward
E*aery v. Cobb
iii. 61
Am. Soe^ Be
iii. 26
iU. 133
Kngtbhnuiii, The, tnA The Augtrilin
Etaex, The
i.86
iii. 282
Essex «. Atkina
iL167
EdIm b. HkU
ii. 632
f. Essex
Iii. 39
Ennk >. Eudu
ii. 126
Essex Co. V. Edmandi
iiL89
■..Smith
ii. 429
Essex Co. Naf 1 Bank x.
Bank of
e.W«ll«
ir. 434
Montreal
iii. 82, 88
EDO ». Dei Veechio
iii. 4ie
Essex Pablic Boad Board e.
Skinkle i. 413
EnohiD ». Wyiie
ii. 429
Essex S. Bank v. Heriden F. Ins. Co.
Endgn. A>
ii. 162
. 468 ; iii. 369
EDtmpriM a AM-n r. Znmitein
i. 221
Essex Tnmpike Corp. v. Coiling ii. 292
iii. 296
EsBon i>. H'Mastar
iii. 427
EpiKop^ Academy v. Frien
iv. 486
Estabrook, Ex parU
iii. 86
'EpperMD v. Nagent
ii. 240
V. Swelt
ii. 482
Eppe. =. Tucke?
iii. 239
Estcoart v. Ettconrt'i H. E
Co. ii. 259
Eqaiuble Jn.. Co. =. McCrea
iii. 3TS
Estelle V. Peacock
ii. 478
Equitable Life Aw. Society
Estep D. Weems
ir. 431, 434
Clement.
iii. 366
Eslerly H. M. Co. p. Frolkey ii. 616
v.Pae
ii.620
Estet a. German Nat Bank
It. 456
V. Smith
U. 690
U.Kyle
ii.468
c. WiimiDK
iU. 866
V. Odom
\y.m
EquiUble Tniit Co. t>. Chriit
Ii. 343
o. Reynold!
ii.482
Erber e. Dun
ii. 22
B. Tower
iii. 91, 102
Erhardt k. Schroeder
i. 266
Gstey B. Burdett
ii.366
Erick V. JohneOD
ii. 616
Ettreila, The
i. 108
ii. 313
Estwick V. Cailiand
fi.636
r. Hich. lADd & Iron Co.
iii. 437
Etchison V. Etchison
iv. 616
>. KMmith
ii. 468
ii. 22
Erie Belle, The
L3e9
Eten u. Luyster
iv. 106
Erie, Ac. Co. d. Dater
Ii. 608
Eter p. Edward*
ii.8U
Brie City Iron Worka r. Barber
ii.2M
Etheridge V. Binney
iiL 31, 41
Erie By. Co. e. Pann.
».Bute
i. 942
V. Gallagher
iii. 91
i.439
therington v. Parrot
tna.'rte
11.148
». Wilcoi
U.804
ii. 221, 226
Erie Bnbber Co. b. American D
T.
tona, The
iii. 207
Co.
U.366
trosco, Case of
i.i2i
ErlaDger >. Kew Sombrero Phot-
Ettlng V. ScbuylkiU Bank
LL106
phale Co. ii. 280
It. 148
Eag^nie, The
Ui. 167
Enie.t p. Nicholl. u. 300; iii. 27
Enliss v. McAdami
lv.466
En>e>t M. Mono, The
ii.461
Entit V. CiMby ii. 467 ; iv. 86
iii. 232
r. SciiccJnga
ii. 400
European & A. B. Mail Co.
D. Boyal
>. Steckman
iii 76
Mail S- P. Co.
ii.5e6
Ernst Merck
i. 87
Eustis v. Boiles
i. 326; iii. 58
iv. 194
Eustis Hanut. Co. o. Enstis
ii. 269, see
Erskina v. Adeane
iii. 488
Erans, Ex pant
iT.42»
v. Steele Coanty
Iii. 89
f.Bic^U
Ii. 490
r. Tooraaettd It. 143, 166,
lea, 181
V. Bridges
iii. 96
Etrin v. Oregon Ry. & Hat. Co.
ii. 286
f . Cahnan
ii. 164
Enrin c. Down*
iU.88
V. Daridson
ii. 260
c. MazweU
ii. 478
r. DaYls
Iv. 122
Erwin'a Appeal
iii. 39
V. De Lay
U. 164
1.489
D. Drammond
iii. 68
Bacbeator e. Smith
ii. 162
D. Eaton iL 869, 370, 871
Eadaila v. Sawerby
iii. 110
u. Edmonds
ii. 490
r.Wn7tack
iU. 87
t>. Elliot
iv. 167
BdibMh p. EahbMOi
ii. 128
V. Bnloe
iv. 162
Btkridg* p. U'Qnre It.
152,163
17. Evans U. 99, 126, 441 ; iii. 63 ;
EaUra p. Lefnetra
It. 39
ir,32,214
Sq>lii «. PembenoD
iv. 179
V. Gee
iiJ. 80. 06
Bapleyv. Wilkea Iii.
419, 432
». Goodlet
iv. 162
Bnoalto c. Boirden
i.67
U.Gray
il. 474
S^v. Bank of Onchuuti Iii B5, 88
I.. Grey
IT. 466
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Etbhi v. Hoare
i!.4M
Exall u. Partridge
fl. 617
V. Hooper
ii. 468
Excelsior Mannf. Co, v. Wheelock iv. 461
r. Igleliarl U. SfiS,
364,414,415;
Excliange, The i.
151. 287
tv. 78
Exchange, The v. MTaddon L 89. 166
». Jones
iv. m
EMhange Bank r. Ford
UL37
K. Uarlett
H.499
-..Hubbard ii.468; iii. 95
f. Muon
il. 587
V. Kice ii. 463; i
iL84, 85
iii. 43»
c. Sibley
ii. 300
i. 41U
Exchange Banking Co., In rt
ii. 2U&
V. N«iilii
ii. ITH
Exchange Nat. Bank v. Little Rock
V. Roberts
iv. 73, 451
B.ok
iu. 82
r. Saunden
iv.336
Exeter, The
iii. 183
. V. Smalluonibe
ii. 800
Exetef t>. OdJoma
iv. 299
iii. 217
Exeter Bank r. Sttllivan
iii. 61
«. Swtbuek, The
i. S60
Ejton V. Russell
iii. B8
V. Union Pac. By. Co.
1.397
Experiment, The
iii. 16-2
». Von Law
ii. 366
Explorer, The
ii.418
V. Walton
ii. 205
Express, The
iii. 282
». Ware
ii. 236
Express Co. v. Caldwell
U.608
p. Webb
iv. 58
r. KountEe
i. 847
r. Welii
ft. 681
Express Priming Co. v. Copelaad
ii. M
EvanivUle «. Page
EvantTiUe N»t E^uk v. K«
iii 451
Ex ton V. Greaves
iv. 107
ttfmM iii. 84,
Eynon, Goods of
iv. 614
m
a 226.
EvaniTiUeAT.H.K.Co.i'.
Holoomb
226, 246, 287
iv.326
ii. 269
». Dolphin
iv. 172
ExanM c. Etrode
u. 491
B, Uansford
ii. 489
ii. 288
V. Higbee
ii. 381
D. Evelyn ii.424; iv. 160
V. Hughes
iv. 148
ETenaoQ v. ElIingBon
ii. 277
V. Ivi»n
iv. 451
E*erding r. McGinn
i. 478
e. Jordan
iv. no
EverMt D. Buiblo L. 0. Co
ii. 366
r. New Forest H. Bowd
iii. 451
Ererett v. Edwards iii 437 i ir. 185
iv. 498
V. LondoD Ass. Co.
Iii. 802
Eieu, h Tt
126,37
D. Panlon
ii. 170
V, Stone
i. 247; ii. 88S
p, TidbiU
iii. 81
Fabbhizcotti d. Lanniti
Ii. 470
«. Vendryes
iii. 96
Fabeni d. Mercantile Bank
iii. 93
ETergreen Cemetery Aaa"
B. New
Faber v. Police Iv.
208.206
Hayen
ii. 840
Fable 0. Brown
ii.26S
Everhart v. HunUWlle CoUeite i. 302,
Fabre p. Cunard 8. Co.
i.330
m
Fadness v. Braanborg
ii.277
Everingham e. Braden .
iv. 4«8
Fagan e. Fagan
ii. 87
Everit V. Strong
iii. 41
r. Newson
ii.486
ErermnD i>, Hyman
U. 449. 681
Fabey o. Dwyer
Fain a. Crawford
iii. 446
iii. 43
iii. 480
Everson o. Carpenier
Evertli V. Smlib
ii. 28S
ii. 479
iii. 326
iii. 81
Everts. Ex porta
i. 323
Fairchild e. Hell
ii. 466
Inrt
U. 196
u. Crane
iv. 278
r. Beach
Iv. 360
c. Fairchild UL 86
i iv. 28
Eirertson >>. National Bank
iii. 80
Faitclalm «. ShackletoD
i*. 870
Bw.;o:;"K„,
)). 231
FMrclough r. MarahaU
iv. 166
il. 15
Fairfax p. Hunter L 316 ; iL 64
Ewer. I« rt
ii. 195
Pairfleld v. Co. of GaUatin
L 842
V. Cojce
ii. 376
B. Williams
iii. 432
Ewen V. HuttOD
ii. 147
Fairfield Savings Bank d. Cbaae
ii. «;»
Ewing V. Colquhonn
iiL 413, 440
Fnirholm v. Maijoribanka
Fairlee t>. Corintti
iii. 61
V. French
ii. 680
1.462
V. On Ewing
ii. 429
D, Herring
iii. 86
V. Smith
ii. i«6
Fatrlie i>. Fenton ii. 622, 629
V. Tees
ii. 612
Fairman e. Ives ii. 19, 22
0. Wilson
ii. 451
Fairport, The
iii. 167
Eirini V. Ootdon
Ii. 441
Fairriew R. Co. «. Spitlmao
ii.277
;q.l7.jrb,G00l^lC
TABLE OP CASES.
iii. 41
Fvm V. D«ley
iT.4ae
er.' & DroTetB' Bank ii. 621 ; iii. 88
ntcke B. Scottiih Imperial In*. Co.
V. Rathbone
li. 78. 86
iiL248
F.lcon, The
i. seu
Fika B. Cbicmod, &c. Rj. Co.
i. 30-J
Farmer.' £1re Iiu. & Loan Co.
ii. 2tl0
EUk. iTz poric ii.
643, M»
e. Edward.
It. 183
V. Brett Lith. Co.
ii. STB
Fanner.', &c. In.. Co. v. Cnrry
iii. '282
ii. 373
v.Ko«.
iii. 26
c. Gut L. & E. Co.
ii, 873
Farmen' Loan & T. Co. v. ChicaBo,
ii. S^3
&c. Ry. Co.
i. 449
p. Howell
U. 373
V. HendrickaoD
ii. 348
MkeDbnrg o. Clark
Fukner r. Perkins
iii. 228
iL626
V. The People
JT. 425
r. Kilcliie
iii. U-ja
r. Toledo, *c R. Co.
ii. 681
Falloo r. Cliideiter
ir. 624
... Wilwn
ii. 048
Fill RWer IroD World v. Croade
ii.407
Farmert' Nat. Bank b. Dearing
i. 264
F*U RiTgr WliaUog Co. v. Bordeo iii. SB
1^. UoBlhioney
i.301
Fu>w.The 1.1 7B
; il.320
p. Sutton Mannf. Co.
Ui. 06
PuKHU Shoe Co. D. Crorawhite
iii. SS
Farmer.' Pliosphate Co. b. Gill
Farmer.', &a. Bani v. Logan
ii.4i>8
FudKr B. Bibb Funuce Co.
iii. 41
ii.640
FimbU UsU Ihj. Co. v. lirerpool. &c.
FsrmiDglon v, Pill.bury
i.ao2
Ini.Co.
iii, 27fl
Farnam ^. Brook.
iL4»0
FuDing D. CtKuequ U. 460, 460. 46 1
Farncombe'. Tru.t., In n
IT. 324
». Gregoiie
i. 43y
Farnham 0, Camden & Amboy B
R.
Fwinj, The
i. 132
ii608
Fmui; 4 Elmin iii.
181. 173
B. Fambam
iilOl
FMt n. Miller IL 461. 468
B. Pierce
iL260
il. 611
Fam.worlli d. Child.
It. 171
Fuel, /« re
i.37
0. Drake
iii.T8
Fugo V. HtereiM
1.430
B. Groot
ii.60ft
Fuiu V. Hoow
ii.482
r. Hemmer
iLBlB
^rith r. Reigle
il.flOO
r- Monuna
1.326
FmIuu e. Powell
U. 587
B. Mullen
iii. 06
Firiej r. Crmig
Iii. 470
B. Shepard
B. Farley
ii. 11
Famum b. Piatt
iu'.424
^^?C.
1L463
Famworth v. Hyde iU. 296, 381
11446
Farqohar v. Fidelity In.. Co.
iii. 76
Rrmeloe r. Bain
U.649
B- Soulhoy
iii. 114
Farmer ». Da™. iL632-
iii 161
iii. 309
p. FwTOor iL 101, 126
Fan- B. Johnwn
iii. 28
t. Mfdico L. J. Am'd
il.403
B. Pe«r<^
iii. 64
::£S
iii. 06
B. Smith
11.860
iiLioa
Farrand b. Torkihire B. Ca It.
160, 170
V. Ukiah Water Co.
i».467
Farrand'. Cau
i.401
V. Waterloo 4 Oty K7. Co.
Iii. 437
Farrant t>. Tliompwii
Farrar v. Beiwick
ii. 346
11306
iii. 28
ff. ODnnell
iii. 109
V. Cooper
iii. 449
>. H. A. Society
iii. 376
B. Dean
IT. 424
>. Rt-;noidi
Iii. 115
B. Farrar It, IW, 463
«. Vflnmeter
Iii. 110
B. Farrar*
iT. 143
>. Wallace
i'r.437
Iii. 87
B. SUckpole
Farrel 0. M'Clea
ii. 846
iii. 106
In. 166
Farmer.' Bank o( M. d. Duvali
iii. 106
Farreil b. Friedlandet
iii. 46
Fanner.' Bank of Mo. r. BayleM
UI. 41
B. LoTett
iii. 7ft
Fanner.' i Citizeni' B»nk r. Mo
V. Richard.
iii. 440
uLie
B. Richmond 4 D. B. Co.
ii.&46
B. School Di.trict
ii.269
c. Baffle
iii. 107
Farrer b. Nigblingal
ii, 489
*. Champlaiit T. Co.
ii.fl04
Farriogton b. Brown
Mi. 113
Annen' & Maanf. Bank d. Haight It. 468
B. Kimb Jl
lv.96
Fumera' « Mecbaniu' Bank ». Bald-
Farron ». KeipeM
Iii. 128
win
li.299
V. WlL^m"^
a4e8
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tb> BHflM] p<«
FalTOi* V. Farrow It. 208
Firthlng ». Dark ta Bl
Fnrre d. GraTei iL 409
FarweU v. B. & W. Bailroad D. Seo
V. CMhniMl iii. 54
p. Cortit iii. 83
V. Uniton iii. 24
V. Kennett iii- 79
V. St. Paul TnMt Co. iiL 41, 109
0. WarreD It. SBl
Faah V. Rou ii. 681
Fawett j>. Ewart Hannf. Co. ii. 306
FaMett'i Appeal iL 488
Father«e d. FatherM ir. 404
Fandel v. Phtoniz In*. Co. iii. 294
Faulder v. Bilk ii. 4G0
Faulkner v. Brookenboroagb It. 194
u. Brow D ii. 586
I'. Ceotral F. Ina. Co. iii. STS
V. Daniel W. 288
0. Faulkner iL 162
u. Hendr ir. 805
V. Wright ii. 608
Faure v. Martin it. 467
Faure Electric Accnmnlator Co. in re
ii. 281
Favorite, The iii. 2, 166, 199, 206
Fawcett v. Oibom ilL 30
0. Whitehouw iii. 61, 62
FawcQi V. Sanfl«ld iiL 288
Fawell D. Healii iy. 164
Fawkel V. Lamb ii. 629
Fawsett c. CUrk U. 10
Far "■ Alliance in*. Co.
m. 276, 312
«. Davidton
iii. 26
^.Fay
It. 805
V. HaTca
iL484
t>. HoUonii
IiL 461
V. Howe
iL23l
L102
V. Pacific Imp. Co.
U.692
Fayle r. Bird
iii. 99
Faylor „. Brice
iT. 122
Feakei v. Standtey
iv. 278
Fear v. Caitle
Ii. 144
tr. DQDiap
iii. 89
Fearing r. Jonei
11.448
Fearni r. Young
Fears b. Story
il. 510
Pea Ihera Cane e. Onnoodc
Crde Co. ii. 386
FeaClientonliangh t>. Fenwtck
Ui. 87, 51.
r. Turner ia 87, 63
Feaubert e. Tont ii. 469
Pecliheimer v. Bavm L 396; U. 490
Fector c. Pliilpott It. 161
Feeder o. Van Winkle iL S43
Feigley b. Spunebeyer iii. 46
Feild D. FaningtOD ii. 642
Feiae d. Agailar iii. 278
». Wny a 641, 643
Fdch V. Bttgbee i. 422
V. Felch iT. 166
» nt ntMTad M.]
Felch V. HaU 111. Si
Felix V. Feii2 It. 870
FeU, Ex paru tu. 66
V. Broirn W. 186
r. Dial lU. 109
V. Knight IL 596
V. NortlierD Pac B. Co. ii, 16
Fellows Ti. Allen Iv. 524
V. BUckunidi i, 287
D. Dow iT. 143
II. Fellow* ii. 128
p. Guimarla iii. 60
V. Miner ii. 282, 286
Feltham v. England ii. 260
II. Tomer ir. 148
FUtOD B. BUlupB iv. 404
B. Fetlon ii. 126
u. Reid iu. 37
V. Slmpton iii. 440
FenU, The iii. 248
Fenkbauien u, Fellowt 11. 646
Fenn b. Harriwo IL 621
Fenner b. Lewi* U. 179
D. Taylw U. 163
FennlngH a. GrenTOle U. 360
FenonilU o. HamUton lU. 81
Fenton, In rt iv. 608
v. Browne iL 471
II. CUrk IL 269
ti. Emblen ii. 610
V, Goundi7 iiL 90
D. Hampton i. 286
r. Lirlngitone ii. 93, 209
V. Logan iii. 478, 479
B. Miller JT. 456
V. Pearwin ii. 543
B. Heed Ii. 60, S7
Fentum v. Pocock Iii. 86, 114
Fenvli:k v. RobitMon til 389
Fera c. Fera Ii. 128
Ferebee b, Fritchard iL 176
1-. Proctor iv. 821, 826
Fereday u. Wightwick ilL 89, 64
Ferguson v. Bobo il. 241
II. Brook* ii. 149
V. Cappeaa iU. 207
V. Hu»ion a. 474
V. Miami Powder Co. ii. 348
V. Wright ii. 430
Ferguson's Case i. 400 ; It. 1 10
Ferguson (Leuee oO b. Hedges ir. 642
Fergossoii B. Norman ii. 634
Femandec, Caie of L 236
Fernandez o. Stira iii. 221
Femes, Case of Dmo 4 Chapter of
ii 288. 204, 296
Fern Holme, The iii. 271
Ferns s. Carr ii. 261
Fero V. Buffalo & S. L. B. R. iii. 436
Ferrall v. Kent iv. 95
Ferrara v. The TtOent IiL 179
Ferraris k. Hertford il. 428
Ferrel v. Woodward iii. 469
FerreUe, Bt I 37
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tlw BUtfliMl pigia u» n
Femn. Trial at Sail It. 606
Fccrier s. Shmr ii. 477
feniB r. Brown iii. 445
e. Irou ii. 613
t>. Smith It. 637
Fcrro. The liL 206
Ftnj 0. Laible ir. 331
Fenon o. Honroe iiL fl6
FeriilitiDg Co. n. H^de Park ii. 299
FcMeod^i B. T*ft Iv. 136
Fe$tinK v. Allen iv. 248
Fetriilge v. WelU Ii. 880
Fcittn n. Hnmpbr«7i iii. 419
Pejh, /■ re ii. 120
Kckle D. Fickle 11. 106
Hcklen V. Shelby Counlj 1. 439
Fidelity, «c. Co. D. Alpert Iii. 373
r. JohDKin iii. 366
V. Teter lli. 370
KdeU^ Itu. Co. r. ShenaDdoah V. R.
Co.
1.291
Fiedler o. N. T. Iiu
Co.
111,331
ReU ^. Adame*
ill. 479
r.Cha«
ill. 208
r. Clark
1236.288
r. Field
il.90,2U3
». Gibba
1.262
p. I™. Co. of K. A.
iU.28S
r.L.nB
ir. 46. 02
V. UiU>
It. 96
iii. 91
t..P«loi
iT.871
». People, The
1.466.485
V. SchieffeUD
ii228
r. Sliorb
ii.438
c. United StatM 1. tt9
Fleldcn r. Ulinois L 326, S91
Kelder d. Hanger 11. 412
>. ManhaU lU. 76
V. Starkin ii. 480
n«lding B. Kthkt 11. 826
FietMin V. Hay 11. 274
Fire IT. MiUer ir. 208
Fldeld B. Fftrmen' Natl Bank ii. 843
F. Northeru R. R. ii. 260
FittT AHociatm d. Gmcb It. 96
e. Rowland iy. 127
Fifty Thouiand Feet of Lumber iii. 248
nglia Haggiore, Tbe Iii. 138
Fitbarn r. Peoirie'i Palace Co. Ii. 348
Rller B, Tyler ii 160
Kile? B. Phelpa ill. 66
Fillmore r. Jennioga , ijl. 427
roiyao B. LaTerty iii. 68
Tikir B. United Statea 1. 297
rilor'i Caae i, 67
linth B. Skilton Hi 96
B. Wtochiltea (Eari) It. 164
Findlay b. Kddle It. 231
godley B. Rndley It. 66
Fiadly v. Smith iT. 77
ntdon V. faAM {t. 440
n«ki-.Cox iL439
*■ Deniij ii. 441
Fink V. Smith il. 468
Finlaaon b. Tatlock . ir. 637
Finlay e. King It. 126. 636, Mt
r. Liverpool 4 G. W. Steamahlp
B. Stewart
lli. S7
FtnlayMn v. CrodkM
It. 176
Finley v. Finley
ii. 128
0. Herafaey
iii. 440
V.lMt(
iT.306
c. LycoDUDg Co. Hut. Int.
Co.
iu. 876
U.269
r.Bichmotid&D.B.Co.
n. Simpion
)T,4eO
Fiolinion v. Porter
lli. 410
FiDQ B. Sleight
iT.38
B. United Statea
i.297
11. 277
Finney b. Bedford Com. Id>. Co.
iii. 260
«, PenngylTania
iv. 437
v. SomerTille
ii.340
Flnucane v. Sniall 11.
666.601
Piquet V. Allieon
1L866
Firbank o. Humphrey!
it 630
Firefly, The
iiL 248
Fireman'! Ini. Co. v. Holt
iii. 376
Firemen*. In.. Co. v. Ctandall
iii. 376
B. Powell
ii.302
B. Thompson
U.366
B. Weilern B. Co.
ii.2«0
Firealone «. Fireitone
V.46
First Baptist Church b. Brookly
P.
Ins. Co. ■
Hi. 267
First Bap. Ch. of Ithaca v. Bigelow
11.540
ii. 466
B. Holyoke M. F. Ini. Co.
Hi. 876
First M. B. Chureh v. Old Columbia
P. G. Co.
Iv. 122
First National Bank, 7a rt
ii. 160
B. Andrew!
iv. IM
V. Badger L. Co.
iL618
B. Balcom
11.430
D. Banner
Iii. 100
B. Chalmert
11. 610
V. Cody lit 33. 56
B. Crocker
ii. 549
1.280
V. Dnbaque, 4c. By. Co.
ill. 88
r.Gay
111. 76
B. Oi»h
B. Orant
ill. 91
i: Green
!li. T9
B. Herbert
i. 427
t'. JolmstoD m. 81, 89
B. Kelly
ii. 549
B. Kimberland!
Iv. 307
B. Leach
iii. 88
Ii. S65
B. Loyhed
ill. 70
B. Michigan Trust Co.
Iv. 316
B. Miller
iii. 81
B. N. W. Nat Bank
iii. S8
B. New Tork Central B. Co.
iii. 207
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Fint NBtioral Buk ■>.
Peawy i. 895
FUber B. Taylor
It. 806
tp. Pienon
ii.299
V. Tucker
11160.203
V. Salem C»pitol Flour MUlt Co.
B. Webiter
iv. 74
i.202; iL2Bl
300 i iT. 162, 185
v.yfiae
It. 861
V. Schmidt
ii. 545
r. Wmog
111.
134, 167
V. Schween
a 860. 366
V. Toder
1.802
e. Scon
11.366
11.291
*-. SkMD
Ui. 76
Fiik V. Chandler
ii. 429
e.SUughMr
lii.TS
V. Eaatman
iv. 40
V. So*l«i
11.610
i>, Fiik
il. 77
V. SUnlej
iil. 81
e. Ne-ton
iL605
B. Stew»rt
Ii. 681
V. Potter
■*. 152
B. TurnboU
il. 492
B. Sarber
iv. 438
0. Whitman
IU-8B
B. Union Pac. B. B.
i. 303
w. Wood
lii. 106
Co.
Rr»t pMish iD Swtton i
Cole 11.281,283.
Ui. 462
292, 299, 633
D. Hairingtoa
iii, 61
Fint Prei. Cong'n b. Smith ii. 260
V. JohniOD
It, 480
Finl Uni». Society ». BoUod ir. 9
B. Jones
iii. 79, 80
FirUi V. Tlirueli
iii 90, lOe, 108
B. Newberry
B. Pacific R. R.
ii. 689
Fiichel 0. Mill.
i. 238
til. 282
Fiiclier V. Blank
U. 366
V. Pinckard
iv. 161
I'. Laack
iil. 424
B. Waiie
U.403
v.Pophwn
iv. 516
u. Weber
iL49
Fiih, /» re
It. 608
V. Wetherbeo
iv. 181
V. BrowD
if. 461
Fitch's Case
ii. 403
V. Fish
17.44
Fitchbni^ Bark v. Perley
Fitchburg Cotton Man. Co.
iii. 106
V. Herrick
iii. 66
B.MeUen
V. Howiand
It. 162, 164
iv. 165
u. Hubbard
11.666
Tltchburg B. R. B. Gage
IIL 468
V. Kempion
11,682
File P. Doe
It, 44S
ii.6l8
Filler 0. Rtler
ii. 198
B. Tank
11.479
V. Morrii
ill. 107
Fishel D. Lueckel
11.878
FItti B. Hall
ii. 241
FUher d. Bernard
ii. 78
Fitz, Ei paru
ii.581
1-. Brig Norral
ill. 216
B.neV
ii.467
V. Browa
ii.eii
Fitier V. Rlier
ii. 176
B. Cobb
ii.668
Fiugeraid v. Alexander
ii.466
V. CockereU
i.327
V. Blocher
iv. 139
V. Dabba
11.268
B. Chapman
ii. 192
V. DixoD
11.843
ii. 128
0. Etbiw
lii.9«
ii. 26ft
r. Reld*
i». 804. 805
B. Meyer
li.441
V. Ftaber
Ui. 81
«. Mi«ourl Padfio By.
Co.
11.285
r. Galloway, The
Hi. 196
«. Pole
Iil
828.881
r. Gilpin
ii. 226
V. Quann
ii. 149
r, Glorer
ill. 402
V. Redfleld
ii. 16
ir.JkMei)
iv. 110
Fitzfienild'i Can
11.402
V. Johmon
iT. 152
Fitzgerald & M. C. Co. v. Filztnrald ii. 281
«.K«ina
iii. 66
Fitz^ibbon. Cam of
1.403
v-KOmty
11.682
Fitzherbert v. Mather
11
282,286
^L«ky
1.419
Fitzhugh B. Wiman
B-Lane
i.261; ii. 109
Fitzpatnck e 800 Balei of Cotton \\\. 234
B. Ligbthall
lii. 468
D. School Comminione
ii. 616
B. Mamh
ii. 629
Fitziimmoni b. Baiter
111
186.199
B.Moon
iii. 462
B, City F. In«. Co. ofN
B. Jo.fin
H.
iii. 281
V. MoiBman
It. 194
ii. 621
v. Murray
iii. 44
B. Mil«ankee,4c.By.
Co.
Ii. 2^
0. New Jertey Bank it. 861
B. Newport Ina. Co.
149, 160
r>. Samuda
ii. 480
Fitzwaller'i Cue
iil. 413
B. SmulT
iv. 162
Five Steel Bargei
iii. 248
iT,465
Fisierte «. Firette
U
164, 441
>.8peDM
lv.608
Flack B. Green
iii. lOS
>. Sweet
iii. 87
Flad Oyen, The
i. lOS
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Flidiiiig r. Bon
IT. 868
FUno B. Tobtn
Iii. 283
Fl^g r. Hum iT. 1«. IM, 178, 871
FUnt 0. Qinton Ca
ill. 316
"mmoi.
iT.*a7
1116
B. SiOiool Dutrict
ii. 76
V. Norwich & N. T. T. Co.
U.0OO
o.SWwe
iu. 28
V. Pattee
U.448
Iii. ao:
Flint, 4c. Ry. Co. r. Weir
Flinthaoi, Cue of ir
ii.OOO
FUnanna.CaiiideiiHat.Iiu.Co. iil. 876
819, 686
Flaniken e. Neal
iv. 473
V. Holder
iT. 414
ftc. Rv. Co.
11.269
Flippin, Ex parU
Flood D. JackMiD
i.322
ii. 269
Flaih v. Conn.
ii. 286
Flood'! Caie
iv. 507
fUvell, Ih Tt
It. 146
Flora V. AnderMin it. 200
; iv. 278
I. Hairuon
U. 360
Florence, The iii. 166
196,248
HaTiUv. Teotrlce
iT. 49
Florence M. Co. n. Brown
iii. 88
riMknerp. DnitodStatMBank ii. 280
Florida, The 1
117, 128
Fleet ff. Hegetnan
ui. 416
Florio, /a re
ii. 39
r.M(ir!iH]
ii. 631
Flonheim v. DnlUghan
ii. 200
V. I^rrlDS
ii. 138, 600
V. Schilling
Plonr City N. Bank x>. Gtotot
11.306
neMvood IP. Hon
tv. 478
iU.81
iv.436
Floumor V. Van Cnmpen
11. 610
FleiKb D. North Amerioi In*. Co. iii. 370
Flower c. BamekoO
U. 494
FleiMhrnanD o. SUrkej
ii. 860
0. Buller Ii.
164,101
FleuchMt ». Faciflc P. T
Cable Co.
B. Orifflth
ii.40a
ii. 611
a. Jooei
il. 610
"^Si™-™
ill 101, 102
0. North Weitera Ry. Co.
ii. 230
ii. 840
r. O'Connor
iii. 04
..Potter
ii. SOS
V. Sadler
ii. 460
>.Rainw)r
iv. 461
Flower's Caie
ii.488
..S^
It. 85
Floyd V. Browne
ii.3S9
.. Simpon
Ii. 470
0. Calvert
U. 87
IhmyngB. Hector
iLOlT
Floyer c. Banket
It. 75
Fleroa ... Lackaye
U,378
p. Lavington
It. 146
Retetker o. Aabont ft S7
B. R. ii. 389
Fluker V. Georgia R Co.
iii. 461
■LBartlatt
iT.806
Flureau v. Thornhlll 11.
479, 480
r. Biaddick
iii. 187
Flying Send, The
i. 76
B. Button
It. 461
ii,494
>. Dickuuoa
Ii. 681
u. Salem
ii. 250
». GtOTW
iv. 371
r. San FranclMO & S. J. B. B.
ii.284;
■.Holme.
It. 194
iii. 232
r. Howard
U. 492, 626
... WUUanii
iv. 469
•■So.
iii. 300
Poakei V. Beer
11.4(13
ii. 343
Fo«rd r. Womack
ui. 109
iv. 194
Fobei V. Bhattnck Ii. 866 : iv. 96
V. New Orleana N. B. R. Co. W. 4S0
Foden V. Foden
ii. 99
V. N. T. Li& Ina. Co.
iii. 28^
Fogarties v. State Bank
iii 88
v.Peck
L 267, 409, 418 ;
Fogg V. Blair
ii. 300
il. SWjui. 378
V. Boeton * L B. Co. h
18,284
p. Pole
iii. 236
V. Griffin
iL2B4
cBotuneon
iv. 43
D. Johnaton
iii. 61
..RyUnda
Iii. 440
r.Lown'
0. Mlddleaez Mat Lu. Co.
iii. 65
c. 8t Louli Har. In*. Co. Iii. 809
Iii. 876
..Shaipe
Iii. 24
B. MiUl.
Ii. 492
t. Smilon
iT.7
V. Sawyer
Iii. 86
B.Tl.ompwn
iii. 76
V. Snprerae Lodge
Ii. ?*»
ET-Tntlle
1.221
Fotand p. Boyd
iii. 105
.. WiUon
It. 96
Folda „. AlUTdt
ii. 2:»
Plewellio B. Rara
11.686
Foley e. Bomell
11.354
Flickinger r. Shaw
iii. 461
r. Felrath iL 468,492
Flighl <-. Holland
iL610
V. N. r. C. & K B. Co.
ii. 196
B.R«ed
11406; iii. 80
V. Pettee M. Co.
ii.26»
P. Ttiomaa
ill. 449
B. Bobarda
iii. 41
FUke B. B. * A- B. R. Co.
ii. 260
V. Smith
iii. 91
FtiDd u. Scott
iii. 302
B. Storrie
ii. 406
FBaa c. DarU
iv. 283
i: IVyeth
m.487
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
kl pigH in rflfflmd bkj
Folger tt. Chaw iii. 99
V. ColumbUii Ini. Co. 1. 262
B. MitcheU ir. 369
Foliamb'i Caw U. 104
Folk B. Wilioii m. 41
Follendore v. Thomta lit 4S2
FoUiott V. Cteaeo 1. 38, M
FoUii V. D. S. M. A. Au'd uL 366
Folmar v. Copeluid iii. 482
FolMm f. BlercMitUe Mvt. Ina. Co.
ill 2Se, 286
V. UoderhiU ill 461
V. United SUtea i. 384
Foltz u. Pourfe iii. 63
Fonda, £z parte I SOI, 401
u. Vad Home ii. 219
FoDg Tne Ting u.United Sute* i. 221, 284 ;
FoQieca >. Canard S. Co. ii. 4S1
Ui.20T
Fontain u. KaTeoel L 342
: i»-
306,327
Foataine v. Seen
iii. 180
u. Phoinii Ina. Co.
iii. 321
Fook Sing v. Onited SUlei
i.391
Fooi Manuf. Co. v. Spiingfleld E
&
T.Co.
U.8a6
FooM 1.. Whitmow
ir. 806
Foot V. Card
ii. 164
V Goldman
V. H. H. 4 S. CO.
iii. 402
». Prowse
ii.206
V. SaUn
iii. 43, 47
B. Tevrkibnry
ii.462
Foote u. Brown
111. 121
V. Burnet
ly. 477
«. ColTin It
308, 4S7. 468
D. Cunard Mining Co.
ii.286
«. Ooocb
11.343
„. Met. Bl. Ry- Co-
lU.41fl
Forbea i*. American M. L
In*.
Co.
iii. 360
r. Aipinwall iii. 270, 273,
276, 312
V. B. & L. R. E. Co. ii
549
iiL207
11. Cochrane
L2fl
;ii.248
366,649
V. Fitchbnrg E. R. Co.
IL
«. Forbe.
ii. 429
iL633
D. Manuf. Ini. Co.
iii. S31
V. MarihaU
iii. 27
B. Moflatt
iv. 102
ti. Omaha Nat Bank
iii. 105
V. 1-arker
ii. 531
ULSg
r. ScaoneU
iii. 44
t>. Tnckerman
Ii. 164
B. WUion
iii 269
ForbiDg B. Weber
)v. 532
Fora B. Craig
iT. 468
D. Proridence W. Int. Co.
Iii. 318
u. Warren
ii.Zi
Ford, &
iy. 278
Export*
v. CUcago, ftc R. Co.
ii.449
ii.269
B.Cobb
ii.343
V. Coteaworth U
468
, lil. 206
Ford V. Crocker ill. IM
0. EaathamMon R. T. Co. ii. 463
v.FotherglII H- 101, S
French
ii.630
Grey
ii.860
Hubinger
11.463
Johnson
iy.468
Lake Shore R7.
Co.
ii.268
LooiiriUe, ftc. R
Co
i.895
Olden
It. 143
Phillipa
ill. 91
Fhilpot
160, 161, 167
ii. 441
Stier
ii. 461
D. United Statet i. 297
u. WhiUock iiL 419, 461, 462
Ford'i Curatora r. Ford ii. 9S
Forde u. Herron iii. 88
Forehand d. United States 1. 207
Foreman t>. Drake ii. 690
e. Prnb. Au'n. ir. 468
Forepaush 0. Delaware, Ac. E. Co. i. 342
Fores r.Johnea 11.881
Forest, The ui. 184
Forga; v. Conrad L 816
Forbner v. Stuart ii. 620
Forman 1:. Forman IL 76
Fornei u. Wright UL 42
Forreit u. Mancfaetter, Ac. R]'. Co. ii 286,
aoo
V. Warrington Iy. 171
ForreiteT n. Ptgon IiL 284
Forrestier v. Bordman ii. 622; iii. 176
Forriitall v. Lawioa ti. 146
Forse ft Hembling's Ca«e u. 171 ; iy. 637
Fonter v. Forster ii. 100
V. Fnller IL 631
V. Scott iy. 480
Fonyth V. Da7 iL 610
v. Fanyth ii. 101
i. 260
n. Marbnir L156;iv. 487
t>. United States ' i. 326
Fonvtbe v. Hammond Citr i. 440
Fort V. Allen ii. 164, 404
r. Boich iy.l71, 172. 173
Fort Dearborn Kat Bank n. Carter ill. 86
Fort Leayenworth R Co. v. Iiowe i. 268,
431
Fort Madison Bank d. Alden iii. 41
Fort Plain Bridge Co. n. Smith ill. 469
Fort Wayne, Ac Ry. Co. v. Beyerle iL 261
Fort Worth 0. Crawford iu. 440
Fort Worth ft D. C. Ry. Co. v. Great
house ii. 606
Fort Worth City Co. v. Smith Bridge
Co. ii. 281
Fortescue v. Baraett ii. 4SB
V. Satterthwaiu iy. 262
V. St Matthew i. 469
Forth v. Chapman Iy. 276, 277, 281, 2^
Fortitude, The iii. 168, 164, 170, 171, 172,
S68
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
B Qurginkl pufu lire retorrod to.)
TaRBU, The 1 131,
]97;iiL246
Foater-s Appeal
It. 632
f otooe v. KiUebrew
iL226
Foiter'.Cue
L46e
Foster & Ldaler, In re
u.m
iii.3I7
Foncher v. Hia Creditoti
U. 891
?wwood .. North WalM Mnt. Mur.
FougereB v. Mnrbwger
U.16
I1U.C0.
Hi. 291
Foulger v. Hewcomb
11.16
FgMiick ef. Poidick ii.
111. 87
IT. Norwich M. In*. Co.
' iii] 271
Co. Ii. 300.
I. NDtfiDK ii
iL46S
621
1.87
Fourth Nit Bwk 0. Fnuicklyn I. 280,
ii. 64
400
463; iii. 72
FoTeauz. /n re
jT. 608
foM a B. Co. D. Bullock
a 498
Fowkei e. Paicoe
iT. 306
Fnter, fz dotU
i. 247
Fooldi 1'. ETsn*
ii. 612
i>.AIt.^
iii. 37
ii. 284
r. Alston
ii. 206
v.Vaik
ii. 467
r. Browning
iii. 462
V. Torrey
ii. 164
r. Charlei
ii. 4S9
Fowler v. MtnA In*. Co. iu
260, 280, 878
1. 802j
■7. BoU
iU. 466
Ui. 468
B. Cle&TWater
iu.123
r,Cdby
iiLaOT
V. £q. Tnut Co.
ii. 460
ii. IT
u.^teCitrN.Bank
iii.M
..C™igo
ir. 612
k; OrifflD
iT.e2
i-CroJiin
ii.366
V. Kymer
U. 644, 646
1.439
V. Lemion
11286
>. Dswbsr
Iii.B6
r. Ully
It. 181
s. Dwlnel
ir.S8,4T
V. LindKj
L82B
>. Equitable Mnt Int. Co. ill. 3TS
r. Lock
11.260
R-EMCxBuk L460
11.269,660,
0. M'Taggart
11.499
663,664
0. PoUng
It. 471
r. Ftetor i. 465
i*. 106, 181
■>. Shewer if. 161
162, 168, 631
i.FrMer
iT. 480
«. W. U. Tel. Co.
ii. 611
r.Gvdinw i.
299; iii. 813
Fowlei V. Bon-en
U.16
*.H«ekett
lv.208
FovrletD. Lewis
ii. 228
f-BaUud i
830; i».74
11.226
<^JohDMn
iT. 186
Sox, Ez parte
ii. 300
rJnlim
m. H. 109
U. 407
^Kmnptoi
ii. 646
p. BUck
UL 313
t.LeT
IT. 451
v. BloiMni ii.606: Ui. 216
rHcDonkld
iii. 107
V. Clifton
iU.82
>. MKUnnon
Iii. 79, 8S
cDlTi.
ii. 177
>.H.ii.ficld,«cK.Co.
802; U.286
V. Foi
IT. 203
r kUnhiOl
W.29
U.Hall
It. 466
«.MMtW
.489
V. Hanbury UL 37
44,68,63.65
V. Neilton
.174
i>. Hawket
ii. 488
i.340
e. Hilli
11.442
r.Fmrker
ii.ioo
«. Holt UI
188, 164. 228
V. Pettibone
i.690
V. Horah
li.807
». Perm-
iii. 468
E. McGregor
iL642
i.409
r. M»ckreth U.4B0:i».438
1. Bkbard Borteed, The
iii. 170
0. Manton
iY.628
..Scripp.
ii. 16
p. NoHhera LibCTtie.
ii. 880
r.ShsUack
Iii. 78
f. Ohio
i. 402, 407
>.Sto«itli
iii. 106
V. Phanii F. In». Co.
iii. 281
r.8ailth
It. 5.^
D. Rumery
iT. 205
..ThompMD
iT. 476
B. Southack
ii.64
I. Trotteei of Uw Atbenmun It. 163
e. Webater
11.614
'. V. 8. lot. Co.
Iii. 281
r. Wilcocki
ii.asi
«.VuR«ed
iii. 876
Foxcroft V. MaUetC
j.842
«.TUM1I
ii.463
Foxley'i Caae
U. 824, 868
■ WtlUee
ii. 622
Foy D. Bell
iU.260
».W«d
iii. 41, 80
v.Soy
ir. 305
».WUni«
>i>. 816
Frakei b. Brown
IT. 430
P.Wrijht
111. 418, 427
Frame b. Daweon
W.461
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Frame v. ElU, The i. 370
lit. 24g
Fraier v. Hopkiu
m.l60
Franc V. DicklDioD
ui. 81
D, JenniaoQ
iT.608
Fntncei, Tbe
I. 7», 87
p. Kerahaw
iii. B4
Frances Mary, The
iii. 246
Pratt B. Whittier
ii. 343
Francesco v. Kuaaj
iu.20«
ii. 30
Franuici.'. C«»e,
1.37
FrayfB B. Worms
ii. 120
FranuieiV Appeftl
iii.424
FraTzer e Dameron
iii. 109
Francij, The
lii. 170
Frazee v. Frazee
ii. 160
Francii v. CockreU
11,600
iii. 138
0 Flinn
ii. 269
I. Frazer Lub. Co.
ii. 366
V. HarriioD
iv. 306
D. Hatlon
lii. 185
i^.Mon
B. Manh
iii. 137
V. Ocean Int. Co.
til. 2oa
B. Tunii
ii. 419
B. Rodei
It. 306
Frazier b. Brown
iii. 440
D. Ruvker
ill. lie
B. Dick
iiLlll
B. Somerrille Hat. Ids. Co.
lii. 376
B. GerTai*
il.484
e. Wilkinaon ii. 441
IT. 305
B. Mai»ey
11.236
V. Wyatt
ill. 478
B. Simmoni
ii. 41<2
Fr«ncuk«, The
i. 148
B. Thompwn
tl. 468
Fmnconia. The
Ii. 416
B. WillcOX
ii.285
Frank b. Pickeni
[T. 194
334: i'. 461
». Sleeper
ii. 306
Frearu>n a. Loe
Ii. 366
V. Tatum
ii. 16
Frearr u. Cooke
ill. 410
V. Weisell
iii. 76
Franks v. Franke
ii. 77
Frederich, lU
i. 301
Fnuikenfield'i Appeal
Frank G. Fowler. T-he
ii. 228
Frederick, The
lii. 240
iii. 358
Freilerick v. The Marquette,
ic-Ry.
Frankland v. M'Quity hi. 42, 48
Co.
ii.6O0
Frankle b. Jackion
ii. 840
Frederick Molke, The
i. 146. 146
Franklin, The 1. 07, 148
Hi. 19«
Free v. Beatley
i;.46
Fraoklin b. Atlantic Ini. Co.
iii. 2S2
Freeborn b. Smith
i.2Q0
r. Bank of Englaiid
ii. 230
Freedman'i Sav. ft TruatCo
p.Earle
F. Brown
iv. 110
iT.42fl
I', FUk
iii. 432
Freedom. The
iii. 207.217
». FnuikliD 1
98,128
Freeholden v. State
i.4S0
B. Hotier
iii! m
Fr«eUnd v. Freeland
iT.61
». U7
iT.274
I.. Glover
iii. -286
«: Hcdrkle
11.480
B. Ritz
ii.494
ii.206
V. Williams
i. 391, 413
B. Miller
ii. 473
Freeman, Matter of
i.a42
ii. 678
0. Alderaon
i.260
V. pXrd UiU Co. iit. 440, 449
0. Asmui
ii. 860
iii. 87
V. Badgley
iii. 63
r. State
ii. 12
P. Bak?r
iii. 193,199
u. Vandarpool
iii. Ill
p. Barns
It. 86
Frankiin'a Appeal
ii. 160
('.Baas
iv. 1D4
Franklin Bank b. Steam Nay. Co
ii. 621
iii. 194, 207
Franklin Coal Co. b. McMillan
i».76
B. CaldweU
It. 434
Franklin F. In*. Co. o. Coate*
iii, 378-
V- Cooke
iT. 2fll
V. Kepler
iii. 378
B. East Ind. Co.
iii. 178
u. Martin
iii. 376
r. Eatman
iT. 463
Franklin In*. Co. v. Cooieni
iii. 419
p. Fou
ii. 610
P. Lord
iii. 867
Ii. 99; iii. 63
Franklin Land Co. v. Card
It. 116
c. HH<re
i. 401,410
Franklin M. Co. p. O'Brien
IT. 870
1^. McGaw
IT. 194
Franklin SaTing* Bank b. Taylor
ii. 2SS
p. Mercantile Aco. Am'u
Iii. 365
Franklin S. Iiut'u o. People'* S.
p. Michigan State Bank
ii.448
B»nk
IT. 861
B. Paul
iv, 102
Franklin Tel. Co. v. HarrUoo
1.896
r. Pr.pe
ii. 441
Franklyn v. Spragae
ii.228
,: liawaon
ii.620
Frank*, Ex parU
ii. 166
B. Bobinaon
ii. 193
i: Jon*«
ii.451
r. Walker
iii. 162
D. Pienne (Ducheaa)
ii. 166
Freeman, The. p. Buckingham iii. 138
Fraaer e. BooDe
It. 536
Freeman's Bank p. BoUina
iii. 112
D.qilizMbyG00>^le
TABLE OF CASES.
[The nu-gbu] pa^M u« ntemd tal
ncMMn'i Nat. Bank v. ]
W.Ca
V. Saverj
FreemaDlt v. DediT*
Pmoej f. Howird
YntK B. Arnold
Frae Sute, The
FnMtone p. Butclier
tnObj B. Bamhut
?iMth E. Barr
Fmtawn t>. Tannton
FrcUngbaTNo e. Eey
Preme i. Cletnent
FRinen b. Tmylor
Ftcnch B. BackhooM
B. Btali ol ColombU
B. Chue
V, French iv
B.Gerber
c. Hopkini
>!Lord .
r. Hanin
I. HanhaU
>. Old SoiUh 8od«
B. Feien
B. tUTIDOItd
■ Howe
B. Sur U. T. Co.
r. StTTing
B. Talbot P. Co.
B. Vi» a. 280
B. Wade i. 66
nenche ■. Chancellor ir. 467
Prera v. Uoore It. ITT
Frt*b V. Cutter
Fieto B. Brown
Frcti B. Hdler
B. Storer
Fremd v. Importt
tnwtn. Re
freaia v. Charleton
Fraytas b. Anderton
Flick Co. p. Taylor
hidaj, £z Dorfc
Ftidfie 0. The State
Fritdbnrgber e. Jabei^
Fricdeaburg v. Junes W. 110
FriedlaDder r. Texai A F. Rj. Co. ill. iJOT
Fiiedley v. Hamilion iv. 141, ITS
nMauaadort v. Wateitown Ini. Co.
iii. 876
Friend v. DiuTee
B. Miller
B. Woods
FrieruU, The iii
FrieiHiKhaft, The
PrieDdahip, The
Prieraon v. Oenetal Aaaemhly
290, 461, 463, 498
iv. 131, 283
i*. 69
11.448
UL4e
11.646
Hi. SO, 37
Iii. 81
', ic Bank iii. 88
Frink e. Roe
>. Thomaa
Friibee e. FriBbee
>. Hoffnagle
Friibf V, Ballance
Frith V. Barker
Fritli and Osborne, /■ n
Frit* B. Fritz
F. Thomas
Frizzle c. Veach
FrogmoTlon v. Holyda;
V. Wright
Froija, The
Fromont v, Coapland
Frontier Bank v. Morse
Pronlin it. Small
Frorer o. People
Frost, In Tt
V. Akron Iron Co.
D. Beekman
D. Briahin
0. Cloutman
D. Earnest
V. Elheridge
V, Knight II. wxi
■>. Rafmond ii. 473; It. 469, 471, 474
Frostburg Mining Co. v. N. E. Glata
Co. ii. 492
Frothingham v. Barnes i. 2«0
B. Erertoo li. 627
V. Hale; ii. 616
e. H'Kusick it. 167
r. Price Iii. 113
D. Prince iii. 196
Frout IT. Hardin It. 96
Frowde B. WiUiami ill. 24
Fry r. Cliartered Merc. Bank of India
III. 207
Fry ii. 140, 141
iii. 4S1
j.41
ii. 467
iii. 217
191, 223, 281, 246. 247
1. 77, 78, --
It. 326
lY. 461
It. 187
li. 472
iv. 461
iii. 226
iT. 446. 449
It. 641
It. 687
i. 67
iU. 28, 37
It. 174, 160. 464
ii. S98, 430
W. 70
ir. 471
B. Hill
iii. 3
[■- Leslie
ii.241
V. Fatridge
iv. 96
B. Potter
111 30
t). Rouasean
iii. 76
Fry's Estate
iT. 335
Fryee.Bankof IlUnoia
iv. 176
V. Tucker
ii.2»l
Fryer v. Kinnersley
ii. 22
Fuohs V. Kochner
ii. 269
Fudiukar b. East R. I. DUtrict
It. 486
Fuhr B. Dean
iii. 462
Fnhr-neister e. Wilson
ii. 269
Fulda, The
Iii. 283
Fulham c. Howe
11.480
Fuliam B. Adams
lit. 123
».Bo.e
ii.lW
Fuller V. Abrahama
ii. 530
V. Bemis
ii. 373
V. Blackpool, &0. Co.
11. 378
e. Coals
li. 51)6
r. Cotby
Ui. 182
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
F»aier V. FuUor
ii.98
Gager p. Front
i.«W
0. Hoopar
iii. 76
Gahagan v. Union Ini. Co.
iii. 282
p. Jew Bit
iL267
Gahan p. W. U. Tel. Co.
iLeii
i>. Jocelyn
ii.647
ilL386
V. Kemp
ii.46S
Gaige p. Ladd
ii. 336
p. Bobert*
ii. 451
Gainei p. Bulbrd
ii.S34
r.Rood
ir. 644
V. Chew
It. 310
V. Ruby
iii, 4M
D. FuenlM
i. 803
V. Yenaer
ii. 388
r. Gainaa
ii. 107
Follerton n. SturgM
m.90
p. Green Pond, *c. Co.
It. 76
Pulthorpe u. Foiter
iy. 137
p. New Orleao*
L395
Fulton V. FrandoUg
iii. 427
p.Relf
L342
V. Fulton ii. 128, 148
438 ; iv. 58
r. Thompton
1.822
V. Griavrold
ii. 474
p. Williami
i. 400
iii. 307
Galnea's Succeailon
1.260
P.Moore
iT. 461
Gainei' Will, In n
a. 120
Pulton Coun^ St. R. Co. v. McCton-
iL480
nell
il. 260
Qairdner p. Senhonie
iii. 815
Fulton In». Co. v. Gooimut
iii. 880
Gaither v. F. & M. Bank
ill. 80
Funk u. Egglwton
P. McReynold
IT. 385
Galam. Cargo ex ilL 170, 228, 234
W. 161
Galbraith t. Gedge
iU. 39
P. Voneida
i». 477
t>. Grade
111286,200
Faquft n. Mude
VtabeT p. Same*
iii. SS
0. NeTllle
ii. 120
iLSai
p. Tracy
iii. 6S
Furbiih V. G90diioir
Ui. 123
iii. 432
Fnrbnih v. Goodwin
iv. 194
IU. ST6
Furillio 0. Ctowther
ii. 316
P. 'Davta
ii. 183
Furlong p. Le«ry
V. South London T. Co.
iT. 118
p. Eaitman
Ii. 463
ii. 258
p. Gale
ii. 173
Fumiftn P. Haikla
iii. 91
V. Hinei
It. 870
V. Nichol
i 326, 419
V. Kemper
iii 99
U. V>D SiM
11.193
p.Morria
It. 151
FomM V. Durgin
iT. 145
B. Parrot
tl. 193
FntnesB p. Fameu
ii. 101
p. W>l.h
iii. 98
V. White
iii. 207
p. Warf
ii. 846
ii. 259
Galena p. Amy
1467
Foniiis D. Brig Magoim
lU. 368
Galileo, The
m. 282
FumiTal p. Brooke
ii.461
GaU p. Comber
ii624
p. Crew
iT. 109
Gallager i: Brunei
ii.489
Funaker p. RoUimoq
11. 218
Gallagher v. Black
iii. 79
Fnrtado p. Rogen
iii. -ibb
V. Great Weatera Ey. Ofc U. 599
Furze p. Shnrwood
iii. 108
i: Piper
11.260
Fyler u. Given*
Iii. 122
p. Roberta
iii. 107
I^lpaa p. Brown Count;
iii. 454
p. ShipEey
il.848
u. 226
p. Waring
ii 479, 481
Fy(che».Bi.hopofLMiioo
ii. 406
V. White
iii. 128
Gallego E. Attorney Qeneisl
11288,608
Gatlien p. Mou
It. 630
0 B.G.
il. 76
Galligan ». Kelly
ii.22
G. p. M.
ii. 76
Gallionp. M'CaiUn
Iv. 180
Gaar v. Hugglni
iu. 66
Galloway p. Week
■1.498
p. LouiaTille Ilankinii Co
111.76
Galpin p. Abbott
iT. 174
GabBTTOD V. Ereeft
ii. 492, 649
p. Hard
iu. 97
iii 184
«. Page
i. 262
Gadd V. Hoaghton
11. 631
Gait p. Dibrell
iL 683, 685
Gadiden^ Ex partt
ii. !62
GalTeiton, &£. B. Co. v. Atlit
il. 2^1
i». 306
on ii. 00»
Gaetano & Maria, The
ui. 164
D. Ariape
iii. 3S
Gaffleld P. Eapgood
ii. 344
Galvin 0. Bacion
ii. 825
Que V. LibbT iii. 206. 236, 236
Galway p. Matlhew
iU. 45
p. Marylind Coal Co,
iii. 228
Gamba v. Le Meiurier
iii. 266
p. Mono
ill. 228
Gamble «. Caldwell
iT. 190
P. Poinpelly
i.842
Gambles p. Ocenn Marioe loi. Ok ilt. 307
P.Tirte^
iii. 217
Gamblin p. Walter
iii. 72
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
OwMP-Hure^
U. G67
Gunmon o. Freeoua i
I. Hum iii. 44, 06
r. SclimoU iU. 99
GtmoMO Tbeolog. Seminuj v. Robbina
Gtuij V. QtatAr
c. Hkin B«ItlDg Co.
GuofMd B. DutUlel
GuBe*.Tb«
Gulj' e. LedwidsB
Gun B. Cbnter
GuDOOr. HftrndoD
Gums. Sunnu
GuMTOort D. WUlianu
Guit B. Am. Cent Iiu. Co.
G«rb«r >. Betuy
Gwbat F. Bowling
Gubutt p; Wmmd
Gncka *. Hampden F. Iiu. Ca
Gircii V. Gsrd*
Gudabc. Ebbe
Guden CMy, The
GirdiMr c. Qnj
ii. 177, 468
>.Hoiidito
ii. 476
ii. S63
iii. 269, 809. 82
Gudincr (ANigiMM of) «. ShaniXKi
ii. 404
GuioiT, In n ir. 806
I. AitOT ir. 102
I. Botler ii. 280
iii. 138
i. 4M
i>.Oudi)w U.lU,SOg, 420; i<
t.BtyM
I. JoIluUhi
n H'Cotebwm
Klbtbett*
>. Newbnr^
cOgdoi
c. Sheldon
■.Ship N«w Jenev
>. Smith
I. Tredimaan
r. Tillage of Nawbnrgh
OvdoCT Peerage Cms
Gardom, £x norte
Gnta V. Sarttiweat, &C. Am.
11. 41. 60, 01
ii. 210
m. 40,122
■ an nlamd tA]
Oarfleld e>. WilliKD* ir. 471
Qnrtoot i>. Qarfoot ir. S26
Quforth t>, Bradler ii. 186, 138. 148
V, FeroD iii. 4S6
Gugst t). Scott ii. 40d
Oarluid. Ex parU 1. 384, 307, 808, 409 ;
E. Davidaon
V. Jacomb
p. Spencer
Gulick V. Jamea
i. 67
Iii. 48
iL6l
ti. IM
il. Ill
ii. 164
iU. 217
Gftmer b. Garner
B. Second Nat. Bask
Garaett, /■ r«
D. Macon it. rzi
B. Uniied State* i. 299
B. WiilM il. 804, 607
Garnier c. Pojdrat ii. 458
Gamier ». Rogere ii. 468i It. 145, 244
Oamrd o. Haddam Iii. 82
V. Lauderdale U. 633
iT.307
0. Lewis
iii. 79
ii.608
Garreiion u. Cole ir.
102,433
Purdy
iii. 7«
Garrett v. Burlington Plow Co.
iL281
V. Hnghlett
iii. 472
iv. 12ft
e. Stuart
11.486
V. W. D. Tel. Co.
ii. 611
GarretCion i^. North A. Bank
ii. 4G9
Garriguea v. Coie IU.
301,307
Garrigui e. Ellis
ii.22a
„. Home Miaa. Sode^
iii. 76
Garriion v. Blanton
ir,608
u. Hill
ir.208
H. HemphU Ina. Co.
iii. 217
Garro v. Thompaon
Ir. 161
Garsden v. Lance
ii. 611
Gar.ide r. T. & M. Narigadon Co
11.666.
687. 591, 804
lil. 317
Garaon v. Green
iv.l62
Gar,ion S, Co. v. Hickle
iii, 207
Garth B. Baldwin Ii. 864
if. 303
Gartaide Coal Co. v. MaxweU
ii. .WO
Garwood v. N. T. Cerft. R. Co.
iii. 440
G«B Float Whitton No. 2, The
ii. 822;
iii. 248
GMkiil V. Dodler
Qa.iight Co. B. CoIUday
il. 378
ill. 468
GaaoD V- Bich
ii. 448
Gau K. N. T., P. & B. R. R.
ii. 604
B. WUhlte
ii. 286
Gaaiett c. Andorer
ii. 291
V. Grout
ii. 403
Gast i>. Baer
Ir. 278
Gaat L. & E. Co. r. Falk
11.373
Gaitrel r. A Cjpreia Raft
i, 369
ii, 128
Gatera ». Madelv
ii. 135
Gales. /■ ™
Ii. 193
■>. Beecher
iiLlOfi
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
e mugliul lagH tn nttmi lo.]
Gates D. Bucki
i. 260
General Armstrong, The I
117.
V. Fraser
ii.368
Genera! Ass. Co, v. Wonley
V. Goodloe
i. 78; ii. 488
General Cass, Tlie
i'.
B.Green
iii. 466
General Estates Co.,./n re
iii
v. Jolinson
i.86B
Gen. Interest Ins. Co. v. Rugglei
iiL
e. Madison Co. M. Ina. Co. iii. 286,
General Iron Screw Collier Co. v.
378, 874
Sohnrmanna
iU.
V. Kifle Boom Co.
ii.865
General Mut. Ins. Co. d. Sberwood iii.
V. Ryan
m.207
Genera Rucker, The
iii.
Gates Iron Worki o. FrsMr
nam
Genera Sheridan. The
iii.
GMoo-ELModoloC. M. Co.
ii. S66
Genera Smiih, The i. 8T9 ; iii
160.
G«ud; B. AdeUido iM, Co.
iii. 2S6
Genera South American Co., /n re Hi.
G«ult 0. Brown
)i. 4!H
Genera Steam Nav. Co. v. Rolt
iii.
GaDtit «. Taylor
ii. a4i
... Slipper
iii.
u. WHinman
it. 38
Genereux it. Sibley
ii.
G»unilet, The
i. 104. 140
Genesee Chief, The
Gsus & Soni Manuf. Co. d. St. Lauit,
Geoesee Salt Co. i: Bnmap
*c. R. Co.
ii. 840
Genet v. Hunt
G«u»e V. Wiley
iv. 16
V. Tallmadfce u. 210. 228
, ij.
Gaua«Gn i>. MortoD
ii. 644
Genoa Ships, The
Gared v. Martyn
iii. 442
Gent V. Harrison
GaTin v. Armistend
ii. 400
Genilli, Goods of
ii.
e. Vance
i. 302
Gemilli ,■. Slarace
ii.
Gavitl V. Chamberi
Iii. 427, 429
Gentleman v, Soule
iii.
Ga» », HuOman
ir. 68
Gentry b. Wagstafl
iv
Gavtry v. Doane
ill 94, 10S
GeoKheiran v. Atlaa S. 8. Co.
ii.
Gay V. Aller
ii. 482 George,7nre
iii
V. Baker
iii. 402
George, Caae of
I
V. Ballon
ii. 192
V. Andrews
V. Bowen
iii. 61
V. Chambew
iii.
n. Brierfleld Coal Ca
i. 260
V. Claget
ii.
V. Ensez El. S. Bj. Co.
ii. 196
V. Cooper
II. Goldaby
r. KimbaU
■V
D. Grant
ii. 226
ii.
r. Rainy
Iii. 76
U.
p. Union M. L. L». Co.
iii. 889
■7. St. I^nls Cable & W. By
Co.
>'. Waltman
iii. 49
ii.
Gay's Caie i
.S42i iv. 98
V. Skivington
ii.
Gayden p. Gayden
ii. 418
V. Smith
ii.
Gayetty o, Belhune
iii. 141, 443
p. Surrey
V. Wood
Gayford o. Moffalt
iii. 424
iv.
V. Nicholli
ii. 260
George, The Brig iii. 167
176,
Gayler v. Wilder
ii. 3li6
Gaylord Mtg. Co. u. Allen
ii. 479
Glass Co.
ii.
Gayner b. Wilkinson
ii. 1S8
George Ertel Co. n. Stahl
Gazelle, The i.
299; iii. 206
George Home, The iii
185.
Gear v. Grey
ii.468
George Kirk, Matter of
V. Schret
U.441
George Nicliolaue, The iii
248,
Geary v. Bennett
ii. 16
George T. Kemp, Tlie iii
164,
>: Phynic
IT. 614
iv
Geddes V. Wallace
iii. R4
Georgia, The 186; iii
172,
Geddy V. Butler
iv. 32S
Georgia v. Canatoo
iii.
Gedney p. Schooner L'ArmUtad i. 867
D, Stanton
i.
Gee V. Gee
ii. 98
Georgia, C. « N. Ry. Co. n. Scott
a
V. Lane
■1.647
Georgia Home Ins. Co, j>. Hall
iii.
B. Pritchard
ii. 381
V. Jacob.
ill
Geer v. Darrow
ii. 260
<,-. Kinnier's Adm.
iii.
». Hamblin
iv. 64
Georgia Ins. & T, Co. v. Dawson
111.
Geiger i>. Brown
Geifi 0. Jeremy
ii. 86.1
Georgia Pac. By. Co, u, Propst
iii. 108
Georgia Packing Co, v. Macon
Geiit B. Pollock
ii. 56!
Georgia Pen. Co. b. Nelms
i.
Cellar, £i parte
iii, 80
Georgia Sonthem Railroad o. ReeTei
Gelpckev. City of Dubuque
L 342, 419 ;
iv.
ii. 291; iii. 89
Geo^a, &c. Co, ». Nelma
Gem, The
iiL186
Georgianna, The
i.
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
fonghty tr. M'Cmio
iii. 419
Gibb>
V. WilKams
iiL4«
Gemd 0. B>M« iii. 41, 48
GibtM'B Estate
ii. 277
iii, SI
Gibert u. Peteter
iT.480
r. Li Co.te
ili. 77
Giblett V. Ilobeon
ii. 282
(ktfimo. The I. 76, 78. 147
Giblin V. McMnllen
ii
561,664
flwiogbty V. New
ii. 1»6
GibioQ, Ex parte
iii 161
Ottbuf 0. Bsueriine
ii. 192
V. Buley
ir. 182
Owder .;. Weiser
il. 1U3
B.Boyd
11,686
G«rlurd V. Bate.
il. 490
...Brace
i308
Gerling e. Agt. Id». Co.
iii. 876
H. Carruthere
ii662
Gcnnin v. German
U. 126
0. Cliouteau
i32e
Gnmui-Am. H.t. Bank f. People's
V. Commonwealth
11.179
GmCo.
iii. 89
0. Cooke
ii532
Germui Bank v. Uoited SUte>
i.268
V. Creliore ir. SB
44,46
102.166
Germu Ini^ Co. v. F«irb«wk
ii.463
«. Culver
iL605
iii. 871
V. Gibion
i». 58
».Gf.r
111376
iL343
>. lark
ii. 468
V. awklne
iii. 81
Gomu, M- ln«. Co. r. Nia-edde
iii. 876
V. Holden
ili. 437
G«i™. Mining Co. /■ rt ii
300; iii.
ir. 510
27.37
t. HutchlOB
«. Ingo
ili. 166
GetmuU Bank ». Hichnud
iii. 78
V. Jeje.
11
476,188
C*fra.Di« F. 1D>. Co. V. Home
Ine.
iii. 25
Co.
ili. 876
V. M'!S*uL:tnrer.' Fire In.. Co. i. 260
Gtnntnii loe. Co. v. Memphi*.
4c.
V. Minet
iii 115
B.R.CO.
ILGOS
D. Mont/ort
l».
267.
301.321
.. WucoQ,in
i.826
B. Pacific B. R.
U.260
Geniun b. Boy.l Exoh. Am,
iii. 326
V. PreetOQ <Mayorl
ill. 461
Gem.li r. New Bedford Init.
(or
t.. Small
iii.2S8
Saring.
ii.438
f. Smith
iii. 24, 84
t. New Mwket Man. Co.
Iii. 440
B. Soper
ii. 461
«. Shmnck
iii. 419
f . Stevetia
il.
549
661,638
Gertrude. The
iii, 248
e. Stone
Iii 26
GeM.tPackwood
IT. 136
V. Sturge
iii
226.228
Getu 0. Friend
i.413
V. TrowbridgB Farniture Co.
iilll
Oeltworth e Haddon
iu. 437
V. United States
1.268
iii. 80
D. Warden
Iii, 48
Ghcn t. EUch
ii.468
0. Weill
it
. 79. Ill
GiuKlla c. Homaen
i».307
f . Woodworth
ii368
G<bb>. Matlier
iii. 97
Oibion County Comm's
Gibbeni v. Ooei
It. 624
8. H. Co.
ii, 510
r. Gibbeni
IT. 203
Giddings u. Turgeon
iv. 608
l^1>biD> t. Ejden
iv, 29
ii. 682
Gaibon g. Coggon
ii. 4H6
Gidnej- 1.. Earli
iii. 433
F. Pay n ton
ii. 604
Gienar v. Meyer
iii. 199
«.Toong
Iii. 666
Gitlord r. Ford
iv. 138
iT. 488
V. Kollock
iii, 186
>. Mahoo
ii. 361
V. Livingiton
ii. 272
>. Ogden L 432, 436, 488, 489 ; ii.
Gihon K. Stanton
ii642
800
Ui. 170
Gilbert 1-. Bulkley
iT. 452
0. Proctor
ii. 477
r Chaoin
iv. 306
t. United Statei
1. '297
Denni.
Iii. 106
>. Williami
11.196
Guignon
11.549
GibW, Appeal
il. 189
Hoffman
It. 464
Gibta P. Bnnbh
il.l60
Lewi.
il. 164
r. Cuinon
m. 124
Moody
iii. 477
Cniik.hank
It. 156
iil38
E.ty
It. 83
People
ii22
Fremont ili
B6. lie
V. Qiiimby
Gilbert Knap p. The
i260
Johneon
iv. 148
iS70
Linabuiy
iu. 79
Gilbert & B. M. Co. c Bntler
iiies
M.„h
ir. 344
Gilchriat, Ex parte
ii. 164
•
QaMDliu.Co.
ii.285
0
Brown .
ii
168
; It. 806
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASKS.
le miTfliul pigM an nfmed to.]
Giichrirt V. DonDell iii. 100
GilniBn .. Peck
m.80
D. Heleoa, &c. R. Co. i. 391 ; ti. 285
u. Philadelphia
i. 891, 439
Gilder F. Merwin It. 168
Oilman u. ShetioygMi
i. 419
V. Smith
iv. 451
D. Tilton
ii!. 441
V. Cjnthi^ The iii. 219
11866.378
V. Basle Ini. Co. iii 236
V. Carman
U.509
iii. 217, 30*
•>. GniTer 1247] ii. 568
0. DtiKoU
iiL482
V. Vigoreuz ui. 138
U.Ham
iiL68
«. Warren iv. 532
Gilmour v. Buck
iLses
Giles LociDB, The iii. 21T
Gilprn r.''&?lpln
ii.4e2
ILlOl
GiU f. Biowne iii. 206
Gilpina o. Cooaein*
ii.480
n. Cubitt iii. 61, 82
Gilroy r. Price
iii. 20s
V. KuhD iii. 83
V. L;dick iii. 427
Gilwn V. Spear
Gindre v. Kean
ii,241
ii.626
V. Oliver i. 3ii6
Gineii e. Cooper
11.04
E. Palmer iii. 106
Gippa B. Co. V. De France
ii. 463
r. United SUtM !. 207 ; ii. 366
Gip.ey Queen. The
iii. 248
r. Well* U. 866
GiSy.The
iii 174
B. Woods ii. IM
L473; iv. 510
Oilleowater v. Hadiion & I. R. Co. ii. 260
B. Taggart
ii. 604.684
Gillea[de.7nre tiL 87
t'.W^e
iii. 192
V. Bailey ii 286
Girard Bank o.Bank of Peon. Town-
V. Beecher It. 103
ship
V. CampbeU iii. 86
ffirard Life Ina. Co. u
Mttt.
Life Lu. '
V. Fonyth iii. 287
Co.
iU. 376
t.. Fort Wayne A 8. R. R. ii. 812
Gimd, &c. Ini. Co. d.
Hebard iU. 376
I'. Hannahaii iii. 96
GiroQX D. Stedroan
ii.478
». Moon ii.491
Giabom v. Charter Oak L.
iDi. Co.
,-. Neyille iii. 04
ii
468; iv.805
t. Rogen iv. 460
Giabome v. Giibonw
It. 148
V. Ttaompwa iU. 217
Qiibonm o. Hiuat
ii. 477. 688
V. Torrance ii. 470
Giaelmanc.Stur
il. 4SS
Gillet 0. MaaoQ ii. 360
Gist T,. Lybrand
iii 06
V. MaioD
iii 254
GUleH V. AveriQ iii. 96
Gitting. I., Crawford
i46
«. GiUett Ii. 77
Giulio, The
iii. 207, 864
V. HiU ii. 492, 600
Given v. Blann
iii. 478
f. JohDion iii. 440
Given, t.- Bnmford
Ir, 171
V. Peppercorne W. 488
V. M'Calmont
iv. 167
Gillfaani v. MadiaoQ Co. R. R. iii. 440
V. Merchant Na
Bank iii. 109
Gilliam v. Moore iv. 39
Givhan ■;. Dailey
ii. 509
I'. SoDth & North Ala. R. Co. ii. 269
Gladfelter ... Walker
iii. 440
Olading D, Frick
V. George
Gladney r. Hurphy
iv. 450
GlUiat V. GUUat Ii. 639
iii. 164
». Lynch Ii584
iL206
Glad»den d. Deaportea
iv. 214
Gimiand 17. Qilllland iv. 806
Gladatooo d. King
V. Muiunii Bey
iii. 286
Gillii V. ChAie iii. 440
i2e7
V. W. U. Tel. Co. ii. 611
V. Ottoman Bank
i887
OilliBon V. City of ChtU'leaton il. 274
GladweU V. Turner
iii 106
GlanviU, fl«
ii. 154
t>, EelUe ii. 366
Glaoi V. Gloeckler
iii. 869
Oilluoi V. Siuon ii. 346
GlaBcott V. Lang
iii 172
QilroAD T. Brown ft. 68S ; iv. 162, 153, 154
Glaagow r. SwiMec
iU. 114
B. Ratteni R. R. U. 260
Glaaier «. Holla
ii. 400
V. Elton HI. 477
Glaw «. Beach
^465
V. Oilman ii. 420, 430
V. Betsey, The
1. 108, 866
t. Har^n iv. 471
V. KItiton
iv. 161
V. Heddin iv. 181
V. (ilaH
ii80
V. Hunnewell H. 886
m.8i
E. Lockwood i. 422
K. Haiell
a 498
„Gooi^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
ClMiMMD >. BkwUn*
i*.«6
Godman o. SinmoiM
iv. 208
ill. 61.52,61
iii. 466
GlcJoD B.Biiby
u. S4
iii. 888, 369
r.Dodd
f. 261
Godwin v. Francii
a 632
F. Florida
1.826
V. Winsmore
iv.44
Goell V. Mone
iii. 40
279
Goeiele r. Bimeler
Iii. 80
GleooD p. BTTiie
Qoeti V. Kaniai Citj Bank
Ui. 81
GkD r. Lewli
iii. 379
Goewey v. Drig
Gotf V. Brainerd
ii!ad5
Hi. 217
r. Clinkard
ii. 69G
GiMfroin, The
iiL20G. 248
K. KiltB
ii. 860
Glenliiet. Hie
iii. 296
Goffln V. Donnellr
GtcDmiTii, The
m. 206, 207
GltDorant. Tbe'
i. STO
Ca
GlcDQ V. Canbr
Iv. 146,480
Oolog c. Emery
ii.286
:;?uS
Ii.477; iv. 470
Goix V. Knox
ill. 291
iv. 39, 46
e. Low iL121;iii.2BB
r.G«rlh
L260
Ookey d. Fort
iii. 217
■.JW^MD
11692
Goldbeck 0. Jonef
iil. 477
rUggm
11286
it. 16
>.R^l«r
It. 480
Golden V. GilUm
ii.441
Gleo^h!I,fhe
ii.44B
V. Manning
ii. eoi
iii. 207
r. Prince
i. 888, 424
GInitan s. Clorer
ii. 34
Golden Gate, The
til. 248
Gtidden r. Strapkt
Glinimr e. Aodla;
ii. 241
Goldey «. Penn. R. a
ti. 608
iT. 471
Golding, Ez parti
Gold Nfine« m Saymonr
ii. 649
Gloig, Ac, /n n
ii. 478; iv. 461
iv. 162
Globe Ids. Co. d. Lwiiiiig
It. 183
Goidibnry b. May
Qoidwiimidt V. Fint H. E.
ii. 622
Globe Iron- Work* Co. b
The John
Chnrcb
R Ketctum, 2d
i.870
Ii. 681
Globe Mm, B*n. AmX 7
re ii. 286
Qoldimid v. Great Eaitem Ry. i. 4a7
Globe Pnb. Co. r. Sut« Bank i. 467 ;
t>. Hampton
iii. 76
ill. 24
Qoldimith u. GtUiland
i. 896
Gloacetler Bank t>. Smlem Bank iil. 66
V. Goldunith
iv. 306
GloicMter FetT7 Co. i>. PeniajWtuii.
p. Great Enatem By. Co.
, ii. 60B
i. 489 : iii. 2
V. GuUd
iv. 461
GkxmMer L & Q. Co
«. Buuia
D. North German Lloyd
iii. 248
Cement Co.
ii.46T
V. Rerenoe Catter
i. 297
GtoaeeMei- Im. Co. p. Toonger i. 342
B.Wii«on
iv. 96
<^*er>', HMk
iii. 269
Gotdimyd «. Oadeo
11626
,. Coleman
iii. 445
Gold.worthy, h rt
ii. 198
i.439
Ooldthwait u. Day
ii. 441
..Glover '^
ii. 280
Oolladay v. Bank of the Union iU. 109
r. RofBn
iT.467
Gomel r. Gomez
iv. 109
«. Smith
Ii. 476
V. Tradesman'! Bank
iv. 46
OljQ MiUi. &c Co. V. Dock Co. ii. 649
Oomperti u. Bartlett ii
Gooch, U «
470; Iii. Be
Iii. 210
iv.418
Godud 0. QisT
U. 120
Good r. Altoona City
iii. 440
Goddard F. Binney
ti. 494
v. Elliott
iii. 277
«.ChaM
li.844
0. Herr
ii. 491
I. Snow
ii. 176
0. Itaao
iii. 206
r. WnicheU
ii.aao
I.. Martin
iii. 80
Oodfrer.Ae
ii. 170
B. Walker
iii. g]
■.Chadirea
iv. 186
Goodall u. DoUey
i)i. 118
r.Fiino
a. 624; iT.Bll
o.Harrie
11.226
V. Hall
ii. 126
r. Hanhall
ii. 434
p.He8Bhaii
iL160
V. N, E. Mnt F. In.. Co.
iil. 267, 378
V. Poole
ii.441
V. PolhiU
iii. 87
v.Turnbnn
iii. 67
«. Skellon
Ii. 494, GOS
t>. WatKHi
iv. 186, 187
Ooodairs Ca«
P. 141
It. 179, 446
Goodall'. Trade-mark
ii.3«8
Oofillot r. Hairft
ii. 866
iii. 89
GaaDv.LaDdoaAH.Co
U. 640, 641
Qoodden r. Goodden
ii.9e
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Goods t>. Barton
It. 162
111.89
Goode D. Harrlaon
iii. 69
B. Bofaarta
i.a07; ijf. 89
Goudell V. Jackjon ii. 70
73 ; UL 888, 385
Goodwyn a. DonglM
it 600
V. Pierce
iv. 466
Goodyear r! Providence Bnbber Co.
ii. IBS, 364
i. S42
V. Goodenough
iv. 72
B. R. R
ii. 36tf
Gooderow i-. Tyler
ii. B22, 628, 630
r. Voaburgh
Goodyear Bohlir M. Co. b
Rubber Co.
iv. 461
Goodfellow, In re
ii.SBl
Goodyear
V. Prince
ii.366
GoodhKrt B. H/ett
iii.' 41B
Gooilyere o. Inee
Goold u. Birmingham
w.isd
«,Lowe
u. 642
iv. 461
iv. 61
Goom ir. AAMio
U. 611
Goodlst V. BritkrtL
iii. 96
Gordier b. Jobnton
iv.206
Goodloe K. City of Cinn.
U.292
Gordon, Ei;«rt« L 299. 322, 826; ii. 416
Good HUD V. Goodman
ii.209
V. Appeal Tax Court
1.414
V. GotHjright
ir.an
V. Bowne
ill. 301
r. Griereon
iv. 144
B. BucluuiaD IL 606. 60B. 619, 621
V. HMtey
17. Newell
iii.82,10B
B.Churoli
ii.e%
iv.281
::?-X
ii. 533. 620
p. Sayen
ii. 4S1
iv. no
V. Simondt
iu. 81, 82
B. Graham
11661; iT. 176
D. Whitcomb
Iii. 61
D. Haywood
ii.l62
U. 62, 209, 429
ii.697
Goodnow tp. Wirren
iii. 106
B. Little
ii.e09
Goodrich B. BorbMk
iii. 419
V. Longeat
i.302
e. Downi
1L636
B. Maaa. F. 4 M. In* Co. iii. 178
B. Gordon
i.l06;ilL81
B. Morley
iii. 209
:;fiL
iii. 448
B. Ogden
t. 299
iv. 467
B. Parmelee
III. 102
ii410
V. Peltier
ir. 110
V. Tenney
U.467
B. Potter
ii. 103
Qoodright ». C«tor
iv. 346
B.Pye
U. 114
V. Comiih
iv.237
iii. 304
V. Diridt
iv. 428
V. S«a Fire Life Ah. Oy iu. 27
f-Foretter W. 487. 188, 610, 511
B. Silber
ii.592
f. GUrier
iv. 531
G. Sim*
iv. 192
V. Pullyn
iv. 2-21
V. Dnited Statea
i. 297
e-SewIe
iv. 9, 282, 284
r. Warder
ii. 866
p. WelU
iv. 102
!■. Whieldon
ii. 132
D. While
iv.211
Gordon, Captain, Caaeof
iv. 127
Good! of Tlje Ducheii d'Orl&ni ii. 430
Gore p. Bnuier iir. 87, 6
8,420,132,172,
GoodMll „. Hyer>
ii. 236
176
Goodson V. Richardion
iii. 432
V. GibtoD
ii.462
OoodBpeed v. Eut Haddam Bank ii. 2B4
V. Jenneaa
iv. 164
Goodtitle V. Alker
iii. 433
V. SleTeni
iv. 642
D. Gibb«
iv. 4G8
Gorgermt v. McCarty
iii. 91
D.J0OM
iv. 101
Gorgier p. HieTille
GorBam b. Daniels
iii. 80
D. Mftddem
It. 640
iv. 62, 299
». HorM
It. 99
V. Eaalcheiter El. Ca
|iT.'4a7
0. Newm4D
It. 866, 387, S8H
B. Groaa
iii. 437
D. Otw»y
iv. 630
B. Thompuln
iii. 67
v. Peetoe
iv.32S
Gorham Co. u. Wliita
U.866
I'. Whfthy
iv. 106
Goring p. Bickenlatfe
iv. 266
Iv. 208
B. Shreve
iv. 184
r. Wood'
iv. 219, 262, 264
Gorman P. Hand-in-Huid Ina. Co. iii- 376
; Goodwillte 0. HcCutby
iii. 234
B. McAnile
i.467
1 Goodwin, a.
iii. Ill
ii.623
B. Andenon
iv. 308
Gonnloy b. ClaA
iii. 461
B. Davenport
iii. 91, 103
Oormtey'i Caae
i.lOl
V. Holbrook
ii. 605, 607
Gomall, Matter of
11.226
B. Jonea
ii. 407, 481
Gorrell p. Cute.
a. 141
r. Eeney
iT. 868
Gorrii b. Scott
1.467
! r. Maat. L. A T. Co.
ii. 681 ; iii. 81
Gorton v. Falkner
IU. 176, 178
r. Horae
Ii. 472
B. Hadaetl
iU.102
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
il. 76
1.4fi6
_ _n T. Ca ir. Hurtiii U. 812
Gwboni V. Pnrcell i. 4S6
GoiUne b. Warburton Ir. 68
B. ffoolf i». 160
Oovnui, Rt It. 421
Gou E- Citizeni' Id*. Co. iii. 2a0
r. DuFrenioy iil.6G
D. Kusent ii. 498
■-. Wilhere i. 101 ; iii. 319, 322
Gowler e. Schepeler ii. 543
GMwilar'i Estate iii- 124
Gotlurd c. FItdd it. 151
Gon c. Cook U. 230. SoS i ir. 283, S10
t. Calp ii- 226
c. Puliifer >>. 16
Gottlieb r. HUlcr ii. 866
». ThUclmr ii. 441
Gotnu'i Eitate ir. 68
Gonban r. N. 0. ft N. B. B. It. 482
Goiger B. J0U7
G«IVl.B.'SlMt>
iii se
P. Wood
iL343
G«iild.ez ports
Ii. 843
p. Boitan Dock Co.
iiL440
B. EmenoD
iii. 33
■r. GoDid
lit. 28
c.HMd
ii. 277
>.U>II
ii. 608
*. HudtoD R. R. Co.
iii. 413
<>. Jiium
iii. 41S
.. MiQifleld
ii. 477 i i». 461
>. OliTer
iii. 206, 240
■>. RoUoD
iii. 112
■. Suflord
yi. 440
c. SteiD
ii.478. 47B
B. Sterling
il. 800
iii. 82
Goohkr c. QoDldH '
il 62, 430
Gottldinit. El parU
iii. 43
V. DaildMtl
ii. 241, 485
i. 477
». aotbury ii. 448
Gould* V. Brophj Ii. 478
Goiip7 D. Bardeo iii. 92, 93
OoDraud v. Edi«oD Q. B. Tel. Co. 11. 286
GoDihiTute D. Bockwortli ill. 36
GoDTcmenr d. Elmendorf ii. 473
I. Ljiicli IT. ISO
GoTc B. Bletlien ii. 16
Gorer f. Owing* IL 164
GaTrmeur e. Robertaon ii, 54
GOTernor Ame«,Tbe iii. 179
GdTernor b. William* il. 414
Gormior ft Co. of Bank of Ireland e.
Ber«*ford ill. 86
GoTonor of Georaia i>. Hadraio 1. 827
GoTHDor, &c. D. HcEweo ii. 107
B. Hmdith ii. 380
GoTinior* of Barrow School e. Al-
dwtoo ir. 78
OoTi«r B. Bwicotk ii. 147
Goria v. D« Miranda It. 305
■■ mn nfsmd to.]
Gowan r. Jeffliet iiL S3
V. Wright i. 462
Goiren b. PhU. Ez. Co. iii 460, 461
V. Shaw iT. 869
Gowen's Appeal ir. 58
Gower v. Postmaster General ir. 47S
Gowland v. De Faria ii. 475
Grabowski'B Settlement, In re ir. 75
Grace, The SUts Ii 249, 257
Grace o. Adam* ii. 60S
c. American Central Ins. Co. i. 344 ;
lL6Hi ui.2e2
r. Bunt it. 186
V. Newman ii.378
V. Shirel; iii. 481
V. Smith iii. 27, 33
Grade t>. Palmer iii. 138
Hnitl]' B. RobiDUH) iii. BO
Gruff c Logue iii. 79
V. Smith iT. 42, 429
Graft V. Grafl ii. 128
Grafton v, Cnmrning* ii. 494
t>. Watson U. 37S
Grafton Bank v. Cox iii. 98
Graliam. Ex parte L 825, 367
B. Ackrojd il 642
B. BuTch iv. 532
V. Davit Ii. 608
B. Dfiter ii. 626, 627
D. Firemen's In*. Co. iii. 282
V. Graham ii. 176
B. Bope iU. 67
B. Law iv. 53
B. Londondniy iL 103
V. Maxwell ii. lao
r. MerriU l«7
B. Moore It. 11
1. Ke^tioldi iL206
B. Samuel It. 466
r. Spencer i. 260
D. Strader ii. 257
V. Stncken 1. 46, 314
E. Van Wick It. 59
E. Tampert It. 685
Grainger B. Martin iii. 831
Gram e. Seton ill. 48
Grammar v. Nixon ii. 269
Granard (Earl of) v. Dunkin ii. 381
Granhj M. & S. Co. v. Bicharda ii. 277
Grand Gulf B. R. Banking Co. r.
Same* iii. 100
Grand laland B. Co. v. Frejr ii. 843
Grand Island S. & L. Ass'n v. Moore
ii. 681 ; It. 186
Grand Junction Canal Co. ti.Pett7 iii. 451
•v. Sbngar iii. 440
Grand Jnry, la re i. 430
Grand Lodge, &c. 0. Stepp ii- 200
Grand Rapid*, ftc, R. R. Co. v. Beiiel
iif.432
V. Bnntley ii. 000
V. Showers iL 108
Grand Rapid* School Furniture Ca
V. Haney School Furniture Co. ii. 10
^vGooi^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Graves i>. Sawcer
iU.162
11269
V. Smith
111.437
GrMd Turk, Tba
1U.I97
D. Spedden
iv. 418
Grange, Tb«
1.28
V. Traeblood
lv.28
Gruiger v. Avery
Ui.428
u. Tucker
fv.464
t>. HcQUtt*
m.46
c. Wathlogtou U. loB. Ca
iu. 881
Gnnnit o. Cluk
iv. 474
Gravei'i Ca*e
iv. 76
GrsDt D. Ansten
a. 600
Gravier u. Grarler
li. 477
0. CoTerdAle
iii.26
GraviUon v. Richard
11.484
B. Da CmM
ill. 77
Oiaw D. Patterson
11.661
1-. Duane
iv. 102
Q„,,^j™.
11.626
t.Euton
11.120
111.106
0. Ellicott
111.86
n. Bledaoe
11.640
V. Fitchbnis
11. 196
r.BoDd
ill. 443
V. Francher
11.279
f. BrlKoe
It. 477
0. Grant
U. 126, 188
V. Carr iii. 206, 207
226,260
t. Hedey
ill. 117
e. Clinton Bridge
1.439
V. Howard Int. Co.
Ui. 874
e. Coan
1.826
V.King
m. 316
cCookKKi
11.264
p. Lexington F.. L. * M. Im. Co.
B. Coit
U.479
111. 260
D.Crockett
11.168
>^. Long
11L108
■>. Donaho«
ill. 76
V. Lyman
Iv. 436
B. First IMvn. St P. B. R.
Iii. 482
V. M'Lachlin
11. 119
u. Fox
ii. 416
V. Mills
iv. 16S, 154
1.. Gafl
iii. 464
V. Nar-ay
ill. 207
B. Green
ill. 08
B. Parkinaon
ill. 271, 272
V. Guardian A». Co.
iii. 870
V. Paiton
lii. 310
472. 476
0. Thompjon
ii. 4G1
V. Herman
i.610
P. Kajmnnd
ii. S72
D. HUl
1.683
r. U. S. Bank
iv. 178
D. Hook
11.464
V. Vaughan
lii. 78, 79
V. Jackwn i
469,604
». W.1,11
iii. 81
869,370
V. Walter
ii.8aa
'v. Jenki iv
193,194
V. Wood
iii. 76
V. Johniton
11.666
Granthaoi d. Hawley
11.468
0. Jonmal of Finance Fab.
Co.
Grapeihot. Tbe
lii. 164. 172
11.630
Graier c. SteUwagen
UL44
p. Kate'a Freigbti, Tbe iii
170.864
Gratitudine, The lU, 166,
171. 173, 282.
p! ftf^rtwn II
It. 326
242, S63, 364
661,687
Grattan v. AppletOD
ii. 429
P.Obear
iv. 181
B. GrattaSr
iv. 419
D. Parke
ii.226
c. Metropolitan Ina. Co.
ill 282
r. Portland Bank li
284,480
Oratz V. Bayard
Ui. 67
i.870
It. 478
V. Pullen
ii. 260
V. Penn. R. R.
ii. 300
V. RuueU ii
380,382
u. Redd
U. 312, 491
V. Simi
iii. 282
Gianl V. Stntiel
li. 621
V. Smith ii. 494: iii. 87
Graveley v. Gr«Tatey
ii. 430
V. Swan
ii. 121
Gravely t. Bamai^
ii. 463
T>. United Statei
i. 284
Oiaver v. Faurot
i. 826
». Wain ill
239,243
Grarei v. Am. Excb. Bank
iii. 8fi
E. W. U. Tel. Co.
li. 611
v. Berdan
lii. 468
Gray'i Caie
i. 98
t. Boaton M. In*. Co.
lii. 268
Gray Eae^e, Tbe
iii. 232
V. Bradet)
It. 62
Gny Jacket, The
1. 78, 80
D. I>aih li
460; iii. 117
Gray & Osgood v. Jamea
ii. 369
V. Deterling
W. 480
It. 616
B. Dolphin
iv. 311
u. Moncore
iv.72
tr. Gravel 11.128,463
; It. 174, 807
r. Tyler's Admx.
It. 261
V. Johnaoo
11.490
Great lilastem. The ill
138,248
V. Uaniun
i». 14fl
Great FalU Bank b. Farmington
UJ.80
B.Meny
lU. 67
Great Fnlli Manof. Co. c. Garland 1. 268
r] sXrd
11.634
V. United StatM
1.268
U.486
D. Wonter
Iv. 868
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Gnu No. Rr. Co. B. St. Fkul Hi. 461
r. Swiffleld U. 604
0. Wittutm iL 46S
QiMtPuHflc,TlM UL 234. 3S1, 869
Qnu Weitem In. Co. v. United
Slitn 1.264, 2ft7
Oreit Wdtem Bj. Co. n. Smith iv. 106,
126
V. Snlton lii. 466
V. SwindoDftC. Bf.
GntthoDK'i CmM
GlMTei II. Aihlia
V. AlklDHKl
;.Nm1
I. Tfaonton
». WaWrhoiue
V. WbiCehead
Gitdr p. B>rtl«tt
r.Dov
V. Smicli
I. Ttemont lu. Co.
Onto, Inn
L 462 ; Ui. 469
L261
ii. 4H
i*. S06
I. S02
i. 466; iv. 469
ii. 16
Ii. 138
lU. 440
iii. 102
iii. 857
L 275, 822
ir. 461
iT. 868
ii. 478
ii. 689
iii. 46
384, -'-
1.419; U.
iii. 40,
iii. S
■.Biddk
• Brud
cDnkin
•OBbtrt
*' BouMtead Fin Ini. Co. iii. S7tt
•■ brtng Lt. 471
»-Kopke ii. 881
»i*kB iv. 461
•■l*l« iT. 80, 886
'- Uinpool, Ac. IiM. Co. iii. RTD
•iotdonGen. OmnibiwCo. ii.284
iL 203, 688
i. 830
ii. 407
E4S1
U.19S
iii. 461
It. 467
it 116, 120, 236
'- Htrchuita' Ini. Co.
Qreen n. Patiikm
It. 8S
V. Royal Eidi. Au. Co.
iii. SaO
K. Rutherforth
a 280,
302.808
i;. SalM
ii, 63
n. Swmiento
ii.469
B. S>Tuinab
i.439
r. Seymonr
1L312
». Sherrod
iT. 1S6
u. Spicer
It. 811
0. Sute
L417
; ii. 340
,v. Swift
ii. 840
■>. Tulane
ii. 486
V. TuraiUU
ii. 42«
B. V«nBMkirk ■
ii. 407
B. Wilding
11.236
V. Winter
ii.231
QTMit'B Settlement
ii.436
Oreen Bar Canal Co.
W. R. Co.
V. Kankaona
1.268
Green Bay, Ac. R. Co
V. Union,
ftc.
Co.
H.299
Greenburg v. Early
ii.26S
; iii. 66
Greenby c. Wilcocki
ir. 471
Greene, /n n
i. SSI. 489
ii.4fl7
V. BUhop
ii.878
p. Crelghton
it. 480
tf.Dennii
11.277
iT.642
jj. Farley
t>. Greene ill. 39; iT. 60. 72
n. MinneapotU, An. R*. Co. ii. 260
V. O'Connor ill: 482
v. FadSc H. Ins. Co. iii. 294, 296.
381
V. United Ststei Dsalen' Ais'n
Greetifleld v. Bnckland
11.430
V. Ma». H. L. In*. Co.
Iii. 300
Greenfleld Bank v. Craft*
ii. 616
OreeDbMO) v. Oray
iii. ■%
Greenhill >. GreenhlU
iv. 610
ii. 804
Greenlaw i>. Greenlaw
il. 182
r. King
iv. 871
Greenleaf t>. Cook
ii. 472
i7.Fr*nd»
111.440.441
V. Quincy
ill. 60
V. St. Louii In.. Co.
iii. S14
iii. 89
i>. Wellei It. 827
Greenpoint, The Hi. 232
Qreenwalt e. Tnckei i. 302
Greenway f. Cannon It. 486
GraenweU n. Haydon 111. 89
Qrcvnwich In*. Co. v. Oregon Imp.
Co. iii. 88
V. Proviaence S. S. In*. Co. III. .<)0T
r. Wacerm«n iii. 260
Greenwood n. Bi*bop of London ii. 466
B. Cobbey " *"
L-. Ciutii
V. Freight Co.
V. Greenwood
IL 86, 93. 400, 466
L419; ii. 293
11205
iii. 446
a4M
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Greenirood v. Udbettor
ii,889
Grifflng V. Caldwen
iii. 124
V. MarTin
iv.46
Oriffitli V. BuHum
iii. 31
p. Verdon
iL167
V. Fowler
ii. 492
It. 278
y. 324
D. Weitport
ii. 366
D. Griffith ii. 78, 162. 423
iv. 179
Greenwood'! Case
iii. 27
it 499. 649
i. 32S
V. Pound
iv. 306
GrecDwood Ice Co. v. Geofgia Home
«. Shipley
iii. 81
Idi. Co.
iiL 370, 376
.-. VentrS..
ii. 226
r. New
Grifflth. r. Teetgen
ii.205
York i G. L, R. Co.
iii.*461
V. Vere
iv.288
Gregg D. Thorapgon
li. 263
V. Wolfram
ii.260
«. Well.
u. 4B3
Grigg t-. The ClariiM Ann
i. 369
II. Wooliscroft
ti. 616
Grigg. r. Au.tin
iil 226
u. Wyram
IL Ml, 587
\. Dodge
ii-86S
Greijor o. Cidy
iv. no
V. Swift
•ii.468
I.. Hyde
li. 461
Grignion r. Grigoion
ii. 139
Gregory d. Chriatie
ill. 280, 309
ii. 881
o, Menefee
iii.es
GriEl t). Gen. Iron Screw CoUier Co.
D. Mighell
u. Olilo River R. Co.
iv. 461, 467
i
661
iii. 306
11.260
Grim V. Phonix Ini. Co.
iii
804,806
P. Peul
it. lee, 167
Grimball v. Patlon
iv. 412
V. FerkiDi
Grintet, In n
u. 198
V. Pierce
li. 167
V. Eddy
i. 489
u. Stryker
ii. 591
V. Grime.
iL283
GregBOn o. Gilbert
iil. 299
Grimmett'. Tnul*, Re
ii. 461
Greider-B Appeal
iv. 104
Grimoldby u. Well.
ii. 470
Greli V. Levy
ii. 459
Grim»haw r. Belcher
iii. 461
Grenada County SnperviaorB
u.Brog-
E. Bender
tiL 116, 119
den
i.449
Grimaley v. Hankin. U
196
269,809
GrenviUe-MuTMy o. Eul of Claren-
Grim.tone v. Carter
iv.
172,130
don
i.822
Grindley v. Barker
ii.633
Greihain u. Ware
iv. 143
Griner, h rt
ii.2fl
Greton b. Smith
U1.464
Grinnell o. Cook ii
692,693,684.
Gretion v. Haward
i». 68
636
Greuchy d. WilU '
ii. 144
«. Western Union Tel, Co.
ii. an
GreviUe i>. Atkiu
U.486
GfiQton H. Strong
iii. 38
Grey.fle u. 170, 430; iv. 131
GriMll «. Noel Co.
ii.269
li. 541
Gri.woliJ B, Greer
iv.278
V. Rick>
iii. 124
<7. Haven
iii. 46
Grldley v. Dole
Iii. 87
u. Hazard
ii. 24
«. Gridley
i».540
iv. 868
«. WymDl
ii, 161
V. National In.. Co.
Iii. 289
Grier'. Appeal
11.226
D. New York In.. Co.
iii
210, ^6
Grieiemer «. Hutnal L. In.. Ca ii. 459;
H. PraU
ii. 390
iii. 865
iL467; ili^.
Grieve f. Grieve
ii. 68
GS
, 67, 256
V. Young
»i. 286
Grorer.' Bank v. Penfleld
iii. 86
Griffin, The
iii. 217
Groesbeck v. Seeley
iv. 460
Griffln D. Bartlett
Ui.440
Grogan v. GarriKin
iv.se
V. Biiby
iii. 4S8
V. Town of Hay ward
Grohmann e. Kiraebman
iii. 461
i. 46
ii. 15
p. Fellow.
iT. 84
Grontng v. Devana
ii.26e
u. Graham U.288: iv. GOS
u, Meiidliam
ii.499
f. Griffln
iv. 238
Gro.. V. Hay.
iii. 404
iii. 449
B. Jordan
ii.4fi9
tr. Marine Co. of Chicago
iv. 148
«. Lange
Iv, 4B
V. Regan
iv. 62
V. Penn. H. Co.
U 269,88(1
V. Reynold.
iv. 477
c. D. S. Mortgage Co.
i.32fl
ii. 173
Grojvenor v. Allen
Iv. 487
i>. State
i. 221
V. Atlantic t. Ins. Co.
iii. 376
*. Taylor
ii. 169
u. F. & M. Bank
ii.403
..Uten
iv.635
V. Lloyd
V. N. Y. C. R. R.
iii. 68
t. Weatheriiy
1M.76
Ui.2O0
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Qrotc r. I^ce iv. 412
GnKOD I. BoiboTongh Iv. 166
r. D«11h«im JiL 110
GnDch I. Uulehurt L. Co. iv. 30&
Groni B. Towniend It. 446
Grore,£i!iiortit iii. 483
Grate, fa re ii. 6*2, 430
V. Dnbou ii. 472, 624, 625
Grarer ef. Wikenuui ii. 632, 636
GroTer, Ac. Co. i>. Miiaonri, &c. Ry.
Co. ii. fl04
GfOTM t>. Back
ii 468, 601
B.COI
If. 11
r. GroTM
ir. 865
I'.LoomH
IT. 473
». SIiughtOT
1430
Gro-cock I.. H.I1
ii. 259
Gmber i.. Wuhlnston 4 J. R. Co. ii. 300
Graho c. Richardion
iv. 162,805
Grumin e. Smith
ii.581
GrUTidy I. Mir^n
iv. 113
r. Towrnend
Ii. 477
Grute F. Lo<:roft
U. 132
CD.|ni Iron Co, p. Diw>oq
U.286
F. Gnar-
diin, tc. Int. Co.
ii.36e
GunliM. Ac. Ins. Co. r. HogtQ iii. 369
ii. 482
Gockert r. Hacke
iii. 24
Gue F. Tidewater Canal Co.
ii.2&4
Gurather g. Lockhart
ii. 259
Gnenrd i>. Riren
iv. 476
Gornn 0. Smilh
iv. 473
Gnerliin v. Col. Inr Ca
iii. 298, 330
Goemier f. Cook
ii. 406, 539
F.Wood
ii. 893
GDecTuil F. Andenon
iv. 171
Guerrairc. f. Peile
U. S26
Gneil F. Opdyke iv. B5
Gaff; IT. Hnkilt iv. 122
Guiding Star, The iii. 164. 207
GnidDn V. Robion iii. 32
Guler I. O'Daniel ti. 430
GnilJ t. Butler ill. Ill
f. Conrad ii. 610
Gniliterlind v. Knoi ii, 266
GaiMhtll, The ui. 207
OaHtori f. De CardoneU iii. 466
I. Stnilli ii. 646
Goilbnder f. Howard U. 407
GdillM «. Donsat ii. 360
GoiniiMt B. CarroU ii. 120
Goion B. Barton iv. SS8
e. Traik iii. 166
Guiiemin c. Liverpool, ftc. Steam-
»hip Co. Iii. 176
Guldfait, The ii. 416
Galf, tc. R;. Co. B. Clarke ii. 008
V. Gnj ii. 340
*. Hefley i, 489, 44S
Gulf, ta. Ry. Co. v. Wilbanks ii. 60B
Gulf City G. &, W. Co. u. The George
DumoU i. S70
Gulf of CaL N. Co. v. Btate Iut. Co.
iii. 307
Gullett F. Roy ui. Ul
GulliMlien f. Stewart iii. 206
Gully V. Ray iv. 39
Gulnare, Tlie iii. 271. 201
Gumm V. Hubbard ii. 64
V. Tyrie iiL 62, 138. 260
GuDD F. Bolckow ii. 541, 546
u. Central R. Co. ii. 300
u, Ohio River R. Co. ii. 106
F. Peakei L 260; ii. 120
V. Roberta Ui. 164
F. ThruitoD iv. 416
Gunning d. Burdell iii. 404
Gunnison o. Erie Dime 8. Co. iv. 806
GunaUD, Good« ot Iv. 616
Gunter v. Graniteyille Mfg. Co. Ii. 260
V. Gunter iv. 608
Gunther, Be ii. 226
V. AtweU ii. 478, 479
F. Colio iii 22S
V. Ullrich U, 630
Gorney r. A. & G. W, Ry. Co. ii, 479
u. Belirend ii, 540
D. Womenley iL 470 ; iii. 88
Gurratt F. Cullum ii, 624
Gusdofer f. Gundy ii. 226
Guahee v. Eddy iii, 76
Guaman v. Gueman ii. 99
Gustine v. Union Bank iii, 124
Gut D. The State L 409
Gute Erwartung. The L 140
Guthrie f, AndetBon Ii. 401
V. Gardner iv. 437
E. Guthrie ii, 101
D. Kahle iv. 166
». Lowry i, 260
F. Morri* ii. 236
F. Marphy iL 264
F. New Haveo Ui. 461
F. Pugileya iv. 477
i: Ray Ui. 86
Gutridge V. MiiaoDri Pm. By. Co. ii. 259
Guttridge a. Muoyard iv, 109
Gny, The Ui. 164
F. Churchill ii, 625
B. Citiiens' M. Ina. Co. iii. 287
F. Oakley ii, 623
Guy Manneritig, The Hi. 176
Guylher v. Bourg iii. 109
Guzzam b. Cinn. !□■. Co. UI 303
Gwilliam f. TwiBt ii, 260
Gwin 0. Breedlove i. 342
Qwinn f. Hooker iii. 48
Gwynn u, Hodfre U. 492
Owynne e. Mnddock , iv. 637
Gyger'a Appeal Ui. 87
Oylei F. Wilcox 11. 382
Gylleaborg'a Caie i. 39
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
. t.. P.
Hubat, Cu» of
Hau V. AtkinioD
0. MiuiODary Sodetf
r. Ro«t
Hsbermu) Mannf. Co., /a n
HabenhoD d. BlnrtoD
Hacker d. Backer
HsckeU D. Bun
V. PoUer
d. Reyoold*
t>. Stanle]'
p. W. Union TeL Ca
Hackle; ». Patrick
Hacknood v. L;all
Hadd u. U. &, £c. Express Co.
Hadden t>. Collector
B. Enickerbocker
Haddeo'a Will, In re
Haddock v. Wilmarth
Hadfield n. Jameaon
Hadkinion v. Robioion
Hadl^ V. Clarke
D. Hadler Manut. Co.
HaOey v. Carey
Haffbrd v. New Bedford
Hagan v. Blindell
Hagar, ExvarU
V. Buck
r. Calibrnja
O.Clark
u, Donaldaon
t>. N. E. M. H. Ini. Co.
V. Reclamatloii District
Hage V. Campbell
HageratowD Tonipike Co. n.
Hagertv d. Lee
t>. Naahua Lock Co.
Haeev e. Detwdler
V. Hill
Hagg ir. Darley
Haggard t. Pelicier Fr^rea
Haggerlj ti. Foster
B. Palmer
Haggin v. Lewis
Hagood-D. Harlej
D. Southern
Hague V. Wheeler
LS22
iil. 59
li. 126
iii. 136
fii. 448
ii. 438
iii.!
Iii. 419
11.242
Ji. 19fi
ir. 461
Ui. Ill
11.466
i. 42
iii. E"
It. 464
1.851
iii. 440
Hahn V. Corbett
V. HulchinioD It. 305
B. United Statea i. 465
HahnemnnniaD L. Ids. Co. v. Beebe ii. Id
Haigh, Expartt Iv. 151
V. De la Cour Iii. 27S
D. Kaye a 494; iv. 143
Balght V. Keokuk iii. 427
V. Llttlefleld UL 419, 446
«. Pj
Haileav.
Haille ». Smith
ii. 649
Hain, I« re
U.226
Haines t.. Beach
ir. 178, 186
V. Harden
iv. 606
». Merrill Troit Co.
ly. 81
o. Nance
ill. 84
Ha Ds r. JeSol
ii. 214
Hainton d. Jaudon
i».461
Hakewiil, /« re
ii. 193
Haldane v. Ecktord
ii. 430
V. Johnson
iii. 468
Hale V. Akers
i. 826
V. Bonner
ii. 164
u. Burton
ui. 472
0. Danfortb
iii. 109
». Green
It. 106
V.Hale
ti. 494 ; U. 624
n-Jamea
iv 66,68
V. Muno
iv.38
B. N. Jeraey Steam NaT. Co. iL 598
699.600
c. Pew
i».846
V. Plummer
iii. 39
<,. Saloon Omnibus Co
ii.620
«. Wilson
iU.87
Hales r. Rieley
iv. 244. 860
Haley d. Bannister
ii. 191
u. Dorclieater Mut Ins
Co. iu. 876
V. Dubois
iv. 166
V. Taylor
ij. 266
ii. 461
HaUord v. Kymer
iU. 868, 369
Halhead v. Yoong
iii. 273
Halifax Banking Co. v. GledhlU ii. 441
Hall, &
i. 462, 469
u. Acken
li.236
V. Ayling
iii. 80
0. Barker
iii.soe
V. Barrows
ii. 866; iii. 64
t>. Bliss
iv. 190
V. Bottop & W. B. R.
11492,690
V. BumsCead
1/422
V. Butterfleld
ii.28a
». Byron
iii. 409
V. Carmichael
ii. 175
V. Chaffee Ui. 463 ; iv. 278
u. Corcoran
li. 241, 687
V. Cordell
ii. 469 ; iii. 96
V. Decuii-
i, 439
V. Ewio
iv.480
iii. 79
p. Franklin Ins. Co.
iiL 173
p. Fuller
li. 230 ; iU. 86
p. Gumey
iii. 1S3
r. Hall iL 64, 101 1 iU. 61. 66 ; i*. 278.
418.506
U. 195
ti. Hardy
ii. 169
V. Hudson
111.160
V. JacoU
iT.403
iii 260, 270
p! Jarria
ii.8S6
IL260
e. Eappmberger
ii.4SB
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ii.461
Halligu 1.. Chicgo « R 1 B. R.
I. LiDQing
L 2m ; iii. M
iv. llfl
I. LkwTenca .
113.407
t.UAt
ii. 173
Hallortn v. Carter
i.a2i
>. Little
ii.46S
HaUowell t>. Amei
It. 181
,. LocT P. HUler, The
v. McC.nghej
iii.248
r.CufTy
iii. 08
ii.44g
».Phippi
iT.346
•.MMkay
.2tt0
v.Btco
ii.430
.. Mo. P«. Bj. Co.
i.492
HalljbortoQ. Goodi of
r.M7er.
fT. 113
IUlmi>.Be>lor
iv. 64
«. Mewcomb
iil.»
HBlMy V. Brotherhood
ii. 16
>.IfUg>nF.Iiu.Co.
lii. 870
r.^Graot ■
ii. 476
>.Nat«
iv.20S
r. McCormtck
iii. 427
^ Ocw Lu. Co.
m.
329,331
t>. McLean
iL4e3
'.Odbn
ii. 120
r. Warden
ii. 640
«.Odi
IT. 270
n. Whitney «. 683
634; iii. 48
».Pike
ii.596
Halatead t>. Mayor, Ac. of N.
y. ii300
>.PUIibD7
ii. 690
V. NelaoD
ii.22
r. Prict
It. 278
Halat«d r. Lyon
i. 349
*. Benrro
ii.600
Hsly B. Qoodion I 871 : Hi. 162
.. S>»ga
iL163
Ham r. Goodrich
iT.45]
ti. Smith
ii. 633; iii. 41
H. State
1.37
r. Sprigg
It. 306
Hamaker «. BUnchard
U.356
ii. 132
Hamar v. Aleiander
ii.4S9
1. 8iorn
ii.822
Hambidge ... De La Cronft
in. 49
..Swift
iii. 448
Haroblet v. City In.. Co.
ui.28a
ii.366
HambletC v. Hamblett ii
240; It. 68
1. Towne
<t. 148
Hambly v. Trott
i.416
».Tnraar
lii. 419
il.446
r. T-«d7
ii. 630
Hambrougii b. Mutual L. In.
Co. ilL 878
.. W«l.»orth
iv. 112
Hamburg, Tlie
iii. 164, 172
.. Wwerhouie
ii. lU
ij.440
r. W«ir
U.
146,240
Hamer v, Johniton
iii. 79
■r-WiUiuu
L261
l». 131
L-. Sidw.y Ii. 448, 463; It. 306
..WUwn
iii. 79
iiL68,64
^.WiMoudn
L4I9
e. Smith
iL166
0. Wright
ii. 463
HamerEoD u. Rogen
It. 176
..Yoi^
L«
iv.806
Hamet o. Letcher
11.482
HiJl'i Cue
IL840
HamiU v. PaiTia
ML 47
B.iri Kttue, 7» re
It. 62
Hamilton, The
iU.248
H^LewMjcrfo. A»hby
W.MO
BiU Sieun P. Co. o. Campb«U P. Cki.
V. Biihop
iLiea
ly. 116
v. Buchanan
iT.806
Hillecki^Oiir
IT. 461
V. CntU
It. 471
lUUerpFox
i. 370
». DaTi.
11.822,688
Htlktr.BMMtt
Ii. 430
V. Dillin
1.67
s. ColnmbuD Ins. Co.
W. 187
p. Downer
iT.806
r.Dwbui
iii. 26
0. Dutch EMt Indl« Co.
ii.l20
■.Hare
11.426
B.Eaton
166,287
„ .^Wjlte
iU.466
0. Elliott
iv.280
B*lleU«.Colliiu
U. 87
p. Ganyard
u. 479
Iii. 27
' B. Grantier.', &e. In.. Co.
iii. 77
r.Pone
It. 186
iL 162. 170
».aufeu
U.46
D. Hector
11193
r.Thompwo
ir. 311
It. 16
H.Mt^fe«
lii. 234
V. Home Int. Co.
ill. 376
It. 307
D. Huntley
il. 348
Balletf « EiUte, /« n-
U. 366
i».307
V. LiTerpool, *a In.. Co
lii. S76
Hilky, The lii 188, 176, 218, 232
f. Lycoming Mat In.. Co. ii. 477
Hrikj V. Pol«im
ii. 479
t>. Mende. iii. 819,
922,324,826
BiUgutn r. OldhBm
ii. 649
V. Moreland
iv.434
il. 681
V. Pandorf
m.20T
iii.ea
M, 108
:ir6
m. Ill
BiUtu>.I^
liLSS
iL 440. 621
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Th* Biuibi*] pagM u« nfamd
iii. 41
iii. 61
1. 41S
ill. leg
Hamilton v. Sumraen
V. VaiiBhuD-SbeiriD "E. Ca
V. WilMin
i>. Winona Co.
0. Wirich
B. Wood
Hamilton Co. d. Hutachoietti L 842, 429
Hamilton Gas Co. i>. HMuiltOD L 418
Hamiilon & Smith v. Davis ii. 322, 636
Hamiltoo's Wiudior Iron Works ii. 291
Hamilton Woolen Co. c. Moore iii. 451
Hamlen t>. Bennett Ii. 168
Hamlet, In re It. 203
Hamlin v. Hamlin iv. 48
V. Sean ii. 616
(I. Stevenion il. 233
Hamlyn u. Crown Ace. Ini. Co, iii. 366
p. Talisker Distillery ii. 450
Himm V. Wickline ii. 16
Bammenley u. De Biel ii. 173
Hammenmith, Sua. Co. t>. Dublin, &c
Co. iL 16
Hammett v. Stricklin it. 162
Hammock v. Creekmora iii. 461
Hammond ii. Aiken iii. 41
D.Allen ii.47Ti iii. 269
V. Anderson IL 494, 646
r. Buesey ii. 16
V. Chicago, &c. Rj. Co. ii. 269
r. Corbett ii. 193
V. DanieUoD it GS6
V. Douglas iii. 64
e. EckRardt iv. 109
V. Essex F. ft H. Int. Go. i. 879 1
V.F11IIV
V. Hammond
V. Hopkins
e. Beid
B. Stockton Worin
tr. Woodman
E. Zehner
Hammonia, The
Hamper, Ex, parte
Hampton, The
Hampton v. Holmaa
D. M'(^nnel
D. Moorhead
V. Rather
p. Speckenagle
Hanaw b. JacliBon P. Co.
Hanburj v. Hanbury
Hanchei p. Whitney
Hancock p. Day
V. Peaty
p. Pod more
V. Wooten
t. Tnden
Bancox u. Fishing Ins. Co. iii. !
Jt, 370
ii. 76
ii. 416
V. gtnt.
Handler's Lessee v. Antooy
Hands D. Hands
Handy, In r»
V. Foley
0. Globe Fob. Ca
V. Handy
Haneklau c. Felchlin
Haney b. Sharp
HanS V. Howard
Han ford v, Artcber
e. Paine
p. St. Paul R. Co.
Hanfttaengl c. Baines
V. Empire Palace
Hanger v. Abbott
Hanham v. Sherman
Hankey u. Becht
Garratt
i. S(^
lit. 481
ii. 84
Iv. 418
ii. 149
ii. 467
ii. 101
ii. 461
iii. 3U
ii. 629
ii.407
ii.226
ilL427
aS73
iI.87S
L67
It. 106
iii. 25, 30
iii. 66
Hankins d. New Tork, Sx. By. Co. U. 269
People
Haukinion b. Hankinson
Han ley p. Donoghue
Hanna v. His Creditors
p. Phelps
p. Reniro
Hannalord v. Hannaford
Hannah v. Carver
Han nan v. Hannan
V. Osbom
Hanoay v. Thompson
Hanneftn v. Blake
Hannibal, The
Hannibal, &«. R. R. Co. v. Crane
Hannlg p. Mueller i
Hannon p. Hannab
u. Honnthan
p. Sheehan
Hannum v
p. Richardson
Hanover p. Turner
Hang p. Louisiana
Haiuan p. Bacbner
Hansard v. Robinson
Hansbroagh u. Gray ii
Hansen v. Harrold
Hanson p. Artnitage
p. Buckner
p. City Connnl of Lafayette
p. Graham
o. Jaccard Jewelry Co.
ii. 12
ii. ITS
iv. 486
11.639
iT.446
iv. 201
iv. 370
It
i*. 206, 274, 283
D. Bank of Tennessee
ii. 610
ii. 448
i. 456
ii. 373
p. McCue iii. 440, 446
0. Metcalf iii. M
B. Meyer ii. 492, 403, 494, 496, 646
s. Roberdeau il. 636
p. Rowell iii. 18H
Hanson's Trademark, 7n re ii. 860
Hantz r Sealy U. 87
HapRoi'd p. Blood It. 162
1: ComweU Iii. 66
;abyG00<^lc
TIBLE OP CASES.
[Tba OMigliHi pacta u* nfamd to.]
Hipgoodp-HMritt
iL 269. see
Hsriay 1. BUta
U.64
r.Wmon
iii. 37
H>rlow s. Pubum
il. 471
Hirbeck >. PapiD
ill. 81
Harnan i>. Andenoo
11.600,646
H.rber..ET.^
Hi. 437
V. DaTi.
ii.233
fUrterl, Sir WillUra, Owe o
iT. 371
iii. 203
UiTfaiion t>. Lemon
li. 462
... JoliDBoa
■Ji.46
Hird v. Aihley
iv.eaa
r. M'Leluid
ii.l05
.. Vermont ft Cui»d» B.
B. ii. -.!60
Hanner r. BeU
iii. 2;«
Hird.cn c Slewart
ii. 636
(Su Bold Bucdengh
s. c.)
It. 214
Harmon c. Chicago
.439; ii.340
UudtU ». McClure
ii. 604
V. HarmoQ
ii. 4K2
Hinkn B. Gordon
iii. 164, 193
p. Silei
ii. 146
i. 302
V. Smith i
241 ; iT. 888
ii. 128
iii. 246
iT. 131
Hamden b. Milwaukee M.
ii. 470
iii. 482
iT.680
Hirfie ». Hwdie
ii. 128
In*. Co.
Hirdin o. Cm* CtWlV^
i.302
iii. 870, 376
.. Cheek
IT. 484
Hamed v. Mo. Pk. Bt. Co.
iii. 307
Huding. £r port.
iii. 66
Harnert.. Dipple
ii. 236
ii. 138
Haiuer r. Owen u. 180,240, 263 1 iv. 70.
.. Alden
ii. 100, 110
249
r.Bo.too
U. 260
Harp«l D. Fall
It. 110
.. Foicroft
iii. ^, 84
Harper f. Banh
iT. 174
(. Goodlett
U. 889, 340
V. BuUer
iii. 83
::Si.
iLI26
...OodMll
ii. 668
m. 89
V. Hampton
ii. 631
B. SoDiber
iii. 1S8
b'. Littk iL
It. 418
..St4m[ordW»torCo.
iii. 440
632,644,646
*.Weld
u. 226
a. McKinoU
Iii. 42
bidnwd r. Booth
ii.483
V. Mirck*
ii. S48
>. Brelt
iii. 263
V. O'Brien
ii. 122
t. Child
iT. 473
«. Phoraix lu. Co.
iii. an»
>.Wiilcock
H. 326
o. Banou*
ii. 37;i
H>rd;, Tbe
i.369
Harral b. LeTertr
Iv. 174, 469
HudrcAlberUoa
11.192
iii. 446
a 631
HarraU».Wiie
iii. 262
B.(hge
It. 412
HarreU ». HUlar
It. 461
■r. Otllonf
iT. 122
arrirt. The
i. 367
1L291
Harrigan e. Conn. BiTer Lumber Co.
r.K«e*
iT. 167
i. 439
r.SproaIe
f.lfiiionUiit.lM.Co.
Iii. 166
Harriman, The iii. 200, 224, 228
iii. 282. 878
HarrimaD d. Howe
iii. 440
F-Witen iLa36;iU. 86
V. Pint B. B. Chnroh
11.300
HiretCelej
iT.96
•I. SantKini
iii. 76
r-GiWa
ii. 14S
V. Wobam E. L. Co.
It. 135
rGroTO
iii. 466
Haninglon e. Fry
ui.l3«
B.H«ty
iii. 88, 106
B. HoUer
i.322
^Hort^Q
ii-346
i>.Long
iv. 449
H«rfoni r. Morrli
ii. 91, 92
V. M'Shane
11.609
Httgoiu »- Stona
IL 478, 479
V. Smith
ii.478
Hirpire r. HmrgraTs
11212
r. Steu
It. 617
HMiTMTe*, Be
11.441
V. Stratton
li. 474
». Diddwn.
iii. 413
V. Victoria, &C. Co.
li. 486
lil. 104
I-. Wation
Hi. 468
Httkin. V. Co«lter
U. 162
Harris, EiparU
iii. 66
HukneM .. RukU
H. 498. 690
V. Barber
It. 118
r.SMn
11.343
T.. Beit. Bylej, * Co.
lil. 206
Rukreadtr >. ClaTton
It. 464
r. Bradley
ii. 649
Uiriu .. MagLkDghllD
11.441
D. Brook*
iii. 128
».B«d" ^
ii. 474
EF Butler
ii. 206
r.8e*tDii
It. 469
V. Cannody
il. 451
EariHd's Accomite, Cms of
1L281
r. Carter
iii. 24. 186
Brt^r.KiBg
ir. 478
P.Clark iL448iiiL104
sObyGoOl^lc
cxxiv
TABLE OP CASES.
tn» >«giD.i PK- >» itf-Tod to.}
Htrrii 0. Co>t>
ir. 46
HarriMO b. Slerry L S46
11408,419;
V. Colnrobiin In*. Co.
iii. S76
iii. 44
v. Denaie
1. S48
V. Talbott.
iT. 467
r. De Pinna
iii. 448
V. Tennant
iii. 61
P. DrcMmwi
Iii. 206
B. Trader
ii. 143
V. EUiott
ir.467
B. Tnutees of FhUlipi Academy
t. FMweU
iii. 68
i». 141
v.V\y
iT. 640
B. Urann
1.840
B. Franconii, The
L80
v.yfjm,
iT. 160
D. Great WMtern Rf
Co. U.808
■ iii. 421
■>. Rinu
ij.l20; iii. 37
HbtiImid'i Caae
ii.M4
0. Hicks
ii. 86
Harriion'i Exec b. Payoo
It. 62
». Hooper
IT. 186
Harri.1 b. Faircett
iii. 123
r.JoneV
iv. 109
V. Habry
ii. 269
V. Kinioch
Ui.44B
Harrod u. Barretto
i.201
B.Harrod
U.461
p. M'FkddJD
iiL472
...Lewi.
ai236
V. Mobbt
iii. 488
Harrow b. Johnson
iT.46
B. Moody
iiL240
narrower v. Hotchiuaon
UL 286, 814
B. P«ck«ood
a 687, 698
Harryman b. Roberte
i.262
V. Pieroo
123
Hart, The
i. 26-2
B.Pmtt
ii. 646
i. 86
V. Pugh
iT. 808
Hart V. AdTance, The
1.376
». Quine
i. 410; ii. 468
B. British & F. U. Int. Co. ill. 286
f. Scar«tn«Dg4
iii. 244
B. Carpenter
ii. 408
t. Shebek
ii. 269
V. Cole
It. 110
u. Smitb
IL «6, 497
B. Colley
ii.866
D. Samner
iL686
B. Delaware Ina. Co.
iii. 311
.-. Tenney
ii. 646
ii. 020
B.TrunuD
ii.866
B. Hart
It. 461, 624
B. Dnited State*
iU.e9
B. Kelley
iii 26
B. WatiOD
iii. 186
D. Levee Com'n
ii. 840
B. Toaman
iL24a
0. Lindsay
iT.48S
HarrUburg, The
L 866; ItL 232
B. Logan
iT.46
HaiTiibiirgB. Slieck
HaiTiion, The
1.460
B. Long
tJ. McGrew
iii. »7
iL170
iT. 64
HaniaoD, Ex parte
Iii. 161
B.Otil
iii. 94
HarritoD, h re
IT.2M
B. Penn. R. Co.
ii 608,611
o. Aodetlion FonndiT Co. il. 866
V. Seymonr
i/aos
B. Bailey
lit 109; It. 461
B. Shaw
iii 228
V. BelMy
iv.268
V. Ship LiUle Jobn
iiL>9S
B. Bialand
iii 124
to. 102
p. BrawD
iil.-4S2
b! SUndardM.ini. Co.
to. 282
B. BnrweU
B. Sun Printing Co,
ii.22
B, Biuh
11.22
B. Tallmadge
ii. 480
B. Central K. B.
ii.2eo
B. Ten Eyck ii 866
B. United Statei
688; iT.139
B. Edward*
li.469
i. 288
B. Eldridge
It. 46. 72
B. Windsor to. 464, 467, 479
e.EUi.
Ul 304, 809
V. Wilheri
iu. 48
B.Good
IT. 480
B. Wright
ii470
B. Grady
ii.l48
BarfiCase
i67
B. Hairbon ii. 117, 460, 494 ; It. 68,
Hartan b, Eaatem R.B.Co.
11.604; iii. 26
306,614
HarteU «. TUgnian
i. 326
0. Hartford F. Int. Co
1.S42; 111.370,
Harten r. Gibeon
ii. 216
37d
Hartford v. Champion
U.430
B. Bin
Ii. 140
B. Jonei
ii. 086
B. Hollini
It. 188
-,. Mattingly
a646
B. JaekKn
iii. 47
Hartford Bridge Ca b. Union Ferry
b! N^oa
iii. 464
i.419
IL 420
Hartford Fire In*. Ca b. Bonnw Hei-
B. Owen
It. 198
cantile Co.
i.302
e. Sonthwallc & T. W. Co. 1. 462
B. Olcott
iii. 376
B. Stacy
11.408
Hartford Ina. Co. b. Walsh
to. 376
B. Slate
L439
Hartford L. A. Int. Co. a. Un*ell to. 370
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[nw marginal pagflfl an rafwnd to-}
Hutforf Prot In*. Co. v. Hwiner lii. 882 1
Harvood v. Aatler
ii. S3
HinlMd, ic Ore Co. v. Miller iv. 368 1
V. GoodrigbC
IT. G28
Htrtg. r. Bulk of EDglMld
11230
V. JWTl.
Ul. 06, 100
Huih ..GibbM
ii. 401
Haabrook n. Palmer
iii. 76
Hutiiv>'.Jocken
li. 441
Haibrouck u. Childi .
iU. 28
Him«E-.CMe
iii. 108
K. Milwaukee
1.466
..^nrle
ii. 1G2
Haacall B. WhitmotB
It. 179
r.Whwton
ii. 238
Haieler o. Lemoyne
ii. 616
..mile
ui.44
HatelintoD d. Gill
a 618
HirUDin 0. Dowdel
ii. 187
Ha«keil V. Boardtnan
iii. 106
(.Greenhow
i. 316
V. Mitobell
ill 91
r. KejMone
lil28fi
V. New Glouceater
iu.43S
■r. Morning J. Am'h
ii.22
p. Scott
It. 162
r. Roger,
ii. 269
Hukini V. Ereictt
iiL 66
Hulog ff. Memory
i.802
V. Hamilton Mut Int.
Co. ill. 376
Hmon s. BartoD
iv. 804
r. Spiller
iT. 621
li.S2&606
Eaeleham u. Yonng
iii. 47
Hirahom I'. Shoe t Lesther Deai-
Hauam v. Barrett
It. 143
m'lu. Co.
iii. 258
r. Haieo
iv.336
iii 472
Hasie e. Aioerican Ezpreii Co. ii. 590
Hutnn r. Elden
iv. 283
Haulnger o. Newman
iii. 123
Hutnng V. People
i. 409
HiBtelowi>.Jackion
ii.467
Hufcll F. JeWett
a269
HMtie P. De PeyiWr
iii. 278
r. Rica
IT. 418
Haatinp, Isdj, Ba
ii. 164
ii. 510
Hutingi D. Aiken
i.466
flim c. Schrader
iii. 67
IT. Amea
l330
Hirrinl College r. Aldermra of But-
■>. Baldwin
a. 533
ii.283
D. Crunckleton
iT. 76
f.Gan
ii.430
D. Dickinion
It. 66
r.Steanu
iiL 413
«. Dollarhide
iL236
Hw*id DnL Sodatr i-- Tafto W. 641
0. Douglaii
ii..m
B«»ej. firport.
iii. 112
V. Lovering
ii. 479. 630
HMtey, h n>
iL354
». Ni«teD
lv.465
r. AitOD
IT. 1'25
V. SteTCD*
iT.4G
r.Brigg.
iL2S6
t. The Ship Huppy Retorn iU. 196
p. Briibin
IT. 28
D. TbomptoD
iii. 76
..BfTdgtf
It. 118
>. VauriiD
Huwell V. Hunt
iT.4&l
(.Child.
10.26
11.406,643
t Cuaii.,ie.R.R.Ca.
ii.flM
11.448
r.Copelud
It. 113
p.Baei
1.297
».Crick*«
111.69.63
e. Chicago R. 1 & P.
R.R. i. 803
rFwej
u.44e
«. CSty Bank of New Oiieani ii.2M.
r. Gnblum
ii.498
2»6
>.Hirm
ii. 477
f.D«na
ii. 272
..K.7
iiL 75
p. Dwigbt iU. 484, 436. 442, 446, 461
t. HcFiriud
l322
x>. Ferguwa
il. 62
>.H>rtiD
iii.B5
V. Fourtb (fat. Bank
ill. M
K Merrill
IL 467, 490
>. Hart
It. 96
>. Mileh^
iT.467
V. Hatch
Ir. 403
•.MnmT
iL661
r.Lamot
ii.408
r. N-eb(»
ilLlOB
F. Matthew*
iil6
t. RidMTdi a. «1,
482.434.468
V. Mat. Life Im. Co.
Hi. 860
.. Rmh C011DI7 ComadHioMri i. 413
V. Smith
iii. 146
». Ttjior
i.455
V. Spofford
ii. 123
•.Tr.Tder.'Iii,. Co.
i.46e
i>. Traye«
iii. 77
■. Troapa
Hi. 100
i>. Tiicker
iii. 228
r. Tomer
ii.630
p. White
It. 183. 104
.. IJniUd State*
i. 2fl7
P.Wood
IiL 31
«. Wilun
iii. 419
Hatcbell p. Kimbrough
It. 05
..mdtham
iT. 29
p. Odom
ii.465
^ ..Toong
ii. 485
Hatcher p. Bufbrd
It. 48
Hlrrej',E«to,/»r,
ii.104
p. Cnrti»
It. 336
Hirtie B. Fwnle
li. 117
V. Hatcher
It. 461
Hwwrll r.L«hiiuii
iT. 186
p. McMorlM
a MOi iU. 72
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
[^Ab muybwl jf^tm juv nfamd to.]
Hawkini u. Obyn
II. 188
H.lfield V. Keawdr iv. 188
V. Femberton
U.479
V. Soeden It. 29. 32
V. Shewen
iT. 40S
Hathaway v. Haynei ii. 640
y.SanMutWCo. iiL 288
V. Shonp
iii. 01
•'.Skeg^
iv. 73
V. Trenton Mut. L. Ini. Co. iiL 369
V. ThompHD
p. TwiMfl
iii. 113
H«t1ie<mg 17. Lung Ui. 207
iiL 167, 188
Hathoni r. Scinion It. 407
HawkiM Point Light-hoiiM
i.268
H&tSweat H. Co. •>. Ditu S. H. Co. ii. 866
ii. 120
Hntt r. ETening Newi Au'n ii. 16
iii. 48
Hawkaworth v. Hawkaworth
il 103
Hawley v. Bibh
ii. 466. 468
HaUie Bell. The i. 36«
V. Hunt
L422
Hattie Thomu, The lii. 161, 187
E.Jame. il. 230; iT.6B,
208.261.271.
Hatlon V. Uayirood It. 420
281, 311, 828. 848, 419, 421, 438
V. Jette iii. 88. 94, 109
iT. 424
Hang D. Third Nat. Bank lii. 138
IT. 637
D. Screven
iiOOO
Hawthorn c. Hammoiid
iL6fl2
Hauier.JodaoD ii. 660
B. Shedden
iT.835
Kauier u. Beaty ii. 441
Hawthorne, In rv
ir. 183
Hauuman d. Barntam ii. 164
». Beckwith
iL144
HaTana, The 1. 360 ; Ui. 167, 232
t.. Calef
i. 419
HaTelockD. GeddM iii. ^
HawTer v. Wiialen
iL260
». HaDdll ill. SOI
Haxlun V. Biehw
Hay e. Cohee. Co.
iiL 07, 08
0. Rocbwood i. 103
1LS40
HaTemeyn- 1>. Iowa Co. i. 410
V. Fairbaim
iiL 188, 148
Haven V. Gray iH. 275,311
V. Hayi
iii. 439
I.. Holland ill. 816
u. Jackele
iii 86
a. Low U.S30;iT.138
r. Jniticei
L?88
V. RichMdMQ iL 632, &S4
u. Le NeTe
iiL 282
HaTeDt V. Hom« Idi. Co. ■ fi. 4G3
IP. Palmer
lii. 471
tt. Huuey iii. 44
V. Sea Shore Land Co. It. 46B, 496
Haybum'i Caae
L4fi0
HaycraTt o. Creaay
iL46»
D. Van Den Bargh iv. 627
Hayden, Ex porta
iiL 66
Barer v. Taker 1. 170
It. 166
Haverly e. State Line B. Co. iiL 207
V. Cabot
ii.4S0
HaTerelick v. Sipe iiL 419, 416
V. Conn. Hoapital
iT. 608
Bariland v. Bloom ii. 136, 140
D. Demeta
iL504
V. Chace iii. 38
V. Lincoln C. EL By. Co
iii. 81
■>. HsTilaad ii. 128
B. Manning
L808
Hawet. EzDorta ii. 122
». Challle It. 162
V. Mid. Turnpike Co.
11291
r. SmithTllIe Manuf. Co
iL260
i>. Draeger ii. 209
t>. Stone iLlS0;ilL461
V. Hawei It. 361
V. Stoughtoo
iT. 126. 642
0. Humphrey It. 610
V. Weldon
iIL89, 123
r.Oaklaod L 346 ; U. 260, 286. 298
Haydock v. Havdock
Haydon v. Gould
iT.608
D. South-Eaitern By. ii. 16
ii.87
Hawk v. Senaeman It. 446
Hayea v. Alliance An. Co,
■1438
Hawks p. Enyart ir. 632
B. Ball
iL16
Hawkei V. Pike It. 456
0. Bowman
iii. 429
<:. SallBT iii. 106
v. Foordo
iv. 215
r. Saanden ii. 466
B. Hayea
It. 541
Hawkcworlh i.. Hawkeiworth ii. 105
p. Jaek»oD
iL494
Hawkin,, /n n i. 822
B. Kemhow it
*68;iT.4fi3
V. Blewilt ii. 439, 447
B. HorcroM
iL196
V. Capron iii. 88
V. Nawlin
ii. 164
V. Carbinet i i. 420
V. pHrker
■L241
e. areatW.B. R. i. 608
V. Waldron
iii. 440
p. HawkiD* i. 101
Hayman n. Molton
iii. 131, 173
». Herwy i. 348
ii. 170
0. Hoffman ii. 601
Haynea u. Baker
iv 808, 4.^7
". Kemp iT. 880
D. Bennett
ii 286
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Hie iiiKsliul !>•(«■ iin niamd to.]
HuMi c Biib ill 106, 108
t.Siag ill 448
«.Rowe ill. 268
>. Seadirett iii. 48
K Spokane C. F. Co. ii. 16
>. SuTcni It. 261
«, Toong IT. 466
BlTi t. Bailty It. 92
■. Eanwic It. 608
c. HiMtetm ii. 441
D.JickH>D It. 422, 439
V. HoniUe ii. 645
B, WsKt
HijtoD c. JackaoD
BKjwitrd, £x porta
t>. BaAe
c. Cain
t. Natiooal Bank
c. StilUagBaec
il. 76
iii. 147
ilL 76, 01
iiL831
11138
ill. 413
iU. 199
W. 148
It. 284
Hirwood c. BrDDiwiek B. Soc.
e. Uncoln Lnmber Co. ii. zoi
v. Rodgen Ui. 2&6. 286
». ndy il. 236
Btiaid D. Oarant Ii. 286
«. Satard iii. 27, 34
r. N. S. Har. Iiu. Co. Iii. 300, 327
0. BobiiNOD iii. 44S. 440
V. Tnadwell U. 616, 644
t. VenooDt ft C. R. Co. i. 342
Buleborat v. Eean ii. 460
s. S&TanMh, Ic R. R. ii. 300
Hulebart L. Co. o. Fay ii. S4S
Haiteton n. Letnre It. 30
V. Hanhatun Id*. Co. iii. 240
HuleK E. Powell iiL 466
V. Sinclair it. 480
Haiol K. Donhsm ii. 630
U. B. Ciaflin Co. v. Kara ii. 402
U. a Foitar, The iii. 248
E. D. Bacon, The iii. 248
Head v. Amoikeag Manuf. Co. U. 340
>. Head u. 211
B. HUler ii. 600
E. PrOTidence Ini. Co. ii. 200
r. TattenaU ti. 479
Bcadlam v. Headfoy lU. 483, 484
Betdnck v. Brattain ii. 4;<2
Htidy B. Boden ii. 2S6
Hnld e. Bnltden' Amu. Ii. 4R8
'■ Heald It. 637
Heilej ■>, Corp. of Batley Iii. 461
». Gray ii. 506
H«am* r. Baoce iT. 176
H«aiie V. Rogen ii. 483
H«ip «. Dobwm iii. 25, 26
'■.Talbot ' ii. 312
BMrie >. Oreenbuk ir. 81, 326
Beam c. Bragau i. 469
Hearne v. Marine Int. Co. iii. 314
HearUy v. Nidlolion ii. 488
Heater r. Van Aulttn It. 346
Uealh, Ez parie ii. 296
V. Ameiican Ins. Co. iii. 261
V. Barman iii. 432
V. Crealock it. 170
0. Hubbard iii. 147
Sanaoln iii. 68
342
V. Slei
V. Wallace
V. White It. 414
D. Wright ti. 366
Heatherly u. Weiton it. 368
Ueathfield n. Chilton i. 1
Hearilon t>. Farmen' Bank iv. 166
Ueayiman'i ft Tweedy'* Contnct,
rtre iT.461
Hebdltch v. MacDwaine ii. 22
Hebdon v. West iii. 36'J
Hebron e>. Colche*l«r ii. 69
Hebron Q. R. Co. n. Harvey iii. 440
Hecht V. BatcheUer ii. 478
V. Boughton i. 200
Heckman r. Swett iii. 427
Hedburg v. Pearson iii. 298
Hedger o. SleaTenson iii. 108
Hedgea d. Hudion R. R. R. ii.601
u. Biker
Jdley ir. Bainb
Heebner u. Eagle loi. Co. iii. 206, 331
lleenan ». Naah iiL 41
Heeney o. Bnxiklyii BeneTolent Soc.
ii. 64
V. St, Petet'e Church iii. 4(ffl
Heenricb o. Pullman Palace Car. Co.
ii. 260
Heermant v. Burt ir, 312
IF. Kobertson It. 412
Hefel V. Whitely Land Co. ii. 873
HeSner v. Knepper It. 276
HeflVon p. Armsby ii. 404
Hefiebower e. United StateB i. 67
HeSin d. Bingham iii. 452
Hefner v. Vandolah ii. 616
Hegarty v. King it. 508
Hegeman v. Moon iii. 76
Heuler p. Faulkner ii, 236, 486
Heidenheimer v. Blumenkron iii. 89
V. Walthew iu. 40
Heidlebaugh u. Wagner it. 637
Heidritter r. EUiftbeth Oil- Cloth Co,
1.260
Heilbron u. Fowler S. C. Co. iii, 440
V. King'a River Canal Co. iii. 440
HEllbmnn, Matter of i. 3?
Heilbutt u. Hickson [i. 479. 492
Heilman d. Heilniaii It. 203
Heilner v. China M. Ini. Co. iii. 287
Heima Brewing Co. v. Flannery jl, 800
Hein n. Beaconifletd, The ui. 248
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
u. las
Heinlein v. Imperial L. Im. Co.
Ui. 370
Heise v. Bsrth
iii. 25
natter V. Former
iJLH»
iv. 171
HeiMT », Ubizer
iiu^ao
Hekla, The
iii. 248
Uelborn v. MoSard
iii. 468
Helbf v. HatthewB
ii.498
Uele u. BoDd
iv. S3t)
Helen, Tlie 1
142,184
KelfeDitine d. Gwrard iv.
299,496
Heifer v. Alden
iil. 89
Helfricli V. CftDtoDBvUle W. Co.
iii. 440
D. Oberatyw
Eellawell v. Eaatwood
iv. 4^
U.343
Uellmna v. Suhwu-U
iil. 56
Helm r. DaTbr
iv. 422
V. WilWD
U. G09
iii. 89
llelmore d. Smith
lU. 66
Helm« D. Ms7
iv. 179
Helpi v. Hereford iv. 9B, 261
Helyar o. Helyftr
iv.581
Hemenwa}' u. Heraenwaj U
128,364
HemmeDWftT n. Towner
li. 2VI
Hemminger v. We*teni Am. Co.
ii. 468
Hempbill n. Chenie
ii. 606
fiemphill'* Appeal
HempoUxtd v. bead
ii. 220
1,422
Hemsler i;. Myen
i.a60
Hench p. Meizer
ii. 4ie
iii. 258
Hendee v. Cleavelmd
u. 22fl
V. PlDkerton
iv. 461
iv, 637
Henderton b. A»twood
iv. 190
V. Au.trftlian B. M. S. N. Co
li. 291
r. BankofAiutraUtU
ii. 300
li. 4
V. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co. iv. 122
0. Central P. By. Ca iii. 449
p. Comptoir, &c. de Pull
E. Dowd
«. Haye
». howry iv. 181, 192
T. M t F. lae. Co. Hi- 374
«. Mayor, &c. of New Orleuw
tr. Midland Ry. Co.
B. Stevenaon
V. Tennessee
n. Tompkins
c, Tnivellen' Ini. Co.
c. Vaotx ii- 363. 354
B. William*
BenderM)D Bridge Co. d. Hender«on
B. MoGi«h
Bendrick n. Emplojen' L. Aas. Co. iii- 365
p. Hudso
i. 3
i. 163
s u* nfansd tot]
Hendrick v. Wbittemore I. 262
Hendricks c CaiDpbeU iii. 60
e. Com, Ins. Co. iii. 311
V. Evans ii. 690
V- Franklin iL 460, iii. 117
I'. Gonzalez i. 128
V. Keetee iv. 420
c. BobiniDD ii- 448, 682, 6^3 ; Iv. ITS
Hendrie v. Sayles ii. 366
Hendrika v. Montagu ii. 366
Hendrixson v. Cardwdl iv. 78, 109
Hendy v. DinkerhoEE ii. 343
['- Miners' Iron Works ii. S6S
Heneage r. Lord Andover iv. 805
Heney c- Tbe Josie i- 366
Henketc. Pape ii- 611
Henkle v. Royal Eich. Aaa. Co. iii- 264
Henley v. Brooklyn Ice Co. iii. 206
Ilenly v. Gore ii. 226
Henn t>. Walsh iii. 61
Henn's Case ui. 424
Henoen v. GilmMi i. 67
V. Hennen ii- 4W
e. Munroe ii.flOS; iii. 238
Hennessey u. The Verfaillea iiL 248
HennesBv n. Murdock Iii. 449
V. N. Y. M. M. Ins. Co. iii 260. SU
V. Wright ii. 22
Uenning v.TJ. S. Ina. Co. iii. 267
<!. Wither* iv. 476
Henningion v. State ii. 340
Henop o. Tucker iii. 1S8
Henricli. In rt i. 37, 306
Henriok & Maria, The i. la?
Henrick^n v. MnrgetsOD iii- 271, 337
Henrique* v. Dutch W- India Co. ii. 284.
Henry p. Adey
V. Allen
V. Goldney
r. Heeb
V. Henry i
D. Koch
u. Pittsburgh, Ac. B. Co.
u. Kobert* i.
c. Root
Henry'* Case
Henry Clay and Bock & Co.,
Hent7 Ewhank, The iii. '.
Henry F. Miller & 8- P. Co.
ker
Hentchel v. Haurer
Hensel v. Noble
Hensey c. Howland
Hen*haw i:. Haiine lat. Co.
K. Pond's E. Co.
V. Rob bios
c. Rollin*
V. Root
Hensley ». Whifflo
Heniloe't Case
Henimao v. Fryer
Henion i-. Keet & B. H. Co.
Hen thorn r. Fraeer
U. 121
u
126
u.
440
418)1
178
ii
419
284
439; i
340
li
236
i
.46
fle ii
366
246,318
882
».P«^
ii
500
ii
4-'!8
ii
634
ii
269
iii
317
ii
269
ii
479
Ui
13.3
iii. 88
iv
186
ii
409
Iv
641
a
61i
11477
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Htpbnni [. CnrUi
i.4G6
Heraey v. Merritnac Cy.
M. F. Ina.
VDnnda*
iv. 414
Co.
lli. 273
>. Dnnlop
iL487
B. Vwile
1L288
„. Elbe7 L 849. 385
Hemh V. Northern, &c. R
H.Co. iii. 468
r.Gri>ifold
1.264
Herehfleid b. Claflin
iii. 86
c. M'Doirdl
iii. 462
Herekeii ». BuihneU
It. 06
r. SeweU
IL388
Hertell b. Bogert
Ii. 416
Hepburn | Com moD wealth me nlat.)
V. Van Buien
iT, 307
>. U>i»i
1.296
1.104
ae^».MtCarmelS>Ting«BMik iii. 79
Hertzfeld b. Bailey
iv. 162
Hcnld. The
Ui. 174
Hertzog P. HertE<^
11.460
Hmn I. Ship Gnfton
iii 216
V. M'Laughan
iT. 66
iiL 213
Ir. 203
>. Hurtck
iii. 48
e. R. I., &c. Worka
Ii 407, 498
oHoie
iii. 90
Heryford v. DaTii
11.600
>.Ro<rlM
1.87
Heizo D. San Fraiid»!o
Ii. 300
c. Sfrrin
iii. 106
Qerzog v. Sawyer
ill. 48
nWclMtor
11. ITO
Heiing «. Atty.-Qen.
It. 508
Hert>ert, Sir WiUiam, Cue of
ii.898i
iii 82, 83, 84
iv
164,179
V. Go wing
ii. 216
BabtmnTnMU,
IT. 346
He«B V. Lowrer
iii. 46
H«rt>ert HutoD, The
iii. 282
B.Pegg
1.486
H«fCBk.,The L8T9;Ui
196,2.12
V. Singler
It. 306
Henlbrd >. CluMi
ill. 121
r. Weru
Iii 26, 27
Herrth.. Meyer
ill. 70
HeMee b. SieTeneoo
U.372
Berewud, The
Ul. 155
Heeiel b. John bod
iT.96
Herkimer v. McGregor
It. 418
Heweltine v. StockweU
il..366
Uerklou s. Chue
1.805
Heaaer b. Black
11.441
U. 842
Hester u. Com'th
i283
HnniiQ, The
i.81
HeiEia, The
lli 248
Bcnpui Thomai, /n r«
U. 482
Heth B. Cooke
It. 44
i.37
Hethrlnston b. Graham
Hettie Ellii, The
17.58
HermaDQ v. Goodrich
ii. 604
iii2S4
«. Port BUkelj Hill Co.
i. .969
Uettlhewage Slman Appu
V. Queen's
B. We»»m fcUr. & F. loi. Cc
. Iii. 314
AdTocate
1.297
HamiDD Look »- BMn
11. 18
Heugh D. LoDdon, && By
Co. liflM
Heraioe.^
1.360
Heuling* e. Reid
u. 366
HenniUu». The
H«rD 3>clioIe
iu.228
Henser t>. Harrit
ii287; It. 608
ii, 621
Hewei D. Jordan
Ii. 494
IkniUMlesc.SiuiM.lDa.Co. iii
260,296
V. WUweU
T, ITl, 170, 466
Htmuidei'i SncccMion
ii. 116
Hewett, /n re
iilm
Hem >. Bembow
It. 79
e. Chicago, fa. By. Co. iii. 206
Hm, The iii. 86S
864,361
H.E.WlHa.3.'The '
1.870
Hmell f. SiMlsna
It. 114
Hewini a. Baker
lli. 370
He™, ^1 „
1.87
Hewit B. Muon
ti. 16
HmnhoS B. Bontineka
11. 467
Hewitt i: Kaye
IL 448 ; 111. 88
Herrick «. Ame«
lu.61
D. Piielps
i. 308
E>.Carniru>
111.80
c. Prime
ii. 206
r. Lynch
Ii. 440
V. SturdeTUlt
iii. 40
V. Smith
ii. BO
V. Swift
ii.284
», UnioD Mut. F. IM. Co.
iii. 282
Hewlins r. Shippam
ai. 419. 463
B. WoolTBrton
iii, 91
Hewi V. Hewi
iil28
Henin r. Bntlen
Ii. GIO
u. Kenney
iT.SOfi
r.E«ton
11.360
Heiter v. Knoi
ill. 468
Herrinn r. Gu Coii»Qmer»' Am'
11.886
Heydon'i Case
1.464
'.Goodwn
11.209
HeydoQ p. Heydon
iii 65
B. Sanger
iii. 07
Hbjb b. North German Ltoyd HI. 2.14
•:WteSfi!un
Ii. 621
Heyer v. Burger 11. 4
a. m ; It. 516
ii. 173
tr. The Schooner Ware l 380
Heniolt r. PriBM.
iv.326
Heyei v. Heyei
Ii. 101
Hetmiiii ,. Adriatic, fc. In^ Co
ill 876
Heylin b. Adannon
ill. 78
876
iU. 104, 106
Hmon B. Dater
i. 260
HeyD. B. Vinar.
iT. 244
Bemm b. Peggy, The
ill. 187
Hey ward v. Cuthbert
It. 66
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
M nuflul fgm uc nitmS to.j
Hejtwood V. 'nOtoii
le; worth ef. HutchiiMon
ii. 4TU
High'i Appeal
It. 416
H. F. Diniook, The
iii. 217
Highlander, The
iii. 138
Uiatt D. Brooks
ii. 226
Highamiih a. UHerj
i. 264
HUw>ih>, The i. 6S, 1«7,
867 ; ii . 170
Right V. Kipley
iL6Il
Hibbert e. Rolleatoii
111.147
V. Wilion
i*. 614
Hibblewhite G. U'Morioe
1.468
Hightower c. iTy
Ui. 110
Hibbt ». Rom
11.138
V. Thornton
11. 812
HibemU, The
iii. 178
Highway c. Banner
ir. 218
UibeTD»Bldg.An'ni>.MeGnitb ii. Ml.
i». 467
587
Higley V. BidweU
i». 466
HiberDi* In». Co. v. St LouU Tram.
r. Gilmer
11.600
Co. ii,
608 ; iii. 232
Hilbeiy V. Hatton
ii. 616
ibemikn Bank v. EyenDUi
iii. 91
Hilbourn v. Fogg
Hildrelh ... D. S. MoDowOd Co
It. 113
ick P. Raymond
ickea r. Cooke
iii. 206
ii. 366
I'. Jonei
It. 45
Ickej r, Eggle»ton
IT. 404, 406
». Lowell
U. 340
iij.381
Hile. V. Fi.her
ii. 132
V. Slarke
i.827
Hill V. Aleiandei
iii. 76
Hickley e. Hickler
It. 148
D. Arbon
ii. 240
ii. 494
P. Baker
iii. 266
•;. Hickman
ii. 12B
p. Barclaj
p. Bi.rre Bank
iT. 130
0. Irvine
It. 76
iii 80
V. Jonei
1.01
V. Boston
ii. 274
U. UpRAll
Hiubor; Farm OU Co. r. Bui
11436
ii.602
Ialo,4c,
iii. 80
R. Co.
ii. 281, 2B5
c. Burrow
It. 276
Hickoz 0. Elliott
It. S06
V. Butler
It. 476
ii. 600
a446
Hicki V. Brown
11.460
c. Chown Freeholder!
i. 361)
V. Barhant
ii. 465
ii. 67
p. Crticker
iii. 166
V. Hicki
It. 142
V. Durliam Honte D. Ca
ii. 22
f . HotchkuB
i. 421
p. EdwBKit
It. 194
e. Keiiev
!L36e
r.Ely
iii. 80
V. National L. In*. Co. iii
366,869.870
p. Glaigow R. Co.
1.302
r. Shield
iii. 226
V. Golden Gate, The
iii. 161
D. Skinner
ii. 4S0
0. Good
il. 85
n. 208, 295
B. Gray
11.462,483
r. Walker
Ii. 188
V. Hart-DaTi«
ii. 16
V. Whitmore
ii. 640
V. Hill
ii.226
mdden r. Blihop
iii. 123
r. Holmet
iii. 7B
Hier v. Abrahama
ii. 366
P. King
iii. 87
Higbee r. Higbee i
389; It. 306
p. Lewi*
iiL77
Higdon p. Higdon
It. 806
p. Martin
iii. 110
Higgle r. AmeHcan Llo7dB
iii. 282, 288
p. Meeker
IT. 469
It. 68
V. MitcheU
iT.36
Uiggin*,£T parte
». Che*. & Del. Canal Co
m. 369
V. Nelin*
ii.230
iii. 436
r. Neabitl
ii.300
p. Dewey
ii.284
p. Palmer
iii. 87
r. Hill
ii.467
p. Poetley
iii. 48
V. EeuSel
11.373
p. Robbin*
ii. 8'Jl
0. lime
1.489
p. Samuel
It. 476
0. McCrea
1.89
p. Scotland County
111.89
r.MOOM
ii. 622
p. Seager
It. 369
e. MoniwD
iU 87
p. Sewald
ii.318
p. Senior
U.629
U.438
r. Waller
It. 203
p. Syracune, 4c R. R. Co.
ii.608
V. Waierrliet L Co.
il. 260
p. ThompBon ii. 3UG, 370, ST2
e. York Buildlngi Co.
It. 161
V. Townsend
ii. 138
e. Tucker
ii. 429
It. 461
p. Topper
iii. 419
Hlgf^naon v. Hall
Ii. 226
P. United States
i. 208, 2?7
■>. Weld
iii. 209
P. Voorhies
ill. 31, 41
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
« DUrgliui pigH *I9 rafflrrad to.]
HacTentwoitii
iL343
Hing«ton «. Wendt
Ii . 167
..W«rt
ii. 168
Hinkie. In «
iii. 464
nWhidden
iil.78
V. Landi.
U. 176
>. Whiteomb
0.366
Blaklej D. Mireaa
1.462
I. WilioD
UL 228. 242
HinmEin i-. Pope
Hinney a. Phillipi
Hin,d»le a, B«ot of Omnge
iT.4S4
I. Wootter
ii. 366
u. 164
HOI-, Cm*
iii. 27
iii. 116
IT. 531!
Hin«l»le D. G. Co. V. TiUey
ii. 274
Hillary v. Wmller
W. 189
Hinson v. Adrian
iT. 186
mikbert r. Poner
i. 419
a. Lott
i 429. 439
HiUea 0. ImUd
It. S19
IT. 327
HiHhimw c. CliMter
iT.889
Hinton v. Dibbin
ii. 608
ii. 188
a. Hinton
iT. 43
U.200
1^. Toys
iT.340
BiUier ». Alleghenj Co. Mm. Ini. Co.
Hipp V. B.biD
i. 342
la 802, 876
Hiwrn, The i. 86
iii. 228, M9
HilUgtiu „. Grfntbde
1.287
Hiram R. Dixon, The
i. 870
HiUikn n. Loop
iii. 31
Hiram v. Pierce
ii. 90
ii. 474
Hirachfelder o. Locey M. Co.
Ui. 106
t. Bunard
IT. 278
Hirschfleld a. Smitli
iu. 96
>.CwlU>n
ii. 498
>.Hilli
ii. 128
Ilirat D. Denliam
11.306
p.Loomii
iT. 143
Hirtb V. Graham
ii. 404
V. Hilkr
It. 480
Hiacock v. Norton
iT. 152
STS.'J-'SK'"""
iii. 76
Hiacoz a. Greenwood
ii. 63»
iii. 20t>
HilKDbeck c. Gobiing
iv. 110
Hi toil cock d. Aiken
U. 12L
Hiboa 0. Blun
Iii. 476
V. Carpentar
HilMav.Ad«ii(
Ii. 5U6
a. Giddingg
ii.460
cAnkenoii
ill. 438
a, Griffln
fi. 612
m. 107
e. Harrington
It. 88, 14
1. Ga;ot
ii. 120
V. St. John
iii. 44
■,.^^
m. 105
ii. 581
u. ShaiT
a. Simpklnt
iT. 608
iv. 203
ffiwrD^e
U. 881
B. Skinner
iv. 366
HiMfadiSe V. Siiooti
ii. 250
HitcliUia a. BaMet
iT. 628
>.3he>
ir. 46
Hitner it. Ege
It. 20
RhidiuibrokB (Lord) a. Sermonr It. 346
Hitt P. Holliday
if. 162
UiDchmoD a. Patenon H. R.
H, iii. 4;12
Hii«, Ez pane
i. 39
v.Stileg
iT. 46
H. N. Emilia, The
iii. 2
HiDckleT s. Butar
IT. Eeniiog
11. 84S
Uoadley a. M'Laine
ii. 477
iii. 88
nCo. ii.e08
>.MKUrei»
iT.537
r. San Frandaco
iU. 461
K Menluuiu' Buk
iii. 89
Hoag V. Hatch
ii. 16
r. Sonthgmle
ii.510
B. Price
iU. 427
a. DDHm Faciflc R. Co.
m. 89, 116
17.164
HiDcWty, fto. Co. B. BUcli
ii.343
». Slate
ii. 840
ii. 468
Host a. Hoar
iL 101
a. LoDgwortb
ii. 441, 442
V. Maine Cent. R. R. Co.
il. 600
a. Vwtier
It. 279
V. Merritt
ii. 259
P. Whitehoi»e H.
493. 602. 640
Hoare a. Danei
IU. 26, 88
OBdlty a. Hm^hU of Westmetth
a. Hoare
iT.60S
ii. 147, 177
B. Metropolitan Board of Worki
Bmd., Eaut« of
ii. 135
iii. 419
c.BdIoa
iv. 30
V. Parker ii
685; iv. 269
a.HiDd«
ii. 101
Hobart t. Abbott
iv. 186
Biodwn «. Aihby
iii. 427
V. Droiiao
iiL 176. 946
UimThe
i.369
u. Fritbie
It. 161
HiBCa.Dodd
tT, 172
a. Milwaukee R. R. Co.
iii. 432
>■ Ke<r York & B. Co.
Ui. 207
D. Penny
iii. 79
Iii 376
r. Young
ii.479
tliH'.QooHi
iT.6a2
Hobbi, Ex parte
ii.26
UimMii a. idttbewi
ii.2S6
V. Columbia F. B. Co.
11463
ii498
D. Fogg
iLB58
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
HobtM V. Bennins L B6, lli! ; ii. 120
;iii.289
HoCFoian k Knho
iii. 437
V. LoDdon, &C. R7. Co.
ii.587
V. Mackall
iv. 466
V. Lowell
iii. 450
V. Newell
i. 260
iU.378
V. N. T. Ceot, fa:. B
R. Co.
ii. 260
V. Norton
a483
r. Pitt
ii. 620
V. State
iL12
I'. Savage
iii. 443
Hobby V. Dana
iii.286
HoOman Co. v. ComberUnd Ca
iv. 438
Hobday 0. Peteri
iL241
Hoffnung, The
L
145, 146
Hobliouae'B Caw
ii.SO
Hogan V. Barry
Iv. 468
Hobofcen i-. Ponn. R. Co.
iU.44&
0. Henderaon
iL259
HobokeD Land Co. e. Kerrigan
iii. 482
V. Jackson
iv.MO
Hoboker.&c. Co. e. The Mayor
iii.451
V. Ptdflc MilU
ii. 195
Hob«oD.i£.
iy. 429
o. Beynold*
iii. 41
oby V, Built
ii.641
B. Short
ii. 632
lochater «. De la Tour
ii. 468
Hc«arth V. Latham
lit 79
ockley v. Banlock
U. :i31
Boge i>. I^naing
iU. 78
odgdon 0. N. Y., Ac R. K. Co.
iii. 206
Bogg V. Beerman
i.29
V. Wbite
iL416
V. Ktrby
iii. 64
Hodge P. Dumford
iJ-OlT
Hoggart tp. Cutta
ii, 668
«. Hawkiul
ii.2ai
fioggatlK. Railroad Co.
iL840
V. Hudaou B. B. R.
ii. sad
Hoggins ... Becraft
11.480
;iT. 113
u.MaBOn
iii. 80
Hogle r. Guardian Life Ina. Co.
iii. 369
». Morgan
u. se6
lit. 370
,.. Sloan
IT. 473
Hohorst, In re
i. 322
Hodge's Lega<T, 1" n
iv. 130
Hoit V. UnderhiU
iL2.%
Hodie../n%"
IT. 806
HoiW r. Hoitt
iv. 624
1 Cowing
ti.4M
Soke V. HenderMM i.
247, 4«
: 11.13:
0. HarrU
Ui. 44
Iii. 454. 457
V. Hodge.
U. 170
Hokee P. Co, v. Schraubatadler
U.&16
D. Rowing
ii.41<4
U.510
V. Kaah
iii. 86
V. Baker
ii681
V. New Eng. Screw Co. 11. 280, 281
iii. 48
u. Shuler ii
7«. 106
p. Finney
iT.3»
r.TennesMeM, &F,Iiii.Co
iT. 143
p. HenderaoD
i.89
Hod ski n« d. Faningtan
iii. 461
s.Hyde
11.385
iii. 470
V. Lackey
iii. 37
odgkinson, Ex parte
iii. 40
i>. Obeme
11.620
odgnian v. State L 4 S. R. Co.
ii. 498
V. Tiirell
It. 462
odgion, Ezpartt
iii. 66
V. Watera
ii.403
odg«on, In r«
iii. 32
Holbtook's Cue
i. 98
0. Ambrow
iT.228
Holcomb u. Phelp*
ii
481,434
«. Bowerbank
i.345
V. Wykcoff
iii. 79
V. Bulls
It. 174
Hold D. Bradbury
ii. 373
i>. Dexter
11. 682
Holdane u. Bntterworth
iii. 66
V, Glover
iii. 272
V. Cold Spring
ill. 482, 451
V.hOJ
ii. 641
Holden V. Clancy
ii. 471)
V. Pay»on
ii. 640
E. Curry
». Temple
ii. 466
V. Fitchburg R. Co,
ii. 2ti0
1.. Williamson
ii. 164
«. French
iii. 133
Hodle V. Healy
iv. 187
n. Joy
iii.3W
Hodsden v. Lloyd
IT. 527
B, jikeCo.
iii. 440
HodadoD V. Copeland
ii. 806
p. M'Makin
iii 37, Hi
Hodwn, In « ii.
150. 286
r. Minnetota
i.400
0. Eugene Glaia Co.
iii. 81
IP. Wells
iv.28
Hoe D- Sanborn
ii. 478
Holder «. Coato.
iii. 438
HooFcler v. Fleming
Hoffbauer v. D. t N. W. Ry. Co
iii. 464
V. Soulby
11596
ii. eoo
Holder Borden, The
iii. i»e
ii.340
Holdemeas v. Shackela
ULI65
Hoffman c Mtat F. In». Co.
iii. 876
Holdfast p. Dowung
iv.608
v. Bank of Milwaukee
iii. 86
P. Marten
iv, 7
c. Carow
ii. 324
Holdrich p. Holdrich
iv.58
0. Coombi
iii. Ill
Holdridge V. QUIenne
Holdsworth p. M'Ctia
ir.
158, 187
ti.Felt
iv. 451
ii.3M
V. HoOmaD
i.262
V. Wise
iii.
288.324
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Bob r. Dolman ii.412
r. Sittingbcmnie' ft She«nieM R-
Cd. il. 260
HolTotd r. Blalchiord U. 468
r. Uankinion iiL 446
r. H&tcb It. 96
Bolker B. Pukv ii. 121
HoUuU; E. Huih m. 438
Hollud r. CtuUen L 248. 3d6
r. Cituen'i Bank il 122
c. Drake ill. 41
r. Halcb iii. 90
V. Hodgton ii. 343
r. Pack iu. 386
a. Peck ii. 288
V. Herce uL 88
r 726 Tom of Coal iii. 20G
HidUnd (Sir Thomaalv. Bonia i). 379
Hollaod Trat Co. v. WaddeU iii. 76
Bgllaodar v. Bail i. 31)
HaUcnbtck v. WinneUgci Coontr ii. 274
HoUett B. Pops IT. 27a
Holler '- Olorer it. 46
R Hawley it. 174, 459
HoUidaTB. Miller ii. 441
r WiDgfleld iT. 418
BolliDgiwortli p. Kapler ii. 601. 646
HoUiogwortb ». Brodikk iiL 288, 289
Holliorake o. TnuweU ii- 873
HoUioi tr. Fowler a 482, 622
HoUii r. Menx ii. 22
r. Shaffer iL 366
fiotliito- c. Benedict Hamif. Co. i. -JSl
«. Ngwiea ii. 601, OOB
p. Shaw ir, 336
c. Doion Col
Bollmui V. Pnllin
HoUoBaT V. Grifflth
i. 432
Holij Uaanf. Co. n. New Cheater
W.t«r Co. iT. 1
BoiBun. Ex partt L322, <
e. Jobnaoo ii. *B6, 4
t. Peny ii. 1
Bolme D. Bninikill iv. I
t. Haminoiid iii. 25.
hiOmi, Er parte L36iiL126,S
Bolmn, fl« ii. I
r. B^ ii. J
e. Barton
■.Oark
>.Caaiet
v-CoghiU
..Day
rDr&ig
*.Ihukee
K Fim Nat Buik
■ Hs nbmd to.]
Holmea c. GilliUnd ~ ii. S12
V. Qoldamith L S02; iii. 86
V. Goriog iii. 422
D. Grant iT. 142, IM
e. Gregg ii. 468
V. Higgina iii. 26, SO, 37
■>. Holmea ii. 87, 126, 154
V. JncqiiM iii. 76
D. JeaoisoQ i. 36, 37, 297
B. Jeney Citj iii. 461
B. Kidd iii. 91
V. Heynel ir. 276
D. Old Colonjr B. R. iii. 26
D. Or. & CaL By. Co. L 260, SeS ; ii. 416
B. Preacott iv. 203
B. RemaeD U. 116, 406, 406, 407, 408,
431
.. Reynold.
ii. 160
D. Rice
iL238
i>. Roper
D. SeeV
U.448
iii. 420
D. Tremper
iL 343, S«, 847
e. Tumer'i Falli Co
iT. 100
V. Tj.on
ii. 479
V. V. In*. Co.
iii. 26, S41
V. Wakefield
ii.260
V. WiUard
ii. 300
164, 173;iT. 4S
Holmea & Q. M. Co. ■>. HoImM & W.
ALCo.
ii.300
Holma f . Seller
It. 480
Holridge u. GillMpie
U.2S1; 1^.807
Holroyd ■>. HatihaU
iL492
Holat D. Pownal
il. 647
D. Stewart
11490
Holstoo ». Needle*
IT. 466
Holt, h re
ir. 608
D. Allowa;
B. Bei^Tm
1.201
1.802
i!. 146
iii. 184
B. Cumminga
r. Holt U. lie,
196, 498; iv. 438
«. Knowlton
[i.469
c. RobioaoD
IT. 870
V. Sindrej
iT. 846
c. Turpin
ii. 16
r. Ward Clarendenz
Ii. 78, 238
B. Weacott
iii. 228
V. Winfield BMlk
ii.300
Holt's Appeal
iv. 461, 454
Holt'i E.t., In ™
iT. 203
HoltgreTc v. Wintker
iii. 66
HolthauB r, Homhoide
i!. 164
Hollon B. Guinn iv. 48
HolixRinn s. Cattleman ii. 198
Holyland w. Lewin ir. Ml
Holjoke V. HukiDa ii. 2^
B. May 0 iii. 37
Holjoke &c. Co. d. Ambden i. 480
Hnman b. Stanley ii. 260
Home V. Earl Camden i. 101
u. Richardi iii. 420
Home BeneQt A^'n v. Sargent iii. 369
Home F. Ini. Co. a. Bean iii. 370
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tba BDIgtBiil pH*) an ntamd to.]
Hone F. Idi. Co. v. Kenaedy
iT. 122
Hoover v. Kiniey Flow Co.
ll. 23B
Home Id*. Co. t>. Baltimore
Ware-
B. McCormick
Ui. 109
bonte Co.
liL 281, STB
B. Peters
ii.478
V. Green
iii. 105
iii. 48
t>.Solei
iii. 376
Hope, The
i.37»
„. New York
Hope, Ee
ii. 82
H<Hne of the FriendleH v. Room i. 419
B. Barker
Iii. 76
Homer d. B«t^n
ii.26
V. Brig Dido
iii. 248
r. Lady of the Ocean. The iii. 148
D. Cu«t
iii. 41, 46
v. SheltOD
ii. 8M
». D'H^douTille
... Thwing
Homer Kud^U Tmn.. Co.
ii. 241
B. Hope il. 101, 226
461; IT. 28
V, Com-
». State Bank
iv. 811
B. Taylor
i». 276
Bomerton >. Hewett
iT. 632
Hope Ini. Co. c. Boardmu
1.346
Homeelr ... Hogoe
i».4M
Hopes V. Alder
iii. 113
Hornet 0. Bwon
iT.686
HqpeweU Mill. o. Tauntoa Sav,
HoDck ... MnUar
11.488
^k
ii-S13
Bone r. Fiiher
i». 146
Hopkins, B,
i. 342
P.Vw)Sch«iok U.868;
iT. 271, 281.
B. Binks
iii. 61
283
B. Be Hobeck
i.39
Honey r. C. B. 4 Q. By. Co.
ii. I4fl
V. Forsyth
Iii. 166
Hong Shin, £i port.
ii. 12
B. Great No. Ry. Co.
1U.469
Bonner ». Morton
iL13B
V. Hitchcock
U.479
Honure s. B&kewell
iT. 162
0. Hopkins ii. 108 ; It. 247, 284. 287,
c. Lamar F. Ini. Ca
iii. 378
801
Honour v. Uonoor
iv.218
... Jones
i.466
Honymui b. Campbell
ii.fl7
B. Kent
m. 31
i». 131
B. Laconture
ii. 631
Hood tp. Archer
iv.606
e.Lee
It. 477
1.. A.EOO
iii. ei
f. Lewis
i. 43»
P.Bioch
ii. 478
... Liswell
iii. lis
V. Eaiton
iT. lae
B. McLure
i-326
V. H«den
iT. 327
ii. 438
«. Ne.bit
iii. 306
V. Mehaffy
ii. 631
K.N. r.4N. H. E.B.
U. 800, 604
B. Smith
iii. 80
X. Sudderth
ii. 206
V. Sto<:ktOn
i, 411
Boodleu u. Reid
iT. 190
V. Slump
It. S08
Hooe V. Oxley
ii. 814
r. Ware
m. 88. 106
HoofBDiith 0. Cope
ii. 622
V. Weitcott
ii. 600
Hook r. Hook
iT. 418
B. Wiard
It- 190
Hooker IF, Cummlog*
iii. 414, 420
B. Wi throw
iii. 81
u. Hooker
iv. 40
B. Yowell
iT. 477
V. Hyde
ii. 477
Hopkins Academy B. Dickinson iii. 427
D. Utica Turnpike Co-
ii. 307
Hop kill Ban u. Dumas
It. 46
ii. 16
II. McKnIght
iii. 432
Hoop, The i. ea. 87, 88, 107
B. Role
iv. 176
Hooper, The iii- 219,
328, 229, 249
Hopkirk b. Page
Ui.l09
Hooper, Ex parte
iv. 161, 176
B. Randolph
ii. 441
%rt
li-S2
Hopner o. Appleby
1.123
V. CiiUfoniia i
43» ; ii. 286
Hopper B. Bumess
Ui.228
V. Clark UL 462
i», 122, #80
B. Hopper
iv. 306
i». 122
B. Wear Marine Ins. Co.
iii. 307
V. Goodwin
ii. 488, 439
Hoppiis B. Eskridge
iv. 448
.>. Hooper
ii. 128
Hopaon, Matter of
i. 401
0. Howell
ii. 138
Hopt B. Utah
i. 400
B. Hudaon R. V. Ina. Co
iii. 376
op ton B. McCarthy
ii 494
D. Robinson iU.
268, -iTO, 878
orbach «. Hill U.
441 ; iv, 136
r. Wliitney
iii. 171
ore B. Dijc
iv. 4S3
V. Willianw
iii. 72
organ b. Pacific Mills
ii. 196
Hooper'i C««e
i. 98, 102
ork B. Donaldson
ii. 236
Hoopee c. Bailey
iv. 144
orkham b. Pottage
iii. 04
Hooter'i Heir* «. Tippet
iv. 401
orlock, The
m. 143
Hooti V. Graham
lv.62
orn B. Anglo-AnstHdlan & UnJT. F.
Boover a. Gregory
iT.304
L. Ins. Co-
111.869
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
BnrBoek
li. 479
Houck B. BridweU
ii.226
r. l4>ekh>Tt
1.87
B. Houck
ii. las
V-PulbMIl
It. 508
Honell V. Baniei
IT. 820
Horobcck B. Weitbrook
a 279 ! Iv. 482
Hough. Er porta
i.430
HntDbeiD o. BUnchwd
ii. 149
B. BTana
a 483
Uornblower d. BoulUm
ii. 372
r. Head
ia2gi
^^atT^mrt
11626
v.Hanzanoi
a 631
iii.311
e. RaU»»7 Co.
V Richaidion
a 260
Hvroe r. G«arge H. Hammond Co. i. 344
a 484
.. Lyeth
iy.229
V. Windn. L 462
It. 429
c. HidlMid Itj. Co.
11.604
Houghe B. Woodraft
lii.l»6
f. Rooqnette
Hi. 96
Houghton, Ex parte ill
147, 148
Htm-iOMe
It. 480
B. DaTenport
It. 307
Honwr r Qmtm
li.4«e
B. Manuf. Mut In.. Co.
ia876
■.aoniM
11.82
D. Matthewi U
822,638
r.Liddtud
1L2I4
p. P^te
ii.468
>. UniMd StatM
1268,284,330
Houlder v. Marine Ins. Co.
ia307
HoraeCThe
111207
Houldltch V. Donegal
a 130
HornkMh o. Bur
ii.206
H»n>ab7 >. Lm
iL138
Bank
ii. 269
HoDarcbL
0. Evana
a 300
BSodetT
l.4«2
Honli«ton .-. Smyth
a 148
Horn 8. IL Co. •. Kbw York H. 286, 832,
Houw u. HouM ii. 846; It. 46, 76
489
V. Lexington, The
a 606
HoraAtn K. C<dl«ot<M-
L302
B. Vinton Nat. Bank
lam
H«rTK.Buker
11.366
HouwhiU Co. V. Neilwn
asm
IlofwU r. Wilto
Hi. 67
Honiehold Fire Lw. Co. v. Grant
ii. 477
Htmigu B. Wyman
lii. 81
Hotwoholdert.. MorriU
1.823
Hony B. GlovM
11.368
HoDwman v. Ginrd, &c. Aw'n
a 630
Hocicb B. Dwelling HoiiM Im. Co.
Hourer v. Chicago. Ic S. Co.
a 269
lil. 869
ill. aoi
HonUl >. Tbomaa
11.482
Houiton B. Bnuh
ii, 269
Honley b. Biuh
ii. 614
B.Cook
ii. 479
..Styh
it. 469
r. Howard
ii. 620
aflcMmeyer B. Croinow
li.386
K. LaO^
iii. 462
HortoD ». Bloedom
11.461
«. Hoore L 8ft6, 341, 889,
S97, 404.
..Chim^dkia
a 841
424
; ii. 390
..Cootey
lii. 472
V. New Eng. Ini. Co.
ill. 815
>.Eule
lv.541
B. Saniinena
lii. 207
..Horgu
U.681
V. WooUer
11.22
B.BMge iLSS6; 17.299,493
Houston, &c.Ry. Co. f.Clemmons ii. 600
V. Sqauikiim, Ac. Co
B. Wlnuker
ii. 340
V. jroor»
li. 600
IT. 214
H. & T. C. Rt. Co. b. But
HoTeU B. Noll
iii. 468
te^^.'^.w
1L19S; iiL6Q
a22S
lii. 86
ii. 196
Horaood V. Smith
11.324
HoTey V. Neliia
It. 208
Honek r. W«if «r '
ii. S24
How I.. Kemble
Ui. 122
HoMi B. Jacob.
fT.2S3
V. Kirebner
iii. 228
UMfoTd .. Balltfd
^Ul. 461
V. Whitfield
It. 827
t- Hartford F. In*. Co. 'uL 878
a>wMd, In re
ii.Sfl
B.NieboU
It. 618
t>. Alter H.1IU. Co.
iii. 270
H<Mkinii..8mUb
It. 179
V. Bugbee
i. 419
Hokuii r. Mattbewt
E430
p. Cara.i It.
270.806
B. Miller
ii. 136
0. Cwtle
a 6.38
B-Paql
m. 479, 477
V. Cl» P. In.. Co.
V. Delaware 4 H. C. Ca
iii. 376
, ..aayton
ill. 181
a 269
BoiWTB.BebM
ii. 623
i>. Detroit Stove Works
a.w6
B, HdleoUck
a 464
r. Doolittte
iii. 468
Hortetter F.Park
lii. 210
B. Duncan
ii. 010
B- VowtDkle
ii. 366
f. Emerum
ii. 479
Houhkin r. Brainerd Qourr Co. iii.41
iii. 401
>.FortKO
ii. 462
r. Firat Pamh
iii. 402
o.Hont
a 496
B. Goaaet
i. 236
*. Katlonal Bank
ia.76
V. Harria U. 661
It. 169
sObyGoOl^lc
TABt£ OF CASES.
u.se6
1.430
v. Hooker
ii.4T9
[I. Moorei
Iii. 41
U. 175
B. ProtectioD Iiu. Co.
iii. 808
V. Hoir«rd
il.418
iT. 306, 446
B. Ripley
iT. 164
D. IngeraoU
iii. 427
B. Ss^e
Iv. 467
D. HacoDdraj
iii. 228
B. Scbeock
ir. 109
V. MaiUand
It. 471, 480
B.Tyler
B.WilM>n
It. S36
B.Miner
ii. 506,608
Ui. 90
V. Moffatt
ii 139, 141
B. Woolfbrt
iv.4R3
B. OdeU
iii.lSB
Howellg v. Landore Steel Co. ii. 260
B.Prieat
iii. 39
Howenttein b. Bamea
iii. 7B
f. Befiige Priandly Society UL 876
Hower b. Qeeaaman
ii. 622
V. SL Paul Plow
Work!
iLSOS
Howerton b. Henderion
It. 687
B. Shepherd
iii. 207
Howei V. AutlQ
iii. 8S
ii.621
B. Chester
1.67
V. Simpkinl
ij,236
B. MaxweU
ii. 840
1-. ThompwD
V. ThroclmwiaB
U.378
Howland v. Aitch
ill. 123
iT.368
B. Blake
It. 461
I'.TuroOT
ii.281
B. Canon
Ui. 85
B. Williami
U. 441, 622
B. CofBn
St. 97
B. Woodward
iii. 83
B- Dewa
U. 622
B. WorcMtor
U.271
B. Flood
ii.22
Howa^ aanking Co
ii.386
B. Greenway
iii 217
B-Welchmtn iU. 86
B. India laa. Co.
iU.S3I
Howard Int. Co. b. Haltej
if. 174
B. LaTlnia (The Brig)
iii. 192
V. Owen
iii. 370
B. Maynani
ii. 284
Howard Ini. Co. of N. T.
. Scrib.
D. Shortleff
It. ISO
iii. 281
Hewlett i>. TutUe
ii. 16
Howard Oa Co. B. Parmer
ii.260
Howley v. Whipple
Ii. 611
Howard Watch Co. e
BedilUon a 441
i». 75
Howard, Sir Bobert
Caw of
Ii. 283
HowHD B. Hancock
ii. 467
Howard) b. MUU
ii.86
Howton f. Frearion
iii. 420, 423
Howatt V. Davii
a 6*2
HoEie B. Carr iii.
87, 88, 39, 66
Bowe, la T«
11.649
V. Ellis
It. 62
v! An^m
ill. 432
V. Home Ini. Co.
iiL288
1U.427
B. Pat^c M. Ini. Co.
111.288
B.Bau
iv.4e6
B. Wright
1. 2«1
B. Batchelder
i». 461
Hoy B. Bolt
1U.468
B. Bowei
iu. 97
u. I^hiey
iL430
B. Earl of UartiiMHith
IL 368, 864
Hoyle B. Hoyle
ii. 610
B. Howe
liLSO
B. Plattaborgb, Ac. R. R. Co. ii. 260
p. Lawrence
iii. 86
B. Stowe U. 286, 2S7, 238, 239
p. Newmaruh
ii. 260
. It. 515
i>.NickeU
llil24
Hon, Ex pane
1.822
B. North
Ii. 146
\.C*£y
ii240
V. Palmer
11603
V. OeUton
L26
B. Sheppard
1247
B. QUman
IlL 380,341
B. Sjnge
V. Taggart
iL468
B. Home
11.36$
U. 468
B. Hoyt
11.366
t.Wi^
ii. 442
V. Hndton
iii. 440
Howe Machine Co. «
National Needle
B. Jiiquei
iT. 331
Co.
ii. 366
B. Latham
It. 306
Howe Sewing Machine Co.
B. Sloan
B.McKeuie
ii. 381
Iii. 477
B. Newbold
11.4.36
Howel B. Geone
n. Hanfortti
iLl«9
P. N. T. L. Ini. Co.
111869
iU. 471
u. Sheldon
1.826
u. Price
It. 421
::IP,=
2M;iil.67
Howell B. Adama
iii. 91
la 187, 188
B. Coupland
ii.46B
B. Wright
1.302
B. Elliott
ii. 626
H. 8. Nicholi, The
ill. 232
B.Gordon
iii. 266
H. S. Pickands, The
1.369
Co. Ui. 370
Hua»o«r, The
i. 144
B. M'Coy
iii. 441
Hubbard. Matter of
ii. 226
B.H.in^
ii. 142
B. Board of SaperrlMrt
i. 429
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Hsbbud r. Commingi
iL2S8
Huflman v. HarTsy
1489
r. Glover
iii.2B4
Hnger t>. Dibble
It. 112
(.Goodwin
ii.62
B. Huger
iL280
t Hunilton Bmnk
IT. 486
Sagg V. AuguiU Ini. Co
iii. 212. 296
cHobbwd
ir. 68. 617
HugseU V. MoDtgomeiy
ill. 176
cJtckioa
iiLSl
Huggin. V. Hnggin.
iT. 418
IIL 147
V. Ketcbum
iT.431
t-UanlMwi
lij. 106
Baghet. £x parte
a 646j It- 438
cHoon
Ui. 41, 66
In re '^
iLUe
r.Hofgu
iiLSa
V. Allen
iT.46
rNormT
iv. 98
«. CUrll
iT, 636
o.Ogden
ii, 164
V. Copneliua
ii. 120
r.S»t4gB
It. 176
B. Edward* ii63;iT.
142,174,183,190
>.Sh»«
ir. 186
e ElliMD
iii. 44
t. Town
iiL 448
V. Harrison
ii. 183
t.Wood
It. 488
V. Hughei
iilBl
aitM>.Bro>dw«U
It. 486
p. Johmoo
It. 166
.. Gnat Wcatem Iiu. Co. iii. 21S.
B. Keaniey
It. 162
881,338
B. Kirkpatrick
iT. 418
H>bbtn «. Blandj
r. Eut Cti^dKe,
U. 661
p.LargT
iU. 91
AcBank ii. 843
f, Honroe County
ii.274
t-Moobon ^
It. 104
D. Mnrdock
iT. 412
HubbentT B. W«rd
Hd>«r ,. \elnii Maanf
lit 207
B. Nolle
ii.l6
Co. ii. 866
B, People
Ii. 12, 226
rRwly
L46S
e. Perciial
iii. 43T
..St«iW
ii.46S
B. Pritchard
i*. 636
H«bgh..NewOri«uiiAC.E.E. ii. 415
», Sayer
It. 277, 278. 27»
H>ck 1. FlcDtja
iii. 487
B, Smith
ii, 231
HodiM .. People'. Mnt. F. Ini. Co.
iU, 130
iii 302, 876
n. Twiiden
111.46
BiKkle 1. Wye
ii.229
V. Union ln>. Co.
Iii. 814
Back* B. Thornton
iii. 288
B. WaminltaMilU
ii. 468
Bndd«a,/-r«
i.244
B. W. U. Tel. Co.
il. 611
BaddlMoQ'* Owe
ii. 645
B. Willlama
It. 166. 167
BodgiD* >. Morrow
iv. IM
D. WiUion
iv. 806
.. Wrifbu
iii. S97
B. Worley
iv. 176
HodkiM B. HMkiu
ii. 306
Hughitt D. Johnaon
■ii. 76
Bidial B. T«MdaU
il. 441
Hushaon b. Hardy
11.463
>. Wilder ii
441,622; ir. 463
Hugo, The iL eoa : iii. 207, 234
ii. 604
Huie u. Bailey
m. Ill, 114
e.Crippi
iT. 460
Huigilon V. Wendt
iii. 234
>. Cwro lADd Co.
iii. 469
Huleltr.Ialow
IL 132; It. 863
1. BiDinoDi
iii. 76
V. Nugent
iT. 118
..Grugw
Ii. 640
V. Swift
a696
■.Owiticr
L IM ; ii, 121
D. Whipple
Hall V. Charfn
iT. 162
r. HtrriwD
ia 320. 826
It. 371
>.HadM>a
iLUB; iF.aoi
D. Connolly
ii.239
e. Pwker
I 209 i IT. 618
o. Hull
ii. 492
r. Poindeitw
iT.461
0. Hutchinion
I. 849
..Rudolph
. ii.616
B. Sigaworth
ii. 620
B. Tabor
iii. 437
iii. 188
-. WKllWOrth
ii.354;iT.278
Hullett 0. King of Spain
L 297 : ii. 286
B. Warner
Iv. 171
HtiUey p. Chedic
a 448; iii. 89
^ B. White
iT. 806
iT. 893
HwbM'aCaw
i*. IW, 462
0. Tenant
a 164, 170
BadMU ft DeU»K
Canal Co. ».
Helton, Re
iii. 89
H. T. * Erie B. K. Ca H. 340
Hulta B. Gibba
ii. 146
Hadaton v. Midland R.
Ca u,eoo
Human b, CuniSe
iii. 48
Bneneler b. Central C
R. Co. U. 195
Hamberalone b. Stanton
iT. Ml
BtBr.Dyet
L283
Humbert v. Trinitf Church ii. 288
.. McCdolej
iii. 463
Humble B. Hitcheil
a 491
B.UeD(nA
iT. 860
ra' Aa»>cia-
tLWukina
U.260
tion,/nr.
i.30
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
Hume V. Bollind
iii. 16
Hunt V. Bilk
ii.«o
iv. eoe
V. SUudwt
iii. 95
i;. Long
It. 370
V. ThompMm
V. Warwicke
tii. 461
V. Wyny«w
iLSIl
ii.M
HotUM V. 8<7aggi
11.173; ir. 48
t>. Watkiua
Iv. 74
». Shelby
Hummer d. Schott
iv. 181
». Wright
i. 449
It. 162
Hunt'a Appeal
il. 87
Humphrey c Archibald
ii.22
Runt Co. V. Cuddy
Ii. SHO
1-. DouBlaw
p. McCfBiileT
a. 241
Hunter, TKe
i. 158
iii.lW
Hunter, The Brig
867, 368. 363
V. PUnm'i Hercuitile Am. ii. SSI
Hunter v. Blodgett
iii. 78
B. Ph inner
iT. 66, 88
V. Daniel
iv.Mfl
Humphrey* w. Green
iv. 461
V. Dowliog
iii. 63
17. Holuinger
ii. 336
». Fairfax
Ii. 68
K. M'Clenachwi
11.468
{Six Fairfax v. Hunter)
B. Union Ins. Co.
iii. 290, 327
cFry
Iii. 202
Humphreyi Homeopath
V. Billon
c Med. Co.
ii. 366
V. Hallett
». Hunter
ii. 136
iv. 161
Humphrieti b. Nil
iT.461
„. Jamenn
ii. 621
Humphry v. Hartford Fire Id>. Co.
V. Le Conte
iii. 468
iil. 257, 876
e. Northern M. Ini. Co.
iU. 807
HundhiDien v. U. S. Ini
Co. iii. 318
V. Parker
. iii. 173
Hundley v. Webb
ii. 6-22
V. PotU ii
406; iii. 301
HungHri., The
1.29; ii.363
B. Prinaep
iii. 229
Hungerford Co. t.. Ro»en»tein il. 478
V. Beiley
iii. 464
HuDK Hang, iTx port*
i. 383
V. Silver.
It. 106
Hunloker^GeU'^
iv. 884
r. Tdbot
ii. 4»r^
Hunnr. MichigwiCB.
Co. 11.259
■7, Trustee, of Suidy HiU iii. 461
iii. 4t>B
u. United States
i.244
0. Dnxbury
ii. 610
E. Warner
ii.408
i. 2sa
Huntera o. Ownera of the
Mowing
Hunt, Ez parte
L400
SUr
iii. 217
V. AduBi
iii. 123
200; ii. 120
c. Barker
111. 138
Iii. 408
V. Batei
ii.3ee
„. Palmw
li.285
... BridghMD
Iii. 49
». ParkhtiTf t
ir. 108
v. Colbum
iii. 199
V. Smith iv
47, 100, 161
e. Coie.
iv, 308
Huntley e. Kinnnan
0. WaddeU
ii.441
i>. Colorado M. Co.
Iii. 54
ir. 474
■>. Danfortb
i.S42; iv. 122
Hunton c. Equitable Life Am. Soci-
ii. 161
ety
i. 395
r. Divin "
iii. 96
Huntress, The
Ui. 206
V. Elmei
Iv. 161, 162
j-.Epwm
i. 895
o. Ennia
ii. 646, 647
Huntsman, The
iii. 166
E. Gnnlner
i;.96
Hurd, Matter of
ii. 40:2
V. Great Northern By. il. 16
;. Cook
ii. 4112
f. HamlUoD
ii.40Q
r. Curtis
ir. 473, 480
V. Hayea
ii. 1S6, 146
V. Jamei
iv. 181
0. Hecbt
ii. 492
p. Uttlo
iii. 1 12
V. Hunt ii.
117,120; iv. 418
c. Rutland 4 B. R. B.
liL438
ii. 12
o. We«
ii. 674, 689
t>. Johnaon
ill. 84
Hurlbut r. Hall
iii, 80
V. Jonei
ii. 469
Hurley, In «
1». 136
t>. Maldonado
ii. 2i«
e. Brown
iv. 461
f. Mnybee
iii. 94, 106, 109
r. Hurley H
G3 ; iv. 370
».Mo^.
iii! 217
Hurreli ». Bullard
Iii. 260
.-. Morton
It. 112
Hurry v. John (The Ship)
111.367
o. Peaks
IL 243 ; lit. 487
i;. Mangle*
it. 640
V. Penn. H. R.
ii. 260
V. Royal Exoh. Au. Ca
iii. 309
i. 491, 644, 646 ;
Hurst V. Beach
ii. 447
iv. 143
c. Dulaney
iv.4«
B, Boykl Ezoh. AMuruce Hi. 213,
V. Hunt
It. 206,466
820,326
r. Litchfleld
iii. 376
iii. 81
V. McNeil
t346
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
D. WUMT
■. WilMU
r. WimduliM It. 606. 607
Hnrtt. Camrk
Hortado e. Calilomi*
Hunige Hue, The iU. 262
Hutio r. Qnion Int. Ca iiL 229
Huw7 e. CbrUtie iu. 161, 166, 169
c. Farlow iiL 116
I. HorneFaTse U. 477
>. Norfolk, Ac B. Co. ii. 281, 300
I. Tbomton ii. 497
EuMd'i AppMl iv. 62
HoMoi I*. Cluk U. 343
HiWm B. Cutiil It. 463
HnKhMoo B. Smith Ml. 37
HuchiDgi, Re ii 170
>. NuDM iL 6ia
HntdiiD* u. Bnwbtt iL 010
I. MMleTMD ii. 34S
r. New EDg. Coftl Wning Co.
I Hrdes. BuUe i. 31
n. Stona ii. 3^
B. Trent 4 Henej NaT. Co. u. 60
604 i iii. 216, 2i
B. WsrdsD It. 1
t>. Wolf ii. 6!
Hyderabad, The tU. 2*
Hyer a. Sboabe iv. 51
Uyer-i Exec. i>. Card 111. It
HygeJA Waier Ice Co. v. New York
U. L Co, ii. 2U2, 8f
Uyltoa V. Brown i. 170 ; ii. S!
tr. HyltoD iii. 2!
0. Untied SUtea i. 2j
HTmaii c. DeTereuz it. 14S, 162. 11
«. Helm U. IS
Uyndi D. Scbenectad; Co. Uat Ina,
iii. 40
a see, sts
Hi. 79
iii. 439
iiL ]S4, 199
BotehiQioti p. Bhunbarg
c. CoMoan
t1 Dubois - -
V. Lewia IL 16, 22
F. LlTenwot, ftc In*. Co. iii. 876
>. Horln il. 487
«. Stikt iT. 422
r. SnUon Humf. Co. ii- SOO
t. Tatbam 11. 631
t.Tindaa ii. 462
Huchinnn'a Caae ii- 281
HntcblDKin « Tenant, In re It. 006
Hnlh F. Bank of the U. & U. 407, 441
Hultr V. Hntlejr It. 449
HnlMB n. Jordan f. 380
Hnttem^r t>. Albro Ul. 419
Hnttmtn c. Bonlntrii 0. 268
Banon e. Am. Ina. Co. Ui. 308
■.Benkanl iv. 83B
V. Bullock ii. 681
I. RoHller il 490
c Williama iv. 451
Hnnkr b. Phillipa It. IfiO
Hnibam b. Stnidi ii. 110
Rottj B. Field iU. 460
Hjrtit V. Adami !i. 416
I. Boyle ii. 479
I. James L 67
HfdarDeaS. S. Co.c. iDdemnitr M. H.
An.Co. iii.2e0
Hjilt P. Cooktoa ii. 690
>. HiU ii. 61
B. Hyde iL 81, lOT, 164, 193
Co.
Hynei v. Brigga
B. Stewart
Hyperion's Cargo, Tlie
Hyalop n. Clarka
•. Planters' Bank
Ibbbtsok v. Ibbetwn It. 283
Ida, The i. 87
Idaho, The il B66
Ide 0. Ball Engine Co. ii. 866 .
K. Ide It. 270, 276, 540
D. Ingrabam iii. GI, 64
t). PasBumpaic £Con. R. R. R. iiL 89
V. Pierce ii. 438
Idle V. Cook iv. 9
i-. Royal Ezcb. Aas. Co. iii. ITS, 320
Idlehour, The iu. 179
Iggulden r. May it. 478
If^hart V. Kirwaa It. 536
llchester. Earl of. Ex parte ii. 225 ; It. £23
Illinois, The iii. 2ai
nUnois D. Delafleld Ii. 622
V. Fielden L 3S1
Hi, Cent. R. Co. v. Banon ii. 416
D. Boswortii L 66, 283
c Copelaod ii. 600
V. Cowlea ii. 604
e. Illinoia i. 30
s. Jewell ii. 260
V. Johnson ii. 604
V. King ii. 259
B. Read Ii. 608
V. Soutbem Bank ill. 207
Dlinols M. F. Ins. Co. b. Fix iii. 376
HI. R. Packet Co. v. Peoria Bridge
Ate. i. 439
Italey c. Jones iii. 116
II Vulante i. 187
Imhaeuaer v. Buerk ii. 860
Imlay v. EUefsen ii. 126
ImmacoUta Ooncedone, The iii. 187
Inimofcanda Sara Clarins, The iii. 282
Iramnnuel, The i. 88
Imperial Bank v. London, &/e. Dock
Co. ii. 681
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Tin nUHctnul pigaa ua nfund to. ]
Imperinl B«nk of Cbina, &c. v. Bftok
of Hlndustna iL 300
Imperial Iiu. Co, n. Coot Count]' iil. 376
n. Fire Ins. Co. iu. 2&8
v. Borne Im. Co. ill. 279
Imperial Land Co., /■ re ii. 280
Imp. Land Co. of Maneillei, In rt iii. S9
In re (Harm's Ca»e) li. 477
In re (Townaend'i Ca»e) ii. 477
Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone ii. 461
Imperial, &e. Co. o. Coleman ii. 280
ImproTed F. S. Co. n. Calilomia F. S.
Co. ii. 386
Imraj v. Magnaj iL 519
Incandeicent Lamp Patent, The ii. 848
Inuhiquio (Lord) n. French iv. 421
Incorporaied Soaetj v. Richardi ii. 287
Independence, The iii. 232, 248
Independent Church e. Beorgaolzed
Church IT. 608
India, The iiL 138. 170, 218
Indiana n. Am. Ex. Co. i. 480
Indiana Bond Co. v. Bmce iii. 88
Indiana Central Canal Co. v. State ii. 340
Indiana, &c. R. Co. v. Swannell It. 306,
Indianapolis v, Bieler
lodianapolia Ini. Co. i
Indianuralia & C. R. 1
e. Cox II.
Indianapolii, P.&CB7.C0. r. Hood
>. Allen
1U.340
Indianapolis B. M. Co. d. SL Loula,
&c R. Co. ii. 281
Indianapolis & V. R. Co. v. Backus i. 8Q1
Indianapoli* W. Co. v. Am. Straw-.
board Co. iii. 440
bidian Chief, The f. 44, 67, 76, 78, 80
Indus, The iii. 232
Industrie, The L 66; iii. 217
Ingalla v. Bills iL 600, 601
B. FergusoQ ii. 168
K. Herrick ii. 529
V. Hobbs iii. 466
V. Neirhall i*. 370
Ingiaitbee ». Wood ii. 696
iDgaU D. Plainondoti IU. 419, 437
iDge P. Mnrphy vi. 62
InKerman e. Moore il. 269
iDgersoU V. Knighta of Golden Bole iii. 869
B. Sawyer it. Ifll
V. Sergeant iii. 461
V. Tan BokkeUn iii. 1ST
Ingham p. Primnne Iii. 79, 82
Inglebright r. Hammond ii. 690
Inglis i>. Stock Ui.271
B. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Har-
bor il 41, 49, 60, 61, 2&; It, 432,
608,686
V. Usherwood ti. 490
iDgnham v. Camden W. Co. Iii. 440
V. Geyer ii. 407
V. Hatchinwn iii. 413
*.Thi«adgiU iii. 431
Ingrahara v. WheeUr
v. Wilkinson
Ingram u. Stalay
V. Ingram 11.
V. Sontien
Iniiablcants n. String
Inhabitanu of W. v. W. B.
Inman b. Ball
u. Foster
Inman SCeamihIp Co. i
1L634
iil. 416, 429, 480
iT. 805
;. Cor^.
BirchoS iiL 270,
B. Tinker
Innes r. Agnew
TI. Dnnlop
Innls B. M'Cnimmin
Ins. Co. u. Archer
B. Btiley
V. Bland
i>.'chaae
V. DaTia
B. Dunham
V. EgglcBton
0, Forcheimer
0. Francis
V. Gossler
B. Norton
V. Pottker
II, HandeU
n. Bitchie
i'. Bodel
V. Stinson
u. The Treaaorer
u. Thompson
II. Thwing
V. Transportation Co.
V. Updegratr IiL
V. Wilkinson
V. Woodruff
Ina. Co. of N. America v. Jones
B. Johnson
Ini. Co. of Penn. v. Dnral
Ins. Oil Tank Co. v. Scott
International, The
Int'l ft G. N. R. Co. o. Dimmitt C. P.
iv. 171
iii. 7a
iv. 467
iiL 87B
lu. 369
iu. 164
iii.29»
iiL 291, 302
IL 649, 626
11.286
iiLSTS
lit 376
iii. 318
iii. 369
ii. 368
i. 140
Co.
iL6!
V. Keenan II. 260
V. Miller 11. 16
Int'l & O. R. Co. V. Andenoa ii. 269
Int'l M. Ins, Co. v. Winsmore llL 371, 807
Inter. M. P. Co. v. Jack ii. 281
Int'l O. Tel. Co. ■>. Saunden Ii. 611
Int'l Tnilt Co. a. Boardman IIL 271
B. International Loan & T. Co. ii. 86fl
B. Nonrich U. F. Int. Ca iiL 86B
B. Wilson iii. 41
Int'l Tooth Crown Co. d. Gvlo^d iL 860
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
iii. 458
t. Brinuon i. 231, 730. 439
■. Detroit, ftc Ry. Co. iii. 468
larertnMUcbs. The iii. 232
InwDod e. TwTne ii. 280
loU, The iii. 248
Ion I. A«hton iv. 421
Ion*, The iii. 178
loniui SMps, The i. 23
lonidt* V. PadDc F. & M. Int. Co. iii. 2&H,
284,286
s. Fender iu. 286
r. UuTersd M«r. In*. Co. iii. 2M,
Co.
IieUnd r. Kip
s. liringiton
Irick «. Clement
IrJth V. Cotter
IrDB Chief, The
Inm CliSi Co. e. Bubt
Irou B. Keotner
r. SDMllpiece
>le.The
. a Co., /n n
Irrin «. N. C. & St. L. Hy. Co,
ItrauE. Irrioe
K I^imbennHi'a Bank
t.Stwaa
t. SoUiTut
«. Union B»nk
F. WatMia
V. Wither*
Irriag v. CnDoingfaani
D.DeE>7
B. HKDDinB i
V. Rich>r£on
Irmg Buk r. Wetlienld
Irwin c. Asicew
a. Bnodwood
*.Di£t0D
ft I>iin«oody
>.Uordl
■. WiUIar
ii. 619, 622
It. SOS
iii. 123
iii. 232
. 274, Si
i. 13S
>.Wan
Imc WilBBiiH, Cue of
iMack «. Clark
IiMcuD n. Webater
iMle t. Schwamb
IieUn V. BowUndi
bh 0. Craae
B. Morgan
Unm r. Downer
>.Foit
bhmrirad v. Oldknoir
iIL86,
ir. 451
iLlS
iT. 76
iL4£l
iv, 278
ii. iBZ
U. 467 ; iii. 24
ii. 161
ii.e46
It. UB
iT. 480
ii. 687
biao[WigfatB7.Co.s.TBlioDrdin iL286
I*Ie Boyale Hining.Co. v. Hertin ii. i
laler v. Baker
Iii. 58
Ison e. lion
iv. 418
I«rael v. Artliur
i.B42
«. Clark & Clinch
ii.601
IsracU V. Bodon
iv. 623
Italia, The
iii. 207
Itala, The
L122
Ithaca (First Bap. Ch.
of).
Bigelow
ii.640
ii. 239
Ive 0. ChMter
». 8am>
iv. 468
Ire* D. DaTenport
iv. 3;n
r. Parmer.' Bank
ii. 82, B6, 118
>. Hawrd
iT.460
::S6S
iT.203
ill. 87
r. Van Aiik«n
iv.we
Iriraei ». Stocker
iii. 442
rory b. Bank of MiaMuri
iii. 88
Ty V. Gilbert
iv. 148
lard 1^. faard
iv. 11
Izon B, Gorton
iii. 468; iv. 82
J. V. 8.
iii. 68
Jack B. Martin
ii. Sii
Jack'i Appeal
ii.226
Jackman v. Hallock
iT. 16a
E. MitcheU
ii. 889. 467
V. Ringland
IT. 306
Jacks 1-, Darrin
iii. 109
.., Smith
Iii. 462
Jackeon, Ex parte
ii. 126, 268
o. Adami
ii. 70
>. Alexander
iii. 31 ; iT. 466
V. Am. Mortg. Co.
ii. 460
r. Aipell
iT. 62
V. Babcock
iv. 538
V. Blanahan
111. 453
«. Blodget
iT. 194
ft Bradford
iT.M
r.Bradl
iv. 114
». Britiah Am. Aaa
Co.
iii. 280
V. Bronaon
iT. 156, 194
V. Brownell
iv.96
V. Brownaon
iv. 76
V. Bryan
iT. 113, 114
». Bull 11.864
; ir. 270, 640
ft Balloch
ii.267
V, Burchin
il.238
ft Bni^U 1»
171
172. 468, 468
i-.BurS.
ii.67
V. CadweU .
iv. 4S4
F. Carey
iv.466
(..Carpenter
it. 236, 238
o.Ca^
It! 301
V. Catlin
.400
; iT. 434, 454
V. Chamock
iii. 206
V. Chew
iv- 279
V. Chnrchm
iT.68
V. Clark
iT. 105, 467
B.CIaw
as?
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLB OP CASES.
[Ths maiglul pagea >» ralvnd to.]
Jftckion D. Coleman
IT. 636
Jackson v. Luno
IL 64, 66, 67
V. CoUini
ir. 414
... MoConneU
ii. 13-i
E. Combi
ii. 219
r. M'Leod
i». 117
V. CorliB
iv. 124
r. Manoiu*
iv. 64
«. CorneU
lu.«5
V. Martin
Iv. 540
». Cory
ii. 279, 46i
e. Maw. Mat. F. Iiw. Co.
ill. 871
», Covert
ii. 611
V. Miner
11441
p. Cr«tla
iv. 133, 188
V. Moore
iv. 467
B. Crtpp
iii.28
V. My era
iL442; iv. 106
«. Cummin.
11.684; iii. 170
V. Odell
iii. 466
r. D-»hiel
iv. 278
V. 0-Donaghy
iv. 62
p. Dftvenport
i».3a9
V. Packer
iii. 99
B. l)»»i.
i». 194
e. Parker
iv. 437
ir. Delauroii
iv. 105
V. Parkburat
iv.
114, 117, 261
V. De Lancy
i». 311, Sas. 639
u. Peck
u. 441
11. Demont
iv.446
V. Peaked
iv. S55
D. De WilM
V. Plielpa
V. Phillip. ii.
i. 466
V. Dewitt
if. 45
287
iv. 466. 608
o. Deyo
iv. 118
V. Piitgbargh, ie. E
Co
ii. 195
ij. Dubeii
iv. 173
e. Porter
iH.48
V. Eddy
iii. 464
i..Riehard« iii. 90,
102,
106, 107, 110
^: EdwVrdi
iv. 826, 366
D. Robins
iv.
270, 819, 636
r. Eliton
iv. 172
iii
167 : iv. BSS
D. Embler
iv. 637
V. Rogers
ii.699
D. Etz
ii. 70
V, Row
L403
e. Farmer
iv. 118
B. Ratmon
iv. 112
V. FiKh
iv. 496
V. Sanders
ii. 66
ii.64
V. Schauber
iv. 820, 625
r. FMtef
ii. 666
It. 446, 465
r. Fuller
iv. 166
e. Schab
iv. 124
«. Gabree
ii. 149
ti. Scott
iv.487
■>. GilchrtBt
11.162
iv. 4B3
5. Given
iv. 172
V. Sellick
iv.30
«. Green
u. 64
n. Seward
ii. 441. 442
V. Groat
iv. 124
c. Sharp
iv. 171
... Hammond
a. 286; iv. 607
V. Silvemail
iv. 124
V. Harder
iv. 360
p. Stetson
ii. 24
V. Barria
iv. 637
D. Stevens
iv. 08, 863
V. HartweU
iL 279, 280
c. Summerville
iv. 464
B. Hathaway
iii. 433, 434, 435
B. Terry
iv. 173
iv. 388
B. Thurroan
It. 401
V. Hilton
iv. 388
«. Todd
a 287
0. Hobliouae
ii. 170
». Toliett
iieoj
V. Hnbaon
Iv. 484
0. Topping
iT. 122
p. HoUoway
iv. 682
V. Town
Iv. 178. 464
f. Hopkina
iv. 166
r. Trullinger
iv. 467
D.Howe
Iv. 410
V. Turner
ii. 246
t>. Hudaon
ill. 87, 373
V. Twenlymaa
i. 346
P. Hntl
iv. 183
V. Twenty.third Bt By.
Ck>. ii. 438
V. Hnrlock
iv. 622
r. Union In.. Co,
iii. 2ni
iii. 378
V. Union Marine Ins
Co
ui, 200
iii. 226
.168; iv. 62, 261
v! Jackson tL 66
78. 87. 108. 361 :
V. Van Uuaen
ii
4G1; iv. 608
IT. 276, 80G, 381, 414, 419, 610
V. Varick
iv. 482. 611
iv.30
V. Veeder
iv. 319
It. 448
V. Vernon
iii. 134
V. Kissetbrack
iv. 106
V. Waldron
iv. 261. 202
r. Umplilre
1.456
V. Walewortb
ii. 402
It. 114, 166
0. Waters
iii. ST8
». Lawrenne
iT. 136
D. Wella
iv. 637
«. Litcl.fletd
ill. 65
V. Wheeler
It. 114
D. Lomai
ii.634
V. White
ii. 41
cLoomii
ii. 386
D. Willard It. 47, 100, 161, ISO, IM
i7.LoTe
iii. 96
V. Winne
1L87
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASI».
]uk*on..WiBiUfritl>
It. 460
Jane BacoD, The iE 2S2
F.Wiiulow
JT, 261
Jane Campbell, The i. 156, 359
■.Wood I
li. 385; JT. 189,461
Jane Neil's Appeal ir. 414
r. Wright
ii. 59; i*. 261
Janes v. Jenkins iii. 419
ItduoD-i Will, In n
ir. 331
c. SuiU iii. I2g
tttktaa & Slurp Co.
V. Phil.. &c. B.
Janet MitdieU, The iii. 218
Co.
iii. 452
Janer «■ LAtane iL 288
Co. t. Hooper
Jan Frederick i. 86
ir. 451
Janney u. Sprigg iT. 28
J'Anion D. Stewart ii. 24
JiAj r. Bull«r
iii. 05
Jicob >. luM
ii. 154
K. Thomat iii. 102
r. LoaiiTille
ii. 338
Janvrin b. MaiweU ii. 492
Juobt ». H>.viii»
ii. 692
Japp B. CampbeU iii. 40, 155
J«iU.fie
U. 259
Jaquei u. Marquaod iii. 41
iT. 456
V. Method. Epie. Cliurcb ii. 152, 166,
p. Heiler
ii. 1(4
166
t. Koapp
U.0S9
u. Swaaey It. 418
V. Sewak
iT. 869
«. Weeks iv. 148, 171, 173
J*nbHHi K. Fountain
UL41S
Jardine ». Leathlej iii. 331
Acowar tr. Gault
lv.469
r. Iteichert i. 2flO
Jmim r. Swaa«7
ii.438
JsTQiaD V. WooUotoD ii. 518
iii. 56
Jarnecke Ditch, The, In re i. 342
J«d.reD,The
Iii. 206
Jarnigan v. JaniiKaii ir. 54
JiSe >. UarteaD
i». 110
Jaroi H. n. Co. v. Fleece H. U. Co.
Jdbav g. ]>.Tia
ii, 46S
ii. 866
..-Jeaning.
Iii. 46
Jarratt v. Ward Iii. 316
JdlT«7 V. McGough
ii. 78
Jarrett h. Hunter ii. 494
J^ger >. Nal. G. A. Bank iii. 106
B. Tomlinion it. 446
im«,Exfart»
iT.438
Jarrold u. Houlston ii. 873
lirt '^
U. 120, 46»
Jarria h. Brooka iii 89
».BUby
Ui. 166, 164
0. Deane iU.461
I. CampbeU
ii.sefl
V. Dutclier It. 161
«. Cathenrood
ii. 459
V. Hyer iii. 37, 68
t>. Chalnim
iii. 78
D. JarTia ii. 494
c. Oriffln
ii. 545
V. Peck IT. 846
c. HoweU
iii. 427
1.. Robinson i. 262
r.JuDM
iT. 642
V. Rogers U. 677, 684
r.Jolimon
iT. 103, 148, 176
Jasper Truit Co. v. Euiaat City, «e.
t.Kerr
■«. 488; iv. 148
R. Co. iii. 207
r. Syanier
ii. 473
Jay B. Almy Hi. 185
..LeRoT
e.H-CT«aie
ii.206
V. l^dler ii. 366
ii.ffii2
r. Stein It. 33S
... Morej
IT. 103. 142, 174
Jayne v. Murphy ii. 448
.. Plank
ii.690
Jaynes v. Jaynes ii. 164
». Planl
iT. 100
J. B. Ehraam M. Co. s. Phenis Ins.
0. Richardton
iT. 211
Co. iii. 870
«, Ro-land
IT. 274
J. C. Potter, The iii. 248
e. Shore
1L470
J. C. Rich, The iii. 2
c. Smlih
ii.4M
J. C. Williams, The iii. 157
s. SiereDMD
iii. 449
Jeans. In re i». 278, 846
r, Stull
i. 418
Jecker b. Montgomery i. 67, 86, 101, 102.
JUK.'. CUm
iT.231
104,367 -
JuBM Caiey, CaM of
ii.430
Jefloott ». North British Oil Co. ii. 494
June. Gray, TImi u. The Jobn Frawr
JefTereys v. Small iii. 37
iii. 283
Jefferies «. East Omah» Lud Co. iii. 427
Jame. P. Dooaldwin,
The iii. 234
V Legendra iii. 209
Jaiwfoo p. Drinkald
iii. 280, 2.11
0. Swinton
iii. 106. 108
378
>■. MiUemanii
iii. 452
Jimiwon 4 NowcMtto 8, 8. F. In».
Jefferyi u. Jefferys ii. 466
Ah'd. /■ r< iii. 201
JiniHm ,. 8. J., *c R ». Co. ii. 600
JeSrey n. Sprigge ir. 276
Jeffreys b. Boowy a 873, 380
Juie,Tlie
m. IM, B67, 858
B. Small ii. 360
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
{Dm nugtDtl s>V* *" niamd to.}
Jeffriet V. Ankeny
V. Life iDt. Co.
ii. 72
Jertey City, TW
iiLau
lU. 282
Jefts u. York
ii, 632
Gai Co.
U.3O0
Jencki e. Colemui
IL 699, BOl
Jemy City S. Bank o. Jeruy City
ii. 486
Bank
iii. 81
JenkiD* v. Bliztrd
ia.67
J. E. Rumbell, The
ui. 2, 138
r. Clement
IT. 687
JeroMleiii, The
L 87»i iii. 868
v. ColUrd
i. 66
JerTey i.. Wilbur
iU. 110
v. De Groot
iii.64
JetTi* V. Smith
It. 461
V. Eldfidge
It. 143
Jervoiie o. Silk
U.191
p. Hannan
i. 87
Jeuel f. Batb
1U.207
V. Heycock
ill. 288
Jetier r. Giffotd
ir.366
E. Jeukini
iii. 468
JeMon B. Colilu
IL87
D. Jonea Ir
148, IM, 44fl
V. Holt
It. 75
V. Kemitha
iT.m
JeMop V. Ifory
ii. 449
p! irf^C^y
it. 19
Jeuop'e Cate
il. 872
iT.468
Jeter b. Bn^gwyn
UL24
11.343
«. Penn
IT. 96
p. Morris
il.461
Jewell. The
iii.S48
D. MoOow
iL6ai
Jewell r. Colby
ii. 461
B. Pye
It. 488
V. JeweU
ii.87
t>. TUyoold*
m. 122
V. Ketchnm
ill. 87
r. Scbaob
Hi. 81
V. Enight
iLlS4
D. Steanka
iL3a6
D.Lee
It. 480
D. Tacker
li.4«6
u. Parr
iii. 91
Jenki r. Doylntomi Bank
Iii. 98
Jewett, la n
111. 26
p.Fulmer
11.646
V. AltOD
11.633
D. Qumn
iv. 466
p. Barnard
11.633
Jenkyn t. Vangluuk
Jenner i:. A'BMkatt
ii.441
V. Bradford 8. B. * T
Col 1.802
ii. 22
V. Dringer
li.306
V. MotgUi
iii. 471
V. Oage
m.482
«.Morrii
ii 148, 800
V. Jewell
iu.449
D. Smith
Ii. 492
E. Palmer
It. 180
U.Tracy
iT, 187
t.. Stockton
iT.S68
V. Taiaat
iT. 130
V. Thame* Bank
ii. 278
Jenney t.. Alden
u, m
1.. Tucker
It. 806
iennins». Ex parte lil
414, 427, 429
V. Warren
ii. 602
/n™ '^
Iii. 63
D. Woodward
ii. 420
r. Camp
il. 609
Jewett Pub. Or. v. Batlw
ii. 490
».C»r.io
i. S6S
Jewion V. MouUon
iL 187, 188
B. CoaJ Ridge I. * C. Ca i. 391
Jex V. McKinney
i. 473
0. Collini
11228
Jezeph D. Ingram
IL 619, 620
V. Griffla-
iii. 183
J. P.Vanie?, The
iii. 2
f. In». Co. of Fenoa
Iii, 366
J. G. e. H. Q.
ii. 79
r. JeoDlDgt
iT. 271
i.S03
V. Jorfan'
It. 179
Joanna, Ttie
1.126
!>. HerriU
11.628
Joannin v. Ogfilav
11461
V. BandaU
ii. 241
Job u. Langton
iii. 234
e. Suffold
iT. 48*
V. Potton
iT.869
t>. Tacoma By. Co.
ii. 269
Jobbitt u. Goundiy
iii. 228
tp.Thomaa
iiL89
Jadr«ll V. JsdreU
iT.76
v-TUbvij
iii. 461
JobMO, In Tg
iT.20S
B.Todd
ill. 81
Joel V. Mllli
iT. 181
ill. 81
Johin r. glegmnnd
iU.I62
V. Walker
iii. 419
Johanna Erallie, The
i 99, 168
iT. 50
Johanna Tholen, Hie
1.860
Jenoure v. DelmeKe
ii. 16
John. The
ii. 162
Jenien v. Reubej
ii. sea
John L'. Bacon
11.000
ii. 480
B. Cily Nat. Bank
iii. 106
Jemigan n. Holden
i.469
John Farron, The
ill. 170
Jerome v. McCarter
iT. 186
John OiliMn, The
1.78: iii- 248
Jeirelt ». John Hracock H. L. Ini.
JohnBancock,ftc.L».Ca.
r. Moore
Co.
iU. 370
iil.S69
Jenitt V. Weara It. tea. «86, 487, 488
John Jay, The
lS71
„Gooi^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
John E.9htw, TIM )i>. IH
JohnsoD 0. BubbeU iv. 461
John L Dimmick, The Ui. 218
V. Bant ii. 406
John LH17, Bt ii. 83
V. JohntoD iL 87, 100, 101. 126.
John Meunr, WiU of iT. 616
137, 184, 228, 473; iv. 192, 233.
John Uoou L Co. «. Denrer iii. 461
278. 299, 636
Join Pertiu, Tha iii 188, 196, 234, 248
■7. Jotiet & Chicago B. R. i. 466
J<*iTi7loT.The Ui. 1»6
Jolit A CbOT7 StTMto, Mmtter of i. 13,
V. Jordan iii. 410
V. Knapp It. 467
840; lit. 432
V. Lewla iii. 114 ; It. 194
JdiHrBattlD ii.43
V. Lbdsay iL 26B, 260
.. BriDkei ii . 182
r. Line. ii. ^9
p. Kmmert ii. 226
V. Lnllinao ii. 281
.. Fenton i». 82
V. M'Donough (The) ii. 642
r. Harper ii. 288
V. MachieliOn ill. 199
..J<*iu ii.l28
v.M'Inwih i267;ia379
f. Mu^ ii. 22
V. Martina. iii. 80
,. SimoDi iii. 171
V. iVfayne iv. 608
r.StcpheDB Hi. 441, 442
Joliam, /> n H. 189, 430; iii. 441 ;
B. Medlieott ii. 451
V. Meeker iii. 80
iv. 300. 385
V. Merithew ii. iii
Erprt. L 462
V. Merrill iii. 143
^Alden il.2S6
V. MoneU i. 308
>.ADd«r«on iii. 484
r. Mon Lee iii. 41
(.AtUnacfa;. Co. i, 26
». Morse iv. 62
tr. Biird ii. 606
D. North BritLh, &c. In.. Co. iii. 281
». Bikv iT, 454
B. N. W. M. L. In.. Co. ii 236
t. Btnells ir. 270
ti. Parkenburg ii. 340
iL B«rdilee iii. 60
t. Pen«col», 4c B. K. Co. ii 699 ;
v.BerkihireHnt.F. Ini. Co. UI. 876
iii. 468
rBeriiilieiiiier iii 63
r. Periey It. 42
>. Bludala ii 61B ; iii. 90
V. Pie il 241
0. Pileter U. 188
>. BiMoD Tow-bMt Co. Ii. 269
c. Planter.' Bank iii. 124
c. Bojla iv. 466
B. H. R Co. Ii. 366
>. Bamtay iii. 89
>. Bmington It. 636
1-. Bajlton ii. 479
*. BnokljD & a R. Co. ii. 866
0. BewliDK 0. P. Bj. Co. 11. 195
i-Broirn ii. 22; iii. 94
*. Calnin ir. 306
V. Ri.k i. 326
•.CimpbeU iii 376
B. Bobinion iii. 41
>. Cvpcntsr iv. 194
v. Boyal MftU Sleam Packet ii. 616
[. ChipmMi iiL 234, 240
0. Sayre L264.301.B41
•. Chicago Elerator Co. i 369
V. Sheddon iii. 880, 886
t. Clark iU. 39
B. Shield. ii 16
t. Clarke iv. 194
B. Shippen i 878
». Cwbelt Iv. 420
V. Slater ir. 459
>.C<>rtolaniii (Tl») i42; iii 18S, 188
V. Sproull il. 478
».Con(etl iT. 194
B. StagK iv. 174
c. CuBiniu U. 164
B. SuuIOQ iv. 336
■.DiiirictofColDmUft ii.274
B. Stale ii. 12
t Diion iv. 110
B. Stear Ii. 681
«. DoU iv. 103, 116
B. SteTen. iv. 868
«. DoDodl iv. 181
B.-Storie ii. 236
>. Baton ii488
V. Terry ii 198
>.Edge li366
B. Tltu. ii. 4T4
». Evani til. 86
B. Tompkln. ii. 267
a GaUaghtf iL 164
B. Tott«D iii 64, 67
rBuii;i,D ii461
t>. Union Marine & Fire In.. Co.
». Han a. 1S2 ; It. 194
iii. 262
». HaiU. ill. 108
V. Uoited State. L 297
». Helliley Hi. 0*
V. U.borne U. 624
'■ HeDdmon ilL 76, 89
V. Valido HatUe Co. iv. 185
V. Hmey m. 44
V. Vemon It. 189
a Hoflmui it. 85
B. Walker U. 468
VOUi. — i
•
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Jobmon v. Wateifaonie
V. Waters
II. Watson ii. 510
V. Weill
B. Wells ComitT Com'n i. 109
V. WhitweU
V. Willmm* ii. 148
r. YUet
Johnson 'i Appeal
Johnson's Tnal 1.
Johnson B. Co. D. Central Bank
207
Johnson County d. Wood
John Spry L. Co. b. (The) C.
Johnston e. Allan
D. Bingham
n. Cope ii. 478
V. DultOQ
n. Johnston ii. 19S
V. Eerihaw ii. Sie, 022
V. Knight
D. Manning
v.Markle Paper Co.
r. Marin us
D. Orr Ewing ii. SSfl
D. OtI
B. SalTaee Am'q
B. San mndfco S. C
D. Sutton
V. Trade Ins. Co.
B. Union Bank
V. Vandyke
V. W. U. Tel. Co.
B. Wilton
Johnston's Will, In rt Iv. 632
Johnstone v, Browne
B. Msppin ii. 6t0
B. Milling U. 468
V. Sutton i, S41
Johnstown Cheese Mfg, Co. b. Veghte
tii.440
John V. Farwell Co. n. Hatheis i. 239
JnlieC Iron Co. v. Scioto, &c Co. It. 139
Joliet Steel Ca n. Shields ii. 269
Joliffe B. Baker it. 461
B. Madison M. Ins. Co. iii. 200
Joltand B. Stainbridge jv. 172
Jollett e. DeponthieQ U. 406
Jolly V. Arbuthnot It. 96
B. Baltimor* Equitable Sode^
iU. 373, 374
B. Rees ii. 146
B. Toung W. 9f
Jonu V. Hunt iv. 62
Jones, /n rt U. 164, 236 ; iv. 50B
t>. Adams iiL41fl; iv. 45L
V. Adarosoa iii. 206
V. AshbonUuun ii- 466
V. Asbwin iii. H
v.BaooD ii. filOiiv. 270
B. Bennett i. 467
Jones D. Beroer
t. BerryHU
IL866
m. H, m
r. Bird
iii. 487
e. Bow den
ii. 479
V. Boyce
ii. eoi
St. 8
u. Bridgman
It. 106
V. Bright
ii. 479, 487
V. Broadhniit
Ii. 616; iii. 86
V. Bull
ii. 34S
B. C. & 0. By. Co.
i*. 130
V. Carter
ii. 336
V. Chappell
It. 75, 836
V. Cinn.^o. By. Co
ii.608
V. Clark
iv. 1&4
B. CliftOQ
ii. 173
t^ Coal Barnes
1.369
B.Cole
il 175
B. Council Blufli Branch Bank iii. 86
B. Daniel
ii. 477
B. Edinonds
ir. 436
B. Erie By. Co.
Ii. 840
f. Fale.
Ui. 101
B. Flint
It. 461
«. FoxaU
ii. 226
u. Garcia del Rio
i.26
o. George
ii. 479
n. Gerock
il.429
r. Gibson
U. 296
V. GUbert
u. 76
B. GoodwiUie
iL&OO
B.Goodwin
iii. 89
B. Gordon
Ui. 79
B. Gr.ve«
ii.386
Iii. 123
ii. 286
D. Hake
iii. 90
B. Hamden
iT. 869
B. Hartley
iT.681
V. Homer
in. 48
B. Hughe.
ly.6«
B, Ins'Co.
iii. 288
V. Johnson
Iii. 46a
D. Jones a. 107,
t20, M6; W. 130.
341,466
B. Just
ii. 479
D. Kennlcott
ii. 34
u. Kokomo Building AN-n ii. 277
••.Lake
iv. 616
D. LunoQ
ii. 15
!>. Laoghton
ir. 218
B.Leaqne
{.346
B. Lee
iii. 427
r. Leonard
ii.82
B. Lewis
Ui. 107
B. Lloyd
iii. 59
B. Lock
ii.43S
B. Lord Say & Seal
i». 211,810
B. Lusk
iii. 65
B. McMasten
i.S42
B. M'NeU
ii.389
ii.42e
B. Meredith
It. 162
B. Merionethshire B
Society ii 467
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[n» maigliul pa^m uv nfemd to.]
teic.WtcheU
W.642
JoDge Johanaei, The
i.ies
c. Margia
iT. 220, 288, 227
JoD^e KlaMina, Th«
LSI
t. Uuldro.
iv. 118
Jon Be Margarelha, Tho
1.180
c.Htirdiagh
iii. 47:^
Jonge rieter. The
}.61
t.Mjri<i"^
iv. 170
Jonpe Tobiaa, The
1.148
..Ni.U7
It 86ii
Joos» i: Fey
U. 182
... Nitionil BuiUing Aw'n ii. 816
Joppy Wood
ii.4S0
D. Knle
ill. 30
Jordan. TI.e
1.401
.. Ncptmie loi. Cto. Ui. 307
B. 187, 138
r. N'cw Ha*eD
ii. 274
V- Ala. R, Co.
ii.2S4
(.NieholMD
iii. 806
V. Bl»<;k
ii. 175
(.North
11.486
r, T«ll R. R. Co.
ii. 800
(.Nor
U.646;iiL6S
B. Faraaworth
It. 469
..0>6r»i
iii. lOlt
«. James
ii. 646
(.FiTM
ii. 220
D. MoCluro
iy. 6
rPtule
U. 839, 842
«. MllTO
iIL44S| It. 467
>.Fmi*il
fii.41»
». Miller
ill 44
>. FerkiBi
iL452
V. Moner
iii. 282
v. Pern
ii. 641
». Otis
1U.461
..PemboM
iT. 466
V. Pollock
iT.464
..Powdl
aL448,476iir. 67
V. S«Tago
It. 66
kPowIh
It. 464
B. State
ii. 20
i-PaUei)
It. 100
It. 869
t.Riditi
iii. 78
t.TatI
m. 76
V. Rindill
a 466; iii. 277
B. Warreo Idb. Co.
UL 178. 226
«.Reid
iU. 4S7, 438
il.467
iT. 176
c. Williams
Utl78
■.RiciiiDond
It. 473
B. Wimer
IT. 162
ftSoe
It. 262. 610. 611
Jorden ~ Atwood
iii 423
L109
*. Sailer
IL170
Joad Ftoreire do* Santos CaM of i. 88
i-SaMer
It. 261
Joseph. The
L87
r.Sa*ase
iii. 68
Joaeph .. Fisher
iT. 46
..Scon
iT. 610
r.8onthwarkF. S.M
Co. Ui. 64
>.Sean
iii. IBS
Jowph Almeida, Case of
L401
t.S«lbv
ii. 445, 448
Joseph C. Griggs, The
iii. 248
^SbB^»
L302; iii. 89
Joseph HarTeT, Tlie
iii. 246
t. Siagn Huiof
Co. 11.488
Joseph Smith, Ex parte
ii. 82
V. Skinner
ii.SW
t. Smith
a.684-, iT. 188, 176
179,248
P.Sool»d
iii. 427
Josephs i>. Pebrer
liL2
■.Sum
ii.ass
il.467
li.26
ii. 4T0
*. Swa^M
It. 466
Joslyn V. Wyaiao
Josselyn r. Eames
It. 176
..Thomj-on-aExr. 1480
iii. 90
..Trier
.. t&ited Statu
it. 608
Jourdain v. MiTille
ti.086
i. 18, 26, 207, 819,
Ii, 641
86J
Joordui <7. Long Island R
Co. ii. 201
..C.8.M.AccAw'D iii.866
Jounieay, la rs
It. 60S
». Van Bocbore
ill. 449
J070. Allen
iii. 196
..VoMheei
ii. 60S
V. Diefendorf
iii. 81
..Ward
ii. 226, 228
V. McKay
iT. Ill
^WeOley
li.448
■>. St. LouU
iT.480
>■ Wnt Peon. N
Q. Co. It. 122
B, Sears
iii. 133
..WIUiuDs
ii. 340
Joyce V. Conlin
iiL432
>.Witt«r
Iii. 78
V. Maine Ins. Co.
iiL 378
..WK.a
iT. 3a4
V. Swann
IL 477, 646
..Woottm
1466,466
V. Williamson
ill. 369
>.T.M
ii. 520
Jubilee, The
m.248
JW.AppMl
ii. 416
Judah V. Harris
Iii. 7«
Jw.'.cir^
iii. 27
Jndd I', Ballard
ti.236
JoM lUogL Co. *,
HaouL H. In*.
P.Green
ir. 143
Co.
iii. 378
B.Langdon
ii. ESS
'"VCUr»,The
iii. 282
r. Rwidall
It. in
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Judge c. Bnawell iii. 41
Judges ot Oneidk v. The People i. 322
JudioD B. Etbertdge ii. 634
u. Slurget ii. 614
». Wmi iL4T0i W. 472
r. Weitern R. R. ii, 608
JuflVow Catharina, The i. 66
Juffrow Maria Schroeder, The L 146, 161
Jnhel t>. Cliurch liL 2TT
V. RhinelaDder iiL 2«7, 269
JnlUiard e. Qreenman L 241
J alia. The
Julia Blake, The
Juliana. The
Jul) t). Jacob*
Jumel V. Marine Ina. Co.
JuDCtian H. R. v. Htirii
June u. Farcell
JuniaU, The
Juniata Bank n. Hale
Jupiter, The
Jupp, Bt
Jury D. Barker
Jnith v. NaHoiud Bank
, Juitice V. Lang
Juiticet a. Comlh
Karatan, The
Karnak, The
Kami. Karr
Shade
1L469: m. 164, 172 I
ii. 231
Iii. 143
1. 67, 86
UL 172,364
iii. 1U3
It. 206
1.60
iii. 110
IiL 108
U. 164
iii. 76
iii. 70
ii. 610
t.469
J. W. French, The
Kablet v. Worceater Oaa Ugbt Co.
iii, 4G2
Ealm V. Chapin t*. 371
e. Walton iii. 88
Eahnweiler0.FbawtxIna.Co. U1.S70.2T6
Kaiern. I«ahv 1*. 116
Kain ». Old il. 666
Kalne, In re i. S7, 301
Ka1i« r. Shattuck iv. 110
Kolleck s. Deering ii. S6S
Katorarnn, The Hi. 164
Kaltembach e. Leirls ii. 626
Knltenback v. Mackende iii. 831
Kaminitak? v. N. W. H. Co. ii. 340
Kanaka Nlan,rnre ii. 64
Kane, MaHer of Ii. ISl
«. Bantow a 612
V. Bloodgooa It. 187
V. Cidnnibiui lot. Co. III. 814, 816
V. Gott U. 230, 368 ; It. 846
V. Hugpini Cracker Co. il. 366
P. Sew York EL R Co. IiL 418
D. Vanderbni^ta It. 78
Kanonae v. Martin i. 316
KauMs V. Bradley i. 320
V. Swope Iii. 440
"■— •- 1y. Co. V. Ham-
11.269
KaniM CitT,
D. Ryan
Kaniai Loan Co. p. GUI ir. 181
Eaniu Padflc B. Co, e. Atchison R.
Co. L 826, 344; U.277
Karthaui n. Ferrer
Kukaskia Bridge u. Shannon Iii. 94
Kale B. Jonei. The ill. 248
KHtheman v. Gen.M. Int. Co. iii. 270
Kathleen, The tii. 228
Katie, The iii, 217
Katie Collini, Tba iii. 248
Katie O'Neil, The L 870 ; iii. 2
Katy, The Iii. 206
Kalz V. Bedford U. 468
Kaucher v. Blinn ii. 16
Kauflelt (I. Bower It. 162
KaaSman d. Babcock Ii 16
11 Woottors 1. 91
Kaufman i- U. S. Nat. Bank ii. 463
Kaukaiina Water-poira' Co. d. Green
Bay ^M. Canal Co. L 326, 891 ; ii. 340
Kaat V. Keuter ii. 690
Eay u. Duchesae de Flenne ti. 166
f. Oxley iiL 419
■>. Wheeler IiL 217, 801
Kaye, /n re ii. 226
Kayier d. Maugham iii. 40
V. Sichel IL &14
Kealing v. Vanatckle iii. 89
Kean v. Conelly ir, 869
u. Stetson iii. 432
Rean's Will ir, 580
Eeane v. Boycott ii. S86, 237
1-. Brig Glouoestei iii. 186
Eearley v. Tonge ii. 25B
Eeamey, Ex paru i. 800, 326
B. Taylor i. 466
Keami v. Leaf if. BOO ; iiL 27
Kearon c. Pearwn Hi. 206
Keanley e. Philip* iv. 98
B. Woodcock W. 181
Reubey d, Brooklyn Cbendcal Works
iL36e
Eeuley r. Codd iii. 26
Keaie* d. Cadogan 11, 482 ; iii. 468
D. Lyon It. 480
Keating cMicliigan CentralR.Co. ii.269
V. Vaugh 1. 413
Eeats I', Hugo i!L 419
V. Keats U. 101
0. National H. M. Co. H. 260
Keatta d. Rector tv. 461
Keay ". Goodwin Iv. 870
Keck D Sednlia B, Co. UL 78
Keckley v. Keckley i. 248 ; It. 44
Keeble & Hickeringall, Csae of iii. 460
Keech >^. Hall W. 166
V. Keech U. 1:»
B, Ssndford iv,4.<!8
Eeeler, Ex pane II. 26, SO
V. Fireman's Ins. Co. Hi. 17lt
r Goodwin iL 641
Keen c Coleman ii. 241
V Henry U.S69
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
St««KB««d
liLTe, 88
KeltogK ". H'lAOKhlln
r. Payne
It. 439
..CUAe
H. 373
iL260
t.D«rdon
It. S21
V. Robinton
iT. 480
T Kimtoll
ii. 3TS
c. SuperTtton
11.480,478
. r.Uut^
iii. IGO
Kellogg Bridge Co. «. H«mUtOD iL 479
>. Now En^and U. A. An.
Kellow u. Rowden
It. 364, 887
c. WheiUey
ilgTS
Eelluiu 0. Emmenon
i.369
btnn E. Uoms Im. Ca
iii. 376
V. Kneciidt
iii 162
Eeewr, &c Hfg. Co. v. Union
Mfg.
Kelly V. Adanu
U.2^
Co.
iii. 440
c. Baker
iU.14
Kwpni r. SldelitT T. & D. Co.
ii. 446
•>.BIia
11.468
Kwrir. Fulton
iT.29
V. Bnrrouriu
«.Cohoe« Knitting Co.
iu.ga
Rwe B. DffliTer
L46g
ii.260
Kehla..N.O.lM. Co.
Iii. 230
V. Crapo
V. Cnaliing
U. 407
Kea^H«dy
ii. 23e
iU. 167
KbIj^FowIw
It. 282
V. Dooahoe
ill 482
Erim .. Uad)e7
iT. 827
P.Drew
li.436
Eeirr.Andrade
iii. 266
D. Dunning
V. Dulch Chnrch
iU. 419
Eeirmd .. Arerr
It. 48fi
iT.471
iL4ei
0. Harding
L845
Keilb E. AmutTODg
iii. 44
». HarriKin
11. 57;iT.a6
.. Bnrte
IiL96
V. Hedden
1.284
ill. 138
V. Home and Cmton Ina. Co. Ui. 262
rCUrk
i. 419
V. Kelly
11.128
F.jDDa
Iii. 70
u. MorrlB
11. 878
•.Kdth
iii. S9
V. New Tork
ii.260
E.Hnrtloch
iii. 134
0. Owen
ii.48
..Wheeler
U. 148
B. PattenoQ
It. 113
bilii 4 P. CmI Co. V. BlnsliUD
Ii. 277
V. PlieUn
U.634
latUer c. Wood
iv. 186
D. SoUri
i». 491
K^«ichv.HuuiinB
ii.428
D. Thompeon
W. 142, 143
lelkcFeuMU
m.44g
V. Tinling
p. Dnited States
ii.22
EtUui .. Brown
ii. 690
ii. 12
e.J«iuon
IT. 118
Eelly-e Cue
ill. 461
..Krikm
It. 180
Kelner b. Baxter
il. 682
ir. 110
KeUall V. Kel.aU
li.246
KcUer. /. %
iJ.32
u. MarthaU
U. 120
>.Xoiikel
It. 805
Kelaea v. Hainei
ii.492
Keltenn d. Brown b
142,168
e. Bam«ey Q. M. Ca
ii. 492
Mey,/.™
i. 87
Keltey t.. Berry
U. 696
r.BjlM
ii.873
D.Dodd
It. 480
■.Bnuj
rOreenongli
L422
■11.84
«. Hardy-
V. KateTremalne, The
It. 407
iseg
..Hemmtngway
Hi. 76
B.King
iii. 482
..Keley
iL79
V. Sargent
u.2ai
-.Kellej
ii.120
r.Ward
ill. 464
K EiMp ConntT
0. LoDkrille « K. R. Co.
iiK
Kelwity B. Kelway
Eemble o. Bowne
ii.42e
ii.269
Ui.2S6
t. Mtjor, &c of Brooklyn
11.290
f. Kean
Hi. 60
KUeiM
It. 270
i>.Hlll*
iii. 104, 109
r. M««biir7w»rt Horw S. Co
ji.281
i. 891
Kemeyt if. Proctor
ii:S40
iii. 83
■isC
11269
Kemmler, Tn re
ii. 12
iii. 79
Kemp ». Batli
ii. 616
„ .. TpulMti 8t*y M. Co.
ii. see
V. Cwnley
iii. 44
iii. 266
u. Coughtry
ii. 608
^"^WctgTl'N. W. E. Co.
iii. 91
11.284
r.P.lf
r. Finden
ii.649
i*.371
..ayne
U. 441
e. Halliday
ill. 234, 831
r.CttitU
11179
V. Kemp
r. NeTiiie
!t.843
'■ Dmilow
it. 480
ii.80
r. Dickinton
iii. 402
V. Weaibrook U. 679
682; iv. 130
•■hgenoll
iv. 479
Kemper o. Smith
Iv.244
>.l7»endw
ill. 116
Keupner v. Coon
11477
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
^le Bwrgiaid pugc* mn retenvd to.]
empton t>. Bnj
ndd. The
ii.S68
Eendngton v. BouTerle
liLlTO
Kent 0. AlleD
"S.ar
ffi.a6
i>. BomgleiD
iii.66
0. Courage
p. Honey
iv.72
t>. Hopkins
». London & S. R Co.
ii. 800
V. HuBklnson
u. MmtuUl SUYeu & Co.
U.546
V. Lake Superior Canal Co
». Moore
It. 112
». Mahaffey
.. Parker
Ui. 76
V. Midland By. Co.
B. RoberHon
iii. go
V. Morriaon
V. The Sute
ii. V2
0. Riley
V. United Statei
L 322, 884
». Shuckard
Kendrick b. Campbell _ .
V. Delitfleld iiL 306
V. Kieii ii. 2Sfl
Eenebel n. Scraflon iv. 623
Eenege v. ElUot Ui. -Ul
Eeniitong v. Sceva ji. 448
Kennard 0. Burton iii. 280
0. Kennard ir. 340
v. Loniiians i. 391
Kenne's Caw It. 36
Kennebec PurcbaM (Prop, of) o.
Springer ii. 482
Keuuedy, £zp(trt« i. 288
V. Baker IL 236
p. Board of Education i. 469
o. Brown i. 630
p. CalifomU S. Bank ii. 300
r. Cochrane ii. 459
D. CovinKtoD iii. 421
V. Dodee iii. 228
V. Doyle ii. 236
V. Duncklee It. 481
i>. Earl of Cauillii 1. 412
V. Gibton i. 347
0. Hilllard ii. 22
V. KeaUnK It. 371
iU. 476
iii. 64
ii. 621
I'. McKay
c. Northup It. 469
X. Oxen iT. 478, 4S0
D. Panama, &C. MaU Co. U. 479,
V. Penn. L & C. Co. i.
V. Rom ii.
V. Solar Ref. Co. i. 802 ; ii. 366
V. Thomai iii. 103
V. Woolfolk ir. IM
Kcnoer v. American Contr. Co. ir. 122,
128
Kenner £ Other* n. Tbdr Credltora
iii. lOS
Keuneth v. Chamber*
Kenney 0. Browne ir, 449
...ndall L 187, 140
Kenny u, Clarfc*on iii, 369
V. Tim Natn Bk. Albany
V. Oillet
Kenrick 0. Danube C. Co.
Keniett 0. Stiren i. 266 ; ii. 332
Kendngton, Ex parU iii. 66; It. 161
Kentucky, &c. Co. i>. Commonwealth
It. 122
Kentucky L. £ A. Ini. Co. v. Hamil-
ton iii. 360
Eenworthy v. Bate ir. 148
p. Bopkin* iii. 10»
B, Sawyer iL104; iii. Ill
B. Schofleld ii. 640
Eenyon v. Berthon ilL 267, 2SS
0. Farri* ii. 1«
V. Nicholi iii. 419
V. Woodraff U. 88»
Eeniel v. Kirk Iii. 188
Keogh, In rt ir. 160
Keokuk, The iU. 206, 218
Keppell n. BaUey IU. 419 ; It. 480
Ker u. nUooii L 37, 116
V. People i. 37
t). Snead ii. 226
D. Waucbope ir. 641
Kerby v. llardiDS iii. 478
Eerfoot v. Cronln iv. 469
0. Hyman ii. 618
Kerford u. Hondel U. 689
Eermel b. La Compagsla Royale
d'Au. Ui. 340
Kern b. Uuidekoper i. 303
V. Kem ii. 76
Kemey Board e. HcMa«teT i. BOi
Kemochan d. N. T. Bowery F. In*.
Co. m. 376
IT. N. T. El. R. Co. iii. 41«
Kem* V, Swope It. 174
Kerper d. Hocb It. 422
Kerr, In n U. 20!>
». CooneU iii- 462
V. Kerr i. 2(i2
D. Kingsbury IL »4;i
B. MerchanU' Ezch. Ui. 4I>8
V. Moon ii. 431 ; It. Ml, 6t3
B. Nicholas ii. 330
B. Shaw iT. 471
B. Willan ii. 60t>
Ken^i TtdiU, In n It. 324, 346
Kerrigan e. Force i. 469
B. Rautigan ii. 441
KerriBon v. Cole ii. 468; iii. 147
V. Stewart It. 306
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[n* aatgbal pacts u« ratnrsd to.]
Knriwn'i Tnut», /■ nt
ii. IB]
Kildate V. Euitaoe
U.4Ba
Kmtj b ToQpin
ii.366
iii. 102
Kmh r. Tonfciu
iF.203
p. Dempwy
iL459
Etnhm r. Kelu-j
L67
; iii. 266
It. Rich
it 236. 240
r. Ker.liaw
ir.4ie
Kilgour V. PinlTMn
iii. 63
r. Mstthewi
iiL6T
V. Hiiet
iii. 102
r. ThonipwD
iT 192. 438
Kilham V. Ward
U. 41. 60. 61
iii. 438
KJllam V. FrMton
iii. 37
K*nriii,irT parte
iii. 90
V. Slioepii
Ki Ibum H. Woodworth
iii. 76
K«Mler-| EtUte
ii. 192
i. 261
K«,wr r. W. U. Td. Co.
ii 611
Ki le V. Reading Iron Work)
i.409
Ktlcbui r. CUrk
iii. 69, 67
Kl leena. The
m. 248
I, Nevman
ii.260
Ki lion (.. Kelley
iii. 419
falchani, /■ «
iji.46
Killmer ». Wncbner
iT. 870
KelelU. ». Penfold
iT. 480
Killmore v. Howlett
iT.45l
K«iteU r. AllUnce lu. Co.
iiL
296,581
KillpaUick'B Appeal
iL226
Kcute r. Bronuudl
ii.663
Kilpatrick V. Dean
iL626
Krttk Rirer R. Co. tp. E«tem H
Co.
KiliHo ». Ratlej'
ii. 438
ii
487
i iT. 473
Kilihaw V. Juket
iii. 26
EMleweU c. W>tm u.
830
iT. 154,
Kimball, The iii
220,
226,228
179,459
Kimball K.^tna Ins. Co.
iii. 282
Ktockeo p. VolU
iii. 419
B. Bryan
iii. 109
Ecnn r. Walker
ii.22S
r. Chappel
It.
635,541
KaTen> <-. WiUiMM
iT. m
V. DaTi»
ii. 286
K«« r. Tninor
iT.96
V. Farmera- Nat Bulk
iii. 138
Ke«loy «. RjM
iiL
268,317
i>.Feni>er
It. 466
KcT r. Snow
ILIM
0. Hamilton F. Ins. Co.
iii. 376
c. VattieT
i». 449
r. Hildreth
ii. 681
&TM r. Eureka a H. Co.
ii. Sfla
t>. Holme*
ii. 15
iii. 10:i
B. Lincoln
iii.es
r. Keyea
iL 78, 77
B. NeweU
iu. 124
iii. 109
B. Reding
ii.226
Kcjter ». Erant
iT. 370
iii. 402
Krjwr-, APP.U
iT. 141
V. Whitney
iii. 68
K«f none, 4c Ca It. Adami
li.366
Kimball, te. Mfg. Co. ». Vromao
ii479
r. Dole
ii. 4RS
K mbell B. Millef
U. 196
iii. 2B2
K mber b. Freu Asi'n
il.a2
KJhU. ,. Goi^h
ii. 41)4
K mberly b. Pslchin ii
365. 492. 690
Kibblnhite V. BowUnd
ii. 113
1.268
Sidd..HorT7
ii. 18
Kimbro B. Lytle
iii. 81
cJohDIOD
Kimm o. Weippert
Kimmel 0. Uchty
ii. UU
E.PeanoD
i. 439
ii. 478
r.R.irlin«>n
ii. 619
Kinaiid r. Dean
ii. 48i>
Bdd.1 .. Trimble
iT. 70
It. »>4
BiUerB.B«rr
iT. 451
Eincald ». Eaton
ii. 356
r. Stewartua
i. 460
V Hardin County
ii. 274
r Taylor
iii. 66
Kiaoard e. Kincard
iL2S6
T. TaSu
ii.407
Kindad i>. Dwinelle
ii.3I2
ffidnej .. The Ocean Prince
iii. 248
Ki.idel 0. Beck ft P. L Co.
11.286
EidMuD r. Empire lu. Co.
Ui.
212, 296,
Kinder «. Shaw
ii. 626
SSI. 840
Kine V. Bnlfe
It. 451
KicAQnitedStUea
i. 369
King, The. (&, Bex.)
Ki«U<7i^<^«oo
i. 236
King. £i parte
ii. 140
Ui. 472
In Tt
iL24J
^ ..Rogetm
Ui. 89
0. Am. Tnuis. Co.
i.439
Kn,. TonmaiM
ii. 16
■>. Bailey
i. 526
Ki(lilj,.BBlkIy
It. Ill
.. Baldwin
iii. 124
K.lhorn r. RobblM
iT. 194
V. Batdean U. 476, 687
It. 451
KillNwm r. Brmdler
11.466
f. Bennett
iT.538
^^^..■n,oii.i*on
i 221. 2.38
t.. Bickley
iii. 108
Klbwath r. Oajrlord
iii. 91
f.Bird
iii. 4H4
iL109
B. Brewer
ii. 77
Snbr<p.Wito«i
ii49T
B. Boroel
It. 221
Ka<>e«.,.Jobi»OD
U.460
tt. Burchell
iT.274
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
King V. Burdett
11.19
King t Co., Ba
iLsae
IT. 870
King Iron Bridge Co. ». St LonU Ii. 468
r. Chiuago R. Co.
ill. 410
King of Pm^^a i>. Knepper
1297
V. Cohom
U. 487
i.297
n. CollOD
11. 176
1.. OliTer
i.297
K. CornuU
1. 303
King'i County £1m Ina. Co. v.
SteTens
0. CroweU iu.
97,102
iu.4S2
D. DeUwue Ina. Co.
lil. 2»3
King'i EaEate
iv.418
r.Dwue
iii.81
Kmg'B Heirg u. King'i Adm.
iT. 6
T. DooUule
iU.81
King's Prerogative ia Saltpetre, Cara
e. Eagle MUU IL 482, 490
of
11.830
cFaber
iii. 43
King's Proctor b. Dainei
It. 617
p. Fleming
iU.78
Kingalock, The
iii. 248
tr. FoxweU
ii.430
Kingbird, The
iiL186
«. Gillett
ii.511
Eingdon V. Nottle
It. 472
B.Gnfton
XT. 112
Kingman u. Denlton
11.546
0. GrMuway
iii. 170
„. Perkins
!iL88
0. Gre7
ii.32
It. 41
V. HamUtoD il.487iUi.8T
; It. 451
D. Sporr
iii. 69
!>. Hoare
iL88»
Kingsbury v. Bradstreet Co.
ii. 22
V. Htdmea
iii. 07
r. Buckner
11226.233
p. Hotiutcnlc B. R. Co.
iii. 470;
B. Collins
iT. 112
iT. 491
0. Fiiher
iT. 186
u. Hurley
Hi. 94
V. Matlocks
i. 284
D. Inhabitaati of Bow
ii.26S
V. Milner
ir. 476
11. 214
V. Powers
11.226
u. JacotMon
ii.490
V. Whiiaker
iT. 608
f.Kkiter
iii. 461
Kingsbury's Csse
ii.32
f.KlDg 11.226; m. 42S
It. 203,
Kingsford .. MarshaU
iiL 823
231, 421
«, Merry
U.482
D. Lawwn
It. 118
EingilBDd V. R*pelye
iT. 232
».LeTy
iii. 41
". Tucker
iii. 437
v. London ImproTed Cab Co
ii.269
"'rKu'^''"™
i.419
r. LOM.
ii. IM
ii.632
B. McCarthy
r. H'Lean Asylum
IT. 136
V. Holbrook
iT. 461
L801
Kingsman o. Kingtnun
ii. 164
«. McVickar
It. 179
Kingston r. Girard
iu.286
u. Meredith
ii.4»G
V. Knibbs
iu. 288
r. Miller
11.146
0. Wilson
Iii. 116
». Mlliom
iii. 70
ii. 108, 120;
r. New York Cent R. Co.
ii. 260
iT.261
c.Ogden ■
ii. 813
Kingston's Will, Dncheia of
Kiukead i>. Uniled States
ii. 42»
e. Pattenon
Ii. 22
i. 284-
ti. Patteaon
il, 298
Kinkel i'. Harper
iii. 81
V. Phillips
ill. 86
Kinlock V. Craig
ii. 643,638
p. Praiton
iiL 876
Kinna v. Smith
iT. 160
«. Re»
ii. 168
Kinnurd i>. Standard Oil Co.
iii. 440
B. Richarf.
iL667
Kinne i: Webb
ii. 175
... Rumb»U
It. 276
Kinney u. Cortrin
ii.269
n. Smith m. 63, 428
It. 161
It. 162
o.Spurr
ii. 269
e. Farns worth
iv. 261
». Stale Mat F. In.. Co.
iii. S76
r. Laughenonr
ii. 206
V. Stetion
It. 89
<'.Le«
Ui. 76
p, Talbot
a. 226
B. Slattery
iT. 870
0. Tiffany
F. Uniled Sules
Ui. 480
Kinney's Case
11.98
ii. 840
Kinnier v. Kionier
iL120
0. Walker
Ui. 381
Kino c. Rudkin
iiL 448
V. Weitwood
li.294
Kinsey d. State
iL192
». Wight
It. 480
Kinsley u. Amea
It. 147
f. WiUon
iv. 96
V. Hall
U. SS2
V. Woodbridge
ii. 608
V. L. S. & M. S. H. R. Co
U. SO
I'. ZimmermftD
iL 116
Kinsman o. China H. Ins. Co
iiL 260,
King Brick Mannf. Co. p. Ph<BnU
881
loi. Co. ia. 370, 378
KinsotTing b. Pierce
IT. 448
sObyGoOl^lc
e. lAke Sbcwe ft U. S. K, Co.
*. HcDoiuld
r. TbacDM ft U. Idi. Co.
EiKhDcr r. Venn*
KimdbdBbt v. Einmdbflght
Kbk, Hatter of
t. aark
V. Fnrgenoa
». Hodgjon
I. HcCiwker
t. NowiU
..Webb
Kirkeiidbright s. Kirkcudbright
Kirke e. Ljnd
KirkhMton D. Board v. Ainilef
Kirkle J c. Lacy
KiAmu B. KirkDMQ
r. Sha^wcroM iL
V. SnodgTu*
Kirkpatrick i>. Howk
r. Jenkini
>! Wolfe
KiikwDod V. Fint Nat Bank
Kntland a. Wanier
Knoti V. Elliott
Xirwan f . Keimedjr
Einran'i Truiti, In ti
Kiitii. Corj
KiHeti. B«eMr
KitcbeDc. Lee
r.McCU«ka7
Ettte c. Rogen
■. Van Drck
TABLE OF CASES.
tTha mufliiil pagva m nfarnd to-}
W. 70
il.490
ii. 1S&
U. 400, 623
It. 610
iii. 44
U. 402
lii. 4
1. 66
li. 448
ii. 298
iil. 04
il. 240
It. 74
KiltredgeF.
Hodgmaa
v. Wooda
ET«tt V. McKeithan
Ktaniierv.
' V, BiftBeratafl
V. Ward
i.247
li. S4«; It. 468
l!i.4S
Kfet V. Grant
Kleeb V. Bard ii
Klein v. CaldweU ii
r. Ini. Co. iii
..Pipea i
». Ruaaell il
V. Snttie ii
DiiDe I. Catan iil
ElciBert r. Ehlen ii
KkinvMt «. The CaiM Harittima
Klein-ort V. Shepatd
iiL2H
Klenk r. Walnut L*ke
ill. 449, 461
iT, 219
Kline «. Be«be ii. 238
238; iv. 80
». Kime
ii. 117
U.239
Ktinger ». Miwonri
i. 828
Klaht'i Caw
li. 143
Knabe r. UreUe
Ui.448
Knackbull i>. Fowls
ii.226
Knagg u. Goldimith
lii. 198
Knagga u. Green
li.286
Kdhpp v. AlTord
ii. 640
o. Banka
i. -.MB
v. Lee
ii. 472
V. Mom
lii. 366
o. The Ua/ot
U. 2B1
v. Thomaa
i. 283
Knapp'i Will, In ra
ir. 632
Knaiua f. Gottfried K. B. Co.
ii. 618
Knecht t>. Mut. Life Ina. Co.
111.282
Kneeland i>. Euale;
IL 188, 460
V. Faller
It. 461
. V. Van ValkenbnrK
lii. 432
Knen o. Hoftmaa
iii 37
Knickerbocker o. De Freest
ii.226
Knickerbocker Lifb Int. Co.
.Dietz
iii. 376
o. Pendleton
iU. 370
Kaight, CaM of
ii. 248
D. Bennett
10.402
f. Cambridge
iU.306
0. Cooper
li.2G9
D. Cotesworth
ii.286
V. Crocklord
ii.611
■>. DupleeiU
iL64
o.Ell^
1». 276, 283
V. Faith UL 296, 802, 808. 331
V. Jones
ill. 76
c. Knight
ii. 166
!>. Lee
1.467
V. Mann
ii. 404
... NeUon
ii. 389
V. Ogden
iil. 66
B. OliTer
It. 410
u. Paraona
iii. 184
D. Ponbuid, te. B. B. Co
ii. 604
v.Pugh
V. Smith
iii. 77
iT. 510
o. Thayer
r. Wilder
ii. 168
iii. 427
KnighU x>. Wifleo ii
402;ui.&6
Knill B. Hooper
iL288
Knipe i>. Palmer
ii.228
Kniakem ». The Lutheran Churchea
ii.288
Knochp. VanBemuth
It. 307
KnolljB n. Alcook
It. 628
Knoop V. Bohmrioli
il.286
Knoie ». United State* L 283, 284, 207
Knott ...Morgan 11.872 ; iil. 84
V. Tidyman
lit 01
^. Venable
iii. 102. 106
Knowlea u. Atluitic ft St L. R. R a 664
^cibyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
* nuFfbul pa^H m ra£4Tnd to.]
KnowlM o. Gm Usht Co.
r.LMiCMhiteltT.By.
i. 260
l.2»
iii. 43T
Krogs V. Atlanta & W. P. B. Co.
ii. 269
■..Lord
ii. 682
Krona, The
iii. 243
Enowlton u. Boh
iii. 199
Kronheim it. Johnson
iv. 306
i: Knowlcoii
ii. 430
Erueger u. Ferrant
iv. 110
Kno» V. Buih«ll
ii.l4e
Kmger t>. Wilcox
li. 640
<^. EichBDge Bank
1.326
Krnmmel v. Thomas
i!.48e
r.PlBck
ii. 2S6
Kniachke r. Stefan U. 461 ; iii. 87
11. G;e iii66;Iv. 148
Kruse u. Scrippl
iT. 467
.. Hayicn
ii.490
Kudik V. Lehigh Valley B. Co.
ii. 269
I'. Lee
i. 91,254
Kahu V. Newinau
iii. 25
(.'. ProlectioD Ini. Co.
ii. 284
V. Stansfleld
il. 44t
iu. 419
Euj^k n. Goldman
li. 164
Knoi CouDty u. Aipinwdl i. S22 ; iii. 89
Eu-Elux CasM, The
i. 228
Knoxville Iron Co. v. Dobtoa
ii. 260
Eull V. Kull
L284
Enye v. Moore
ii. 217
Kunzler v. Kohans
ii.S91
Koch V. Endriu
iu. 41
Kurtz n. Moflitt
i.30l
V. Both
i». 162
Kutuer v. Phillips
Kylen. Kavanag^
1469
Koebel t'. Saundert
iv.461
Koeliler. Ex partt
"i. 439
Kyles 17. Tail
lv.152
V. Black R. Falls Iron Ca
ii. 280
Kymer b. Suwercropp
iLMl
«. Dodga
V. Sanden
iii. 81
ii, 366
Kynn^rd t>. Leslie
ii.66
Koeningiberger v. Bichmond
Kof k» V. Bo.ickT
Eohl D. United Ststet
8. M..
i.3B4
ii. 189
L. ... L.
ii. 76
ii.340
La Amistad de Bues 1
109. 121
Kohler Manur. Co.u. B««hore
ii. see
Labatnt v. Schmidt
iv.37
Kohn D. Watkini
iii. 7B, 78
Labold ». Southern Hotel Co.
11692
Kobne V. Ine. Co. N. America
iii. 267.
Labouchere v. Dawron
iii. 64
269.286
D. Topper
iii. 33
Kollenberger v. People
i.469
Labowiti V. Solomon
11661
Koltenbrock v. Cracraft
i», 29. 96
Lacaze v. Sqour
111.33
Konig D. Bayard 1.248; iii. 37
m.60
Konntz v. DaTii
ii.236
Laclede Bank v. Sehular
iii. 88
KooDiK.CompagDied-AMurancea ilL248
Laclotte v. Labaire
iv. 415
Koonu 0. Hannft>al Lu. Co.
iii. 376
Laeon, In re
iv. 418
Kopilofl r. Wilion
iii. 205
V. Higgin.
iL91,03
Koplitz V. Gu>la*nt
iv. 113
I.. MerUns
It. 461
Eopper V. Dyer
iT. 1B7
Laeonia, The
i.42
Korneman i-. Fred Ho«r B. Co. It. 186
iii. 234
Kortright «. Buffalo Commerciai Bank
L'Actif
L113
li. 290. 296
Lacy, Ex parte
lv.488
B. Cdy It. 45. 188, 194
0. Ar^t
iU.452
KorU! V. Carpentar
iv. 479
ti. Getman
ii. 269
KoMuth'i 6we
. 409, 419
E>. M'Neile
iii. eo
1.297
D. Pixley
Ii. 241
Koster v. S>pt«
ii.l20
V. Williams
ii. 226
KoBzla'a Caae
ii.42
V. Woolcott
iii. 83
Kountze c Helmnth
iv. 480
La Dame C^clle
i.869
Kow Siting, The
i. 166
Ladd t'. .£tna Ins. Co.
m. 376
Kramer i: Cook
iii.46S
I-. BoBtfHl
Iii. 448
V. Farmen' & Mechanics'
Bank
r. Chase
iv.233
of Steabenville
Iv. 176
1.. Harvey
iv. 278
V. Sandford ill. 109, 113
D.Ladd
iv. 830
Kramer's Appeal
iii. 123
». Noyes
It. 473
Kratzensteln c. Western Ass. Co. iiL260
«. Thomas
iii. 476
KrauK V. Reigel
iv. 471
Ladd'B Will
iv. 532
Kremer it. ^oDtliem Exp, Co.
iv. 485
Lade v. Shepherd
iii. 433
ii. 604
Ladue V. Detroit 4 Milwaukee R. R.
Krenger r. Blanck
ii. 479 1 iv
178, 194
Krkk D. Jansen
ii. 366 Lady Ann Fry's Case
It! 128
Krider D.Ramsay
iv. 105 1 Lady Campbeli, The
Hi, IBS
Krlog B. Missouri
1.409
' Lady Durham, The
lU. 187
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABEB.
cIt
Uij VruUin, Tbe UL 206, 2(
Uij Woniley, The jii. 'a
Idfuje V. Horgsn il. U
Uirette (City CoDDdl of) v. HoUand
la&retie Id*. Co. v. French i. 341
ii.3t
Udiu F. Sl«Uer iii. 11
Ufoa B. De Anna* ii. 498, 4(
V. Phillip* It. 4i
Ufbod B. Deem* iii. i
U|P)D F. Badollet ir. 152, If
Ugrtnge B. But4 ii. 44
LaliuM & BoQDHuaiion v. Sieber ii. 3^
Uhr'i Appeal ii. I'i
LiidUn B. Organ ii. 4t
lAidleTD. Burlinton ii. 4(
laidlej'i Adm. v. Bright'* Adoi. iii. 7
Lii May c. United State* " '
-'-- F. FidgeoD
luiSl'.
U. 4T9
ir. 451
tT.llO
0. Eichold
V. HcGeorge
T. Sute 111. □□
UJtaae Eng^nie i. 200; iii. 267
Lake B. Bruttoa iii. 12S
B. Colamli. Ins. Co. iii. 323
B, Craddock ir. 361 '
B. Manbattan, The i. 8T0
B. Nolan iv. 46
lake £ne & W. B. Co. v. Whitham
lu. 461
lak* Nav. Co. v. Auttfti El. Bapplj
Co. 1. 870
lake I^easanlon W. Co. v. Contn
Cmu W. Co. U. S40
Like Shore & U. S. Bj. Co. p. C. &
W. L R. B. Co. ii. 340
B.Perkia* ii. 600
B. Prentice U. 16, 260
t. Sute 1. 430
Ukt View V. Boaa Hill Cemelen'
Cd. ii. 340
lakeman n. Pollard ii. 468
lakia V. Lakin iv. 63
lalam-e t G. Mannf. Co. d. Habere
maon Maonf. Co. ii. 366
lahane v. Uorean ii. 120
LaUande d. CrediUir* ■< (uti
UHanche
Lamar c. Brown
B. Janet ir. 1B7
B. Hicoo L 67; 0. 62, 228, 2SE, 4W
B. Scott ir. S2
Ufflb B. Archer ir. 260
cBeldea ii. 143
1. Dnrant iU. 40, 41, 44. 154
V. Bran* ii. 250. 3T3
p. HariMtn^ ii. 154
K lathrop IL 608, 509
p-Ta^kr ii.2U6
». Walker iii. 487
luBbert, Ex parU iii. 87
B. Ad^Moa liL 66
L 166, 301
a an nfemd taj
LamlMrt i>. Barrett i. SOI ; iL 83
V. Be**ej ii. 284
D. Francheboi* ii. 183
D. Ghi*elin iii. 105, 107. 109
B. Neuchatel Aiphalt Co. ii. 286
e. Pack
V. Paine
V. Sandford Ii
p. Smith
Lamberton p. Wiitdom iL f
LamberUOD u. Hogan
Lonibeth d. Caldwell
B. Vawter
Lambie'* Esute, h n
Lamborn b. Countj
iii. 90
ir. 640
ii. 4C1
iii. 234
iL 478, 479
IL604
iii. 48:!
Ii. 649
r. 61, 2li2
Ii. 46:t
ir. 805
i. 467
L'Am^riqae
I«niert p. Heath
Lamkin p. Crawford
Lamm v. Port Dapocit, Ac. Ai
Lam mot p. Bowly
Lamont u. Grand Lodge
La Mottle Mfg. Co. p. Nat
Work* Co.
LamotC V. Sterett
Lamotte v, Wi*ner
Lamourieux b. Hewit
Lampet'aCase IL 862;
Lampleigh p. Brathwait
Lamplugh p. Lamplugh
Lampmao v. Milk*
Lamson v. Martin ii. 3U6
Lamson Con*. S. S. Co. p. WeU ii. 449
Lanaax's Succesiion ii. 581
Lancaater p. Amaterdam Imp. Co. ii. 2Ho
p. Dolao ii. 166, Ittii
p. Eve ii. 843
p. McBryde ii. 431
Lancaater Bank v. Woodward ill 91
Lancaster County Bank p. Staoffer ir. 20
Lancaater Co. Nat. Bank p. Moore iL461
Lancaster In*titutIon p. Reizart 1. 419
Laiica*ter Natl. Bank b. Taylor iii. 91
Lancailer Saring loit. b. Peigort ir. 434
Lance v. Cowen ii. 324
Lance'i Appeal ii. 840
Landp. JeAiei ii. 163,621
Landaaer p. Mack il. 441
Land Credit Co. of Ireland, Tn re ii. 300
Lund Grant By. v. Commi**ioner« of
Coffey Cy. ii. 285
Lander p. Clark iii. 138
Lander & Bagley'i Contract, In re iv. 85
Lander* v. Dell ir. 283
p. Watertown In*. Co. iii. .^76
Landman, Caie of i. 'J25
Landon v. Button ir. S05
p. Piatt Ii. 843
Landreth. Re ii. 366
Landrnm u. KnowleB iii. 369
E. Trowbridge lii. 109 -
Lane, in rt i. 884; U. 230; iU. 61
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
L*ae D. Baker
n. Cotton {.646; iL 602, 010,
V. BaTJB
V. Dighton
D. Gould
p. IroDDiODger
V. L«vilIUn
V. McKeen
r. Hune H. Siie Iiu, Co.
V. Mill«r
V. Moore
V. Nixoa UL
B. Puinell
r. Pennimaa
•>. Towuend L 842.
p. Vick
Lane & B. Co. v. Locke
Lane Fox d. EenungtoD Co.
1.466
28S, 3W
i*. 263
I Langton s. Woiring
e. White
I Lsngworthy v. Chadwick
n, Criiser
er V. Auld
Laukin v. Terwtlliger
L*aning v. Christ;
La NonDanilie
Laopber v. Glenn
Lanjdown, Caw of
I^niing c Gaine
c. Goelet
V. M'FherMm
V. Rattoone
D. Van AlttTDe
Lanfear o. Hnnler
B. Snmiier
»'. B^Uoff
B. Cadwell
i>. Doaghertv
». Gale
V. Rop«
B. Wariog
V. WilkinMD
Lang's Appeal
Lang's Estate
Langan v. Hevett
Langdale, Ex parU
V. Trimmer
I^ngdoD 0. Branch
o.Bnel
V. De Groot
V. DoDd
V. N. T. Equltabla Ina. Co.
D. Strong
Iiange, Ex parte
Langenberg o. Decker
Langford, In n
B. Cmnmingi
V. Montelth
1!. Pin
D. Uulted States
Langfort r. Tiler
Langham t>. Seaay
Langhammer v. Munter
Langbora d. Allnutt
QjtngleT D. Chapin
If. Haramoad
V. Lcnglej
D. Palmer
r. Ron
,Langrid|e b. Ixtj
Ijangttafie b. Feawlck
Langstoo, Ex part*
Laogton o. Higgliu
iii. 106
ii. 300
iv. 138
i.2B7
i 463. 496
i».336
ii.4.W
ill. 316
tv. 478
lil. 410
r. 608, 610
iU. 96
It. 122
ii. 490
ir. 106
It. 161
ii. 492
11. 466, 467
11.492
iL681
a 362, 364
il.438
ti, 296
ul. 42, 68, 07
IT. lei, 183
iv. 192
Hi. 483
iU.464
Lansing & Thayer v. North BIto- Co.
1.412
Lansing Iron Works v. Walker U. 843
Lantsbery u. Collier
Lanute u. Barker
Lapeyre v. U. S.
Latham u. Atlas In*. Co.
V. Briggi
V. Noble
«. Norton
Lapham Dodge Co. o. SaTerin
Lnplce u. Clilton
La Pieire v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co.
11.269
Lapllh V. Bangor Bank iii. 430
Lappin V. Charter Oak Ina. Co. iii. 376
Larabee & Co. v. Lewia ii. 366
Larch. The i. 360, IIL 40, 166, 107
La lUpnblique Francalu v. Bcholti
L 284; ii. 366
LarVin r. Arery It. 116
Larkioi v. Larkltu It. 682
Larmour o. Rich It. 203
Lamed ti. HudsoD
Laroche v. Oswln
Larrabee b. Larrabee
V. Hinneaota Y. Co.
V. Van Alityne
Lanon b. Anltman Co.
o. Chase
f. Met. St. By. Co.
Lary v. Tonng
Lasata t>. Holbrook
Latcelles v. Georgia
B. Lord Ooilow
lAsell B. Tncker
I^aher b. Lasher
B. St. Joseph's Ins. Co.
c. Stimson
Laahley b. Hogg
ilL124
L 284. 467
Iii. 300
1.202
iil6
m.70
Ui. 461
iU. 814
It. 631
Ii. 16
It. 67, 68
a 612
U.164
Ui. 487
iH. 109
iiL437
L87
ill. 40B
ill. 44
U.469
LaaseU v. Reed IL 347
Lasielle f. Baniett It. 174
Lasaelts v. Comirallli It. 8S9
Laraen County Bank v. Sherer iH. 80
Laasller ■>. Lassiter U. 101
;abyG00<^lc
tTbe mivfflDftl p<v« w n
LaUilbde r. Omi« ii. 228
Lawrence n. Bayard
iT.261
LiK Charch of Latter-Dsr Sainte v.
Ii. 491
Cniled SutM 1. 3S4
V. Brown il.
146,- IT
62,104
Liihui r. Uthun U. 128
e. Chaw
iv.461
r. McL»in i». 46
U.Crane
IT. 686
t. Morgan i». 473
IT. Dana
ii. 373
C.Udell i».464
i>. Fox
It. 244
Uthrop V Amhent Buk W. 449
«. He.Wr
ii.449
r. Cwnmercua Buk of Scioto
«. HeUter
il. 153
ii. 288, 285
0. Jarvi.
i. 262
r. Klgner iii. 410
«. Jenkins
lit. 438
f. Smilley'i Exec. iv. 307
B. Kitteridge
ii. 429
Lulirop', Cmo i. 403, 404
V. La.renc% ii.
128, 1«
i IT. 67
Uihrop H. L. Co. ». BeM«mer S.
D. McCalmont
iii. 121
Bink il. 441
V. Milfer
iv. 205
Latimei r. BaUon ii. Sia
ir. 62
UtlM) r. Holme* i. 457
D. Minturn
Hi. 207,
234,240
Ulouche r. DonunT it. 174
t>. MitcheU
iv. 418
L>IU r. Kilbourn iii. 42, Gl
D. Norton
i. 309
UKhner o. Res It. 4«8
D. Obee
iii. 448
V. Ocean In*. Co.
iii. 317
Uofcrdale Peerage, Tlie U. 62. 87. 430
iLl:i8
Uagher d. Pointer iL 260, 633
V. SebOT
Iii. 268
Lingblin r. Calumet, &c. Co. iv. 451
u. Smith
Ii. 381
c, Chic»go & N. W. B. Co. ii- 604
D. Spence
ii.206
e. FergnsOD Ii. 522
B. Springer
ii. 612
iii. 451
Linghman r. Piper Ii. 866
iii. 80
Ungbioo B. Harden ii. 441
ui3te
Unmin r. Lebanon Talley B. R. ii. SOO
u. Taylor
iii. 88
Lisnder r. Brooks ir. OH
V. TraitcM of Orphan
House
iii. 66.
Un Ov Bew, peiitiooer L 330
64
lMO«Bewi>.Uiutwl State* i.301,330;
•>. Tucker
ir. 176
ii.4S0
B. Winona A. St Peter R. R.
a. 804
I-m,TI» i,283
E^wreDCe's Eetate
i». 2BB
Uanuit B. Gamier iv. 471
Lawrence Hfg. Co. v. Lowell Uosiery
Unrent >. Chatham F. Ina. Co. iii. 876,
Milii
ii. 366
376
Lawrie u. Leei
iv. 461
laari r Renad i. 467
Lawry v. WiUiamt
98,456
Unriil f. StiattOD i. 342
Lawion d. Farmera' Bank
iii. 105
Laiuatt c. Lippincott ii. 627
V. Lawton
ii. 445
tantouc t. Teerfale ii.87
1-. Morton
IT. 46
UT.bre .. Wiiwn iii. 316
r. Perdriaux
It. 404
Uieoder d. Black»tone ii. 178
V. Townel
iii. 124
LiTenMD r. Standard S«V Co. ii. 343
B. Weiton
iii. 82
l*T«roni D. Dniry iii. 217, 301
Lawion't Appeal
Lawther v. HamUton
iT. 418
laiertj B. Burr iii. 43, 47
ii.aee
t. ChTuen iii. 217
Law ton v. Manar
iii. 123
la»in <■- Emigrant 1 S. Bank ii. 13
K. Sager
iv.464
UTink (Ship) B. Bttclar iiL 171
0. Steele
ii. 340
U ViritiniB 1. 77
Lawyer v. Fritcher
ii.
196,206
Uw. Ex part, 1.308,409
V. Smith
iT. Ml
r Buller It. 162
Lay V. King
iii. 417
V. Hollingiworth iii. 176, 287, 280
V. Wiaiman
ui. 79
Layard v. Maud
It. 179
iii. S6»
Layng a. Paine
iii. 466
t. Mill, ii. 407
V. Stewart
ii.222
Iji Twbel
il. 387
Uweit. Bennett ii. 476
Uyion r. Field
T. 112
U.l«rr.Und«i Ii. 260
Laurdu. Merchants 4 M
Trani
Co.
U.leM r.Anglo-Egyptiaii Cotton Co.
ii. 458; iii. 96
li.22
Laianu d. Bryion
iv.43e
, c.Sli»» W. 806
c. Commonwealth In
.Co.
ill. 261
U«l«7 0. Hooper iv. 146
Uwiuoo r. bfiwon iU. 84
V. Cowic
r. Shearer
iii. 86
a. 630
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Hie iBUilDal pugg* ■» nfamd 10.1
Lazier d. Haran
iii-96
Leddell v. McDougal
IL4gO
Lizovert v. LuoTert
11. 116
Ledol V. Ruptnan
iv. 162
l*a «. Guice
iii. 31
Leduc V. Ward
iii. 210
o. Lea
ii. 128
Ledyard c. Butler
iv. 17S
V. Polk County Copper
Co. W. 179
0. Hibbatd
11.666.690
... W,lto ^^
iii. 79
Lee, Tbe R. E.
iLdOO
Le»ch V. Cook
ii. 403
l*e. Ex ixirte
p. Abdy
11.266
e. H>U U. 79, 43a ; iv. 370
ii.386
V. Hewitt
iii. 110
V. Alexander, The
11.248
B. J.y
iT.637
17. Bank of England
i.431
r. PMple
iii. 464
■>. Barreda
iii.22«
LeMh'i Uood.
It. 632
D. Baacom
iii. 7e
iT.208
ii.S24
iii. 376
B. Bennett
ii 1«4 : iv. 606
Leadbiiter u. Farrow
U.630
V. Boak
ii.448
ii.a7
D. Boardman
iii. 321. 326
ji. 846
B. Bowen
ii. 549
r. Moxon
ii.e33
P. Fox
iv. 871
Leadman c. HviU
Ji. 6213
V. Gaikell
ii.4&4
Leol V. Colei
iii. 6B
V. GibbiDgt
ii. 16, 373
Leah? f. Daria
ii. 16
t. Grifflo
ii. 604
Leake «. Gi^ilrt
a 164
17. GrinneU
Ui. 284. 236
ii.43l
V. Haley
ii.S6e
v. Hayei
iv. 370
P.Hodge.
U.20&
iv. 641
f. Howlett
iv.l79
D. Watwo
iv. 214, 306
V. Huntooo
il.631
Lean it. Scbatz
ii. 168
«. Johnson
i.3»
Learo>d v. Brook
ii. 261
17. KimbaU
ii.64B
Leary u, Boston & A. K. Co
ii.268
V. I^ke
iii. 461
II. Shout
ii 61
iii. 26
V. United StatM
f. Lee
Iii. 432
Leaik v. Simk
ii'. 549
u. McLaughlin
B. McLeoJ
i*. 110
Leathern o. The Roannke
iii. 248
iii. 452
Leather v. Simpson
i. 400 ; iii. 85
t>. Mathewt
iv. 466
Leather Cloth Co. v. Ani
Leather
V. Muggeridge
11.466
Cloth Co.
U.366
D. Patten
Iv. 805
ii. 494
V. Pillsbury
iv.96
V. LoTiont
ii.366
U. 866
li.492
. B. Friean*
11.162
Leathers v. BtesslDB
Leavenworth v. Delafield
1869
B. Risdon
ii. 346
lU. 236. 24S
V. Rogers
i.67
Leavitt V. Fletcher
iii. 488
V. Sandy HiU
iii. 461
o. Onford. Ac. Co.
ii. ail
V. Soodder
iv. 608
«.Peck
iu.16
V. Selleck
iii. 95
p. Pratt
iT.451
V. Simpson
iv. 336
V. Slmel
iii. 103
V. Smead
iii. Bl
n. Windaor Lend Co.
m.33,46
V. Southern In*. Co.
liL212,840
e Barren v. Babcock
iT.368
B. Sione
iT. 176
Le Barron i>. Babcock
iv. 370
B. TilloUKM
a 13
Lebel v. Tucker
iii. 96
V. Vernon
iv. 109
Le Blanc's Succeidon
Ii. 209
V. Wimberly
iii. 83
Le Breton o. Miles
ii. 459
V. W. U. Tel. Co.
ii. 611
V. Morgan
i.454
p. Tandell
iii. 81
V. Nouchet
ii. 08, 459
p. Zagury
iii.»i
Le Caux c. Eden
i. 359
Lee's Appeal
ii. 22B
r* Cheminant v. Pearson
iii. 140
*e'sCi!r
iv. 3»3
Le Chevalier v. Lynch
ii. 119, 123
Lee Co. u. Rogers
i. 41B
Lechraere & Lloyd, /n r«
iv. 203
Buiton ii.S40
Lecki.. Maestaer
ii. 566
Leech v. S-^hweder
iii. 448
Le Coil D. Armstrong
ii. 168
Leedom v. Phillips
ii. 4»7
Lecomte p. Tondouze
[i.4H4
Leeds p. Cameron
iv. 176
Le Coutenr it. London & S.
W. B. Co.
IF. Cheetham
Iii. 469
ii. 600
(11260
Le Cra» t>. EngbM
liL 271, 27*
V. Wheeler
1T.46»
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
iMdi ». Wright
iL49B
Lekeuzi'.Naah
It. 07. 473
Ind* BuUdb Co., h rt
iiLlOS
Leland v. Creyon
iii. 123
Utf r. St. Loato, *c Ry. Ck.
ii.260
D. Hayden
ii. 364
U4v .. Tuior
1*. 306
D. Loring
iv. 183
1.^6
t>. Medora, The
iii. 196
Imt e. YkWi
iii. 203
Le Lievre v. Gould
Ii. 490
Led 0. United Sutet 1. 304, 331 ; ii. 39
Le LoaiB L 81, 168
102, 198, 200
i). 463
Uloup 1). MobUe
i. 42'J
V.Holt
iii. 1)7
Le Lueut 0. Le Lueur
ii. 117
LcCebm r. Datniit
ii. 451
Lc Fine F. he PoTre
iii. 452
Uman b. Whitley
iv. 805
UffingweU r. W>mn
i. 842
Lemaon g. Bon gall
IT. 616, 618
LfOrac p. Juitice
i>. 4S7
L^mayne 0. Stanley
L^muke V. Booth
iT. 615
Lcgil Teoder Cue L ITS, 244, 264, 316
ii. 623
UiuOr.JohiuoD
ii. 176
.e Meaurier v. Le Mesurier
ii. 81, 119
Upjt t. O'Brien
ii. 76
ii. 82
Ut«tt«ByA»
iii. 25
Lem Moon Sing c. United Statei ii. 39
Lefgett B. XVM Int. Co.
iii. 371 376
Lemoine v. Bank of North America
ff.AT«r7
ii.366
iii. 66
>. Dubai.
ii. 02
Lemon b. Temple
Lemon, v. Wefi.
iii, 73
r. Hunrer
It. 810, 825
ii, IS
0. Jones
iii. 71)
Lemont 1.. Lord
iU.212
r.LeBgett
ir.307
Lempriire t.'. Lange
ii.24l
t. »e<r J«rw7 U>Duf . « Banking
.. Paaley
ii,e38
Co.
ii. 292, 300
V. Valpj
iT.386
r Ferkini
iT. 310
Lenderman v. Leaderman
ii. 138
r. St>Dd>rd Oa Co.
ii-360
Le Neve ». Edin. & London Shippinn
UfgoR «. Barrett
iii. 64
Co,
ill, 231. 232
UgroHl >■ Hampden Siduer College
V. Le NeTe
iT. 17(t 466
ii. 291
Lenfera «. Henko
It. 75
U Grew ^ Cooke
ii. 609
Unnon. Ex parit
i,301
Uh»n B. FhUpott
iii. 472
Lenox b. Howlaad
ii. 402
Ulii Irr. Co. p. Moyle
iii. 440
D. Leverett
iii, 109
Uhigh Bridge Co. p. Lehigh
Coal Co.
B. Robert. ii
. 95, 106, 107
ii. 206, 309
e. U. I. Company ill
Letil B. Padelford ii
240, 244, 269
Lrtigh County r. Kletiner
ii.284
465; iii, 123
Uhigh Min. & MMuf. Co.. /
™ i.iw
V. TlUwjo
i.24S
Leotilhon t. MofBrt
ii.&34
i. 430
Untill B. Robeaon
iii. 20
». Snyder
ii. 26S
Lentz „. Carnegie
iii. 440
>.Troiie
iii. 4;n
Uni V. HarriMtn
ii. 612
Uhmin>.CeDtn)R.Co.
iii. 82
Leo. The
Hi. 232
>.J0M<
iii. 96
r*o p. Union Pac. Rj. Co.
11286
«. Kelly
ii. 360, 513
Leob B. Pierpoint
iii. 44
>.UwiB
iv. 305
i. 868
'.ShwUeford
ii. 451
Leon. The
iii, 23t
I«'bc.Bnn
W. 437
iMn 0. Galceran i
369: iii. 170
LeicKter >. Row
U. 389
Leon XIII.. The
. 42; iii, 109
Ukwler. Eari of v. Walter
11.26
Leonard c. AmutrouK
iii. 468
Uidjr.T.mmany
iii. 89
O.Baker
ji, ^0
Uigh D. Dickeeon
i». 870
f. Burr
iT. 9. 120
r.Jwk
iii. 432
e. Grant
ii. 40
p. Mather
ill. 303
tii. 134
Leigh'. Eittie. /-. n.
iT. 76
iiL 419. 424
Leigh Broi. B. Habile, &a R7
Co. 11. 49s
B. N. Y., A. * B. T. Co
ii. 611
Ldghum c. The«l
It. Ill, 112
B. Poole
ii. 467
o. United Statei
1.284
B. Steele
It. 68
, r.Yonng
L342,3M6
V. Stickney
ii. .^43
Leinan .. Smart
W. 461
iii. 122. 123
Uuhman .. WWte
iii. 464
0. White'. G. L. Oo.
ii. HOe
Uiiy „. Hirdin
i. 439
B. Whitwill
iii. 231
Uilch B. Atlantic Mnt Ina. Ca iii. 282
Leoncini n, Po«
ii. ^M
Uiienriorfer 0. Webb
i. 178
Leopold B. Salkey
ii.468
Uixh „. Leith
ii. 117
Le Page Co. v. BuuU Cement Co. U. 866
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CISES.
[ni« OATglDiU pa^u iin nf«T*d to-]
licpanto. The
iii. 248
Leward b, Bawly
ii. 261
Le Plai»ain:e Bay HMbor v
City of
Lewei V. Ridge
tr. 123, 472
Monroe
iii. 127
Lcwei'a TruiW, I„ ™
ii-430
Leroux v. Brown
ii. 4e3
Lewin 0. Ea*t India Co.
iii. 21ii
Leroir v. Wilraarlh
Ji. 441
Lewin'. Trust, /n n
ii. 138
Le Roy v. Beard
it. 463
Lewii. Ex purlt
ii. 458
398, 458. 459,
V. Angeriniller
i*. 103
463
V. Arbuckla
Ii. 451
V. JohnMin
iU. 41, M
D. Aylolt
i». 617
E. United Ina. Co.
Iii. 3]6
V. Barton
iii. 80
Leroy o, Tatliam
ii. S66
1-. Bnwkenridge
1.466
Letsatier o. DuhieU
iv. 4^7
E.BraM
K. 477
ii. 44U
K. Brehnie
ii. 625
Leskinikjr a. LcBkinikr
ii. 81
e. Brewster
iii. 124
Lwlie, /fe
Jii. 248
V. Brook!
ii. 411
c. Bauett
iii. 81
F. Browning
ii. 477
». Leilie
1164; iv. 306
p. Burr
ui. 102
«. Lorillard
11300.467
«. Cantairs
iii. 442
u. Young
ii. 873
u. Cliicago. tc. Ry.
Co.
U. 284
Lulie'i Caae
i. 39
... CUuboroe
iv. 376
L'E.p<rance
iii 246
IT. Counright
ii.36D
Leuer c. Lewer
iv. 319
t-.DavU
■ii. 104
LMter B. Buel
ii. 490
B. Elizabeth* Jane.
The
iii. 196, 106
V. Delaware, tx.. B. Co
iii. 207
g. Fiek
1383
u. Garland
iv. 05
V. Fuilarton
ii. 378
p. Graham
ii. 480
D. Galena & Chic. U
R.
R. ii. 638
Lethbridge t,. Winter
iii. 451
e. Garrett
ii. 13
iv. 254
0. Glau
iv.28
Le Tigre, Cue of
iii. 248
i>. Rollner
ii. 467
Lett o. Guardian F. Int. Co. iii, 258
iii. 108
Leu r. Majer
Leucade. The
Ii. 612
V. Great Weatem Ry. Co
ii.6»9.
1. J56
606
Leuppie D. (Jiborn
Ii. 146
». Hancock
iii. 167
LcTeni 0. Brigg*
iii. 76
V. Kerr
ii.648
Lever v. Flelcl.ar
Iii. 265
V. Kinney
iii. 152
0. Goodwin
ii,3b6
V. Kramer
iU. 86. 109
Leverick ... Meigi
U. 622, ti24
V. I^ngdoD
iii. 64
Leyeridge v. Mamh
iv. 185
D.Lee
ii. 167
Levering v. Heighe
ii. 246 ; iT. 55
V. Lewetling
i. 204
r. Levering
ii. 128
17. Lewi* ii. 84. 76
99,
116; It. 516
Leverson d. Liino
iii. 43
E. Loper
iii. 24
iv-flS
«. Loi of Whalebone. A
iii. 248
Levey o. Dyea«
iii. 4fB
p.McCabe
ii. 498
Levie p. Met. L. Int. Co.
iii. 37.3
V. M'Lemore
ii. 487
t«rine n. Taylor
i.67
V. Maris
iv. 617
Leviui p. Sleator
iv.64
«. Marling
ii. 872
Levy X,. Bank of the United 8UIm
V. MelTltt
ti.43B
iii. 86
■>. New York Central Sleeping-
D. Barley
i.42
CarCo.
ii 502
0. Cadet
Hi. 51
V. KichoUon
11-633
D. Cohen
Ii. 477
V. Nobbi
i».307
e. Cotierton
iii. 206
». Owen
ii. 3M
e. Drew
iii. 98
V. Price
iii. 443,448
«. M'Cartee
li.54
K. Rucker
iii. 278, 336
». Merchanu' M. In*. Co. iii. Ml
V. Seifert
ii. 269
e. MerriU
fii. 122
V. Shainwald
.804; li.34
p. Milne
ii. 16
u. Siiarvey
ii.645
». New York
Iv. 194
D. Slieldon
iT.86
». Payne
HI. 41
u. Smith
iv.68
e. Waitt
ii.866
V. United Statei
I. 243. 244
B. Waiter
iii. 64
B. Walter
11.20
V. Wailii
ii. 623
b. Williama
liL288,244
Levy Court c. Coroner
ii. 274
«. Wilson
ii;474
LevyalelD r. (VBrleD
ii. 226
11. Wood
U.494
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
I*wii'.ftOoodbody
ii see
Lillie B. Litlie if. 532
Lewii Bowlw'i Cue
St. 78
B. Price ii. 26
Ltirii Sl. Mitter of
iii. 433
Llllte Mills, The iU. 190
L(> Jim D. United SUtM
ii. 30
Liliis B. St Louia, &c. Ry. Co. ii. 600
LeijDgtOD 4 Ohio H. B. i..
Ii. 340
iii. 470
Lilly u. Ewer iii. 209
B. Petteway iu. 109
W V. Uy
LejcMter b. Logwi
iii. 217
Limerick, The iii. 167
Lermui f. Abcel
iii. 408
Lime Rock Bank b. MaUeCt iii. 1 12
Leywn >, Ditii
ii. 448
Lime Rock, &c. In>. Co. v. Hevett Iii. 76
Limltuid B. SteTeni Hi. 199
L B. Hu-rii Drug Ca s. Stncky ii. 366
Limptu D. London Gen. OmolbUB Co.
ybbcy If. HodgdoD
11.284
il. 260
Ubbj r. Dicker
iv. 487
iJDColn V, Boitou M. Ina. Co. iii. 307
..G.p>
iii. 228
V. Buckmailer Ii. 461
r. JoboMll
ii. S66
V. Coniinonwealth ii. 840
Ulier «. Panoni
fi. 475
D. Gay U.601
Ubeny No. 4, Tbe
iii. 263
D. Thompeon It. 179
Dbhirt o. Wood
U.258
v. Tower i. 262
liceDKCuet
i. 439
p. Wright Ui. 138; It. 148, 807
Uncoln'i Caa« (Kari of) It. 620
UccDt* Tax C>Mi
f. 429. 430
UdilMd UnioD >. Greene
ill, 88
Lincoln County e. Lunii^ i. 861
Ii. 648, 640
Lincoln ft Ken. Bank ». BicbwdMn
liddird D. Lopei lU
Udderdile b. ^biiwoD
m,a29,248
ii. 277
ii. 41 B
Lindauer v. Delaware H. 8. In*. Co.
274, 281, 288,
iU. 157
302.308
Lindenau v. Deaborough ii. 487 ;
r. miliim.
iii. 204
Ui. 370
LiebKuUr. Moots
IT. 90
Lindeoberger b. Boall Ui 101. 107
L»re». Sidtiontime
Limow ^ RitcTiie
1». 819, 844
Undley b. Simiwon ii. 610
Undmeier b. Afooahan IIL 46
iy. 119
LUt A>Kd»tioD tp. Walter
iii. 369
Lindo ». Beli«mo ii. 87
Ult Ah. of Scotland o. Siddal ii. 138
V. Rodney 1. 61. 186, 863, 364, 367
Lil« Idi. Co. u. Stnrgn
Hi. 3(W
Lindsay v. Charleston Commistionen
.- Tocker
1.482
1.462
B. Cundy 11. 482
lM,Co.
ii. 299
0. First Nat B«nk i. 386
M.j.The
iii. 248
B. Gibbs lU. 138, 166
l4fo.^'.CMe
il. 342
«. Hill ii. 463
Ug>»..PMeoek
tU. 38, 66
V. Janion iii. 308
Uggit^.HMt
It. 612
r. Lynch iv. 461
t.. Winona, fta R. Co. ii. 360
Li«g«t>.Wdl
IT. 307
Liggett B. Glenn
1.260
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurst It. 148
Liggett ft M. T. Co. D. CoUier ii. 402
Lindsey i>. Leighton It. 466
STroiSSLd '"
460. 46-2, 463
Line V. Mills ii. 661
iii. 482
Lines* V. Sesing iii. 464
B. Light
IT. 68
Ujhl'. Appeal
ii. 226
Linford V. Ellison 1. 384
Ughibody v. N. A. Ina. Co.
11.020
Lingat. V. Carroll It. 642
Ijghlfoot V. Bicktey
ii. 434
Lingon u. Foley It, 148
B. Tenant
ii. 466
Linn B. McLean ii.477
Lightfooi i, Butler'i Caw
iy. 452
B. Rom iU. 469
Lightly 0. ClouitoD
ii. 266
B. State Bank of Dllnoii 1. 408
Lighty B. Shorb
It. 471
IJnn County Nat. Bank u. Crawford
ligooU >. Buxton
L£e B. BereaToid
ii. 90
111.86
ii. 180
Linnehan v. HoUin* 11. 260
Uki.. FlnniuK
ii. 163
Linnemsn v. Morms ii. 463
Iilla,The
i. 108, 117
Linseed, Bags of 1. 369
liUey r. DonUeday
ii. 687
iSte Bag* of Linseed.)
' >. Erwin
il. 260
Llntnerf MilUken ill. 26
B. Miller
Hi. 109
IJnton V. Allen It. 461
i'. United SMIM
Ii. 22
i>. Hart iii. 470
i. 2Sfl
B. Hurley ui. 46
UlU>.Airey
U.1M
V. Laycock It. 203
sObyGoOl^lc
clxii
TABLB OF CASES.
[Tb« muttaul PI- >n i«l*md to.1
Unton V. WilMUi
iv. 81
LitUetoD [■. OU»er Ditwo Co. Ii. 373
.inville r. Webh
iii. 105
B. Tuttle
U.262
L-InTindble
i. lOa, 156
Liver Alkali Co. p. Johnaon
ii.609
Liniee w. Maer
i*.4S0
ii.407
Lip* B. EUenlerd
i. 4-J9
U. 11P2
ii. 206
Lirerpool, The
ill. 248
Lippintoit V. Bwker
ii. 634
Lirerpool Adelphi Loan Fund A«a. v.
B. DaTi.
It. 214
ii241
u. Laalier
Iii. 440
Lirerpool Bank n. Eccles
iL610
V. Miiuhell
iLie4
Liverpoal Borough Bank b
Walker
v. Shaw Carriage Co
ii. 281
iii. S3
Lipton V. Harriion
ill. 24B
Liverpool H. S. Aas'n, In rt
ii. 281
ir. 307
LiBt^anl, Tlie
iii. 291,307
Smith
ii. 16. 378
LUuom c. Itoaton M. F. Ini. Co. iii. STS
Urerpool Ins. Co. b. BuckaUlf iii. 376
Liaetle, Tlie
1.152
u. 274, 277;
I. is 1)111 an f. Cliriitie
iii. 207
iii. 27
''. NorlliLTD, &a. !□■.
Co.
iU. 286
Liverpool & G. W. S. Co. b
Phenii
Lisle >'. Uny
1*. 221, 223
Ina. Co. i.2fl0; ii. 608;
iii. 207, 217,
Listel <^ Iteare
ii. S32
263
Liater v. Baxter
iii. 360
Lirerpool, £c Co. v. Wilaoa
iii. 188
p. Lane
i». 110
Liresay e. Feamster
iL441
V. Leather
ii. see
Li ret I u. Wilson
liL 448. 446
V. Lobley
U.339
iii. 302
p. Payo
tii. 148
LiTietta. The
iii. 248
v. Perry man
fi.22
Urlnga b. WUer
ii.616
Litter'i Case
11.181
Iii. 89
List Pub. Co, V. Seller
U.3-3
Iii. 270, 312
LitL-rifleid p. Cndworth
i». 86
D. Cornell
lr.447
B. Flint
ii. 4M
t>. Hammond
11.102
B. Hutahinion
ii.4B0
V. Hastie
iii. 42
D. Register & EeceiTer
i.322
ii. S8, 463
u. Sciiuate
iii. 429
B. Ketcham
iii. 408
LUhgow B. KaTeoagh ii
U2
i iv. 15, 640
V. Kodiak P. Co.
ii. 259
Litt V. Cowley
ii. 643
B. LiTingiloa ii. 129,
166; iT.421,
Litlauer v. Goldniaii
Ii
479; iii. 86
422
Littell n. MarshaU
iii. 81
e. Lynch
iii. 46
Little. Rt
U.
170; iT. 131
0. M'Inlay U
583; ir. 176
V. CaldweU
iii. 63
V. Maryland Ins. Co.
i. 76. 157
B. aark
Iii, 67
V. Mayor of N. Y.
V. Mirier
iii.4S3
B. Cogswell
i.469
iii. 483
i<.I>ancaD
ii. 236
B. Molt
iv.366
B. Qiles
iv. 637
B. Newkirk
ir. 421, 422
e.Han*rd
iii. 48
B. Pern Iron Co.
iv.446
V. Lathrop
iii. 438
V. Potu
i». 101
B. Litile
ii. 838,364
D. ProwuB
lv.448
>. Marsh
ii. 136
«.Rogen
ii.465
B. Paddleford
iT.46l
B. Hooaetelt
iii. 43, 44
B. Palister
iT. 119
«. Stickles
It. 124
B. Parkfleld C, Co.
ii.2se
B. Story
Iv. 137
B. Phanix Bank
UL104
B. Ten Broeck
iii. 407
F. Wataon
1. 167, 460
B. Han iDgen 1. 814, 801. 433, 438 ;
Little Belt, The
i. 31
ii.372
Uttle Miami R Co. ». Utipatriek ii. 269
Livingstone, In Mattel of
ii. 223
B. SteTena
ii.260
Liizie, The
iii, 179
Little Rock, 4c. R. Co. v
Barry ii. 269
Lizzie Frank, The
ill. 179
B. St. Louis, Ac. Ry.
Co.
iii. 468
L L. L»mb, The
iii, 188
r. Talbot
iii. 20-
Lloyd V. Anglin
iv.431
Littledalfl v. Dixon
iii. 285
0. Anhbowla
Hi. 81
B. Perry
i[.36a
B. Ashby
iii. 81
Littlefleld v. Paul
It. 449
V. Bellis
iii. 46
iT. 54
B. Brewster
ii. 614
P. Shee
U.466
B. Carew
iT.267
Littleton V. CroN
It. 454
B. Conover
It. 43
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Uojd e. Fmblleld iii.
e. FdIIod ii. 1
>. Gea. Iron Scnir Collier Co.
iii. f
>. Gdbatt IL 469, 46B, 602 i iu. 1
g. Leuenriiig
». McCiffrey
(. Mitthewt
r. Pedtjew
..Pngb*
I. Quimbj
(. Rpill«lt
D.TMMh
1. WjiiLunt
lio^ir. Hvpei
Lmh Anocialioti b. Topeka
LoUell n. BUer
r. Hopkiot
T. Stomll
W>KkBLeeC.A.H.Co.
Idbiger'iCue
Ink r. Falford
Iwkin >. FDrafthe
Loeb r. Bnditreet Ca
nDine
>. Finaers' L. & T. Co.
>- New Orieaiw
*. No, Am. Ln. Co.
nPiliDer
•.Snritb
IttUurttF. Geir
rICorej
UcfaiwtoD, Cmb of
LockridiR D. Loclcri^
IMwood, Ex parW
B. BiKlett
".BMiirick
'.Cnvtord
». Eww fi
>■ Hiddlnez, «n<. Co.
>. Railroad Co.
c. Sailer fc Wife
•' SmgaiDo In*. Co.
*. StDrdeTsnt
». Twittliell
Lockjer v. Offley
L«Jemia,The
Wg« ». Pbdpa
cPridurd
..Weld
..Whin
Udwidu V. Ohio Im. Co.
Loeb«r D. Schroeder L 31
Loeffel B. Pohlman U. II
Loenaiein v. Biembftmn ii. I
LoeaclimRD v. Hachln ii. SI
Loflhouse, In re ii. II
Laftii D. Loftii ii. 226; i*. 31
Loflu* I'. Heriot ii. 1'
'. ttthontj ii. 4i
Logan V. Beikabire Ap. Aas'ii II. 41
■I. Bond iii. .
J. HaU ii. Ii
J. Herroa it. 1
t. Lftdson ii. A
a. Logan ii. 4;
r. Mathewa U. fi
n. Moore ir.
i>. Moulder It. 471, 4
g. SimmoD* IL 1
t>. United Slates 1.283; ii,
c. Western Union TeL Co. ii- 6
Logansport d. Dunn iii. 4
Loganaport P. & B. R. B. i>. Caldwell
iv. 176
i. 401
a 125
r. 479
a,°,'sia '•
380i iii. 138. 220
ii-22
». Gerald
ii. iia
Lollej'a Caae
u. no, 117
Lomax v. Holmeden
iT.Bll
Lombard o. Batcbelder
ii. 16
f. MOIM
ii. 164, 226, 451
B. Rugglea
ii.336
il. 461
London v. London
It. 12, 72
1-. Wood
i.448
11LS06. SOS
iii. 162
il. 468. 462
iii. 65
iu.ea
It. 96
iii. 299
Ii. 646, 649
London, City ol. The i. 364; :
London, City of, v. Oneme iT. 76
D. VRnatre Ii. 312
London Aae'n b. LoDilon &, India D.
J. Committee it. 608
London Aaeurance v. Companliia iii. 2BI
u. Drennen iii. 376
D. Maniel iii. 286
London, Brighton, & S. C. Ry. ".
Truman i. 462, 467
London A, County Banking Co. v.
Bnj ii. 164
c. Groome iii. 81
». London &H. P. Bank ii. 449; iii. 81
London County Council d. London
School Board I. 460
London, Hamburg, & Cont. Exch.
Bank. /nr« 11.800; iii. 27
London Joint Stock Bank v. Sim-
mons iii. 81
London & V. W. Ry. Co. i>. Bartlelt
ii. 647, 606
V. Erana 1.402; iii. 4S7
V. Glyn Iii. 376
London & River Plate Bank v. Liver-
pool Bank Iii. 87
London S. O. In». Co. n. Grampian "
a Co.
iii. i
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
prbtwrnn^BMlftm
u«i«l«rn4to.1
London, &c. BanUng Co. p.
Sraome
Lord D. Bonn
iT. 181
ill. 91
r, Chadboume
L409
■>. R4itcli8b
It. 176
iii. 427
Lotidon, &c Rr- Co. V. BnU
iT.480
v.DaU
ii. 8611
B. ETemhed
B. Gomm
ii.ew
iT.480
K. Ferguaon
B.Goddard
iii. 135
.VJO
London ShipowDen' Au'n v.
London
.. GoodaU, &c. B. Co.
ii.217
& 1. D. J. Committee
11.630
D. Grow
i . 47!1
London Water Work» v. Bailey It. 451 1
B. Haieltine
ii.232
Londonderry •. ChMlar
ii. 87. SO
r. Lord It. 58^ 608. 616
Londonderry Bridge Com'n i.. |
V. MeadTiUe W. Co.
iii. 440
M'Keever
iu.4&g
e. Neptnne In.. Co. iii. 328, 270,296,
Lonernin v. Bnford
B.lllinoi. Cent. », Co.
ii.461
3.'JI
1.344
e. Steamahip Co.
i.439
Lone.. In rt
i*:5a2
Lord's Case
ii. 236
Loney, h re
L 301, 331
Lord Abingdon, Caw of
i.286
Long V. Aldred
IT. 627
Lord AdTocate o. Clyde Bar. Trw-
y.AUan
iii. 342
te«
i.80
<-. Beckwith
iii. 123
Lord Bangor. The
iii. 232
e Blackall
iT. 18, 267
Lord CromweU's Caae It
182, 140
w. Colbuni U. 612, G14. 682
Lord RiTer* v. Adams
iii. 409
V. CODTWW
i. B26
Lord St. John t- . Lady St John
11.160
». Georgia Pac. R. Co.
ii. 281. 800
Lorenu d. Lorenti
iT.ao5
u. Gieriet
iiL86
Lorie c. North Chicago City By
Co.
V. Hebb
Ii. 41S
ii. 616
D.J. K. Arauby Co.
ii. 478
Lorimer t>. Boylan
ii. 618
iT.846
Loring «. Arnold
i. 200
V. Hiijutre
iU. 62
f Bacoo
iT. 870
D. Millar
ii, 494
B.Blake
IT. 283
c. NoTcom
ii. 230
B.Brodie
It. 3t0
11. Oaboro
il.6ie
c. Marah
i. 260
V. Rhawn
iu. 01
0. Neptune Ina. Co.
iii. 244
».Ryan
ii.4S0
Lonnan v. Benson
Iii. 427
D. Tampico, The
i. 297
V. Clarke
{.342
«. Thayer
U. 616, 643
Lorraine. Case of Duke of
ii. 121
t.Yonie
iii. 60
Lorwa;r ■>. Louaada L 46, 314 ; ii. 70
ii. 343
Losee v. Dunkin
iii. 01
iT. 183
Loiey 0. Simpson
iv.469
Longee u. Colton
iii. 476
Lothian v. Henderwm Ii. 130
Ui. 206,
^ngford. The
Ui. 248
282
■ongford p. Eyre
iT. 615
Lothrop V. Adama
iii. 46
Long Iiland R. R., Caae of
ii. 296
Lott V. Thomnon
Lottawanna, The i. 869 ;
iT.391
ii. 46
iii. 2. 170
Longuet v. Scawen
It. 144
Loubat ». Nourse
ia.39
Lonsdale r. Brown
iii. M
Loucheim v. First Nat Bank
ii. 441
V. Littledale
ii.633
Loucks V. Johnson
ii.448
Lookout M. R. Co, v. Bouiton ii. 610
Loud «. Loud
ii.ll7
Look Tin Sing, In re
ii.62
t. MerriU
iU.94
Loom V. HlBgine
ii.366
Lougee u. Waahbom
iii. 116
Loomer r. Wheelwright
iT. 102
Loughborough «. Blake
1.256
Loomia v. Eagle Life & H. Ini. Co. iii. 369
Loughbridge v. Harria
ii. S40
0, MarthaU
Iii. 26, 34
Lougher v. William*
iT.480
r. Shaw
iii. 271
Louis ti. SmeUie
ii. 259
V. Wilbur
iT. 77. 81
Lou la. Tlie
iii. 223
Loon, The
iii. 207
Lou sa Jane, The 1.370
: iii 248
Looney o. M'Lean
iv. 110
Louii Cook H. Co. V. RandaU
ii. 300
Loos D. Wilkinjon
ii.44l
Louisiana u. Jumel
i. 323
Looae i. Looae
iU. 109, 118
r. New Orieans
1.419
Lopei D. Bergel
ii:440
V. Pillabury
i. 419
Loraine v. Thomlinaon
iii. 341
V. Steele
i. 861
Lord «. Atkini
iiL 461
Lonisiana Bk. f. Kemier'* Soecetdon
D. Baldwin
iii. 66
lit 67
V. Brig WatcbDMO
ii.408
V. Rowel
ill 106
t<.Bio«du
ii.364
„Gooi^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
LmWui U Tu. Co. i>. N. a
lD>.
Lorett V. Buloid
iT. 279
Co.
iii.260
B. State
ii. 12
touUiiu NU. Buk c. atiieDB-
Lovick I.. Cro-dor
iL520
Buk
m.88
Lovie'B Caie
iv.a07
Unit OlMO. The
iii.2
Low 0. Bartlett
iL429
Lodxllke, The V. HftUiaar
1889
V. BouTerie
ii.490
LMuiTille Buk D. Bo^ce
ii64»
LommlW E Co. ». Leonard
IT. 176
iii. 176
Loaiiiille 0. A C. K. R. Co, v. Chap-
B. Elweli
iv. 118
pell
ii.3a9
V. Hovdrd
iii. 100
LoDiiriUe Muofe Co. o. Gilbor
iii. 207
V. Pe*
ii. 463
rKdley
ii. 600
F, Rees Printing Co.
ii, 25B
f-LeWxi
i. 347
e. Houlledge
11. 873
«. Welch
iii. 123
V. Tibbelle
iii. 432
«. W«rd
IL 878, 382
iii.S4
Lowber b. Bangi
iii. 20e
f.Bukhoiue
iii. 207
Lowe ». Bliw
iii. 76
tr.CoUini
ii. 260
V. Booth
ii. 607
c. Mvkee
ii. 195
B. Brook*
It. 362
(.RoUmoii
ii. 280
11. Chicago, &c By. Co.
11260
>,WiUuutu
ii. 269
V. Chifiiey
111.66
e.WoodMn
i. 391
V. Fox
ii. 164
UiUTiUe, Ac. R7. Co. e. Blytbe
ii. 233,
D. Great NoTthnn By.
ti.269
28a
iL610
».CaldweU u.300;iii.76
f. Herrie
ii. 494
rDoiglu.
il36»
V. Harwood
ir. 461
E. Flaugui
iL300
V. Lowe
iii. 39
r. Hir«h
ii. 106
D. Miller
IT. 96
>.UU.i»ippi
1.8*2
1-. Waller
iii. 80
..Swphe™
iii. 461
IT. 605
0. Snmmeni
ii.286
Lowell B. Hob ton
ii.340
IwniTiUe & P. Co. ». Holbom
iii. 483
v. DanieU
ii. 108, 241
loniiTiUe Dnder-riten b. Dnrland
V. Lewis ii.
866. 869. 371
iii. 280
Lowell FiTe CenU 8«Ting Bank «.
». Pence
iii. 260
Wiiichegter
ii. 621
Lwimlle Wtter Co. b. Clwk
i.413
Lowell M. Co. B. Hogg
11.866
I*«MheryB.So,dor
111.464
Lowenburg v. Jones
ii. 604
Lonnibiiiy p. Purfj St.
300,436
Loweuihai, fiiporte
Hi. 106
lomh B. Dnuamond
ii. 260
Lower v. Wlntere
iT. 461
tail D. Fo* iU. 88. 96
Lowerey i>. Steward
Hi. 76
Loie ». CBT«nter
iii. 61
Lowery v. Drew
Iii. 48
ii. 167
V. Scott
iii. 96
ii. SStt
LoWDUUi. In r.
iT. 282.283
LoTejoT B. Bowen
iii. 37
V. Sheet*
11.404
11.380
Iii. 418, 418
B.Sp>AoTd
iii. 86
ir. 190
V. Emeat M. Hunn, Tbe
f. Norton
iii. 248
It. 76
L»diB.Bngg,
iT. 4.SB
Lowry i^. Adami
iii. 64
B. D«Ti.
iii. 206
ii 401
B. De Bardeleben C. 4 L Co
ii. 196
V.' Brooks
Ui. 29, 34
'■ Sjentoa
iii. 80
u. Cowles. 4c. Co.
ii. 366
B. Hooie of Um Good Shepherd
B. nillman
11.467
ii. 19.1
f. Ball
11. 407
B. Howell
ii. 260
B. Houatun
ii. 1ST
B. Knight
iv. 8S6
D. .ouiada
1 46, 314
B-Uland
IT. 183
V. Lomberman'. Bank
ii. 123
B. Hinot
U. 226
u. Murrell
ill. 86
'. q^tata
It. 532
iii. 331
». St. Loni. M. life Ini. Co
Hi. 370
». Tew
ir.451
». Smith
iii. 449
B. Tiemao
ii. 174
, B- Weitwood
ii.294
I'. Vedder
ii. 22
Wnring V. Bock H. Coal Co.
11.468
Lowther t>. Carlton
i*. 810
B-LoTCTtog
Ii. 101
It, 476
B. WortUiigtoii
i».283
B. Lowther
It. 438
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
IHh Buglail p>cu mn nfnnd to.]
Loirtber CutU, Ilie
LowChiaii ti. Huel
L07 i>. Home Idi. Co.
LoUDo V. Janioii
L. T. Daytan, The
Lubbock f. BowcToft
LucM D. Brooks
V. Comerford
D. Conller
V Dorrieo
«. Goff
D. JeSeraoQ Ins. Co.
v. Lockbart
V. Michigan Central
V. Smithfleld T. Co.
B. Williami
Lace E. Culey
Laceoa b. Cranfurd
Luck D. Atking
Locke D. Clothing C. &
Luckctti B. Towmend
Lucy. The
Lucj V. Bundy
V. LeTington
LnddiogtoD D. Eime
276, 311, 371
ii. 283
T. Awembly
Ii. 269
IT. IM
ii. 497
i. 468; !v. 472
It.200, 303, 221,
tuddy, In re W. 278
Ludsateg c. Lore ii. 621
LudTam V. Lndlam ii. 40
Ludlow V. Columbian Im. Co. iii. 320
V. Cooper iti. 39
V. Date Ii. 121
... Hurf ii. 627
r. Lauing it. 192
D. Ludlow IT. 61fi
V. lUniaay i. 67
Ludlow (Mayor of) e. Chariton ii. 201
LudlowB B. Bowne ii. 4«fl, 642
LudTig Halbei^, The ill. 2S2
Lueck E. Heiiler ii. 16
Lueden v. Hartford, to. Iiii. Co, iti. 'JS2
Luellen V. Hare iti. flO
Lnlkin v. Curtli
ir. 59, 462
V. Galveston
ii.832
V. Preiton
iii. 470
r. Zane
It. 110
LugK V. Lugg
It. 622
Luhrs V. Eimer
ii. 66
Luis OteLza. I« re
1. 37. 301
luke B. Lyde
Lokef V. Dennit
iii. 19, 229, 2.<{0
iy.480
Lukin. V. Aird
ii. 620
Lulu, The
iii. 164
Lumbarf B. Stearoa
Ii. 340; iii. 468
Luroley v. Gye
iv. 480
E.P«linw
iii. 83
Luia''Lin':^, A rf
ii. 269
11. Bl
Lunuden v, Gordon
Lund D. Lund
r. New Bedford
Limdle p. Bobertion
Luiidy,Caae of
Lunn E. Thornton
Luntfocd u, Coqiiillon
Lunt E. Bank of No. America
c. Boiton M. Ins. Ca
V. Holland iii. i
Luntz V. GreTe
Lupin D. Marie
Lugh'i TmlU, /n re ii. ]
Luther 11. Borden
V. WiDniaimmet Co.
Lulti«r« Case
Lulwich V. Milton
Lutwidge & How V. Gray
Lux V. Haegin
LuxtOQ n. North RiTer Bridge Co.
439
LuTtlei i>. Bollender
Lyharger v. State
Lybbe b. Hart
Lycoming Ina. Co. b. Mitchell
Lyddy B. Long Itlaod City
Lyde B, Bamaid
i: Russell
Lydiatt v. Foach
Lyford s. No. Pac. C. R. Co.
B. Toothaker
Lykua, The
Lyie B. Ducomb
r. Palmer
Lylei B. Digge
Lyman b. Arnold
u. Boston & Wore
V, Hale
V, Railroad
D. United Ins. Co.
Lynar r. Mossop
Lynch, Ex partt
B. Alien
V. Clarke
V. Dalzell
Dunsford
iii. 40
It. 142
iii. 440
ii. 469
ii. 346
iT. 311
iii. 172. 364
ii.6BS;iT. 176
ii. 343
ii. 491
11.696
1.363,864
ii. 269
II. For
iii. 2t(&
ii. 84(1
B. Hknford Fire Ins. Co. ii. 12-.i
D. KniRht ii. 16
I'. Lynch U. 123
w. Mel. SI. Ry. Co. ii.l!>5
B. Pr»v. Got. of Paraguay Ii. 420
B. Reynold lit. 112
B. Sellers ii 468
Lynchburg Bank u. Scott iii. 80
Lynchburg Fire Ins. Co. v. Weit Hi. 282
Lynde b. Rowe ii. 843
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Lrndoo r. Gorhan
iii. 65
MacAndrew v. Electric T. Co,
ii. en
Lrndun Mill Co. u. Lyndoo IdiL ii. 2S1
McAndre* v. Robertioa
i. 248
Ljnn 0. Bndle;
ii. 138
McAndrew* », Thatcher
iU, 234
.-. Cliilera
ii. 487
McAnnulty v. McAnnulty
iv, 624
[.Tnn Gu Co. v. Meriden In*. Co. fii. S70
McArthur b. Bloom
ii. 167
l.jon r. Bertram
ii. 470
V. Fraokiin It. 46, 76
r. ChiN
iii. 461
B. Robinioo
iT. 307
c. FiBhmongera' Co.
iii. 413
B. SeaTorth
11.480
t.FiUih
iii. 81
». Sear*
)i.608
r. Jerome U. 339. 633
r. Scott
iT.806
c. JohiMon
iii. 87
B. Slate
ii.22
c. Lyon
it. 117
V. United SUtei
i.2B7
r. HarehmU
iii. 76
Macartney u. Oarbatt
i.39
r. Melli
iii. 20G
£., Graham
iii, 116
>. Merrick
111. 43S
Macauley v. Smith
iT. 186
r. HitdMU
Iii, 464
McAuley b, Wil«on
It, 608
>. PbiUiiM
ii. 461
McAvoyD, Medina
i.366
il. 491
M'Bain v. Wallace
i.604
■.SuHllbrd
iT. 186
Macbeath b. Haldlmaod
i.682
n Smith
It. 516
McBee B, CeaMf ii. 690
;ii.207
LjoM (Mftyot) B. AdTOOla Genenil
B. Fulton
ii.22
of Bengal
iv. 608
McBethu. Newlin
in. 66
V. BleoUn ii 104, 221
McBride v. Adam*
Ii. 441
r.ElUott
Iii, 477
0. McBride
iT. 517
«,H0ffllllDg
11,646
V. M'Clelland
ii. 5^
..MMtin
ii,260
B. Marine Ina. Co. iii. 223.
236. 249.
..Wood*
L449
LjHgbt V. Coleman
iu,291
McBroom v. Thompwn ii, 336
: iii, 451
Lfde r. WilliMDi
iT.96
MeCabe, EiparU
Good, of
1,87
IjiMj r. Selby
ii.486
iT.632
LriteT D. DolUnd
iT, 160
B.TkK
iii. 138
..Ly,t*r
Ii. 101
B. Everi
iT. 109
Lriter'iCaM
ii.293
V. McKin.try
ii. 590
Ijita V. Ault
iii. 68
B. Spnul
iT. 587
LjUe V. LuiiDK
iii. 81
V. Swap
iT, 46
>.Suta
l».449
McCaffrey b. The J, Q. Chapmaa i. 300
Ljttle >. Chicago, Ac. Ry. Co.
ii.269
B. Woodin ii
468,492
*■ Row ton
It. 187
McCahill 0. HcCahill
i».806
Ljntle Cnek W. Co. e. Perdew
It. 381
M'Callr. LeiMX It. 166
160, 183
.-, Taylor
iii. 76
HcCall V. Bynun Mannf. Co.
ii. 206
B. Califonua
i.439
lI.n:D.
li.76
B.MOM
iii, S3. 66
ii.641
B. Sun Hut. Id*. Co.
iU. 314
Mi>«dUD,Tbe
iU.a48
c. Yard
i». 186
Mibb.lt B. White
Iii. 44
McCallUler v. Brand
iv.67
Mrfxl. The
ii.248
McCallum b, DrlfKi
M'Calmount v. WEitUker
iii. 89
Maberiy o. Tarton
i.m
iii. 439
Miberrj ... Dudley
11.404
McCaman r. Stan
McCampbeU v. Brown
iU.427
t, Sbi.ler
1.683
iii. 37
MJw fl. Whittaker
It, 369
iT.203
M.brj 1-, Hemdon
L 247. 397
McCandl^", Richmond & D. B. Co,
Mabutj e. LouiiTiUe Ferry Co. Ui. 469
1.4:10
JfAdini V. Walker
ii.B7
HcCandliih b. Keen
IT, 152
McAdam-i EiVt ... Hawe*
iii 62
McCann b, Eddy
i, 4»B
McAfee v. CoTiDgton
i.413
V. MortRige Co.
1,407
McAle«r v. United SUtei i. 207 : ii 366
McCardle, Ex porta I
801, 325
McAlitto' D. HcAliiter
ii. 126
McCarey, Petitioner
i, 401
M'AliBler o. Reab
ii, 474
McCarjro b. Merchant.' Ins. Co,
iii, 300
M'AIIUter v. Hoffman
ii, 4H7
B. New Orlean. In>, Co.
i, 166
». Manhalt
ii.634
McCarlcT v. Board of Superriior* it. 461
iii, 38
McCarran, /n re
ii. A4
a. United Stalei
i.287
McCarron b, CaMidy
iv, 1A6
HicAndKw t>. Chappte
iii. 206
M'CHrtee i: Orpb.n Aiyliim So
. IT. 608
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASKS.
M'Cartee v. Teller 11. 244
It. 65. 56
Maecord v. Oaborae
tLsse
H'Carthy u. Deoux
ii. 110
McCorkle v. Black
iT. 278
V. M'Carthy
McCarthy v. Hknh
iv-206
McConnack v. Sute
■ ii. 283
11.40
McCormic v. Leggett
ii. 236
V. Met L. Ini. Co.
in. 366
McCormick V. Alezaodei
iT.436
V. Second ParUh
11.260
V. Digby
It. 194
M»cCarlhy b. Young
ii. 574
iT. 136
McCartin „. Traphawn
McCirtney v. Bostwlck
It. 305
I. Horan
ill. 440
iT. SO0
.303
1-. 0.bura
iv. 51S
V. KaniM City
ii.440
Ui. 116
I'. Sullivant L 8
B. 479, 621
McC«Tty V. Emlen
.-. Holman
iu. 66
08; IT. 441. 618
iii. 418
.. Talcott
ii.3«6
ui. 419
e. Taylor
ir.62
r. Uhigh Talley B. Co.
ii. 366
V. Trotter
iii 76
V. Rooti
111.81
McCormick H. M. Co.
. Aultman
McCarvUle t>. Lynch
iii.es
11.866
McCauley b. Grimei
D. HatniltoD
it 461
McClain v. Ortmayar
V. Martin
ii.478
McClair d. Wilion
11.461
V. Walthen
i. 302
McClanahan d. McClanahui
It. 418
M-Cmry v. King '
IT, 30
McClatchie d. Hiilam
ii. 451
It. 430
McCtaugherty v. Morgan
ii. 441
M'Cowan o. Balne
111.260
iiT6
McCoy V. Artcber
ii. 478
». Elti>
iv. 131
V. Cauldy
i*. 461
V. Menke
ii. 226
D. Danley
111.440
M'ClellaD's Cue
ii. 184
». Grandy
ii. sse
MeCletUn v. Coffln
iii. 76
0. Hufftoan
ii. 240
V. Hurdle
Hi. 440
...Lord
iT. 471
V. McClellan
iv.805
c. Metropolitan Ins. Co. iii. 282
McClung V. Kelley
ti.479
V. NiehoU
It. 438
McCluoy V. SilllDun
i.410
McCracken p. Hayward
i.406
M'ClDre V. Pyatt
iU. 471
iT.434
McClure v. Doak
iv.306
V. Haywood
i.4i9
V. FaKhiag
)i.226
V. Bobinaon
11281
V. Harrii
IT. 89, 60
McCrary »■ Slaughter
McCrayRACS. Co.0.
lU. 26, 80. 41
u. HeniDg
ii.62e
Wooda ii. 478
V. JeSenoQ
1L4W
M'Crea u. Holdaworth
ii.366
V. McClnre
It. 532
M'Cready v. Gnardiana ot the Poor
B. Timet Pub. Co.
ii. 477
il.683
0. WaterCown Fire Iiu. Co
lli. 878
V. ThompaoD
Iii. 448
M'Ciures v. Hammond
ii.flOS
McCready v. Thorn
iU. 138. 167
McClurg u. KiDgtland
11.366
V. WoodhuU
Ui. 167
B. Price
Hi. 404
M'Creary v. Qoud
iT.66
V. Terry
McCobb V. ilichardMD
11. 87. 120
McCreary «. Gaioea
ii. 626
11. 471
... PeDD. Canal Co.
u-sae
McCoU V. Jaokion Iron Co.
il.4B2
McCteery =. Day
ii.4fl8
V. We«lern Union TeL Co
ii. 81 1
«.G^n
ii.468
McCoUura ... Howard
i. 32fi
«- Somerviite
u. 65
e. Mutual L. In.. Co.
lli. 378
M'Crillu r. How
11.236
V. Smith
U. 183
McCue r. National StMofa M. Co. ii. 259
McComaa a. Haai
iii. 76
McCuen I'. Ludlum
ii. 16
M'Corob r. Wright
L. 640. 012
M'Cullocb u. Aten
iii. 427
McComb «. Frink
i». 371
... Dawea
ii.416
M'Combie v. Dartet U. 686. 626, 880
V. Eagle Ina- Co.
U. 477 ; m. 257
M'Comb. «. M-Kennan
ii. 504
U.6.W
MoComba b, Stewart IL 840 ; iii. 469
p. State of MaryUnd
1. 261, 254.
McConkey v. Barnea
McCoonefr. HoloblMh
ii. 245
426, 427, 429
It. 166
M'Culloh V. Daihiell
iii. 66
M'Coonell i.. Brown
iT. 449
McColloDgh 0. Brown
1.268
MeCoonell v. Hector
i- 76
t>. Irrlne
iT. 76
V. WildM
It. 632
i..Lee
iT.637
MoCool V. Smith
i. 464
m. 44
M'Cord V. Ochiltree
il. 287
M'Cullough D. Toung
ii. 481
50byGoO»^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
MeCiDT «. Smith
MeCBriyp. Bogen
IT. 82
M-Elhaltan «. HoireU
ii. 142
ii. 682
M'Elmoyle «, Cohen
McElraUi V. United StatM
ii. 462
MeCarf j'. Appeil
UcCnleheD v. ii'Gmbty a
iT. 637
i.297
147, HB
McEIroy d. Ludlom
It. 451
SlcDmiel r. Gnuje
T, 29, SO
D. McElroy
iT.807
I. BieUuid A>e. & B. R. Co
ii.25B
V. Swope iL 494 ; iii. 87
f. Hughe.
iL119
H'ElToy's Case
ii.76
c. MtDuiiel
It. S3
McEUaine o. Bm*h
i. 842. 391
HeDuielt o. Colvin
IT. 178
MoEl»ee v. Bridgeport Land Co. il. 468
r. RobinWQ
ii. 596
D. MeL L. Co.
iii. 88
UDermot v. Linrencc
iii. 38
V. Met. Lumber Co.
i. 3B6
ii. 2B4
u. New York Life In». Co.
iii. 360
ll-Demalt t.. Strong
It. 430
M'Elwee e. Sutton
ii.441
iii. 124
r. Wheeler
It. 206
McDodriU o. Pwdee * C. L. Co.
It. 370
McEntire v. Crowley Bro».
11.449
Mudou IT. Swiwy
iL620
McETony >,. MeCann
ii, 341
McDomM r. AofeDgirlen
iii. 81
McEwen ». Den
i, 466
ii.438
ii. 120
«,EdgeitOD
ii.696
McF^den r. Alien
ii.343
iii. 48
B. Mo. Pao. Ry. Co. L
i. 206, 207
..H^bleD
iT.361
V. Murphy
ii.306
». Hewett
ii. 496
McFadin ». Butm
ii,463
».Jodrey
ii.34B
B. Catron It. 328, 608
w-JabJoB
iii. 115
McFarUnd b. Budi
iv. 616
V. Lav Uaion Im. Co.
V, Chwe
IT. 113
E. LmdaU
ili. 424
V. R^m
ii. 160
t. Magmder
iU.e9
B. KittanniDg In», Co.
111. 376
.. Matney
iii. 24
V. NewmAD
i. 478, 479
0. HillaadoD
iii. 26
D. Slate
ii. 12
.. Pitufcld, 4c B. R. Co.
iu. 438
p. The SUte Bank
i. 408
>. RcmlDte. The
iii. 248
M'Feely v. Moore
iT. 231
V. Simpson
11.688
M'Ferran v, Taylor
ii. 487
..SnellinK
ii. 490
McGahan o. Hondout Bank
iii, 48;
t^Slftte
1.449
iT. 370
R Triple Alliuce
m,3efl
M'Gahay v. WillUnu
Ii. 147
0. WMtern R. R.
ii. 604
MtGahey v. Virginia
1.361,413
». Woodruff
iii. 46
McGarry o. Nicklin
ii. 460
HteDooald, Gate of
ii. 42
McGaughey b. Ricbardaon
ii, 478
>. Whitfield
iii. 89
McGee r. Bo«ton Cordage Co.
ii. 269
UcdcDDdl r. Eaton
Ii. 162
I.. Mathli
). 419
D. Pendernat
UcDoooQgh, 7» re
ii.411
McQeehan v. Bnrke
i. 467
i. 467
McGehe «. Haodley
iT. 434
H'DoDongh o. Daimenr
i. 100
McGhee «. Linduv
11618
». Sl^ird
It. 616
McGiffert t.. McGiffert
11. 117
ii. 343
McGiffln V. Baird
ii. 478
..Tfegre
ii. 188
McGill 1.. Doe
iT.440
iii. 123
McQiUery i-. Capen
ill. 228
iT. 41
B. StackpolB
iii. 107
KwdoogalU. Knight
ii. 22
McGllTray b. Arery
1,262
IfcpongaU ,. PagB
V. We«t End St. Ry. Co.
ii. 269
M-Dongl* V. Royal E.di. Au.
iii. 323
McQlynn v. Brodie
ii. 260
JI«dowall .. Fnaer
McGonigle r. SnwjuehannaF.M.Li..
MeDoweU ... Gray
». Homer R.T. Co.
It. 32S
Co.
iii. 370
ii. 269
M'Qonnell o. Murray
ii. 448
r. Keller
iiLT6
McGorrUk d. Dwyer
ii.343
«„.''^PP
ii. 93
McGowan p. American P. T. B
Co.
HDowl ». Chariet
ii. 188
ii.478: iu. 33
MTJowlei, Caae of
11.194
V. Baldwin
IT. 68
^ ., Hatter of
ii.Z6S
V. McGowan It. 306. 309
NeDtdl „. Beauchamp
lieDiiiree v. PortUna, «c R. R.
ii.132
Mc-Goiren v. McOowen
ii. )2R
Co.
MuGrade r. German SsTingi luit. iii. SB
ii.fi99
iii. 46fl
McGrath. h re U. 198. 196. 226
Umo.Rced
ii. 15
V. Clark
iii. 79
JiMtj r. Cblldresi
ii. 404
ii. 443
sObyGoOl^lc
HcGrftth V. Vinunao
ii. 612
Mc'Grsw v. Pattenon
ii. 687
McGran'e EiMla, In n
ii. '^7
ML-Gregor c. BrowD
i*. 451
u. Co ma lock
ii.66
V. Dover & Deal Bt.
ii. ;xio
V. Kitgore
ii. 600
y. Wait
ii. lae, 446
M-Greir v. Brooder
ii. 324
». M'L>nah«i
iv. 188, 437
i. 122, 123
M'Gmder u. Bank of WaihingWn
McGuinesi i-. Butler
MoGuire 0 Golden Gate, The
D. Maloney
McGurlf B. Huggett
MuHbd (I. Ordway
Macheca v. United Statei
Macbell II. Clarke
McHenry c Daries
II. New York, P. & O. R. Co! ..
Machlag Boom Proprietor! v. Sullivan
i. 413
Machu, In re iv. 128, 131
Mcllquham n. Taylor i) 468
M'ltvaine v. Coxe
Hcllwrath v. Hollander ii. 122
M'lnCire v. Oliver j
K. Wood i. 30E
Mclntire Poor Suliool (Trutteea of)
V. The Zaneaville C. & M. Co. iv
M'Intoih r. Sinclair iii
Mlolyre v. Bonne
u. Braniford
V. Clark
V. Humphreys
r. McGavln
D. Scott
». Shoity
Mclrer n. Abemathy
7. EitiUnwik
D. HendersoD
u. Humble
K. Walker
Hack D. Petter
0. Snell
TABLE OP CASES.
[Tha DUTKiiul p*K» in rtfarrsd to.]
McKee v. BrandoD
c Cottle
B. LamoD
M'Kee d. HiUlipg
B. Prout ]
M'KeeTer v. M'KeeTer
McKeldiD v. Gouldy
Mackellar v. Fillabury
McKenna v. Bottan
IT. Edmundstone
McKennsn u. Phillifa !i
MeKpnnon v. May
'!. Winn
M'Keneie c. Britlib Linea Co.
McKenzie v. Cbeetham
u Hatton
». Nevioi
McKeniie's Appeal
Mackensie b. ChildeM
B. Pooley
B. Shedden
V. Wliitworth
McKeon v. Cutter
McKeown v. McKeown
McKeaaoD v. Stanberry
McKey v. Hyde Park
Hackey b. Broirnaeld
V. Coie
V. Hoi met
McKibbiD v. Peck
Mackie i>. Caimi
McKiel B. Real Eatate Bank
MackUl B. Wright
McKim V. King
t>. McKim
M'Kim p. Voorliiei
Mackin ti. Bottoa & A. R. Co.
McKindley tf^Diintiam
iLie
iii. 170
iv. Ill
iv. 143
iii. 440
iii. 134
ii. 4S1
iii. f
Mackaneai b. Long
McKay v. CampbSl
Ii. 477
h. 49
v. Donglau
ii. 441
V. Ford
B. Woodruff
Maokay v. Bloodgood
iii. 48
ir! 458
V. Colonial Bank of New Bruni-
wick
ii, 284
ii. 284
... Scoltiih Widow.' Sodety
iii. 44R
D. St. Mary'. Chureh
(ii. 76
-. We.ierT. Union Tel
Co.
ii. 611
McKeage v. Fire In.. Co.
ii. 34.1
McEean v. Brown
iv. 64
B. Ferguwn
iv. 54
B. Mitchell
It. 174
ii. 128
11.441
11.468
iii. 451
iv, no
liL 96. 102
iti. 464
iL6Sl, 641
ii. 2C6 ; iii. 449
i>.407
ii. 429
McKinley'. Eat., In n
M'Kinnell b. RobintoQ
M' Kinney v. Crawford
V. Irish N. W. R, Co
V. Miller
B. NIel ii.
McKinnon d. Blia. i.
V. McKinnon iii
M'Kinnun o. PeoMMi iii.
r, TliompwiD 'vr.
M'Kinaier b. Bank of Utica iii
McKinzie b. Perrill ir.
M'Kirclier b. Hawley ir.
McKleroy o. So. Bank of Kentucky
iii. 85
Macklin b. Rlchardaon ii. S78,
McKnight, Et imrle i
u. RatcliB iii
.■. Walah ii.
MeKonkev'i Appeal iv.
M.tkrtil B. Simond iii.
Mackreth b. Syramon. iv.
i! 487
iii. 93
Ii. 2fl0
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ITb« DUtrgliul pagM *» ralurad to.]
HeLuD V. Euby
iri .a.ii.11 B, UniTem] Ini. Co.
SS5,
iltUat r. Beam
>. JotuMon
HcLateD r. H. F. lot. Co.
*. FeDDiDMon
XmLubd r. Suunton ii. 3&
H'Uten V. WtUon
UcUi^Ud, In r>
». Cowlej
t. Great Wsitem Ina. Co.
B- Hcl^ugfhlin It.
I, HetiDtti
•.Huh
>. Pryor
>. Slwpberd
r. W«ite
Helay d. Bruce County
HcLeu c. Burbuk
>. Chemical F^er Co.
f! Fteming H. 366
». Eager
f. McKay
•iHeek
MTaq n. ClydsKhle Banking
ii. S43
ii. 260
iv. 161
ii. 367
Co.
>. Walker U. 6TT ; iv. 188
HcLarn o. McClellan i. 4T3
lUdnr, /n ra iv. 130
M'Lki O.Hale iL 610
HcUllan d. Cnmberiand Bank ii. 284
>. Turner it. 640
VUmoro r. PoweU iii. Ill
Mtcltod r. Att.-G«n. i. 36
McLeod, TIra Hi. 106
Caw of i. 801
cJonei ii.G68iiT.118
HcLiah d. Roff i. 830
McUhinDy o. HcUhinoy It. 208
HcLooD D. Cummings iiL 242
HcLMgKliD V. New Tork L. & T.
Co. U. 200, 587
HcLure v. Coldoagh ir. 466
K'Uahan o. EimbaU it. 44
HcUahilt u. HcMahiU ii. IB2
MckbhoD r. Allen It, 460
>■ DaTidaoQ Iii. 130
V. Field ii. 687
I. Horriion Ii. 286
V. O'Donnell iii. 34
>. Rmaell it. 46
KcMthon't EaUte It. 641
Mdbniii B. CanniabuL iii. 427
r. Cooke U.4»4:lli. 4SI
MlCuiM B. Crickett ii. 269, 633
UeUulen i. Blair It. 608
Hellcan o. little iii 109
M'Mechan v. GrifBng it. 171, 172,
McMechen u. Hannan ii.
M'MilUn 1-. M'Neill i. 421 ; ii.
r. Mich. 8. ft N. L R. H. ii.
V. Kobbint ii
s. Solomon iiL
r. U. Ini. Co. iii.
0. Union. Ina. Co. of Charleiton,
S-C
0. Lee ii. 193
u. Pratt iii. 37
M'Minn n. Kichmond* IL 286, 236, 239
M'Monis D. Simpaon ii. 026
McMorria v. Webb ii. 236
M'Mutleu V. Helberg ii. 404
V. Richie ii. 120
r. WadBworth iL 62, 430
McMultin V. Blackbnm iii. 248
McMurray o. McMniray ii. 101
V. Kaoson ir. 860
B. Spicer IT. 461
McNabb D. Ctipp ii. 226
McNoir V. Ragland i. 406
V- Toler i. 67
M'Nairy v. Bell iii. 97
u.EaitlaDd It. 437
H'Nally d. The Lancuhire, &c. By.
Co.
i. 699
McNally a. Phcenix Ins. Co,
McNamara v. Dwjer ii. 431
M-Naughten ir. Fnrtridge ii, 491 : iii. 47
McNeal P, ft F, Co. v. WoUmao iii. 48
Macnee a. Gorst ii. 639
McNeer n, McNeer jr. 28
McNeil V, Boilon Chamber of Com.
i. 613
B. Cahill
iv. 178
ii. 407
o. Glaa,
ii. 640
i>. Hill ii. 640; iii. 86
B. Hotbrook
i.342
V. Kendall
iT. 96
■>. Tenth N. Bank In N, T,
11.498,
681
HcNeile b. CridUnd
ii. 612
M'Neillie u. Acton
iii. 67
ii.400
McNeish u. V. S HalleM Oat Co.
iii. 66
McNii^hol B. U. S. Rep. Agency
i. 419
McNiel,er parte
McNulty D. Califomta
iii. 170
i. 248
McNutt V. Bland i, 348,
361, 410
Macomb v. MiUer
iT. 274
Micomber v. Doane
B. Parlter
ii. 681
Macon b. Georgia P. Co.
i. aw
Macon (Church oO b. Wiley
ii, 463
Micon ft B, R. Co. b. Glbion
Ii. 466
Maconchy v. Trower
II. 477
McParland v. I.*rkin
It. 370
McPhailv. William*
Iii. 217
MoPliee V. Scully
ii. 269
sObyGoOl^lc
Clixii TABLE OP CASES.
[Tb* mugiul pHH ■» nfxnd to.]
Mncptienon r. Scottlth mgbta
W«y & R. Society
o(
Magdalen College Cms L 464
iii. 440
HcPhenon v. BUcker
i. 276
eral iy. 283
t>. Gale ii.
649,690
Hagdalena Steam NaT. Co. ». Martin
i-. W»ll
iy. 148
i. 16, 39
McFhelerg d. Page
ii. 630
Magee r, Carmock iii. ^8
HcQuaid V. Rom
ii. 478
V. Pacific Imp. Co, ii, 692
M'Queea v. Middletown M. Co.
iL284.
a. The Mom iii. IBS. 186, UK)
290
V. Young ii. 107 ; iy. 62
McQuewui« V. Hamlin
ii. 43, 4T
Mageee, In re ii, l»o
Magellan Pirates, The i. 144
McHb« i: Dutwn
iT.861
Hagenoit b. M'Cullough it. 104, 266
Macready ». Wilcox
ii.228
Mager v. Grima i. 48y
Macreight, In re b
62,430
Maggie Hammond, The i. 8G9; iii. 170,
McReyooldi u. CounH
i».62
19fl, 212, 218, 22<l
McRoberw b. WwlibuniB
i.419
Maggie P., The ii. 322
Mftcroo «. Great Weitem By. Co
ii.flOO
Maggie S. Hart, The iii, 232
McShan u. McShao
ii, m
M«ggr»th V. Church iU. 286, 296, 21.7
McShane b. McShane
ii. 120
Mflgheeu.C«mden4Amboyli.R. U. 604
McSoriey i>. Larioa ir
166. 194
Magillc. Hinidale jy. 104
McSparran ■>. Neetey
lii 79, 81
Maglithtin d. Magiathlin ii. 101
HcSua V. Maltheo*
iii. 266
Magniac v. Thomson ii. 1 3, 178
M'Swioey v. Royal Eich. Ah.
iii. 273
Magnolia, The L S8S ; lii. ITO
Mictier o. Frith
ii. 477
Magnolia v. Manhall li . 427
McT»iggan B. Hunter
1.266
Magnui u. Buttemar i . 300
McTeany v. The Mayor
iii. 464
Magor V. Chadwick it . 44:!
McVeigh L-. Bank of the Old
Do-
Magoun v. N, E. Mar. Ini. Co. U . 802
minion
iii. 109
». Walker lU. 96
V. United Statei
i. 67
Mtgrudet. Ex parti i. 400
e. Campbell ir. 162
MoVey. In «
i. 341
D. Brendel
ii. 366
B. Peter It. 162, 168
MoVicker v. Beedy
i. 262
Maguire ». Magnlre L 417, 410; ii. 117,
McWhirter v. Robert*
It, 46
164
M'Whorter v. Huling
iv. 161
r. Park U. 348
McWhorter u. McMahan
ii. 614
V. Tyler i- 326
M'Williami B. Ni.ly
Macy ". Cliina M. Idb. Ca
It. 98
Magwire «. Riggfn it. 62
iii. 3S1
Magwood «. Johnwn li. 164
Hatialen v. Doblio, 4c Co. ii. 494
u, De Wolf
iii. 166
V. Mut. Mir. Iiu Co.
iii. 2S6
Mahan r. Brown ill. 448
V. Wheeler
iiilSe
Mahaik. C. S. Bank b. Critt iii. 81
D. Williami
iv. 306
Maher v. Chicago II. 291
Mahler t. N. & N. T. T. Co. ii. 416
Maclagarcar Bipeditton, The
i 123
Madame Berthemy'i Cue
ii. 49
Malin V. Harwood 0. 366
Madan v. Sheiard
it. 608
Hahon. Rt ii. 3i
iu. 62
B. Juitice Ii 26
Madden v. Dar
ii. 441
c, Liicomb Ii. 636
U. 8.38
Mahoney v. Aahlin Hi. 94
v. Dwyer U 348
It. 461
Jy. 343
V. Filipatrick iii. 76
Hxddox V. Brown
U. 106
V. McLean ii. 629
V. Fiiher
V. Young iy. 66
V. Miller
ii! 2.^9
Mahoning County Com'n v. Young
Maddy v. Hale it. T5, 109
iii. 449; iy. 122
Maden t>. Taylor
iy. 201
Mahony r. Kekul« ii. 631
MadgKickK. Wimble
ii, 67, 61
Maiilen City. The iii. 165
Madiion & Ind. R. R. v. Norwich Sav-
Mail Co V. Flanderv 1. 297
ing! Soc ii. 291
800.621
Main. The lU. 806, 272
1B7, 199
c. Wilhami lU. 217
Madraio v. Willes
1.199
Main c. Main ii. 164
Madrauo, Ex parU
i.297
Maine t. Grand Trunk By. Co. i. 439
Madrid, The
Hi. 138
Maine SUge Co. v. Longley ii. 291
Maffit V. C\»ik
iy. 396
Maine Truat Co. v. Butler iii- 89
fii. 206
Magdaien. The
lii. 248
iiL427
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
MiiDw»iiiK vrUTTie De
IT. 143
Maney v. Killoneh
ii. 622, 626
ap,ThB iii 217
Manej w. Porter
iL 478 ; IT. 471
RLMUe
ii. 147
Manguro d. Pieiter
iT. 278
M>ioU,/or<
Ii. 39
MaabMtet, The
iii. 170
Hur r, Gl«ime ii. 021 ,
iii. 34, 188, 148
Maaliattan B. & M, Co. v. Sean iii. 25
HuwODure v. KemtioR
Hutlud p. atiieni' iTat.
i. B67; iii. 178
i. 248
Bank iii. 78
U.Wood
li.866
«. GoldncT
Mljore. Todd
11.20
Manhattan H. Co. r. Phalen ii. 291
iii. 38
i: Roland
ii. 291
r.Wm«iii.
, iT. 531
Broughton
iL240
i. 302; iii. 369
MOepeutt r. Wordea
iii. 433
u. Stein
iii. 281
MdKhy i:. Soper
ii. 16
V. Warwick
1.67; iii. 256
MilbODv. Southard
iU.88
e. Willin
Iii. 370
Utlecdm V. Fuller
ii. 269
Manhattan Itfedicine Co. v
Wood ii.3a6
)Ud«i Bmnk B. Baldwin
UU9fl
L466
ii. 288, 458
Hanier b. Myen
iii. 448
Miler V. SbaUiKk
i. 76
Manilla, The
i. 26
Malim r. Keighiey
iT.305
Manitoba, The it
. 232, 248, 318
M*Uu ET. Brown
iT, 451
Mankato ». Willard
iii. 451
Mtllacb V. Ridley
u. 260
Mankin v. Chandler
ii. 403
Milluk r. Galton
it. 246; It. 101
Man ley v. Boycot
iU, 78. 86
HiUuir.Mi7 1.462
ii. 466 ) iii. 280
V. Field
iL20S
lUII0r7r.Comm.In1. Co
iii. 314
t'. SlasoD
iv. 162
c. HuuDT Oil Worki
U. 300
Mann v. Brodie
iii 440, 461
t. noneer-PreM Co.
ii. 22
D.Lent
ii. 473
«.R<UBell
iT.46
i>. Locke
iii. 61
ii. 13S, 146, 1S4
V. Mann
ii. 566
V. Willi!
u. 690
I-. Pearson
iT. 467
Uilone >. Hathaway
ii. 260
Mann'e E»'rs d. Hobinion
11.622
■.UcUiuin
It. 29, 30
Mann, Receirer, 4c. r, Pents ii. 314
■.Robimnn
ii. 561
Mannen p. Mew
It. 150
I. Toledo
ii, 340
Manning v. Cape Ann Co.
ii. 366
Mwj <,.KeaneAy
11. 103
V. Gill
U.461
Milpica >. M'Kown
ii. 608;iii. 31S
i>. Harden
V. Hollenbeck
iT.807
Uthter r. Hunipbreyi
iii. 232
ii. 63»
)blla.Tbe
lU. 186. 1B8, 198
V. JohnMQ
11.236
MaltiMr. Siddle
iii. 109
f. Laboree
It. 46, 69. 62
lUilby D. Steam D«rnck Bo»t, A iii. 248
V McClure
iii. 81
Miltby'i C*M
ii. 483
V. Manning
Ii. 117
M»iie.The
iii. 217
V. Maroney
iii. 04
/ta.H°f«7; U. H
ii.289
V. Mitchenon
ii. 848
7,148,149,181,
iF.Monaghan
iv. 102
187
B. Newnham lU. 297, 319, 328
UuKbciter o. Dodilridge
iT. 112, 370
D. Mcaragna
1.297
.. HoQgh
ii. 163
c. Ogden
ii. 343
26.20,30,436;
V. PerkiiM
It. 461
iii. 2
V. Riley
iL 441. 510
r Williami
ii. 16. 284
p. ShriTer
il.58t
JlBKhe«w,4cCo.p.Carr lii.468: iv. 75
p. Smith
iU. 441, 450
Brown ii. 599,
p. WeUi
ii. 193, 596
608
Manning* Cue
11.852
KtKiieM«r Bank >. Fellow. iii. 106
Manning & Andrew's Caw
It. 239
..White
ui.105
Manrow v. Durham
ui. 123
lhDcbnterF.Aw.Co.K.Koemer iii.3T6
Mansell v. ClemenU
ii. 622
HuKbetter Trnit ■>. FnmeM iii. 164,207
V. Mansdl
It. 266
Ibndet r, McCUve
It. 46
Htuiifleld 0. Baddeley
il.2B0
M^SeTr^alcke
iU. 66
ii. 343
iT. 480
0. Edwardi
ill. 89
>. Low
It. 306
p. McOinniit
i». 870
>C4«Jer« 0. Ciaft
ii. 618
V. Mclntyre
It. 63
Htndendiid o. Dnbnqne
iii. 451
Mai^etdl^^.&L.M.By.C
iii. 479. 482
KsndeTille p. Parker
It. 616
.«.awan
Hudlebaom «. McDonneQ ir. 131
i.344
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CA3E9.
(n» margliuil pi^ei an nfemd to.]
Hanaar v. Blake iil. «2T
Marine Ina. Co. t>. St Lonia
*"■"{■».,
Manton v. Moore ii. 601
Co.
Mand f. Bncbanan it. 69
Hi. 376
u. MaguiK ii. 494
V. Tucker
iii. 817, 321
iii.%5. 373
V. United Io». Co.
iii. 333
Marine Nat. Baok o. K«t. City Bank
M«nnfaeturer»' Bank v. Baack i. 347
iii. 88
«. Gore iii. 46
Mariner p, SchiUte
iii. 427
«. NeweU iii. 81
Marion, The
i.
87«; iii. 170
Maoufacituring Co. v. Bradley iii. 76
Marion o. Eilia
i.302
«. Trainer ii. 368
Mark v. Haatingi
iii. 46
Many ». De«kiuai) IroD Co. ii. ^»
0. Home Ins. Co.
iii. 307
». Jagger ii. 386
MapeaB.^eeki iL 20
Market Nat. Bank v. Saricen
iii. SI
Market St. C. Ry. Co. «
Rowley ii. 366
Maple V. JuDior Amy iHary Stores
Markey v. Coote
iii. 472
ii. 373
Mara c. Brown* iii. 41
Markiiam i>. Jaudon
i». 148
ii. 492, 681
V. Pierce i*. 179
Markiand v. Crump
It. 472
Marble v. Chapin 11. 18
Mark Lane, The
iU, 248
V, Lype. iii. 33
Markle v. Akron
iL 12
Marburg u. Cole ii. 182; It. 363
V. Hatfield
iii. 86
Marbury b. Brooka ii. 532, 63a
Marks, Ex parte
i.28S
«. MadUon 1288,311,314,315,
V. Baker
ii, 22
322,453
0. Beyfut
ii. 22
v. Crume
U. 77
iii. 138, 206. 329
V. Hill
iii. 66
Marcey v. Darling iii. 401
v. Jaffa
ii. 373
March, The iii. 206
V. Markj IL 1S6
It. 267, 268
March, In rt ii. 132
V. Pell
Iv. 143
V. Eaitem R. R. ii. 286
«. Sewall
iv. 368
Marchant o. PeDD. R. Co, i. 342, 391
u. United Statea
i, 66
Harcheueau v. MercbaoU' In*. Co,
iii. 3-36
MarcDi Ward & Co. v. Ward ii. 366
Marlborough (Duke of)
phin iv. 18,
Marlett v. Jackman
B.EariGodol.
264, 324, 387, 338
ii.«*e; iii. 56, 68
Marcy e. Marcy iv. 461
Marlow r. Adama
ii. 3.36
Marilen e. Babcock ii. 624
Marmaud v. Melledge
iii. 831
(.'. Boiton ii. 488
MarpesM, The
iii. 234
V. Savilie St., Jbe. Co. ii. 388
Marquam it. Sengfeldar
ii. 681
Mareck v. Mutual R. F. L, Agg'n iii. 369
Marquand v. N. Y. Mau
Co.
Hi. 64, 69
Marerno, The i. 369; iii. 152
Manjuand'B Caee
Iii. 64
Marfleld u. Goodline ii. 642
Marquardt t., French
1.370
Marijaret. The iii. 142. 152. 2.32
Marquette, 11. &O.R.RCft
B.HaT-
Margarethe Blenc*, The iii. 234
low
iii. 472
MarftarelU. The iii. 31S
ii.4l«
Marlieineke .-. Grothau» M, 227
Marquette, *c. R. R.
Co
D. Kirk-
Maria, The i. 86, 87, 136, 1&3. 164, 156.
wood
ii. 604
166; iii. 176
Marquez v. Frisbie
i. 322
Maria Jane. The iii. 248
The
l.»3
Maria Martin, The iii. 2-32
Marr v. Johnaon
iii, 86, 108
Marianna, The i. 87
B, W, D. Tel. Co.
Ii. 611
Marianna Flora, The i. 27, 122, 163, 166,
Marrett, /b rt
ii. 62. 430
299
Marriot V. Fascall
ii. 292
Maricopa ft P. R. Co. v. Arizona i. 384
Marriott n. Hampton
ii. 491
Marie, Tiie i.42; iii. 248
Manden v. City & Co. Au. Co. iii. 802
Marie JoMph, The ii- 482, 549
!>, Reid
iii. 316
Marie Loutae i. Marot ii 257
It.
28,206,249.
MariRoy B. Remy iv. HOT
261
Marina: The iii. 182
Mar«h,Er parte
It. 144. 433
Marine Bank of Chicago v. Wright
I„rt
It. 335
ii. 640
V. Biythe
iii, 230
Marine Ins. Co. ». China T. S. Co. iii. 253
B.Burt
Iii. 432
.. Hodg.OD iii. 278
V. Colby
iJI. 413
V. Lenox iii. 230
V. Elliworth
ii. 22
B. RudeD Ui. 106
V. Fulton County
U.SOI)
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tha puatfinl pagM u< r«l«n«d lo.]
D. PutDun
I. Sevmoui
t. Turner
Huih & Cirl GrsDville, /» r<
lUnhtll, A*
t & Obio R. R.
e. Benidge
», Benr
i.CobeD
p.Coltelt
I. Coimmn
p. Crowther
■rare Ina. Co.
e, Fanoer'i Bonk
Fuk
GiDgell
Griaws i, '
HmchiDMD
Int Co.
Jiquilb
iolmtoa
Hanh^
Mitchell
Uowley iil.
Olio
Peck
Pinkhun
Reailms F. Int. Co.
Kencli
I. SchoOeld
>. ShreifibiuT
t. T./lor
>. Ullnirater
t- Cnioii lot. Co.
c. Vultee
HinhallUiwii o. Blum
Mmkcy e. Turner
Mlrelud, In re
lUntDD u. Allen
>. hid win
^Cobam
*Gile
». Hobbi It. 4T1, 472,
t. Mmnton ii. 448
"•moo, petitioner
mnlu,The
tUrUjile I. Martin
tiutinjKn
ii
260
ii
687
_ii
m
u
.33
ii
U
889
i
422
ii
sea
IT
162
IT
451
It
336
347
ii.4M|
ii
448
iL
686
iT
110
ii
491
.61
.76
325
280
281
299, 406 1
246
640
ii
494
iii
421
ii
632
'ii
104
.Gl
306
109
iii. 79 1
[ i»
800
Ii
681
If
486
U
300
lU
376
iv
418
ii
360
ii
448
160
164
ii
468
180
ii
206
ui
413
iii
332
iii
477
i
43il
i
,89
ii
430
i
.80
ii
497
ii
533
ii
610
iii
462
476. 478 1
; "
183
It
605
iT
624
It
608
iil
248
ii
301
306
Mwlin. M.lter of
i.401
V. Balluu
iv.iao
V. Bank ,il Alabama
ii.284
V. Bigelow
iii
441,446
V. BrStrn
iii. 94
B. Cauble
iv. I^
D. Central Vermont R.
Co.
i. 260
V. Chaimtrj
iii. 76
0. ConleB
iv. 464
c. Crokatt
iii. 320
V. Crompe
iii. 37
u. Deel2
.ii. 277
V. Delaware IlW. Co.
iii. 313
B. Dryden
iT. 436
V. Dweltv
0. Franklin
ii, 168
iii. 117
r. Funk
ii,438
B. Gale
ii. 240
B. Goble
iii. 448
D. Harrington
ii. 041
B. Headon
iii. 448
i>. Hilton
iii. 170
0. Hunter 1. 20, B17
377, 396
«. Ingham
IT. 179
t Jett ""^
iil. 439
c. LatU
iv. 429
».Loag
iv. 476
V. tiania il. 99, 129, 140, 14], 183 ;
ii
.464
ir. 422
». Hasoo
ii. 365
V. MitclieU
ii. 169
K. Morgan
ii.483
V. Molt
i.266
K. Mo>lin
iv. 194
.. Murphy
ii. 467
V. Niagara F. P. H. Co.
ii. 281
t>. Nicotis
ii. 120
0. PasioD
iii. 136
p. Payne
V. Price
ii.ao6
iii. 448
F. Raid
ii. 681
<7. Kichardg
iii. 464
V. S&le
iT. 171
B. Salem Har. Ina. Co.
Iii. 300, 309
B. Sarage
IT. 631
B. Searlei
iii. OS
B. Smith
iT.365
r. Slate
i.28S;ii.233
V. Steams
iT. 106
B. SMchan
iT.
4, 10, 14
V. Suber
ii. 612
r. Thorn pion
ii.360
p- Thnuher
iii. 41
I.. TruBtees of the BritUh
Mu.
■eum
<i. 16
p. U. S. Bank
iii. 115
V. Waddell
iii. 417
B. Wfllion
iii. 67
B. Webb
U.620
B. WillBlOW
iil
-fll. 118
D. W.U.Tel. Co.
ii. 611
Martindale v. fioolh
il. 620
Martin Dallman, The
iii. 232
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
iil. 379
Mason u. Pomeroy
ii, 441
iT.dOO
MarliDi v. Colet
ii. 625, 626, «27
u. Rum ley
iii. 41
MarUn KtJbfleiich, The
iii. 138
L. Secor
ii. 259
M&rtorelli, fn re
ii.39
u. Shi«wibtu7 &
Eiereford
B.
Hartyn d. Clue
It. 122
Co.
iii.
419,439
o. Williuni
It. 480
IF. Bkiuray
111.295
Msrriu v. BenneK
ii.47fl
B.Thom[ion
U.
6»3,6d4
r. Marrio
ii. 77
B. Wait
ii. 474
r. TrumboU
iii. SB
Maapono ... MUdred
ii. 681
V. WaUi.
U 492
Maai. & B. C. Co. ». Cane Creek
1.302
Marwick ». Rosen
iii. 206
Maaa. Gen. Hoqiital o.
Fairbanks ii. -JSS.
Man K, MoGlynn
Mar;-, The 1.66; iii. 1
ii. 62 ; i». 608
461
76, 178, 186, 196,
Maitaaoit. The
iii. 196
2S4,2se
Maaieth >. JohniUHi
ii.366
Mary, The Ship
iii. 197
Mauey 0, Gorton
ii.441
Mary, The Sloop i. 870
878:111.868,861
e. Goyder
iii. 487
M.ry Ann, The
llL 170, 186. 199
V. Parker
ii. 165
Mary Bradford, The
iii. 164
v.The State
ii. 477
Mary Clark'a Caie
ii. 258
Maaiie v. Watts
ii.463
Mary Clinton, The
i. 74
Massiter v. Cooper
ii.60l
Mary Garrett, The
i.369
Mawon v- Bovet
11. 470
Mary Gibb», The
iii. 234
Massy v. Bowen
ii. 164
Marr Hale, The
Iii. 196
Mist V. Pearcc
il. 478
Marye ». Baltimore & 0
K. Co. i. 439
Master v. Hansard
iT. 480
t.. ParronB
i. 851
Ma*t«n B. Baretto
iii. 98
Maryland, The
iii 232
«. Madiion County Mut. Ins
Co.
Maryland i'. Baldwin
1.302
iii. 376
V. Bunk of Marvlanti
Maryland F & M. Co. f
ii. 284, 815; 632
c. Pollie
iii. 438
Newman iii. 76
iff]
Maryland, &g. Soc. 0. Clendinen ir. 335
ii. 480
Maryland & Pb. Ini. Co
V. Bathnnt
Matchleai. The
iv. 122
iii. 325
1.75
Mary L. Cuihman, The
iii. 282
Maleer b. Brown
Ii. 596
Mary Fortington'i Owe
iT.13, 14, 131.
B. Mo. Pac. By. Co.
u,269
132
Matheny v. Mason
ii. 478
Marya if. Anderaon
iv. 05
Mather u. Bush
1.421
Maty Sanfort, The
- iii. 179
iii 427
Mary Thomaa, The
iiL206
B.Fraser
ii.343
Mawetti ... WilliMiB
iii. 118
B. Heath
ii. 226
ii. 451
m. 79, 86
0. Thomas
iv, 689
Maslin V. B. 4 0. R. B, Co- ii. 800. 608
Hatheson d. CampbeU
ii.366
MaiOD, Ex parU
i. 299; iv. 480
Mathews v. Case
ii. 260
V. Blairean, The
ui. 210, 246, 31S
V. Howard In*. Co.
iii. 80Z 804
o.BriBg.
ii. 608. 609
B. Newby
Hatiiias B. Uracil
ii. 418
V. ChappeU
ii. 478, 479, 490
iii. 76
V. Citileu- In*. Co.
iii. 376
Mathiea v. Mazet
ii. 15
V. Cotton
iii. 440
Matlock ... Matlock
Ui.30
B. Doiuay
iii. 66
Mation V. Abbey
ii.438
V. Duo man
iv. 516
B. Buck
ii.24
e. Eldr«d
iL,S89
Mattel V. Cooaot
ii.l22
It. 190
V. Erie By. Co.
111,449
Matthaei ... Galitdn
Ii. 70
V. Fearaon
i 467
Matthai B. Heather
ti.441
V. Finch
i.463
Matthew V. Bowler
iv. 162
r. Franklin
iii, 96, 97
Matthewman's CaM
U. 164
t. Graham
ii.366
Matthews, In r«
It. 413
V. Haile
1466; ii. 397
Ex parte
ill. 13:t
B. Raryey
iii. 376
B. Associated Fret*
li.467
e. Hill
Ul. 439. 443
V. Baiter
il. 461
B. Hortou
lU. 419
w. Croshy
Hi. 76
V. Lickbarrow
iJ.MI.648
B. DaTis
11. 336
... MMon iL126,436;iT.«
0. Dijiey
iii. 437
-■. Murray
U.882
B, HaU
iii. 78
B. I'ewabic M. Co.
i.aWiii.305
D, HarseU
ii 866
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Muthen 0. Ho-i^d
11.488
Maxwell b. NewtoD
IT. 190
,. Huniley
li.26
V. Seney
iT. 403
li.466
0. Willett
iii. 80
i. McStea
.66,67
May, /n re
iii 66
e. Uo. Pac. Sv. Co.
li, 106
... Buckeye Mnt Ins. Ca HL 282. 376
,. Offley ' i. 42
iii. 180
«. Delaware Im. Co.
iii. 303
r. Pwne
iii. 80
V. Fond du Lac
ii. 366
>. Smitb'i ExpreM Co.
ii. 687
r. HarTey
li. 563
>. Temple
.. Wiircl iU. 488
IT. 253
B. Little
il. ITO
iT. 424
«. May
ii. 226
>. WhitUe it.
43,144
V. Qui m by
iii. 81
cZue
i. 464
It. 70
XanbewMui v. Boffmftli
Ui.440
B. Tenny
i..'542
r. Perry
ii. 193
V. Western Union Tel. Co.
ii. G32
HitthUi c. Meinard
iii. 477
Mayberry u. Slandish
iii. 461
Ibtihit r. Potti
iii. 809
Mayburry ». Brim i
T. 37, 39
Hiuhiewn ftc. Co. «. La Sille
iii. 461
Hayer v. Bem«tetD
iii. 48
., MctJiLhon
ii. 451
e. Dean
ii.616
Hitiice K. BriDkmui
iii. 404
V. Foulkrod i
342.349
P- Wilcoi
ii. 22
o. Frobe
ii. 16
Hittie U>7. The
i.370
I'. Garber
iii. 66
Uutinglr ^ N. W. V». H. Co.
i. 330
11. Goirland
iy.628
iii. 33
V. Jounieymaa S. C. Ai»'ii
ii. 16
».StHe
i. 404
I'. McCune
iT.33l
Xittii r. Weud
iT. 162
II. McLure
ii.286
Ualtocki D. Steama
Ii. 131
u, Murray
iy.l66
Huti e. Hawkini
iii. 488
V. Old
iii, 89
ii- 196
Maye* u. BobiMon
iii. 81
Uingn e. Dick
ii. 16
V. Rogera
li.498
Maul r. Rider
ir.469
Mayfair Proper^ Co. v. Johnatou Ui. 437
HanldiD r. Bank of Mobile
Hi. 67
Maybew v. Boyoe
ii.601
c. Branch Bank
iii. 43
V. Eamea
ii.eoa
Hank P. BuckoeU
iii. 123
V. Maybew
ii. 126
c. Hurray
ii. 125
V. SulliTan H. Co.
ii. 260
HiBkby >. BeifoDider
ii. 22
i>. Thatcher
1.261
ii 2«4
ii. 284
D. Hecht 1
299,330
Uiuidrtll V. ManndnU ir. G
,88.348
V. Hill
ii. 107
MhqmU .. Hort
iT.76
V. Haynard il. 490
; iv. 468
Maaran d. Tn«. Co.
iU.2»4
B.Moore
iv.480
>>.I«mb
m. 78
Mayo u. Archer
ii. 891
r. Smith i 221. 822
B. Bentley
ii.410
Mture e, HarriaoD
i».307
V, Equiuble Life A». Sodety ii. 480:
li.631
iii. 36.J
Mantj r. TUmadge
il.fl01
r. India M. Int. Co.
ii.296
lUTeriek r. Eighth At. B. B.
li.000
B. Snow
ii . 1-W
MaierickOUCo. (..Haoion
e. WInfVee
iiL 472
IUTLdg«Todd
iLOOO
Mayor v. Appold
ii.440
Hawmtn c. Tcgf
li.882
B. CoUini
i.283
M.,«»./.™~
It. 807
:;&'
i. 803
..Fletcher
It. 461
iii. 461
Maifield >. Lery
i. 846
r. Hardwick
ii. 291
».8chwan«
ii. 482
B. Johnwn
iii. 116
MaiimiliaD ». New York
ii. 274
B. Lord i. 822
342. 410
MaiMom^The L8«9;Ui
164,282
Mayor. The. 4o. b. Hayet
iii. 466
Mai™. Lewee of v. Sawyer
ii.22B
Mayor. The «. Bay
ii.291
!I.ic»,.G«y
iT. 62
t>. Wetumpka Wharf Co.
ii. 201
..Une
iT.480
Mayor of Baltimore v. Board of Po-
Maiwen 0. Aeoew
». Dulw^ College
iii. 80
ii. 289
lice
B. Sute
1.449
i. 466
«. Goettcbiiia
1.456
Mayor of Carlisle b. Graham iiL 410,412.
..HiU
fT.fi08
413
It. 148
Mayor of London «. Alford
It. 206
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Maj'or of New York v. Lord ii.
V. StUfTCMUlt iv.
Mayor of Oxford d. Richardton iii.
Mayor of Savannah v. Steamboat Co.
■ m nfaned hl.1
Msech V. Allen
a. Ensign
Ui. 6S
It. 145
IL4G1
u. RoblnsoD ill. 239
Meehaa v. Sharp ii- 484
Mayrant d. Richardson
ii. 22
D. Valentine
iu.24. 88
Mazytk *. VanderhMt
iv.282
Meek V. KettleweU
iL4SS
Meachom o. BuDting
iv. 64
Meeker v. Meeker
iT.46^508
c. Meacham
ii.494
v. Wilson
ii. 621
Mead V. DaTiion
iii. 267
K. WinlhropIronCo.
iL285
V. regolyer
ii.509
0. Wright
iv. 363
t.Eng.
iii. 107
Megargel v. Saul
IT. 162
B.F0X
iT. 461
Megee v. Beirne
i. 262
:;SK-
iii. 4-29
Mehan u. Thompson
Mehlbcrg V. Fisfier
ii.45»
iT. 278
IIL 109
D.Merritt 1.412; ii.
23.463
Helilhop V. Pettibone
U, 613
V. Orrery (Lord)
iv. 164
Mehrhoff «. Mehrhoff
U. 164
V. PhUlipi
ii. 536
Meier v. Penn. R. R.
ii. 600
p. Small
iii. 113
Meigs v. Dimock
It. 152
V. Stirling
ii. 16
«. MuL Mar. In.. Co.
Ui. 808
Meade !■. Smith
ii. 498
Meiklejohn v. Toung
ii.2g3
V. United Statei
1.167
MeLly ». Wood
Iii. 39
Meador b. Soreby
It. 612
Mfincke B. Falk
ii. 494
Meadow V. Bitd
iii. 80
Meise V. Newman
iii- 94
iii. 366
Meister e. Moore
ii. 87
Meads 0. Martin
ii. 146
ii.463
iii 88
K.R.CO.
Meahero. Coi lu. 30,61
iii. 207
Meakingt o- Cromwdl
iv. 826
Melbourne Banking Corp.
r. Btougb-
Mean* r. Dowd
u. 441
iv. 143
Mean v. BicUwd
ii. 198
Melcheru. City of Boston
t.42»
». Dole
iii. 437
Helliado v. Porto, &c. Ry.
Co. ii. 618
Mecca. The i. 869
iii. 170
Melick B. Benedict
iii. 476
Mechanics- Bank v. Burnet Mfg. Co.
Melizet's Appeal
IT. 02
ii. 208
Mellen u. Hamilton F. Ins
Co. iii. 876,
V. Griswold
iii. lis
376
<,. Merchanu' Bank il. 633
iii. 103
V. Mellen
il. 117
V. N. y. & N. H. R. R.
[ii. 89
K. Moore
ii. 02U
B. Straiton
iii. 78
D. Whipple il. 463; iv. 146. 244
Mechanics' Bldg. Ais. d. Sterew
ii. 312
Mellenh r. Keen
iii. &t
Mechanici' Ini. Co. d. Hodge
ui. 376
Mcllick c. The Aiylum
Ui. 105
Mechanics' SaTingt Bank «. GoS
iv. 145
iT.607
Mellin i: White
ii. 16
Schuyler
' iii. 99
Mellith B. Motteuz
ii.482
Mechanics' & Tiaden' Bank of K
0.
«, Rawdon
iii. 8-^
B. Compton
iii. 107
V. Simeon
iii. 116
Mechanics', &C Bank h. Crow
iii. 79
Mellon u. Bucks
iii, 319
Mechanic!', Ic Co. r. Richardjon
iii. 42
D. Croghan
iii. 97. 09
Med. Caseot Slave Child
ii. 267
Mellor V. Cox
iii. 164
Medary v. Gathers
iv. 110
V. Leather
Iii. 488
Medawar u. Grand Hotel Co.
ii. 692
L-. Pilgrim
Ui. 440
Medbury p. Hopkins
B. Watrous
11.46-)
B. Watkini
111.462; iv.106
ii. 240
Mellors p. Shaw
ii. 260
Meddowcrofl p. Haguenin
ii. 120
Melius B. Sil«bee
iL369
Mede V. Hand
ii. 419
V. Thompson
Melpomene, The
ii. 420
Medeiro. v. HiU i. 151
iii. 262
iu.248
Medhurst t.. Waite
iii. 467
MelviLeB.MisMnri River
ftcR.Co.
Medina, The
ill. 248
ii.25»
Medina b. Stougfaton Ii.
i78. 478
Melvin V. Bullard
It. 418
Medley, Inn i. 409
ii.226
V. MarUn
li.l8»
Medlin V. Wilkerson
Ii. 661
«. Melvin
ii. 126
Medomak Bank i'. Curtis
ii, 611
V. Whiting
U1410
Medrano i>. Sute
ii. 77
i.41B
Medway v. Needham
1.92.98
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CA3E8.
UtinpU*, Ac. R. B. Co. D. AUb»ma
i. SOS
■F. Nelghbon it. 122
I. Reevei iiL 217
Meoigfa t>. WhitweU iii. 66
HendKiluU f. IMtv ii. 160
r. Mower iv. 2TB
HcDdetv.HetideB ii. 225
Hcndez e. CKrrerooD iU. 01
Hendon'* Cue i, 30
ll«nendez c. Holt iL SdO
UeneLooB b. Athawei ii. 601
i>. Gibbous LS78; iU. 381
lIeiig«T E. Ward iv. 1S6
Heowr v. Hooper's Telegraph Works
Heonie.. Blake
iii. 488
Ifenor. Boeflel
iv. lis
i. 3S9
Meator. The
L 170; iiL 199
UuiBa.Newwltter
iL4B4
ii. 269
Hetode d. Delaire
iv. 142
II«Mr>.Heiuer
iLI26
Ueuiei c. Ughttoot
UtphMi»>.Sie»el
iv. 176
iii. 162
Uereutils C Q. Ca o
Wood iii. 253
Co
■" '^'"^f „«,
UereaoiUe & Esduage Bank v. Glad-
noiw iii. 138, 207
Uoced Bank v. RoMDtbal iii. 464
Hscon V. The People ii 176, IM
Uarcet. Ex parU ii. 441
e. Beale ii 443
>. Ktubnigh, Ft. W. ft C. R. R.
v.Setdeo
iv. 20
.. Woodgmte
Iii. 461
Uerctr Co. u. Hackett
Iii. B9
Metwiran'i Tnula, /« «
Iv. 278
i367
Ueiel»i.t (.. Cook
ii.451
Uerch»,t Prince. The
iii. 23a
Ifarchant BhippiDg Co. v.
Armitage
iii. 228
MerehanU' Back v. Cook
ii. 274
t. Elderkin
iii. 109
iii. 06
>. Grijvald
ii.e2i
uiBl
V. HcC^and
iv.l35
iii. 81
>. 3uteBank
MetdiaDti' Detective Am'd v. Detec-
ttTeM.Aftencj ii. 866
F. 0. R. R. * T. Co. 11. 549
Meftliaiita* Diipatch, Ac. Co. v. Corn-
forth il. eoO. 608
Uercbaoti' D. T. Co. n. Fnrthmann
iii. 207
Ueiduota' Exchange Bank v. Mc-
Gr*« ii492
Mercbanta' Kzchange Bank c Kew
Brunswick S. InsL iii. TO
Merchants' Ins. Co. it. Alrao iii. 314
t>. Allea L 26; iii. 282,307
V. Clspp iu. 280, 308
Mercliftntg^NatBuikt). Chattanooga
C. Co. ii. 441
D. Gregg iii 76
V. GuilmarUn Li 661
r. Nat'l Eagle Bank Iii. 83, 86
MerchanU' & M. Mat. Bank v. Tinker
ii.441
MerchanU' A Mao. lot. Co. c. Shillito
iiL 240
Merchants', tc. Bank d. Hibbard ii. 649
Merchanla', &c. Ca v. Moore ii. 601
Merchants' Traoi. Co. v. ForthmauD
UiMT
Mercurioj, The i. 146, 161
Meredith, Ex part* iii. 116
(.'. Jonee it. 301
c. Meigh ii. 40-J
v. United State* L 248
u. Wilson iv. 480
0. Winn ii. 143
Meredith Mechanic Asa'n e, Ameri-
can T. D. Co. iv. 86, 116
Meres ti. Ansell ii. 656
Meretonj v. Donlope iii. 308
Mericlo, Matter of ii. 200
Merino, The i. IM
.Merithew t>. SampaoD iiL 2S4
Meriwether e. Morrison ii. 43B
B. Mahlenburg Conn^ Court !. 342
Merrett p. larmers' Ins. Co, ill. 278
Merriam r. Cunningham u.240. 241
1.. Field ii. 479
V. Goodlett ii. 441 ; ir. 461
V. United States i. 268, 297
V. Wolcott iii. 88
Merrick v. Burl, ft Warren F. R. Co.
V. Gordon 111. 25
V. Reynolds Co. ii. 277
•>. Wallace iv. 459
Merrick'* Estate Ii 889, 407
Merril K. Johnson ii. 854
Merrill e. Agricnllaral Ins. Co. ii. 463
V. Bartlett lU. 40
V. BojJston F. & M. Iu. Co. Ui. 318
c. Frame iv. 469
D. GrinneU ii. 600
V. Harle; iii. 7«
V. Kenyan ii. 631
V. Sheronme L 466
Merriman n. Moore ir. 146
Merrit v. FMjt iii. 64, 66
Merrill v. Barthotick iv. 194
V. BrinckerhotE iii. 441
V. Dav m. 61
V. Giddings i 236
t>. Home It. 80
f. Johnson il. 861
». Lambwt It. 170, 190, 44b
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Herrltt b. Puker
iii. 4sg
Metro. EL R. Co. o. Eneeland
a. SSI
u. TbompioD
ir. 119
Metro. Gai Light Co.
i460
». Todd
iii. 91
Metro. Ry. Co. v. Detriei iii 472
lv.160
t>. Wilih
iii. 166
Mette V. Fell gen
ii236
f. WeU»
iv. 162
P.Metle
ii. 03
Memwatber n. Hardemu
iii. 37
Mettler v. Miller
iT. 28
Merrow ». Shoemaker
ii. 3e<i
Metz V. Bagerty
It. 409
Merry v. Green
u. 867
Metiger, h t, L 87,
170, 301
V. Haliett
lil. 401
HeUler ». Wood
ii. 378
r. Hooper
ii. 866
Meunier,/nrc
1.87
V. Lynch
ii. 843
Meui r. Jacob!
ii.&43
P. Prince
iii. 279
u. Maltby
It. 180
Merryweather v. Uoora
ii. 269
Mewherter v. Price
f.460
Mersereau c, Norton
ii. 360
Meial r. Dearborn
H.68e
MerserolB t>. Union Paper Collar Co.
Meiicaa Nat. R Co. b. Daridion
i.S02
i.a46
Meilean Prince, Tlie
iiL20T
Mereey, The
i. 168
Meyer v. Blair
it 281
Mersey Docks r. Henderw>n
i.462
B. Decroix
iii. 84
Mersey Dock* Trnatew o. Gibbi
ii.260,
V. Dr. B. L. BoU V. M. Co.
iL366
274,638
0. Drecier
Iii. 228
Mersey Steel, *c. Co. >. Naylor
ii.468
r. Great Wetletn Ina. Co.
iii. 805
Mercem v. Winnlngton
iii. SO
V. Herrera ii 70, 802
iii. 87
V. Hibehor
iii. 109
Merrio, In «
iv.208
V. HoHe
It. 806
Mererre v. Andrewi
iii. 80
V. Krauler
ii. 479
V. Dyer
ii. 441
i: Krohn Ui. 83, 64
Mewer V. Snflolk Bank iL 367
iii. 186,
V. Pacific aWl S. Co.
1.870
246
B.PoCk
Iii. 207
W. 114
V Ralli
iii. 831
r, Peno. B. B. Co. li. 468, 609
r. Second At. R. R,
ii. 200
Meiaier d. Amery
ii.028
V. Sharpe Di. 80, 34
Meutina v. Petrocoochlno
i.42
0. Taooma L 4 W. Co.
iii. 440
Me.taer v. OUIetpie
iii. U7
Meyer B. D. Co. v. McMaban
11.492
Melcalfv.HeM
ii. 696
Meyen v. St Lonii U. 840 ; liu 413, 427
r. Nel.0D
iii. 440
V. Shield*
1.266
:;£a.
iii. 316
ii. sea
It. 160
f. Barber 11.492.649,661
Iii. 208
i: Watertown
1.802
Michael v. Baker
ii. 164
V. Williaort
ii.829
V. Gillespy Ui 811, 381
Metcalfe v. Bradabaw
iii. 61
V. Roanoke M. Worki
11.269
0. Brsnd
ii.8e6
V. Tredwin
Ui.228
1', Brwidou
ir. 466
Michael's Trusta, /» n
ii.l70
r. Britaania Iroo Work* Co
iii. 206,
MichaelMo v. DeniMkn
iiLlS2
228
Michaod v Lagarde
iii. 109
1-. Rycroft
iii. 47
MicbeU u. BugbM
11.138
V. Shaw
ii.l46
V. liUcheU
ii. 170
Meteor, The t. 128
■ Iii. 176
Michigan V. FUnt, fto. B. Co.
i34S
Co.
Michigan Bank v. Eldred
iiL90
ii. 22
Michigan Centntl R. B. v. Leahey U. 260
Metge V. KaTkoagb
tii.46e
V. Smithion
il.260
MeChodlit Church v. Remington
ii. 283
V. Ward
ii.flW
Meth. Epis. Church n. Jaquei
ii. 166,
Michigan Ini. Co. c. Brown
iT. 194
226
V. LeaTenworth
iii. 90
t. Mayor of Hoboken
iii. 461
Michigan 8. k N. Ind. R. R. t.
Mc-
Metbnen ft Blore'i Conlr., /» rt
i». 6B.".
ii.600
Met'n Nat. Bank v. Jonei
ill. 88
Michigan State Bank f. Gardner
11.626
Hill
D. Baitings
i.2»7
462,467
B. LeaTenworth
ill. 112
Metro. Bank b. Taylor
ii. 164
Michond B. Girod
iT.438
Metro. Board of Ezdie o. Barrie
i. 419;
Uickle V. Milei
111.461
ii. 340
B.Peet
iii 37
Metro, atj By. Co. v. C. W. D. Ry.
Mickles B. Dillaye
i». 166
Co.
ii.S40
Mieklethwait c. Mlcklethwait
ir. 76
Metro. CohdIIm 8oc. «. Brown
li.843
Middlebrook V. Broadbent
11.S6S
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CAS&8.
ITbt HnTKinl !■■•• ■» nicmd to.]
Miller, SsUle of
a420, 4S4
Middlcbrooks v. Springfleld F. Ini.
ExparU
iii. 452
Co. li. 463
M.tteror
ii. 142
Middleboi? CoUege r. Cheney iv. 68
V. Adgit
iL568
Uiddbcome b. Mariow U. 174
r. B&rtlett
iii 34
Middledilcb v. Willi>mi li. 4G1
V. Beverly
ir. 46
Hiddluu Buk v. Minot It. 146
».Bl0M
Ir. 306
Middlnes R. R. Co. c. B. & C. R. S.
r. BrowD
ii. 164
Co. iLSOO
V. Cal. IM. Co.
UL201
MJddloton.fi parte It. 416
ii. 463
D.Anii>ld« It. 448
V. CampbeU
11. 459; iii. 865
r Brown B. 463
V. Chittenden
iv. 508
.. Croftt i*. 887
V. aark
, ii. 436
B. Dodiwen ii. 114
p. Cook
iii. 122
.. Fowler u. 601
<>. Cox
iv. 451
V. Pritchari Ui. 427
V. Darii
ii.m
Middlewood t. BlBkn Ui. S17
B. E^le Life & H. Ine
Co. iiL 36B
m^j ». WUkcr lY. 361
V. Eagle MMuf. Co.
ii.S66
Hidlud NaL Bmnk r. Schoen iu. 41
B. EUiot
iii. 488
NidUnd By. Co. v. W.tton jil. 451
u. GstiU
iv. *36
Migbell r. Dovherty il. m
c.SulUDrfJohore 1.166,297
D. Garlock
iiL 446
f. Guton
ii. 640
MJlu, The iii. 232
i. 465
mm, r. BeUoDl ii. 621
u. Haokley
B. Hancock
Hi. 04, 113
MildoKjr B. FOI^IMD UL 376
iv. no
Mildnuy', CmM It. 18, 181, 495
D. Helm
Iv. 194
MilM w. Borden ir. 610, M2
t. Csnie ii. 606
e. Hinea
iu. 43
V. Irvine
m. 122
s. Conn. Hat L. Ina. Co. iii. 870
f. Jeflreu
Et48
B.Fiirber iii. 47 T
r. Kerr
iL20
r. Huford It. 587
V. Kingsbury
iii.es
»J«iie.*Johi»oti li.609
V. lADuMter
r.Johnw» 1266; ii. 332
V. Laabach
iii. 440
>. Eairier ti. 228
V. Le Piere
a. 438, 448
,.l4ngMinui ii. 236
i>. Lincoln
iv'. laa
t. MilM ir. 76
tr. Little
ii.413
•. Hmphy ir. 166
B. McKay
il.l66
*. New Zealand A. B. Co. il. 468
v. Mayor
I. 302, 439
T. PmDock iU. 66
D. Meetch
iv. 826, 826
>. Thonuu iii 61
B. Michel
iii. 464
w. WilliBmi U. 186. 146
D. Michoad
iL8<>2
Hiio'i ffiU ir. 616
D. MiUer i. 261 ;
. 78, 125, 128,
Mikm., The iii. 206, 217
200,4451 iv. 869
B. Minor L. Co.
370, 414, 491
Milford, Tbe iiL 187, 170
1L461
UiUM .. UimH' iii. 96
.. MilWr iL 128, 137, 188
r. Moore
ii. 470
UL468
.. Milforf W. Co. il. 440
».Mnrphy
iv. 486
r. Wilcert iii. 87
iv. 437
».Woreorter ii. 90
B. Mut. BentAt L. Int.
Co. iii. 282
KlitD) <N Tognini li. 468
e. Newbnrg 0. C. Co.
ii. 305
JTilk. V. Rich Iii. 123
t-. New YoA
LSiHl
Mill r. Hunt ii. 680
■>. Nicholli
L826
MililL WoollBn UuL Co. n. Smitli
...O'Brien
lU. 172, 354
111427,440
cPeeplee
■1.602. 696
MiDir 0. Coig Iii. 37
Mlird u. HcUnnin iv. 870
ir. 627
U. 846
r. IUii»dril Ui. 67
v. Poage
iii. 76
r. Tbe Schiedam iii. 248
v.Ra«i
Iii. 70
Miltoiidoii B. New Orieuu In«. Co.
.>.Bapp
iiL 41
Hi. 805
L106
1-. We«en, M. 1 1. Icu. Co. Iii. 281
B. Royal lo.WoA.
!v. 116
MOWge 0. GardMT iv. 451
UL43
Mlm t. Goerrard a.864;iv. 76
V. Rutland * W. R. Co
iv. 194
Mai«, In n ir. 278
v.sa>
1. 46
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
MiUer V. Shwkleford
iL133
Milne v. m\M
it 288
V. Shields
iv. 76
B. Smith
ii. 236. 474
Milne'B Appeal
MUner f. Uarewood (Lord)
Ui. 437
r. Sleam Nar. Co.
UL2I7
ii. 244
i. 428
D. Milner
iv. 360
V. Taylor ii. 875, 876, 38* ; St. 224
r. Stanford
iv.306
V. TetheriDglon
iii. 240, 260
Milner's Settlement, Re
ii. 170
r. TeiM
L 326, 3B1
Milne, v. Dnncan
U. 491
V. Thatcher
It! 806
Miliior f . N. Y. 4 N. H. E. Co.
11.286
f. ThomioD
iii. 76, 174
Mi roy V. Lord
ii. 438
V. United 8t>t«( i
78, 91. 262, 802,
Mi vain V. Perez
iiL22S
857
Mi ward B, Hallett
iii. 164
e. WaddiDgham
ii.343
0. Hibbert
iii. 240
«. Week.
iii. 72
Milwaukee Boiler Co. v. Don
U. 478
V. WoodfaU
iii 138. 187, 331
Milwaukee R..Ei port*
i. 822
Miller-» CaM
i:486
Milwaokee, &c. R. Co. b. Amu
Ii. ifi
Millei «. Fletcher
Ui. 173, 319. 322
». Kello)cg
m. 303
Millet c. Stepheu
iii. 1U3
Milwankie Belle. The
iii 240
Millett «. navey
ir. 166
Mlm« V. Lockett
fv. 152
Milligan.ir parte 1. Z97
326, 841 ; ii. 26
V. Maooa & W. B. Co.
V. 152
V. Cooke'^
ii. 476
r. Mimi
Iv. 469
Milliken ». Cbapman
iii. 81
Mineau. In rt
i.87
H. DehoD
u. 581
Miner r. Gilroour
iiL440
t. Kendig
iv.487
B.Harbeck
iii. 180
1.. Loriog
iii. 84
V. Markbam
i.285
p. Pratt
ii. 46e
V. Phanii In*. Co.
iiL376
Millikin D. Bowling Green iji. 432
V. Steven.
iv. 118
Millinger v. Hartupee
i. 328
V. Vedder
iii. 89
Million V. Riley
It. 435
Miner'. Wilt. In n
iT.6S7
Millon 0. Saliabory
ii. 587
Mineral Point R. Co. v. Barron
ii. 468
MiU., Exparu
iiL81
Miner.' Bank v. Iowa 1
326,340
ii. 43. 547
Miner.' Ditch Co. c. Zetlerbach
U.SOO
V. Bank of United Statet iii. 95
Minerva, The
ill. 198
V. Banks
ir. 148,846
Mines, Caw of
UL878
». Barber
iii. 41, 44, 48
Minei, Ex parU
iii. 122
B.Bell
It. 476
0. GibMO
iti. 78
ii. 354
Min^i B. Pritchet
ii.606
r. Camp
ii. 525
Minick 0. Haff
iL610
V. Counn Comm'n
iii. 121
Mini! B. United State*
L4S3
V. Denn^
ii. 246 ; iv. 191
Mink B. ShaSer
ii. ISO
V. Dnryee
L 260, 281
Minna, The iii
176. 197
V. Farmer
If. 508
Minneapoii. b. Reum
u. 64
I-. QoodieU
iy.438
Minneapolis H. Works v. RaeMtier iii. 80
V. Graham
ii. 241
Minneapolis, &c. Ry. Co. b. Beckwltb
V. HaUock
U.498
B9l| 418
V. Hunt
a 601, 880
V. Emmons i
D. Jennlngi
iv. 306
ti. Home In.. Co.
iii. 207
V. Michigan C. a Co
ii. 604
«. Milner 1.326,439; ii. 840
t>. Millard
iT. 532
Minnehaha, The
iii. 248
n. Milla
iT. 305, 456
Minnetnta v. Bachelder
i. 836
V. Moprii
u:441
t.. Barber
L439
r. Pott
iT.307
ii. 226
0. State
ii. 16
Minnett K. Forreiter
ii. 644
V. St. Clair Co.
iii. 459
Minor, In re
i. 4;Kt
V. United StatM
ii. 340
ii 49, 71
... United StatM Bank 111. 103, 108
B. Miehie
ii608
v. Van Voorhi. i
r. 89,45.46, 186
B. Pre,ident,*c.ofKatchei
It. 481
B. Wilkin.
i!480
B. Staples
Minot «. Hani.
iL696
«. Witberington
ir. 866
iv. 637
V. Wrm«i
U. 208, 465
V. Paine
iiSM
KOa V. Pfeat
lit. 84
B. Rubs
iiies
p. Spinola
iii. 1S4
K. Winthrop
i256
MHue V. Bartlett
iii. 68
Mini-hall V. Lloyd
a. 345
r. Graham
ilL 72, 77
Minter e. Can
It. 187
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
IB ibhkIhI pugea an ntarrti to.]
HinUt(^ Mower
H, 872
Milcbell «. Orodmbo, The
iii. IB6
r. Pidfc R. Co.
ii,6a)
0. Reyoolda ii. 466
". KoUnBOO
ir. 130
Minto r. DAlAMf
ill. 427
ii. 2S0
MiDlon «. Steele
iil. 427
V. Seipel
iii. 419
MJolotn >. Fiaher
lii.88
e. Sharon
ii. 16
r. Muiof. In*. Co.
iii. 876
V. SimpMHl
i. 462
r. Seymour
ii.46«
V. Union L. Ins. Co.
iii. 369
r. WiTPEQ iDi. Co.
Hi. 270
V. Doited State* L 67, 178
ii.480;
UuKiw >, Cox
IT. 612
iii. 87B.881.38fl
M™ a. Prmtt. The
iii. 24B
V. Wanier It. 471
472, 479
Jlinbiu ». Iiopeiial Oltomwi Bank
n. Wowien
ii. 614
ii.Mfl
Mitehdjon 0. Piper
MLichcon V. Oliver
It. 422
Mirtck r Hoppin
iii. 464
iii. 188
Mimn, £!;;«!?(.
i. 301
Miichura IT. Bank of Kentucky
iii. 67
MUef r. Troxlnger
iii. 106, 109
Mithoff B. Carrollton
ii. 840
Miiuiiptri p. Jobmoo 1
296.822,823
Mix V. HotcbkiM
It. 181
r. Mix ii. 69,
100.164
HiHMippi MiUi «. CobD
1.802,306
1.. Royal iDi. Co.
ui. 376
-.Siitb
iU. 440
iii. 61
UiaiMippi Hot. Ina. Co. .
Hiier e. Howuth
ii. 504
iii. S76
v. Sibley
1.67
MiwiDri, Tbo
iii. 200
Ii. 401
Minoari .. ADdrUno
1260,326
V. Hollini
Ui. 60
Huunri'a C*rgo
iii. 248
Mobile &. M. Ry. Co. v. Jarey
11.608;
MbKHiri K. 4 T. By. Co. o
Robeni
iii. 376
i. 2&S
Mobile Marine Dock & M. Ini. Co. 1;.
UhtoDri P>c. Bt. Co. ■>
Heiden-
McMillan iii.
267.260
^heime
ii. 646
Mobile Sarlngs Bank v. Pry
Mobile. &C. Co. p. Copeliod
ii. 402
ii. 16
ii. 604
.. Ke,.
iii. 440
Mobile & a R. Co. v. Seals
ii.26B
>. H.ffltt
i». 467
Mobley n. Webb
ii. 192
*. RichniDQd
U. la. 284
Moch 0. Virginia Fire loi, Co.
ii. 120
I'. Teiu&Fac.Ry.Co
1.489
Mode's Appeal
iT. 437
z. White
Ii. 259
Modoc, The ii. 822
iii. 232
Hinoari S. S. Co., In n i
.469; iii. 207
Modoc Land Co. n. Booth
Iii. 440
MioonH r. U Co. 0. Barwick ii. 166
Mody D. Grenoa
Moeliiing v. Mitchell
ii. 479
Milton D. lArd
iii. 228
ii. 436
Hitchd E. H'Hillmn
ii. 407
Moetle B. Sherwood
iv. 465
Mitchell. /. n
1.439; iT.28
Muenich 0. Feoejtro
ii, 467
HilchelL M>Rer of
ii. 194
Moeri D. Iteadiog
1.405
r. Buing
HI. 99
Moeaer r. Schneider
iii. 84
..Be«l
ii.622
V. Wirter
It. 451
r.BloHKHD
It. 103
Moffat r. M'Dowall ,
ii. 532
e.Bog>il
It. 148, 194
V. Smith
It. 110
». Bndttreet Co.
ii. 16
r. Strong ii. 868
Moffatt ,-. Edwardi
It. 282
T. Bunch
ii. 126, 463
iii. 78
«. CunpheU
1:400
Moffltt u. Rqgera
ii. 366
«. Gimmbcn Ui
166, 167, 164
Moffford V. Courtenay
iii. 64
B. Clark
iT. 194
Mogg V. Baker
ii, 532
ii.260
Moggriiige u, Thackwell
iT.608
>.Cro«a
iii. 106
Mogul S. S. Co. V. McGregor II. 259, 467
■.Cnlrer
iii. 69
Mohawk, The
iii. 143
>.DeKr*iid
iii. 103
Mohawk Bank v. Broderick iii. BS, 91
V. Eadea
ii-646
V. BarrowB
ii,641
c. Edie
yi.320
V. Corey
iii, 79
r. Feirii
t.260
Mohawk Ina. Co. v. Eckforrf Iii
135,160
V. FnUer
iii. 90
Mohawk & H. Railroad Co., Caie of
t>. narmoa*
i.91
i.296
cHaieii
It. 868
Moher V. O'GnAj
i.466
.. KiD^U
ij. 461
Mohaey r. Erani
i.240
►. Umwhire, «c. Bj.
Co. ii. 604
Mohr r. Boiton & Albany R. R.
i,545
V. Marker
11.692
t. Manierrc
i.2fi2
*. HerriU
iL609
Moiea v. Bird
iu,eo
>. HilchaU
It. 418
Molina'i CaM
L297
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
It BUtfibul pifd m ttlemi to.]
UallDe, Ex partt
iii. 102. Ill
It. 44
Molina Wmtsr F. Co. n. Webater iU. 6fi
V. Bucynu Machine Works iii 4)i
Holini P. Wsrby
iu. 457
V. Chadwick
IT. lea
Mollau V. Tonance
i. S02. 360
V. Clark
It. 307,608
HoUett V. RoblnMD
ii. 6ie, 622
V. Dorion
It. 466
Hollow, March & Co. u
The Court
r. Egglngton
liLS12
of Warda
iii. 86
V. Ereleigh
fi. 164
M0II7. The
i. 168
V. Hemandei
LS30
Molony b. Dizon
iiL437
u. Heed m
«7 ; i». 471
MoltoQ u. Camronz
ii. 451
B. Titley
ii. 441
Holyn's CaM
J. 460
V. U. S.
i. 67
HotTneux d. Lowe
ir. 531, 68fi
Montgomery County Bank
r.Bhnh
iii. 105
HoDCrlef o. EI7
ii. 216
Montgomery Coun? Com'r
K. Ri«-
Hondel d. Steel
ii. 479
tine
U.449
Moudey v. Mondey
iv. 181, 186
Montgomery Q. L. Co. n
Hon^
Honell, /« r<
ii. 228
gomery & E. By. Co.
U. 661,687
E>. Monell
iT.307
Montgomery S. By. Co. e. Matthewt
Monetary Advance Co. n
Cater iii. 89
ii.S61
Monej u. Dorger
iy. 164
Monloya 0. London Aii. Co
iiLS02
iv. 610
Monument Nat. Bank 0. Globe Worki
1S« Monypenny.)
U.SB1
Hong V. Rouah
ii. 277
Monumental Bldg. An. No.
2 e. Her-
Monkhonie s. Hay
iu. 148
ii.236
Monmouth Pint Nat. Bank o. StranK
^'ST^i.^Sfo.
iT. 208, 'J83
il.SOO
ii. 611
Monnett u. Sturges
Ui. 116
Moody !•. Fi.ke
il. 366, 371
Monongahela BHdKe Co
Monongahela Int. Ca e.
...Kirk iii. 427
B. McClelland
iii. 437
Chester iii. 204.
V- Moody
iT. 863
299
V. Payne
iii. 65
«. United
». Siigjtlet
iii. 419
Sutea
1.268; U.340
V. Th^lteld
iu.:8
Monroe v. Anderaon
ii. 866
V.Walker ii.364;iT
278. 278. 282
B.BritiBh&F.M.Li».Co. lit 260.831
V. Wallera
iT.266
D^Theiliwa ■
ii, 274
Mooera «. Vftit
11608; iii. 207
V. White
iT. 389. 439
V. Twiitleton
U. 179
Moon V. Partenr
11- 416
Monroe S«T[nga Bank
ii.259
i. 429
Mooney B. Bnrchard
». Hindi .
It. 471, 477
HoQien >. Hacfarlane
ia206
.260;ii.m
Mon«)o u. Tuawud
ii. 10
Moonlight, The
L342
Monwon. The
iu. 138
iii. 232
L67
Moor V. Parker
iT.23.'!
MonUcule u. Maiwell
ii. 173
i>. Watta
a. 389
Montagu. /» re
ii. 196
ii. 449
v.Dawet
146. 149
Moore, /n n i
103: It. 122
It. 148
0. JeSeriei
It. 628
iJL 217
D. Perkin*
iii. 00
V. Bare
iu. 28
Montaignac f. Sh!tta
ii. 612
D. Barham
Ii. 423
Montalet u. Murray
i. 846
V. BonneU
Ii.407
Montana, The
U. e08; iii. 268
>/. Bowman
ii. 366
Montanye p. Wallaham
iii. 464
V. Britton
Iii. 96
Monlauk, The
iU. 179, 197
c Brooki
i». 229
Mont Clair u. Ramidell
i. 400
0. Bynim
Ii. 492
Monte A.. The
i. 369
V. Cable h
166, 167. 180
Monte AUegre, The
ii. 478
V. ChrUtiBD
ii. 193
Monteliui c. Charle*
Iii. 82
f. Collini IL 582: It. 468
Montello, The
1.369
p. Crawford
iT.306
Montwquieu i>. Sandri.
i. 490
0. Cmhing
iii.8«
Montgomeria v. nnited
Eiugdom M.
p. Darrall
ii-430
S. AM'n
iii. 268
c. Darton
ii. 448
Montgomery. In ri
i. 268; ii. 340
p. DaTii
iii. 25
V. Boone
iii. 47
v.Degraw
It. 166
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
t(«m>.Dimoiid
ir. S31
iii. 473
«.EdgBlMd
1.802
MoorhoaBs r. Lord
iL430
rEUil
11.129
Moormui v. Arthur
iT.805
::f3
iy. 40
O.Wood
liL89
iii. 115
Moon B. Moon
ilOB
i.FUl
1L610
B. Wubbnni
11.687
LOilM
iT. 466
D. W;mui
11.681
nGiUUm
It. 62
Moorsom d. Moonom
ilLlOl
:a
iv.M
Moot V. Moot
il. 77
ill 448
Moraio v. DeyUn
iL461
It. 467
Moran v. Jones
iii. 234
rHirvej
iiL472
V. Minnie C. Tftjlor, The Ui. 248
r.H»«kiM
iT. 262
Morck B. Abel
iii. 841
RHewtoj
iU. 78
Hordecai b. Dawkiiu
iii. 80
KBiU
Iii. 164
e. Pearl
iL236
tffiUibMnd
ii.626
». Schirmer
ir. 886
r Bonier
iT.306
M<m 0. Bennett
ii. 467
I. Bauiton
i. 287, 391
«. Freeman
ii. 162, 168
i-niiDoii
1. 402 ; ii. 32
V. Steinbaeh
1.26
<>.JickK)n
iii. 413
Morean D. U. S. In.. Co. ii.
296, 297. 208
rJoiui
iii. 107
Moreau ». Edward.
iii. 41
r.Jo<iM>n
iy. 178
Morecock v. Dickina
iy. 174
t-KMdaU
i. 384i ii. 492
Morehead i.. Hunt
il.639
*U.ktB«ik
iy. 616
Moreland v. Brady
iy. 167
Ui. 81
V. Citiaeni- S. Buk
111.94
r. I^bsm
ii. 474
B. Lawrence
ill. 116
..Dtwl
ly.208
Morell e. Trenton Mut. loi.
Do, in. 369
». Long BMCh D. Co. ii. 692
More. .. Conham ii. 578
679; iy. 138
r-LncS
iy. 84
Moreton ». lUrdem
UL46
■.Ltods
.. McBaj
ir. 203
Morewood n. Eneqntal
1.369
1.490
V. Pollock
ui. 217
..McKeoMT
iL463
Morey ^, Hoyl
11.843
>.UH.dUbaum
iy. 438
V. Morning J. An'a
r. Wakefleld
ii.16
1^ Metropolitan, At
. Bank U. 488
1U.81
..MiooSi
ii. 12
Uorna,Expant
1. 87, 822
». Moore i. 429 J ii. 288, 296, 488, 448 ;
Iy. 264. 418
17.608
r"B!dn
ii.468
».S«wTork
iy. 62
p. Ben FUnt, The
ill. 184
r.P»ge
ii. 164
r. BiHiell
ir. 106
..pA«
iy. 211
p. Boono
iT.488
..PoweU
11.484
V. Chetwynd
ii. 145
D. Biwion
iii. 460
p. Creditor*
in. 66
>. BobilBOD
11.668
V. Daniel!
U.866
•.Bollini
ir. 89,41, 46
V. Dayii
iy. 194
vB^Mnlt
iL174
V. Edward*
iU. 76
>. Sunple
1U.66
V. Elam
11.166
».BimoDd<
Ul. 148
c. Farrel
111.33
>. Smith
ir. 116
::gx„,.-,
ii. 365
>. Sprain
It. 8&
11.16
*.StUe
L409
D. Hodnell
Iv, 869
r.Tborp
It. 370
p. Kansas Fac. Br. Co.
ii. 285
>.TowDihead
It. 75
p. LariTifere
1.287
..Tucker
ilLllS
p. LiTingtton
ill. 429
'. United Btatei
1.297
p. McNeeley
iT. 635
•.Viil
ir. 471
B. Malteion
ii.438
e.Yi]iU
ii.S4
D. Marqui.
iii. 64
».Wmo
It. 214
p. Maaterton
iy. 271
".Wood
iii. 89
p. Morgan I. 260. 860
; ti229; ir.
.. Wooliej
111.869
81, 279
..tomig'
iT. 480
p. N. 0. 4c. H. R. Co.
11.469
Xme'iApA*!
Jwore H. Ca ». Towe
It. 146
B. No. America In.. Co.
Iii. 222
t% H. Co. ii. 467
p. Nunee
111.87
IbnM r. LoolcTilto
Uaderwrile™
& Parham
ill. 148, 164
ilL 387, 288, 281
p. Feet
Hi. 109
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABGS.
\^Bm nurgliul pafH u« nfBrred to.]
Morgan v. Potter
ii. 226
Morris V. Huason
BLIOG
l. Powen
It. IIB
V. KeUey
ii.»79
«. Rulroad Co.
iii. 461
V. Kettle
iiL461
G. Baver
ii. 416, &9e
i>. Lee
lii. 78
0. ReadiDg
iU.42T
n. McCarty
il. 132
U. 470, 473
V. McMillin
ii.866
c. SchDjler
ili.e4
V. MetqneM ■
ia. S3
r. SmiUi iL 260,
Sei) iv. 461
K-Manyn
u. 147
». Stell
ii. S44
V. Morris
IT. 76
V. Thomai
iv. 214, 687
c. Peckham
iii. 21
V. United Sutei
ii.269
r. Phelps
It. 477
iii. 188
0. Biohards
iii. 102
1.. V«l8ofNe»UiB. Co.
ii.260
B. Bobinson
iii
131, 174
V. Wood worth
iii. 109
V. Ruddy
ii. 622
iii. 138
ii. 169
Morgan Eot. Co. v. Albany Co. ii. 888
B. Sarainerl
iii. 261
Morgan's La., &c 8. Co. e- Board of
.„. TUlson
iii 464
Health
i.43g
V. Vanderen
f.47S
u. Texas Central %. Co
Morgan's S. Co. ». La. B
LS02
K. Warden
ii22
oard of
n. White
It. 170
Health
ill. 2
V. Wright
ii.373
MoriBon v. Gray
ii. 649
Morris'. Cotton
L35T
f.Moat
iL866
Morris Canal Co. t>. Emmett
It. 467
V. Thompaon
ii. 280, 818
Morris Canal &. B. Co.
.Fisher
iii. 89
Moritz V. Gamhart
ii.216
Morris &. Essex R. R. f
Ayres
ii. 004
Mortaud .;. Cook
iii. 418
Morris WiiKin * Co. f
Coventry
M.
Morley. In rt ii
8M; JT. 76
Co.
ii. 879
ii. 478, 479
Morrison, In n
i.822
; iii. 217
o. Bird
ii. 861
V. Bailey
iii. 88
B. Boolhby
iii. 122
V. Blodgett
iii. 37
0. ClBTering
11. 478
». Chadwick
iii. 464
V. Ray
ii.641
B. Clark
ii.441
B. Lake Shore & M. S.
By. Co.
V. Dobton
ii.87
i. 418
V. HamUton
iu. 189
D. Loughnan
U. 488
■7. Halt
ii. 146
Homing Journal AM-n >. Smith i. 396
V. Keen
Hi
429.434
Morphett r. Jonea
iv. 461
«. Kelly
It. 178
Morrall v. MorraU
ii. 177
B. Kinstra
iv. 807
0. Sutton
JT. 636
iu. 419
Morrell v. Diekey
P. Irving F. Int. Co.
ii. 227, 431
iii. 870
iii. 281, 376
B. Phillips. 4c. Co.
ii.608
B. Martin
i. 308
ii. 336
ir. IBS
B. Semple
V. Trudeau
iT. 637
Mortice ...Bank of England
IT. 422, 439
iy. 174
Morrill i'. Colehonr
iii. 87
il. 482
V. Morrill
ii. 120
I), Watson
326,828
ii. 461
Horriss B. MorriSB
iv. 181
V. St. Anthony, Ac. Co.
iii. 418
V. Virginia Ins. Co
ii. 226
i>. Spurr
Ki. 83
ii.269
». Wallace
ii. 486
Morrough o. Corny ns
ii. S66
Morrig v. Allen
iu. 87
Morrow u. Jonet
It. 13G
i>. Aahbee
ii. 373
V. WUlard
IT. 466
B. Bank of England
ii. 418
ii. 352
D. Birmingham Nat. Bank lii. 86
Morrow S. M. Co. t>. New England S.
V. Bradley F. Co.
ii. 478
Co.
ii. 636
V. Branson
ii. 872
Mone D. Aldrich
It. 480
r. Brooke
iiL427
B. BracheCt
ii. 479
17. Cieaaby
ii. 628
B. Copeland
lii. 449, 4&2
V. Eves
ii. 462
B.Ely
U.23e
!.. Fold
It. 466
B. Goold
i. 419
r. Rsine*
ii. 510
l^t"
it. 6*1
V. Gilmer
i. 302
It. 148. 806, 371
1.. Harris
ii. 37B
B. Meiton
ii.448
V. Huntington
il. 86B
B. Moore
il. 479
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Jlone 0. PeMUt
iiL20e, 228
MoMman c. Hlgginton
1.344
D. Royml
11.433
Mothland r. Wireman
ii. 434
». Sloe IL G92, G93,
609,602,009
Motley o. Downman
ii. 372
■>. Stockw
iii. 461
Mott D. DanTille Seminary
il. 281
V. ThoneU
i». 46
V. Hicks
ii. 291
B. CnioD S. Co.
ii.479
V. McNiel
>. Welton
ii. 194
iii! 437
B. Wheeler
ii.2M
r. Robbini
iii. 466
ii. 461
V. Shoolbred
iy.3&6
■>. Worceiter
iii 440
p. SmaU
IT. 450
». Wright
IT. 466
V. Under^rood
iT. 3!0
Hon-le-Blftiieb <*. Wilton
iii. 228
Motteaux b. London Am. Co. Ui
267. 8U8
Hon* ». OlMMQ
iii. 65
Mottrara v. Hoyer
il.647
ilang*Ke lui. Co. r. Inluid RereDDe
Moulo V. Brown
Iii. 88
Com-n
iii. 76
V. Garrett
iT. 96
HorUmer r. BeU
ii. 589
Moulin V. lot. Co.
iL286
r. UVtttii
ii.46e
Moulor V. Ameriean L. Ina. Co.
iii. 370
■. MoOitt
ii
863.364
Monlt, Ex parlt
Iii. 66
i.478
Mouiton B. Comlih It
181, 185
ii
101, 176
V. Libbey iU. 41S
415,417
Mortimore d. Wright
ii. 193
B. Moulton
It, 64
Morton .^. Buid
11.466
V Robioson
iv. 96
V. Detroit, fie R. Co.
11. 259
Moultrie v. Hunt
It. 613
0. Glof ter
ii. 687
Moonce b. Byar«
iv. 161
B. H«L Llfc IDI. Co.
li.284
Mounger o. Duke il
162,163
». N. T. Eye Inflrnuur
Mounsey v. Ismay
ill. 419
>. Noble
It. 62
Mount 0. Harrinon
111.320
«.Robmrdi
It. 466
0. Larkini
iii. 316
.. Tibbett
11.494
B. Waile>
iii. 277
F. We«tcott
iii. 106
490,492
p. Wood.
iT. 98
m. 123
Morw»Q B. ThompMQ
iT. 527
Mount Vernon. The
ill. 166
HOT "■ MichMil
iv. 336
Mount Vernon B.nk v. Holden
iii. 107
MoibT B. Mo.by
IIo.e^ B. Burrow
It. 822
Monae'i Cwe ii
339,604
u. m
iii. 449
Ilo«dy o. M.rsh»ll
It. 76
Mouyi V. LealcQ
ii. 468
MoMrr.ProTideaceW.In.
Co,
iii. 314
MoTan B. Ilayi
It. 305
HcM B. Boalon & Me. R. R
ii. e04
Mowatl V. Carow
It, 315
.. Del«wMe Ia«. Co.
Hi. 286
t>. Uowland
iii. 67
.. Home B. & L. Am'n
iii. 80
ii.290
>.Jonet
ii. 417
Mowera v. Fethen
11.696
t-Utti
ii
4TB, 481
Mowrey v. Walah
ii. 614
B. HorgatroTd ii. 6S3
B. National Bank
; IT. 186, 807
.312:ti. 610
Mowry t.. Home Ina. Co.
B. Latham
ill. 869
ii.430
B. Norria
ii. 609
B. Ron
1T.S59
B. W. U. Tel. Co.
I'l; eii
>. Sod Mnt. Im. Co.
ill. 299
V. Whitney
ii. 866
B. Taylor 11.
669
661,600
Howse t>. Wearor
iT.449
■oaei Taylor, The 1.
819
369. 8OT
Mayer v. Cantieny
1.283
Hather d. Joyce
ii.36«
B. Eaat Shore Terminal Co.
il. 277
B. Mo<her
It. 46
D. Fletcher
ii.228
B.Y0,t
iv. 27
«. MitcheU
iii. 468
Mothier B. Ueek
Jt. 162
Moyer'. Appeal
Ii. 1S8
Moaier »- B«ale
Ii. 154
Moyer & Brother'* Appeal
iii. 109
B.WafoI
ill. 128
Moyaer r. Wtiitaker
iu.77
Hoalem, The
Iii. 178
M. Schandler B. Co. b. Welch
i. 326
Motler Safe fi L. Co. r. Holler
11.866
Mt. Morrii Bank b. Lawson
iii.M)
HoHr.Bynn .
ill. 306
ii. 441
B. Chaniock
ill. 147
ii. 16
-.Colter
It. 461
468.504
-.OalUiDoni
iy
166, 166
ii. 307
>. IfiUi
lb. 147
Mudgett i: Clay
il. 494
».Bnm
111331
MuellerweiMe p. Pile DrlTer
i. 369
lWApp«I
E864
It. 11?
sObyGoOl^lc
clxiiTiii
TABLE OP CASES.
[Th« muifaul Pago ■» rid*md to.]
Mugler V. Kaiuu
1.310. sgi
Munroe «. Allrire
iT.i4*
MuhliDg V. Sattlar
ill. T6
D.Cooper
iii. 79
Mailman uD'EgoiDO
ill. 63, 02
V. Touiey
ii.873
Muir i>. Crawford
i!i. Ill
Mnns V. Dupont
Maniell c. Lewis
i.302
«. Jonei
ii.343
iT.282
V. Scbeock
U.532
Munion «. Enior
iT.486
Malcahy v. Fenwick
iv. 191
c. Harromi
i. 410
Mulcainu v. JuieaviUe
ii. 274
V. ViUa, The
iii. 248
Muldon p. Whitlock
iu. 156
V. Washburn
ii. 240
Muldrow V. CildweU
iii. 72
Muniterv.Lamb
ii. 32
p. Foi
MunU V. A Raft of Timber
i. 869
Mulford V. Shepird
Mulhem B. LeBgh V. Co»I C
iii. 79
Murohie v. CorneU
ii. 478
0. u. 25e
Murdock i>. Cbenaneo Co. Hat Ins.
Maihemou. Hannum
iu. 97
Co.
iii. S72
MulbolUnd-R EtUle
ir. 46
V. Cincinnati L
891} iil.369
Mulhouie, The
iiL 248
V. Clarke
IT. 166
MnUen v. 0. C. E. R. Co.
ii. 482
s. Franklin Ins. Co.
iiL 268
v. Strieker
iii. 419, 448
V. Hunter
iT. 421
Mailer v. Dowi
f. S44, 347
i>. Walker
ii. 269
c. Pondir
iLMS
Mure t.. Kay
LS6
I.. Spretkeli
iii. 206
Murfree u. Carmack
iT. 430
MuUer's Caie
MuUett r. Shedden
i. 87
'^"pa^eC'
U. 296
It. 144
Muliigin L'.Jordui
ir. 480
Bamard
iii. 89
Mullikeo u. AugiDbiagh
ii. 403,407
B. & A. R. Co.
iL260
Mulliner v. Florence
ii. $34, 642
Broder
i». 130
Mulliseuz'B Cau
i». 270
Camden
iii- 43
Mulliiu 0, Chickering
iL690
Caralli
U. 260
V. MDlliM
iT. 806
Carlio
i».306
MnllOD, lU
ii. 365
Beane
iil.2S2
Mulraney t. Brooklyn Cltj R. Co. ii. 259
Dud ham il. 322
111.248,818
MulTehill V. Bate*
ii. 269
Hobb*
U. 16
Mulvey V. Gibboni
iv. 186
Murphy ii. 98
iT. 418, 608
V. Rhode Inland L. Worki ii. 269
Ramsey
i. 884
Mnlville V. Fallon
iu. 449
Ryan
UL 413
Mumford v. Brown iiL 468
ir. 110, 371
S. C. & P. R. Co.
U. 360
17. Commercial lot. Co.
ill. 212, 338
Smith
il. 260
V. Hallett
iii. 278
Suton
iL609
I.. McKay
iu. 50
Twigg
iT. 143
u. NicoU
m. 166
Union Ry. Co.
ii.600
V. StohwaawT
iv. 179
Whitner
ii. 4»4
0. Tolman
iiL 76, 81
Murphy & GloTer Teat Oatb Cases
V. Whitney
iii. 462
L 808, 409
Mummn o. Potomac County
iL307
Murray. &par(«
L391
Muncie N. Bank •>. Brown
iT. 181
». Ballou
iT.SOT
Manday t>. Munday
iT. 72
V. Barlee
U. 162, 164
D. Rahwjy
Mnndorfff. Wickenbam
L41B
V. Beubow
iLSSl
ii.616
D.Bogen
iii. 59
Munger a. Perkins
iT.46
V. Charming; Betsey, The i. 76
v. Shannon
iii. 76
y. 47, 60
V. Toaawanda R. Ca
iU.438
p. Chicago ftN.W. By.
Co. i.4Bfl
Municipal Boilding Society
■-.Kent
1.. Clayton
ii.sao
1.462
». Currio
li260
Mnniclpality No..2 c. OrletKU Cotton
V, Ellislon
iL3T»
Pr«u
ill 428
V. F- B. Himack, The
i. S69
Hnnn d. Bircb
iii. SB
B. GouTemeur
iL8.36
V. Gt. Weatom Ins. Co.
iU. 272, 331
r. lUinois
i.439
t.. Harway
iT.122
Hanoertyn ». Anffiuta S. Bank it. 807
». Boboken
i.248
Monro d. Gardner
ti.48fl
o. Home B«neBt Ass'ii
M.468
j>. Merchant
U. H, 61
V. John Swan, Tbe
iii. 248
r. Smith
il. 878
V. Judah
ill. 86, 88
Munroe, The
iii. 260
f. Lardner
IiL 82, 89
Mnnroe, Dr., Cue of
iL430
McAllUI«r
it. 16
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASEB.
Itattj r. Hbm iii. 4i
,. Homford ill. 67, B3, f
V. Murray U. 176 ; iii. f
r. Nrlion Lamber Co. ii. 2t
V. K. Y. life Ine. Co. iii. St
r. Pitrie i. at
r. R>g« ii 6S6. 61
r. Scott ii. 2i
c. So. Car. R. Co. ii. 2t
v. St. Louia, Afi. Rj. Co. ii. 2f
Humf 'i Caie ii. SO, 1.'
Hsmr'i Goodi iv. &i
UirreU o. Jackioa iii. 4f
V, JnhiMon ii. 3i
c. UaDdelbmam Iii. I:
Untriil c. Nail iii. i
Hnnigli ir. CoileUo iii. f
Hmcittne W. Co. r. Mascatine Lum-
bet Co. ii
291,449
ii. a04
Hucot r. BaUet
It. 471
Msn r. Lctummi
iv. 171
Uaigrore d. Chun Teeong Foy
ii. 70
Huick D. Dodson
ii. 463
Uitkett I. EatoD
iT. 203
Jftupntt ... Gregory
iii. 479
l[n«elI..Cookl
ii. 610
Hmdaan v. Cmtmi
u. 461
-.Oake*
iii. 76
HiMMlmin't Appeal
iii.U
HiuHr >. Brini
iii. S3
iii. 427
Huwn r. Burch
iii. 413
MiUKT r. AUa> Mut In*. Co.
t. Eigle Bank
iii. 2S1
iti. 88
>- Itayner
iii. 124
ir. 304
>. Scott
i*. 118
HuMon r. FaU Buk F. ft U. Co
M.Tia
r.Uke
ui. 109
r- Trigg
ii. 104
MuMMTie Bank r. lUynor Iv
270,806
MmtartJ e. Wohlford
[i.23fl
Mainm. Bey o. Gadban
i.S9
MntfoTd ». Walcot
iii. 87
Mntrie ,-. Binney U
120,122
MntttT ». Eailem ft M, Hy. Co.
iilaas
Mbtter'i Eiuta
iT.6S6
MiMoq'. Cue W m. 298
MM.Be»efliAM'iiB.HrMne
iT. 800
r.Hojt
iu.309
Mot. Ben. Life Im. Co. r. Atwood'.
Admz.
iii. 269
T. Hillyard
Iii. 266
iii
366,370
MUMl Life If* Co. ^ ETMett
iv. 841
>. I«nrenc«
iii. 869
r. Uubri.
iii. 360
il page! u« nfamd to.^
Mutaal, Ac. Ini. Co.
Muzzarelli ti. Uulihizer
Muzzy D. Whitney
Myatti D. Bell
Myer u. Whitaker
Myen e. BaylDOre
e. Catienon
B. Dodd
u. Edge
v. Eotrilcen
r. Gemmel
i>. Girard Int. Co-
st. JacliMni
V. Kingiton Coal Co.
i>. Meinrath
V. SUndart
r, Tyion
V. Wade
V. Willii
Myers E. & N. Co., In re
MygatC r. Coe It. V
Mylei p. Barton
Mylton f. Midland B. Co.
Mynard v. Syracuae, Ac B. B. Co.
Myrick t>. Haiey
B. Micbcent R. B. Co.
Mytton 0. Mytton
Hnial Nat. Bank o. Rlcbudioii iii. 42
Hitnal S«te^ Int.*Co. d. Cargo of
Brig George Ui. 207, 234, 243
«. Home ill, -M}
i. 4&&
1 ii. 604
u. lOl
Nad EH, Ex parts
Nadra e. Nadra
Nagie a. Nagie
Nagiee e. Lyman
Naill V. Hauler
Nairn ti. ProiTie ii
V. Sir Wni.Forbel
NaJBC D. Boiton &. Lowell B. R.
TSM V. LouliTille, ftc. By. Co.
Nance t>, Lary
Nancy, The L 12j
Nancy v. Snell
Nannock u. Horton
Nanny v. Allen
Nanaon v. Gordon
Napier it. BalwinUe 11
D. Effingham
V. Elam ia 8
V. Schneider
Napoleon, The
Napper d. Sander* ii
Naplon V. Leaton
Na«h u. Jewelt
ii. 85
ii.76
ii. 101
ii. 286
iii. 66
446,448
r. Lull
«. MinnetoU
r. Mitchell
r. Spofford
V. Tupper
Title Ini. Co.
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Hu nuTfliul pt
Nuhnft & Lowell B. Ca b. Botton &
Lowell R. Co. L 303
Naihrille Bank v. Petway ii. 396
NaihTille Bridge Co. e. Shelby iii. (21
NasliTille Trust Co. v. Smjthe It. 152
NsBliTilla, &c. Rj. Ca r. State ii. 340
Numyth. The iU. 246
Nmmu, The f. S68
Natal InreetiDetit Co., In n ill. 89
NBtdieE.Tlie iL64&; Hi. 291
KHichez Ins. Co. v. Stuitou iii. 314. 331
NatcheE, &c Nbt. Co. v. Louiirille
to.]
iii. 3 18
Natchez, &c. R. Co. f. Cook
ii. 106
Nathan o. Gile*
ii. 64S
i. 43»
B. Sloan
iii. 89
V. Tompkini
ii.281
Nathan Mannf. Co. i>. Craig
11.366
National Bank v. B*nj
iv. sot
V. C. B, & Q. R. Co.
iii. 207
B. CommonweaUb
1.420
V. Dearboro
ii. 640
c. EUot Bank
lit 88
t>. Goodjear
iL600
f. Graham
ii. 284
>. Grand Lodge
11.463
V. GunhouM
iY. 17B
B. IDI. Co.
iii. 282
B. MiM. Loan & Tnut Co.
ii. 478
; iii. 82
B. NortoD
iii. 63
B. Sebaetiai) Co.
i. 410
B. Second NaL Bank
lit 88
:;ir
It. 480
iii. 84
iU. 01
National B. Co. b. Union H. Co.
ii.467
B. Chicago, &c. R. Co.
iii. 207
B. Smith
iv.807
National Bank of N. A. B. Bugs Ui,86,88
National Bank of St Cbarle* >.
De
Bamale*
ii.286
National Bntchera' Bank B.Bnbbell Hi. 81
National Coffee Palace Co., h ri
ii. 632
Nat. Ccndenwd Milk Co. b. Bnmden-
bnrgh
ii.286
National C. Bank b. Grar
iii. 437
National C. R. Co. t-. Am. C. R. Co
ii.366
B. Boiton Ca»h L 4 R. Co.
ii. 8aa
National Exch. Bank b. Hartford Pr.
& F. R. R.
iii. 89
B. Petera
i.299
National l^h. Co. o( Gla«gow
iii. 41
Drtw
"i. 821
Nations Fertiliser Co. b. Lamb«rt
1.891
ii.840
National F. & P. Worki b. Oconto
Water Co. 1.826,842
Natl Plre Int. Co. b. Moore 0. 281
National Ini. Co. s. Webater JiL 303
National, Ac Ing. Co. b. Prudential
Aiiuranoe Co. iii. 410, 448
National Mercantile Bank b. Hanip-
ran Ii. 49B
National Park Bank b. German-All).
Co. U. 300
B. Ooddard ii. 806
B. Ninth National Bank Iii. 86
B. Seaboard Bank iii. 81
National P. B. H. Co. v. Williami
Co. ii. 806
Natiooal Pemberton Bank b. Porter
[i.2»g; iu. 78
National PermaneDt BIdg. Soc In re
ii.SOO
National Prov. Bank d. Jackwin iv. 160,
461
Nat. Revere Bank v. Hone iii. 81
National State Bank b. Brainard iii. 60
National S. Bank c. Batter i. 427
V. Cushman ii. 690
National S S. Co. b. Tagman i. 343
National Tnut Co. b. Miller ii. 277, 2B&
299
National Tube Worka Co. o. Ballon
ii. 441
Nat, Union Bank b. Todd iU. 86
KacioDBl W. Co. B. KaiUM Qty ii. 336
Nation! b. Johnion i. 263
Natlentrom v. Ship Hazard iU. 13, 189
Nattinger v. Ware It. 459
Naneru. Thomas i. 826
Naundorf D. Schumann It. 385
Nay V. Mograin It. 461
Nayade, The i. 69
Naylor v. Collinge iL 343
V. Dennie ii. 646
V. Godman iv. 264
V. HoSman i. 45
B. McSwegan Ii. 470
B. Mangle! U. 634, 648
B. Tavlor 1. 161; iii. 324
Natro B. Fuller iii. 08
Neattie, In re L 387, 801, 881
N«al, Matter of ii. 108
V. Cottingfaam k Honghton Ii. 406
B. Crawford ii. 441
B. Delaware 1. 303
t>. ErvjQg ii 615
V. Fotter i. 302
i>. Henry Iii. 440
B. Shewalter ii. 402
Neale b. CUutice UL 472, 482
B.Hill il.298
I'. Reid . iii. B76
Neary'i EsUte, In rt It. 208
Ncnie u. Ball ii. 514
Nebr««ka w. Iowa iiL427
Nebraska City u. CampbeU U. 274
Nedby D. Nedby ii. 166
Needham d. Grand Trunk R. R, ii. 416
0. San Francisco & S. J. R. R. iii. 233
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF GASES. CXCl
[Th« m«BlB*l pug- K« nJwnrf to.]
NMdhun V. Smith
It. 346
Nelaon >. Wellington il. 581
NMdiM 0. N««dlM
ii. 138
V. Woodmff ui, 207
IM IT. Beu:h
iT.326
Nepean e. Doe iii. 870
B.Blylhe
iii. 232
Neptune, The iii. 176, 196, 196, 231.
oNeel
iT. 76
246
8e«ld v. Neeld
U. 126
Neptune Ins. Co. b. Robinson iii. 286
N»l7 .. Battel
iT.80
Neptone Steam HaT. Co. v. SulUTan
limber Co. i. 869
SetfiP.Luidi.
a 283
Negroei «. Plammer
iT.306
Neptumw, The i. 89. 136, 146, 147. 148.
Nepn r. Negu
ir. 524
161
^r. Pecker
iu. 487
Nereide, The i, 95, 120. 132, 160. 156
Krilr.B^^
iii. 164
ii. 460
Nerot B. Bnrnand iii. 65
Sesbii ». Bryan It. 408
.-. Cheret
iL
494,511
Heibitt. Ez parti ii.640
rOreeideaf
iii. 37
V. Luihington iu. 803, 304
p. Neil
iT. 616
B.Tredenoick It. 871
Nen'> AppMl
ii.209
r. Trninbo ii. 340
Neil Cochtmne, The
;. see
V. Turner ii. 160
Keild r. London, &c Bj. Ca
iii. 440
Neill, The
i. 401
ii.638
m. 418
V. Sheldon i. 306
iii. 88
Nestal u. Schmid It. 806
Stilaon f. BetU
p. Biight
ii. 538
Nestor, The i. 379 ; iii, 170
r. Bright
iT. 307
iii. 206
17. Hollander ii. 196
>. Gilbert
ii. 259
Nettie, The iii. 282
r. Kilgore
i. 248
>. HosMod Iron Co.
iii. 24
Vdlb r. CUrk
ii. 487
Neufeld 0. Beidier u. 680
Nelnw 0. Edlobure Am. L
M. Co
ii. 286
NeulTille V. Thommon ii. 168
».McGmw
iii. 88
Neutralitet. The 1. 148, 149
V. State
ii. 79
Neuwirth «. OTer DMwen I. C. So-
Nelson, The ii. 466; iii.
864,363
cietr il. 592
Melwn, /■ re
L3&4
iT. 6S2
NeTe««. ScoH i.342; iL 173. 468
c. Allen & Harrii
ii.836
F, AtkiDMn
iT. 136
Sevil's Caw iii. 460
». Belmont
234.236
NeTill, In re ii. 622
F. Booth
ir. 166
V. Fine Arte & G. In*. Co. ii. 16
*.Broini
il. 690; iv. 58
NeTille V. Saunders [v. 3(M
ip-Boih
It. 419
V. Thacker it. 214
..Cdlow
ir. 328
NeTin, h rt ii. 195
«. Cwrington
iT. 181
>. Cheupeake & 0. R. Co.
i.36
NeTitt u. Bank of Port Gib.on ii, SOT
r. Cmbing
ii. 304
!•. Clarlie iii. 184, 186
r.Dab«.
iii. 90
NeTins f. Bank of Lanaingbargli iii. 1^8
r. FerfiDftnd
iii.
194,441
u, GourleT IT. 126
r. Fint N«t Bank
ii
04,105
New u, Swain ii. 493
». Rret NM'l Bk. of Chictgo
iii. 85
New Albany i. Salem R. R, i'. Tilton
<!,JeokM
ii.805
ii. 840
..Kini^r
ii. 441
Newall V. Wright iT, 155, 181
r. HeDonakl
11164
Newark Machine Co. n, Eenton Ins,
r. HacklDtoah
ii. aia
Co. iii. 870
..Manning
1.55
Newark, ftc, R. Co. u, Hnnt ii, 340
r. Malthewi
iT.
487. 476
Newark BaTingg Inat. u. Forman i, 410
>. PoweU
li.631
Newbuttle, The i. 156
B.Rogera
iT. 194
Ne-bery, In rt ii. 195
*. Shelby Uonnf . Co.
ii.4e4
Newberry «, Wall ii. 494
». Stocker
ii.
241,482
Newbiggin 17, Pillant ii, 162
0. Sodiek
ii.44B
Newbinging t>. Adam ii. 449, 490
V. Snffolk In«. Ca
iii 302
Newbold v. Boraef iii. 86
B. The Premier
i869
0- Brown it. 76
It. 106
New Bruniwick & Canada EailwRT.
*. United Statet
L381
&c. Co. V, Conybeare U. 284, 490
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Tha rau|fawl fgei in ntamd to.]
Kewborgh Tnrnpike Co. v. MiUer f. 467 ;
i: RuTiton lit. 452
.'. Oiwon C. R. Co. i. 346
V. Reed Ui. 281
D. Wiltshire ii. 266
Newcutle M. C. v. Red RiTer R. B.
Co.
9. Simpion
ii. 631
iL281
liJ. 164
iv. 169
ii. 649
it 587
a 812
iT. 687
NetrcMtle K. R. Co.
New Clmmpioii, The
Newcomb v. Bonh&m
V. BoatoD & Lowell R. R. Co.
t>. BoetoD ProtoCtiTe Dept.
D. Reed
V. Webatw
o. Wood L 842
NewcoToen u. Coulwni iii. 419
Hew Draper, The iii. 162, 162
Sew Ed, The V. The GnitaT iii. 2S1
NeweU v. Hill iii. 439
D. Meyendorft ii. 467
V. Nicbola il. 436
c. Smi ' iii. 424
Newen, In !■« iv. 338
Hew EDgUnd D. Co. s. Rockport G.
Co. iii. 48
New Enghtnd Ina. Co. v. DuDhUD
iii. 162
iii. 173
n. Rob-
iii. 2GT
New Eog. Screw Co. v. BUveu i. 842
Newhill V. Bart ir. 142
V. Central Pkc. Ry. Co. Ii. 649
If. Dunlap il. 630
0. Vargai ii. 641, 643. 644
New HMnpihire, The iii. 164
New Hampehire v. Louliiuia i. 323, 361
NewHampehireLuidCo. f.Titton ii.281
New HampBhire Mat. Fire Ini. Co. u.
Noyei ii. 286
New Haren H. N. Co. ■>. Undea
Spring Co.
New Hope Del. B. Co. n. Peirv iii. 96
New Idea, The L 871 ; iii. 179
Newington v, Jacobi iii. 482
New Ips. Factory v. Batchelder iv, 467
New Jcttej v. New York 1. 297
n. Wilton i. 414 ; il. 800
New Jertey Exp. Co. d. Nichola iii. 232
N. J. Mut. Life Int. Co. v. Baiter iii, 2S2
New Jeraey S. N. Co. u. Merchauti'
Bank i. 860
N. J. Soathem R. R. Co. e. Long
Branch Cotni. il. 312
Newkerk v. Newkerk ir. 7, 131
Newkirk r. Cone It. 449
V. Newkirk i*. 176
Newlandi r. Paynter ii. 1
Newlin v. Freemui fi. 170; It. E
f. Ini. Co. iii. i
Newling r. Fraocii ii. i
Newlon V. Kionerlf iti. 1
Newman, Ex parte i. i
B. Cliapmui ii. 122; iv. 171, 1
B. French iv. 4
». Kirk ii. i
V. Newmu) iv. I
t. Payne iv. 4
e, Ruiham fv. i
V. Walten iii. '.
«. WUlettB iv.
Newmarch d. Brandling iii. 4
Newmarket H. Co. v. Coon ii. 4
Newmarket S. Bank v. Royal Int. Co.
New Mary Honaton, The
Newnan v. Miller
New Orleana, The
New Orleans v. Benjamin
Orleani Water- woriii
1. Paini
iii. 248
1.80% 826
i. SOS
i.419
i. 413
i. S
V. Sleamahip Co.
B. Tow Boat Co. I. vst
V. United States iii. 42B. 461
V. Winter i. SS6
New Orleang Canal &B. Co. v. Burow
iii. 106
New Orleani Cily 4 L. R, Co. v. New
Orlean* i. 41E
New Orleans Gaa Co. n. Louisiaiu
Light Co. i. 413
New Orleani Int. Co. D.Albro Co. 111.806
V. Matlhewi iii. 376
New Orleani & N. E. R. Co. o. Jopei
iL2G8
V. Beete ii. 260
New Urlean*, &c. Co. v. LouIsTitle
Underwriter* iii. 381
New Orleans Pac. R. Co. v. United
States iv. 122
New Orleans. Ac. R. Co. v. Burke ii. 600
B. Faler ii. 608
I'. New Orleans i. 413
t'. lioberts iiL lOT
New Orleans Riot ii. TO
New Orleans W. Co. v. Ernst IiL 427
V. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co.
New,
t, Tlie
lil.I
1.187
Newport D. Cook
Newport Light Co. v. Newport i. 826
Newport Newt & M. Co. v. Howe ii. 269
New Procet* F. Co. v. Maui U. 800
New Providence b. Halae^ i. 302
New BiTer Co. o. Johnton iii. 440
Newiom b. Holeaapple iv. B
0. Thornton - ' il. 648, 660
)vGooi^lc
TABLE OF CABE3.
\TbM toMtgttud p4g*B u« nfurad to.]
K«w Sombrara Fbo^hate Co
Kcwiome v. Cote*
Ncwioo r. AzoD
g. Bofferlow
f. DouglsH
XevUui, The
Ntolon r. Allia
r. ChickgQ, Ac By. Ca
p. Choritoa
iii. 256
Ui.68
il. 69S
ii. 491
iif. 123
i.«9
.. Cook iv. 46
>. EddT ill- 427
f. Grifflth It. 16. 278, 277. 283
c. HarUnd ir. 116
c. MdI. Ben. Life loi. Co. iii. 369
c. R«d It. 131. l&e, 170
F. Rtcketti iT. 830
V. Stale Bank iv. 431
r. Taylor iv. 806, 306
f. WilMm iii. 461
K««too Hanaf. Co. v. White ii. 812
Kfw World. The i. S69;.il. S61
Dew Tork v. B«Uey iL 2S4
>. BtooUth p. Iu. Co. iii. 282
I. ConoecUcnt i. S24
c. EDO i. 801, 38T ; ii. S3
*. Uw UL 419
r. Hiln i. 4S8
rSqaire i. 348i ii. 340
[See Hb^ot of New Tork.)
New Tork Ace. Im. Co. i>. Clarton
iii. ST8
Hn Tork BeldDg Co. ■>. Heir Jeraev,
&c Co. ii. 866
Hew York & R C. P. Co. p. New
Tock C, P. Co. iL 366
N. T. B. F. Ine. Co. b. N. T. Kro Idb.
Co. iii. 375
Bew laA B. N. Co. o. HaioUtoti Co.
ii,467
New ToA B. 4 P. Co. v. BLa iii. 94
K«w York ft C. H. 8. Co. v. The
G. W. Janes iii. IfM. 248
B. T. ElOTaled B. R. Co., Hatter of
ii. 313
Sew Tork Filter Co. v. S<diwaTtzwat-
3tf il. 16
N. T, Firenun Ina. Co. v. Bensetc
r.Eij
iii. 4
.Siuwee
- Walden
Hew lark F. H. Ina, Co. n
U.St
iii. 286
D. BoberU
iU. 841
»»• Tork, L. B. 4 W. B, Co. B. Pcnn-
■jlrania i. 413
H«w Tork Lif e Iu. Ca V. AitUn i. 260 ;
Ir. 194
■.Clopton i. 67; iii. 256
p-FUtcber iii. 873
KHarer
t.mm iiL424
VOL.1.
NewTorkLlfelni.Co.i-.Stathain i
N. Y. Mut Iiu. Co. V. AJlen i. iWS
B. Aroutrong iii, 869
N. T. Sute M. Idb. Co. b. Protection
Int. Co. iii. 270
N. T. & Md. L. R. Co. V. Vnnnat ii. 300
Ne<i* York & N. B. B. Co. v. Briatol
i. 891,418; Ii. 340
D. RftilnMd Com'r* iii. 424
B. Woodruff i. 260, 826
New York & N. a B. Co. i>. Schuvler
u. 284, 300, 621
New York 4 B. C. Co. v. CopUj C.
- Co. ii. 366
New York 4 W. T, Co, b. Drybnrg
iiaii
N. Y., 4g. Con. Co. b, Selnw 8»Tinp
Bank iii. 100
N. T., 4c. ExpreH Co. b. Tradera',
&o. Ini, Co. iii. 302
New York, 4c R. Co. u. Bennett i. 330
t>. FraloS ii. GOO
r. Haring ii. 800
u. Pennaylvania i. 429, 439
V. Saatli Ambov iii, 45
V. Van Horn i. 455
New York Rubber Co. B. Bothery iii 440
New Zealand Banking Co.. Ez parit
New Zealand, tc Land Col d. WaUoD
Ney a. Ney Msnof. Go.
Niagara, The o. Cordea
Niagara Falls B. Co., Re
Nlbert v. Baghunt
Niblett B. White
Nibojot e. Niboyet
Nicaragua, The
Nicbol B. Dnpree
B. QodU
B. Steger
I^holasu. Adama
ii. Cbamberlain
c. Williami
Nicholaui d. Thielgea
Nicholts B. Nicholla
u. ShefBeld
0. Skinner
V. Webb
Nichola v. Aahton
K. Balch
B. Baxter
B. CliapniaD
B. ComeliD*
B. Eatoo
v. Michad
B. NichoU
iT. 467
iii. 431
iii. 482
ii. 178
ii. 614
ii. 641
1L376
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Nichols V. TrBmlett
e. United SutM
D. Waller
P. Whiting
V. Willlun*
r. Wilson
Ni<^olioii V. Bradfleld Union
s. Cliapman ii. 3
r. Diary Boildingi, &c. Co.
IT. 477
iL509
iy. 114
luthit
9. Mardera
iii. 110
U. 681
ui. 107
iil. 66
ii. 68S; iii. 162
iii. Bl
iU. 286
iii. 116
i.eil; iii. 166
V. Mouniej
0. Pstton
D. Ricketts
0. Stocliett
V. Willui
ITickBlB, In n
Nicliella a. Atbentooe
NicliersoD v. Brsckett
V. Crftirford
II. Howard
0, Soesmaii
Hickerson, People txrdat.
Nioklin b. BetU Spring Co. it. 1T6
Niukion v. Brohan ii, 616
NicolaM Wiuen, The i. 807
Nicoll, Matter of U. 226
V. Penning It. 4»0
V. Grearee ii. 260
V. Mumfora iii. 87,80, 40, 161, 6S2,
633
D. N. Y. A Erie R. R. E282; ir,
122, 126
Nicola u. Pitman ii. 873
Nicotion PaTement Co. v. Hatch ii. 866
V. Jenkins ii. 366
NiehoCr D. Dudiej' ui. 26
Niel V. Kinney It. 162
Niell V. Morley ii. 461
Nielsen v. Walt iii. 206
Nielo B. Clark iii. 183
Nightinnle f. Bnrreli It. 16
n. Hidden It. Si, 299
D. State Mnt L. Ins. Co. iii. 369
Niles P. Gray It. 278,
Nile* Tool Works d. BetU Madiine
Co. ii. see
Nimick v. Haines iii. 234
D. Martin iii. 102
D. Mut. Ben. L. Ini. Co. iii. 896
Nlmocks H. Woody iii. 84
Nimrod, The iiL 184, 233
Winu V. Ford iii. 866
p. Ml. Hermon Boys' School
ii. 300. 616
Nina, The 1.48j iii. 199
Nine V. Surr II. 193
Niobe, The iii. 138
Kiplion, Tiie Hi. 188, l<ie
Nipper v. Groesbeck iT. 616
m u« iflfBiied to.]
Niibaet v. Stewart ii. 431
Hishlmuia Ekia v. United fiute*
L 221 ; ii. 39
NitchencoO's Caae i. 39
Nitro Phosphate, Ac Co. v. London,
&c. Docks Co. iiL 437
Hix V, OlLTe ii. 647
Nixon D. Brown ii. 324
B. Carco iT, 261
0. NUon ii 428
c. Zaricalday Ii. 468
N. K, Fairbanks Co. ■>, Central Z«rd
Co.
ii.3
U. 16
11,497
D. BnmeU It. 608
V. Fagnant ii. 479
V. Googins It. 467
v. Smith ii, 488. 439
V. Union RiTer Logging U. Co. i. 822
Nobleboro e. Clark ii. 629
Noblitt D, Beebe ii. 132
Noddleburo, The L 369
Nodine c, Doherty ii. 587
Noe u. Roll iv. 306
Noel V. Bewley It. 261
K. Ewing ii. 107
V. Fisher iii. 465
v. Uanley, Lord It. 421
V. JeToQ It. 48
Nokes't Case iv. 469
Nolan u. Dank« iL 269
Nolagco V. Lurty iy. 416
Nalin v. M, & Aid. of Franklin ii. 340
Nolte, Ex parte ii[, 47
D. His Creditors iii. 112
Nonce e, Richmond & D. R. Co. ii. 469
Nonnemacher v. Nonnemacber ii. 76
Non Pareille, The Iii. 282
Noonan v. Bradley ii. 429
p. City of Albany U. 374
V. Lee i. 343
f. Orton ii. 400
Nor, The iii. 231
Nonrosi V. Jamea iv. 480
c. NorcroBS U. 87, 696
Norcura v. D'CEnch it. 333
Norden, Tlie UL 248
Nordenfeidt v. Mazini N. Q. ft A. Co.
U.467
Nord Kap, The u. The Sandhill iii. 282
NorSeel v. Cromwell It. 480
Norfolk's Case i. 492 ; Ir. 17, 86, 296
Norfolk ft W. R. Co.f. Groseclose ii, 196
0. HooTer ii. a69
0, Lipscomb ii, 16
V. PennsylTania i. 391
V. Phelps ii. 269
Noriing V. Aliee It. 806
Norman b. Bioninglon iii, 207
B. Canningbam It. 30
V. Hel«t ii. 840
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Tha mtnfistl tft tr
>dte.]
5<nMD >. HairlDgtod
ip.WcUs
Nomwidie, The
r. 4&8, 472, 4TS
1. 86S
LS70; ii. 16
iii. 437
Nonnille E.
NonU r. Badger
B. B»D
>. Blethen
cBottoD
>. Clark
r EdvMda
*. Qsrria
t. HuTuon
r. Hemiiigifajr
r. Ho7t
*. Rondred of Gaatri*
Kite
v.Uke
r. MorriwiD
>. Uamford
». Wait ii. 24
B. Wilkiiuon It. 1G
i>. Woodi iT. 81
North r. Blou iii. 8
B. Chunpernooli It. SO
D. SUM U. 27
D. Tamer ii. 68
Borlham r. Harler iii. 44
Konham Bridge Co. d. Tlie Qaeen 1. 46
Horth Am. Coal Co. ■>. Djett ii. 16
Horthampton Bank i>. Pepoon ii. 61
NoithamptoD Naliooal Bank d. Crafts
North BiDk d. Brown
Noith Britain, The iii- 200
North Britith & M. Ini. Co. v. Moffiitt
ii. 492j iii. S76
Borth Bri^h, &a. Ina. Co. v. Loodnn
ie.lM.Co. Ul. 281, 876
Korth BrookBeld S. Bank v. Plander*
iT.190
Bwth CaroUiM t. BItm it 284
V. Temple i. 861
North Car. UnL a. H^rriaon It. 424
Norlbcote b. Doughty ii. 236
t. The Hearicb Bjom iii. 364
Northcal p. Whipp ir. 80, 48
North Dakota Nat. Bank u. Lemke i. 407
North of Eng. Ina. Aai. a. Amutron)
r. 806
'""I,
Sortbem Coontiea of England F. Ins.
Co. 0. TThipp iT. 1
Northern C. R. Co. o. Canton iL 3
Horthem Indiana R. B. u. Michigan
Bortbem Padflc IL Co. v. Amalo i. S
>. Beaton ii. S
Northern Pacific B. Co. ti. EEerbert ii.260
>. Maclay i 258
I. Paine L S85
I. FattenoD I. 320
a. Peterson il. 269
LI. Sanders f. S02
i. Smith a. 259
■I. Spokane iiL 461
i». Walker i.39I
Northern Railroad t>. Miller U. 313
V. The People i. 326
Northe; & Lewis o. Field iL 548, 647
North Gennao Llovd S. Co. v. Hed-
den i. 284
North Hempstead v. Hempstead ii. 279
North Hudson M. B. Ass'a v. First
Nat Bank ii. 300
North Peon. Coal Co.'i Appeal iii. 89
North Pean. B, ft. d. Rehman iii. 438
North Ri»er Bank b. Aymar ii. 621
North R. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence ii. 209
North Shore Ry. Co. p. Pion il. 418
North Star, The iii. 217, 282, 234
North Star B. & S. Co. r. Stabbina iii. 37
Northumberland a. Bowman iv. 480
Northup 0. Hate ii. 488
Northwestern Bank u. Poynter U. 581
N. W. Coal Co. n. Bowman Iii. 81
Northwestern Fuel Co. v, Danielaon
Northweatem, &c. Co.
Atlee
i.413
I.. Boston M. Ins. Co.
iii. 802
V. Continental Ins. Co.
iii. 818
V. Thames & M. Ins. Co.
m. 818
Northy o. Northy
iT. 194
North Yarmouth v. Portland
it. 430
Norton V. AUor
ii. 192
V. Baxter
Ii.68l
V. Bearer
It. 480
ti. Cook
ii. 398
V. DoolilUe
U.620
V. Jackson
iT. 471
v. Uiington Ins. Co.
ii.881
V. Marden
i.491
I-. Palmer
ii.42»
r. PickerinB
0. Richard Vlnilow, The
iLIlO
.870
V. Shelby Coonly
.342
p. Simonds
i.494
«. Sute
ii. 206
V. Stone
iT. 809
rTlU
ii. 164
V. Wheeler
Norwalk Gas Co. v. Norwalk ii. 260
Norway, Tlie i. 860 : iii. 207, 217, 228
Norway Plaios Co. d. Boston & W.
R. Co. ii. 604
Norwich B. Hubtnrd It. 194
B. Norfolk R. Co. iL SOO
Norwich £q. Fire Au. 8oc., As H. SOO ;
Ui. 263
Norwich F. Ini. Co. u. Boomer IiL 879
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Norwich T. Co. b. Wright
Norwich & N. T. T. Co. i>. Wm
iU.ai7
Oakey v. BoweU
U.600
Oakley c Boorman
Ii. 477
Hut. lOB. Co.
ill. 876
V. Stanley
It. 467
Norwich U. F. Int. Co. k. Standard
Oaki V. Welter
Hi. 124
Oil Co.
iii. 378
Oaitler v. Hendenon
It. 106
Norwood >. Cobb
Lses
Oatei p. Cooke
It. 804
.7. Marrow It. 42. ffii
r.JackKH)
IT. 368
„. Norwood
IT. 178
■>. Nat Bank L 842, 482
; iiL 79
Norwood SelectmeD, /n r«
ii. S40
Oatman b. Fowler
iT.459
Noitrum ». Hallida;
ii.612
CBannoD v. Boberta
iT.ab6
NoUim V. HeaderioD i. 546; iiL 212. 224,
iT. BOB
22R
iii. 488
Notrebe r. HcEinnej
iii. 66
O'Brien, In re
ii. 891
Nott p. HiU
ii. 477
i>. Ball
iii. 464
p. Nott
ii. 128
V. Gatlln
ii. 286
p.Biocud
It. 461
D.Krau i.41B
IT. 187
Noltage, /» n
iy.608
V. Miller
iii. 364
Nottingham •>. Calvert
If. 89
w. Norri.
iL646
Hotting HiU, The
ii. 15
B. Smith iii
88,464
BouTion V. Freeman
11.120
B. Vaill
iL592
NoweU V. Nowell
iii. 28
O'Callaghan c. ITiomond
Ocean, The i
iiL 72
Nowlio », Whipple
Iii. 4fil
77, 147
Now Then, The
iii. no
Ocean Ini. Co. r. Polleyi i. 828
: 11886
Koye., In ™
i. 87
11 121
B.Bntler
i. 262
Ooean Nat. Bank v. Olcott
ii. 391
». ColUo.
iU.427
v. WiUiami
iilM
V. Jeokini
U. 492
Ocean Prince, The
iii. 248
V. Landon
Iii. 81
Ocean B. S. Co. b. Hattbewt
ii. 259
ii.6S2
Ocean Ware, The
iiL 248
b'. Newbnryport 6. Insf n
ii.488
Ochaenbela v. Papelier
11120
V. New Hayeo, 4o. R. Co.
iii. 46
V. Shapley
11.260
iv. 637
Ockaodcn.fiBporfe
U.684
Nndd'f. Powen
It. 148
O'Connell t. Bowman
iU. 451
Nueftra SeHora de Regh^ The i
ill. 461
O'Coaner v. Yonter
aiao
57, 102,
V. Hughea
It. 451
368
B. Waraer
U.635
Nugent p. SmiA H. 494, 608, 600. 602, 609
O'Connor. The
i.401
B. Vetwra
ii. 226
O'Connor, In re
1431
Nnoes n. DanUJ
11176
V. Rich
11.260
Snnn v. Bnrger
11.886
B. Vamey U. 479
ill 228
v.Qtorm
V. O'BrTen
11.340
IT. 805
O-Conor b. PhiUpaen
Octaria, The
U. 46S
1374
B. Teiaa
ii. 449
O'Daniel v. Crawford ii
441,442
Nunnely p. Doherty
iii. 4S
Odd Fellow*- Ben. Aaf-n b. Carpenter u. 87
Nurse r. Craig 11161,177
Oddie B. Natl City Bank of New
iii. 31
York
iii. 86
ii. 487
Oddy E>. BoTill
1. lOS
Nutt V. Mon«
ii. 4S8
O'Dea B. O'Dea
11.99
It. 624
Odell B. Odell ii. 288
, Iv. 283
V. SoDthem Pac. By. Co.
ii. 269
i>. Solomon
It. 110
Nuttall V. BraceweU iii. 419
440,442
O'Dell ». Leyda
ii. 690
Hotter V. Stoier
iii. 81
Odin, The
11.366
NnttiDg r. Conn. R. R. B.
ii. 604
Odiome k. Ameibnry Nail E^actory ii. 373
It. 179
D. N. E. H. Ini. Co.
IU. 282
Nyb^rg TBandelaar
ii. 581
B. Winkley
Odiin D. Penn.Tn*. Co.
ii. 371
Nyce'B Eiute
ii. 416
11L292
Nye r. Lowry
It. 461
e. Woodruff
1256
Odom B. Odom
ii. 128
V. Riddick
11.461
Oade* b. Woodward
ii.«47
O'Donaghue r. M'GoTem
11.22
Oakdale Mannf. Co, b. Gartt
ii. 277
Odoneal D. Henry
ii. 259
iii. 378
O'Donnel v. Keliey
Hi. 427
IF. Tnrquand
ii. 482
O'DonneU v. Alle^eny Valley R. Co.
Oakey b. Aiken
i». 431
11260
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ODcoDdl B. SniUi
iv. SOS, 261
OUver D. Hunting
iL494
r White
It. 306
V. McClure
i. 419
iyF.IIoD tr. aopton
It. 181
V. MarvUnd Ini. Co.
iU.315
r, Daggett
iii. 42T
V. Olivei
ii. 128
Offlce S. H. Co. e. Globe Co.
iL3«6
V. Piatt
iT. 307
(TGin IT. EiKDlobr
iL87
v.Pilman
ill. 419, 424
Oglnini v. CoDDor
Ul. 440
V. lUchardion
iT. 70
l^deD c. AitoT
lil.SO
V. Vance
IT. 409
r. Barker
i. 85
Olirer Ditaoo Co. i>. liltlehm
U.878
r. llf-nai
iii. 79
OllTor Lee & Co.'f Bank,
hr.
i.419
«. Bla<^l«d«
r. tlreiDen IiU- Co.
i 466, 456
Olirera v. Union Im. Co.
i.147
iii. 208
iii. 842
Olivenoa n. BrigbUnan
iii. S14
r. Gibboni
L 434, 486
OliTet V. Whitworth
iT. 687
.. GlltiiighBin
ii, 407
Olirier, The
iii. 172
>.Hall
ii. 631
Olifier p. Towne.
IL 400, 407, 429
V. N. T. H. Ini. Co.
iii. 270
Ollite V. Booker
iii. 206
t. OgdGD
Olmiiead ». AbboU
Iii. 461
>. Patlee
iT. 641
p. Beale
ii. 509
V. Karmond
ii.e32
p. Camp
ii. 840
r. Saanden ii. 800, 898, 406 ; UL 86
p. Hill
iii. 26
B. Strong
1.480
p. Kellogg
i. 419
Oa E. Sbnter
Opjrie B. FoUunbe
ii 402, 540
p. Olmitead
iT. 640
ii.5ll
V. Weheter
ii.389
c.HbII
iii. 464
Olmated v. Keyei
iii. 369
OfUnder >. BwtOD
ii. 142
0. LoomiB
It. 467
r. 'The D. 1. Stacy
ii. 182
Olney v. Hull
iy.203
iii. 109
O'LougliUn V. Fitzgerald
iT. 143
«. Ygl««iM
iii. S28
Olren V. HuDler.BeDn & Co.
iii, 206
Ontiarj r. OnbuTT
O'H.U.iw.o.'king'
ii. 494
U. 170
Olson V. Clyde
V. Merrill
ii. 259
iii. 427
O-HanloD .. Myen
1.465
Olten V. Sohierenberg
iii. 190
Ohio Ceotrai R. Co. e. Central Troat
Omaha Coal Co. v. Fay
ii.478
Ca
iv. 186
Omaha Nat Bank o. Walker
iii. 79
«.» UU In.. Co. F. DeboU
i.419
Omaha t B. V. Ry. Co. p
Morgan ii. 250
Ohio 4 M. R. R. p. Kerr
ii. 482
O'Mahonej o. Burdett
iy. 278
Omaly v. Swan
It. 188
0. HcdiellAnd
ii.340
Omelvany v. Jaggen
iii 439
I. Pean.'7
ii.269
Ommanne? v. Bingham
iT. 535
T. Wheeler L 317 ; il. 285
Omoa, Ac. Co. p. Huntley
Li 138
OhLo S. S. Co. V. Mo»j
ii.280
Ondie V. Banto
iT. 64
Ohl V. Eagle iDi. Co.
iii. 130, 'i58
One Hundred and SeTenty-flye Tons .
of Coal
iii2«
©■Keily B. Faulkoer
ii. 192
O'Ne^J V. Day
ii. 545
Okijon B. Patteraon
IT. 465
Oneida Manuf. Boo. v. Lawrence
ii.481.
Olaod'a Cue
iv. 73
486
OtoR r. Bjnnm
iT. 148, 306
O'Nea p, American F, ln>
Co.
iii, 268
r. Ti0K> R. R.
ii. 291
p. Ann strong
iii. 186
01dDoniiiuoDS.S.Co.i..McKeiraa ii.269
p. Dickson
iii. 94
OldaeU 0. Uamott .
i. 34
p. Kan.M City, &c. R
Co.
1.896
r. Round
ii. 476
p. Walker
ii.681
OMSeld'i Caae
iii. 420
O'Neill B. BreeM
iii. 446
Oldham r. Oldham
It. 181
O'Niel V. Bufbto Fire Ini
Co.
O'Uarj ». DoubUm
iv. 532
Onions p. Tyrer
Onondaga County Bank t
iT. 632
OUn B. -nmkeo
ii. 866
Bates
iii. 98
Oljphant e. Bnnta
ii. 122
Onstott p. Murray
ui. 461
B. Markhwo
ii. 490
Ontario, The
ui,302
Ui. 427
Ontario Bank ■>. Bunnell
a 290
Wirant ». Wright
It. 278
B. Lightbody
iii. 86
OllTcr D. Alexander
i.290
Onward, The
iii. 172
E. Baok of Tenn.
iii. 109
OoBter Eemi, The
i. 358
il. 343
iv, 466
ill. 56, 63
Opinions of the Juiticei
1.419:11.71
>. Oilmore
ii. 300, 487
(^MJnatices'OpinloDi,)
iLHcadlM
Ii. 236, 23T
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
Oppenheiin o. Whtte Lion Hotel Co.
OnDibv V. Pinkertoa
V. Webb
Omnlej v. Keodill
Ome G. Tonawnd
Orange Countv Bank v. Brown
Orb V. Coapitfck
OrbT V- Trire
ii. 601
It. 143
It. 805
O'Ronrke v. Beard
W.806
iv. 143
K. Central City Soap Co.
ii. 3B0
OrchU, The
iiL 170
r. Hanchett
iii. 96
OrdeiDBi) p. Lamoa
iii. 123
Orpban Aaylum Soc v. M'Cartee ii. 286.
Ordiiifcrj p. Wberry
ii. 2S8
Ordinary of N. J. o. T«tcher
iT. 454
Orr V. HanoTer F. Ini. Co.
iii. 876
Ordioroe v. Woodmwi
iii. 37
V, Hodgnon
Ii. HG6
Ordvray u. Cealr*] Nat. Bank
iii. BO
V. Lacey
ii.300
Orear t>. McDacald
iii. 109
V. LouisTille, tc. R. Co.
ii. 285
O'Eegau i>. Ctmvd 8. S. Co. ii. 461, 45»;
o. On-
ii.43S
iU. 96
V. Skofleld
ii. 16
OregoD, The iii
176, 282
p. Tanner
It. 449
Oregon v. Pittabnrgb & L. A.
Iron
P. Union Bank or Scotland iii. 82, 86
Co.
i. 370
V. United States Bank
ii. 284
Oregon City Treng. Co. o. Columbia
Orrell V. Hampden Ins. Co.
iii. 376
St. Bridge Co.
1.869
Orrick p. Coliton
IiL 66. 90
Oregon Pag. R. Co. p. De Porert
Ii. 461
Orser p. Hoag
ii. fll
V. Forreat
ii. 466
Orth p. Featherly
ii.22
Oregon S. N. Co. c. Hale
U.467
Orthwein v. Tlionuu
ii.SO0
Oregon 4 W. M. S. Bank v. American
Ortread v. Bound
ii. 169
M Co.
ii.643
Orrii p. Curtiia
iU.80
Otegonian By. Co. v. Oregon Ry, &
V. Powell
i.342
N, Co. ii
277,300
On- V. Winter
Oiborn p. Gillett
a4so
O'Beilly V. Glarey
U.206
ii. 416
». Morw
ii.36e
p. fiUaicook
ii.l22
.;. New York & New EngUnd B.
p. MoT^an
ii. 138
Co.
i. 38
p. United StatM
1.283.284
V. O'Donoghne
It. 144
p. U. S. Bank 1, 264, 848, 860.
Orford 0. Benton
if. 29
428; ii. 291
Orford, Earlof...ChaTchm
iT.845
Oabonie p. Barge i
302; iv. 186
Organ o. Brodie
ill. 1S4
P. BreoDan"
iiL 26, 38
e. Suie
1.439
p. Brooklyn City R. R.
1.346
OrgUI 0. Kemihead
IT, 97
p. Francij
Ii. 468
Oridge i>. Sherborne
iii. lOS
V. Hnbtard
Ui. 76
Orienl, The Hi
107,288
u. Huger
i.466
Orient In.. Co. v. AdaroB lU
802.318
p. Knife Fall« Boom Co.
ii.365
Orient Mul. In.. Co. v. Beymewhof-
V. Morgan
IL 269, 260
ter-t Soni
iii. 240
V. New York M. Ini. Co
iii. 818
V. Wright
Iii. 268
V. Smith
iU. 102
Orienia, The lu
164, 170
iii. 41
Oriental, The
iiL 172
P. Toller
ii. ^6
Oriental Bank e. Freese 1. 119. 456
Oihorne'i CaM
L74
V. Haikini
iT.464
Osbum u. Moncnre
Iii 102, 106
u. Tremont Ini. Co.
iii. 836
B. Throckmorton
ii. 164
Original. &c. Co. v. Gibb
m. 413
Oscanyao u. Anni Co.
L39
Orl><ana, Dacheai d'
ii. 430
Oicar Townaend, The
iii. 232
Orleana i-. Piatt
Otceola Bank t>. Outbwaite
iiL 88
Orleana Nav. Co. v. New Orlean
iii. 435
Oigood p. Allen
IL 860, ST3
Orieani Steamboat e. Fbaibui i
378, 879
i>. A. 8. Aloe I Co.
ii. 373
Orman a. Day
iii. 487
p. Breed
It. 605
Orme's Cau
iT. 801
r. Raton
iT. 305
Oroierod e. N. Y.. ke. By. Co.
ii. 840
p. Franklin fi.477
iT. 326. 326
Ormialon i>. Olcott
iT. 307
p. Gmning
iii. 228
Ormond (Lord) v. Anderson
iT. 461
V. Lewis
ii. 479, 481
Ormond n. Martin
ii. 386
It. 345
iii. 440
<■: Magnire"
ii. 407
Ormrod u. Hutli
ii. 478
iii. 76
Ormabee v. DavU
iii 44
V. Strode
iL 173
Ornwbj B. DougtoM
ii. 23
p. ThompaoD Bank iii. 81 ; I*. 143
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
OombridEB V. PbelM Ui. 419
Ontkwite p. Porter Hi. 81
Ottwater b. Dodge ii. 496
Ofri W. D. Ca B. SMidy Creek, 4c.
Co. it. 866
OrenO I. Sute - li. 461
Oreitof7 «. OrerbuT W. 622
OteTdeerp.Le<ria i*. Ill
Otnend, Qmaej, & Co. v. Oriental
Fin. (W liJ. Ill
OTeriii|tB.RaMeU 11.54
Drerinpon, Ex parte i). 62
Ortnnui b. ClemmoDi ii. 466
V. Hoboken Cltv Bank 111. 83, S5
r. Smmt ii. 34.^
Onrmu'a Appeal iv. 131
Otenecr* of Crown Point d. Warner
li. 687
Oraaetn of N. W. r. Orerteert of
& W. ii. 279
0*eneen of ibe Poor of Hopewell b.
OTdtccn of the Poor of Amwell
It. 463
OrerMn ». Preenuwi
IM. Co. iU. 873
B. Vickabnrg
1.439
OimoDd B. Ktiroy ii. 462
V. Williiton
11.346
Oiterhoat b. Robert* ii. 889
Otb. v. OglBiby
11.346
Ottennan o. Baldwin ii. 64 ; iv. 806
Otbj, In re
It. 608, 541
Otirandet b. Btowq li. 606; UL 216
Owen, Er porta
v.Anh
ill. 68
r. SnTder ii. 494
It. 464
OitKe, The i, 164, 170
V. Boyle
iii. 477
UiwegD V. Oawego Canal Co. iii. 461
D. Bryant
ir. 414
Ot-dl ... Vigne i. 860
V. Field
ill. 419, 449, 452
Owri.. Scalao ii. 4*9, 490 ; UL 56
0. Gooch
ii.630
Otii B. CnUam ill. 8B
r. Hyde
iv. 76, 77
B. Evj iii. 113
cLiig
ii.23e
B. SiU ii. 492
n. Thonisi
iv. 451
Otii Co. B. Ho. Pac. Br. Co. iii. 207
Oweoi, He
U. 461
c Dickenaon
11.194
Otii HiDuI. Co. V. The Ira B. Ellems
f. Dunn
It. 391
ill. 104
D. Fragar
ii. 281
Otbaeld f. Mavbeny iii. 116
u. MackaU
iii. 26, 33
Oikrv. Linea ii. 448; It. 4S0
D. Mistionary Soe.
ii.2B7
Ott^ Conntv Bank p. Warren iii. 109
V. OweoB
ir. 46, 632
Ott»w«,The i. 369
D. Wynoe
iii. 478
OKiwB Botde Co. r. Quntlier ii. 478
OwingB V.Baker
Iii. 89
Oicawa; b. HamUlon ii. 146
OttoB.Lintord ii. 366
B. Norwood
i.828
B. Owing*
iv.244
OUamwa Woolen HiU Co. o. Bawley
B. Thompson
iv. 471
U. 843;iT.467
Owsley B. Fhillipe
Oxendale b. Wetherell
u.eis
Otwar r. Otway ii. 101
ChMcbiU Cotton, The i. 67
ii.609
Oxford, The
iii. 248
Ouehiu Packet Co. d. Aiken i. 489 ; iii. 2
Oxford t. Crow
ii.424
Onghion ». Seppinpi ii. 668
B. Peter
11.260
OuiimtB. Honahaw ii. 600
B. Reid
iL170
QM B. WaahingtoD HotpiUl li. 282. 286 ;
Oxford, Ca«e of ChanceUor of ii. 292
It. 306
Iii. 402 ; iv. 10
Oaldi V. HainHiD Hi. 91
Oxford Bank b. Haynei
iii. 124
OoitoD .. Hel>den M. 152, 163
Oxnard v. Vamum
iii. 94
Ontodi E. Appleby W. 75
.. Van Winkle H. 138
OMQoe V. Uelile
ii. 194
Ozley !>. Ikelhelmer
11.164
Pacard v. Bordier
Pacific, The 1.369,370; i
Paciflc Bank c. Windram 1
Pacific C. B. Co. V. Bntto C. S. B. C
Paciflc Express Co. v. Scibert i. 2C
Paciflc Gas Imp. Co. v, Ellert
Paciflc Ins. Co. v. Sonle
Paciflc Iron W. o. Newhall
Paciflc Mail S. Co. u. New Tork, t
Co.
Paciflc R. Co. V. Ketchum
Paciflc Tel. Co. v. Linn
V. Underwood
PaciBco'i, Don, Case
Pack V. Bathnrtt
V. New York
Iii. 234
iii. 878
B i. 221,
;abyG00<^lc
CO
TABLE PP CA8E8.
[Tht BUsbHl !>*««*« rgfund to.)
iii. 12a
PaineLomberCo.v. United StalM iii. 427
». T.7br
il. 604
Painter v. Punter
iii. 63
e. Wood
ii.492
V. PilUburgh
ii.260
Packer v. Mizon
iv. 637
0. Welated
iii. 422
Pain B. Vickery
ir. 143
V. Wyndham
Packet, Tbe iu
ii. 143
Pakenham'j Case
ir. 480
187. 171. 363
Palethorp v. Fumiah
11.179
i. 439
Falk. Ae
1..30S
V. Keokuk
i. 439
i>. Clinton
i..I63
V. Sickles
ii.SOd
Follai 0. Hill
ill. 397
c. St. Louii
i. 489
Palliser u. United SUtei
.801
Packet De Bilboa, The
i. 86
Palmer v. AUicock
ii,422
Packing Co. Case*
ii. 360
V. Blackburn
ii.280
iv, 78
i..366
Pack wood u. Packwood
ii. 183
V. Courtney
iii, 89
V. Kichaid»oD
ir. 418
f. De Wilt
U.373
881. 338
iii.T6
V. FrankUn loi. Co.
iU. 288,289
v. Fletcher
Ui.44S
i>. Somee
ii. 16
V. FoTbei
iLS4S
V. Strobridge
ii.482
B. Gt. Weatem In*. Co.
iii 258
Fadelford ». BoardnuD
m. 236. 303
D, sod
a 497
o. PadeKord
a 136; iv. 80
11.866
Fadfleld c. Padfleld
iv. WM
o'. atcb
11.621
Page, fi.
i¥. 532
B. Hicki
ill 418
D. Brant
iii. 31
». Holf ord
It. 283
«. Cook
iii. 76
V- ohnaon
ii.4Tg
f. Cowasjee Eduljee
iL478
V. Kebblewhaite
iiL443
p. Depaj
ir. 118
n. Locke
iv.344
ii.368
V. Lorillard
iii 224. 249
ir. Edwards
U,690
V. MaMhall
iii. 306
c. Gilbert
Hi 106
■..Mulligan 111427,428.441
0. Hajward
0. HeJueberg
i». 128
t>. Navlor iii. 299. 302. 303
il.283
D. Palmer 11.101,126,128; iii. 81
o,KreksT
ii. «61. 482
». Pratt
iii. 76, 269
o.Lewit
ii.448
P. Scott
U.610
■>. Midland Br- Co. iv
461, 466. 480
e. SteiAeiia
UL 31. TG
f. Naglee
IT. 871
p. Travera
it 18
». Norfolk
ii.477
r. Voothj.
ir.GS
e*. Page
It. 69
t>. WaddeU
iii. 440
». Pafter
li.426
V. Wakefield
U.143
u. Parr
iii. 464
V. Wetmore
iii. 464
». RobimoD
ir. 162
r, Toung
iv. 190
B. ThompBon
0. United State*
iiL37.292
Palmer'a Appeal
iL471
i.228
Palmer PDcnmatic Tire Co, e>
Loiier
Page-a Caw
ii.64
U.3M
Page Woven-Wite Fence
Co. ».
Palmei v. Danby
ir, 47
Laoa
ii. see
«. Stepbea*
iL 416, 419
Paget u, Eda
It. 183
Palmlag i' Dontrick
11.666^681
«. Paget
ii. 441
Palmyra. The
i.859
D. Perchard
ii. eiB
Paltrovllch V. Pbamii In«. Co. ill. 2S0
acL»i^"°'
iv. 4U8
Pan a d. Bowler
iii. 89
111.66
Panaghia Rhomba. Tlie
i. 86, 151
Paice V. Walker
ii. 629. 631
Panama, The
iii. 172
Pain 0. I^kud
iii. 123, 124
Panama, &c Co. t>. India Rubber, Ac.
V. Smitb
It. 161
Co.
Ir. 148
Paine p. Boaton
ill. 448
Pancoaat .■. Travallera' In». Co. ii. 299
V. Chandler
iii. 424
Pangbum v. Patridge
iii. 483
i>. Frencli
i». 194
Pannell v. Farmer'i Bank
ir. 181
17. Padflc M. L. Ids. Co
lU. 263. 370
Pnnton v. WllliamB
il.22
i>. Patrick
iii. 468
Paper Bag Cawa
11.386
D. Schenectady Ini. Co.
ii. m
Pamllon r. Voice
ir.2M
i>. Snowden
U. 366 : Para Rubber Co. o. Boiton
ill. 440
Paine'a Caw
ir. 28, 82, 49
Faradine ir. Jane ii.468;
iU. 466, 468
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Xbe lowgliul ff m nfamd to.]
Findu.nw
i. 370
Parker ». Leach
It. 208
Pin«on,-n» m.
67, 197. aoe, 231
ii.138
Fndeer.Dnw
ii. 801
D. Logan
Iv. 806
-.Fiih
ia 76, 89. 91
v.hotabKTd
ii. 566
r. Via Aoken
iT. 162
V. M'lver
U. 542
IMingtoa >. So. W»Iei R. Co. ii. 600
V. HcKeuna
JL
280,618
L466
V. McLean
iii.8S
PuflU.Jepwn-
ii. 539
IT. Macomber
u.4as
r-L-lST
iT. SOS
r. MerriU
iii. 61
Ptrii t. HuleU
iT. 183
V. Nightingale
iT.480
•.Lerr
11,22
V. Nimi
ii. 425
r. Strand
ii. 240
r. Obear
iT.70
Puilhr.Cr.wford
iii. 187
e. Ormiby
..Pmii
iT. 278
». Parker ii. 488 ; iU. 66
;iT.456
*.Fenucol>&A. B
Co. ii. 268
r. PiiWr
iii. 06
F. Stone
iL447
u. Proctor
ii. 441
t.Vaii
iv. 408
::S35i;"°"''°-
It. 483
V. Wheeler
ii.SOO
iii. BO
cWhimey
iT.480
V. Rochester G. Ina. Co.
ill. 870
Pniih ot Sl Andrew k.
Ueadesde
r.Kn»eU
11.408
Bnti
ii.m
V. Smith
ii.644
Pirkc. Blto
It. 476
V. South EaiUni By. Co.
u.6oe
.. Edgir Buter, Tha i. 371
1^. Sowerby
iT.58
PuriAppetl
a 198
V. Siarkweather
ill. 478
FukBukK. BemwD
iij.8e
B. Starr
iL22«
>.W>tMll
Iii. 81
!>. State
1.449
PKk.>.Sli«MD
iJ.634
V. TiUinghaat
11.192
rKlMber
iL146
».Vo«)
ii.618
..Leewrigfat
lT.461
0. Way
V. Wella
ii212
..Uem
W.453
iT, 461
Pirker,£iporM
i822i iil.47«
p. Whyte
iT. 122
..BeoL^
iU, 419
and Woofleii Co.
Cotton
f.Birk<
iT. 278
l.&ti
.. BriDcker
ii.e4o
Parker & Whipple Y. L. Co
tr. Tale
..Brawn
iv. 471
Lock Co.
ii.866
>. BTraei
0,647
Parke* a. Hawk
1.8«
rCukld
iU. 26, 30
V. SteTeni
«.866
E. Cuter
il.464
Parket & Lacy Co. v. White B. L. Co.
>. ChunbliM
It. 81
iL612
..ChiniM.lM.Co.
Ui.260
u.47e
t. Conuble
It. 112, 114
Park hunt f. Foiter
il,694
t. Cmter M. Co.
iii. 413
Ins.
t.D«M
IT. 187
Co. iii. 217,
291
302,805
rDitm
L264
V. Johnion
ii, 260
rDv
iU.61
t). Kinsman
ii. 868
.,Do£*ldMn
il.603
U.Smith 11.666; It.
208
204,208
..Emerra
iL447
r. Van Cortlandt iL
611
566; IT.
IL Endow
y. 46S
451
..Pelprte
It. 608
Parkin n. Camitben
Iii. 67
..Ftrgo.
Iii. 30
P.Dick
liL2S6
r.FUiu
1L696
V. Tliorold
iT. 461
.:F00M
iU. 448
0. Tonao
iii, 293
i.7iilkr
iT. 184
Parkioi V. Coxe
It. 77
•.OcrdoB
Ui. 102
D. Scott
ii. 18
iLOnnt
ii. 490
ParUnton v. HanbniT
iT. 166
KOtldt
Ui. 84
r. r^
iL 478, 481
>.Giit«oU
Ui. 439, 440
. u. Parkinton
a 128
>.H>U
i.a42
D. Potter
1.B9
■.Hatloek
i.342
Farkman ii. Brewster
ill. 138
•.RoBNfield
iv. 161
V. Suffolk S. Bank
i», 806
■.Jmbt
11402
V. Welch
ii,441
HJOM
iiL26tl
Parka, Et parU
1,299
■.uion
iii. 106
p. Alu Cal. T. Co.
ii.6n
».i«^
i».886
p. Booth
U.866
;q.l7.jrb,G001^IC
P«rkB C. & M. Co. Hojt
Parlaoge v. Fani^i
Parle ment Betge, The
Parlett r. Onggenheimer
Pamielee v. I^wrence
V, 0»wego A, Sjncuie R. B.
P&rmenter v. ConeiDt
Parmer v. Farmer
Par metier v. Baker
Parnell, Goodi of
Parr v. Anderaon
Farrett v. Palmer
Farr[gh v. Jackioa
FarrUb't Appeal
Parrott, /n re
V. Barnej ill. 206,
FaiTott't ChineM Caw 1.
Parry v. Aberdein
D. Spikei
Panley b. Martin
FanoD e. SeiUn
1.. WeUei
PanODi, In re
e. Barnard
D. Bojd
D. Colgate
V. Copeland
V. Freeman
V. Hind
B. Johnaon
V. AUDu&ctnrm' loi. Co.
c. Fhelan
V, Robiiuon
t). ThompBoD
o. Welle*
Partherlche v. Mm<hi
PartoD V. Harvey
B. Prang
Fartridfce v. Bay lis
V. Chanman
t7. Gilbert
u. Scott
c, SCranee
PUchal, In re
Pailey v. Freeman
Faaaaic BrEdgea
Fauenger Caie«
FaMmore v. Eldridge
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tba BOMgiiuil p*gw an nUmi im-l
ii.e40
ir. 82
iU. 78, 60
fii. 109
ill. 440
f. 1G6, 297
iii, 79
Ui. 12S
ill. 437
iii. 487
o. SouUigate
iii. SSI
Patch V. Waahbnm
iiLSe
Patchett B. Bolgate
ii. 212
PatchiD, The A. D.
i. 309
Patchin v. Pierce
PatcUns V. Bamett
Fate V. Brown
It
208; S8S
iii. 79
e. M'Clore
iii. 113
Paterwn v. Dakin
1.370
; iii. 1S4
u. Ellis
ii.864
; iv.283
K. Gandaaeqni
iL
681,633
«. Hardacn
iiL 79
c. Harria
iii 300
V. PateraoD
ii.i:»
D. Taih
U.686
826.628
Patience. In n
L 42:11.5!
Patin V. Preiean
Patman c. Harland
1.466
it. 480
V. Vaughn
ILSBl
FatoD V. Colt
Iii. 79
r. Lent
iii. 106
B. Winter
Ui.S6
Patria, The
iiL 188. 164, 174
Patrick v. Bowman
iL477
V. LitteU
ii.l64
r. Ludlow
iii. 210
V. Patrick
ii. 173
Patndge d. Bere
iY.I66
Patrnn r. Silva
Iii. 249
Pattheider v. Great WMtem Ry
Co.
iiaoo
ii.391
Patten n. BrowiM
r. Darling
iii
264,236
B. Deihon
iT.BB
D. Gnniey
iL489
0. Moore
i». 179
D. Patten
U.16I
V. Smith
ii.626
Fatten'! Appeal
Fatterwn D.Wjamio
ii. MS
Franklin Ina.
Co.
{ii. 257
■I. Brewiter
iii. 66
D. Chalmer*
111.165
e. Devlin
a 353
». Edwarda
ir. 162
t>. Ellia
It. 276
E. Gainei
iL 67. 213
V. Gaslight k Coke
Co.
U. 366
V. Hayden
11.205
■1. Johnson
iT. 152
r. LeaTitt
11.633
p. Lynde
f. KfcMaaten
a. 2Bt
iT.687
B. Mater
!.309
V. Mllla
It. 148
e. MinnewM H. Co.
U.281
r. Patteraon
{1.164
f. Ritchie
Ui. 324
V. Tliompwa
ii.205
O.Todd
Hi, es
«. Winn
1. 473
Pattenon'* AH)eal
U.438
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
FiMtMD'* Ertate a.m
W. 487
Peabody v. Minot
iT. S68
FiI»iI«Ub. Tranter
iL480
V. Norfolk
ii. 366
PudMD ». BUncbwd
iii. 37
V. Patten
It. 44
..HttU
iv.lM
V. ProceediotTwenty-eishtBaBi
Ftnon >. B^ o( 8. G
It. 461
of Cotton
ii. 367
iu. 116
Peaceable v. Read
IT. 370
r-Crr
iii. S3
Peacber e. Rowland
Peacock, The
ii. 260
f. Crow
iT. 821
1.358
iii. 370
Peacock. At
ii. 164
V. Hwrath U. fiOO
iii. 162
t'. Binder
ii. 236
t. The Rmndolph
iiL171
V. Erani
ii. 476, 487
httjr I. Goolibv
ii.241
V. Monk
ii. 171 ; iv. 848
t. ffiltabwo E. M. Co.
iU.41
V. Peacock iiL 27,
£8. 63. 64. 67, 63
P«iil,£i«rM
ii.66
[1. PurceU
iii. 81
Co.
t>. Piurii
iii. 477
iI.2B6
0. Rhodea
iU. 78. 80, 88
t. Chiiaren
iT.S45
Peacock'! TraiU, /» rs
iil64
..D«tU
ii. 180
Peake, Ex parte
V. La^w
It. 154
».Jo«l
iii. 106
IL164
r. Ndih
iT. 473
Pearce v. Auitin
iii. 78
r.Piiil
ii. 173
Iii. 26, 56, 67
«.R«ed
U. 492
D. Frantum
ii. 838
ii. 406
V. Madison t Ind. B.
a U. SCO
r. The Hex
iii. 206
V. Morris
It. IM
V. VirnnU 1. 439
FuliM.Tlie
; ii. 286
V. Piper
iii. 60
L866
f. Rickud
iT. 891
Fudmaii e. Clajcomb
iii. 78
V. Texn
1.301
Ful7 E. Coronado Beach Co.
il. 300
r. Wiikina
iii. 41
I. Kamj
Iii. 86
Peard n. Kekewick
iT.283
PiniiP. Drew
i. 419
Pearfall «. W. Union Tel
Co. ii. 277
0. HlDgO
ii.423
Pearl, The
Itl. 198
FiTiU I. Lehigh VaUey B. Co.
il.608
Pearl v. DeacoD
iii. 123
Hwuhiek, The
i.360
Peariy v. Smith
iii. 471
Fkwlet(TowDof)ti.CUTk i.4T3
ii.a06;
Peame b. Liale
ii. 248
iii. 4H)
Pearpoint c. Oraham i
633 ; ill. 44, 54
Ptirlmgo. Bird
L261
Pearull v. Chapln
ii. 482
F>«N7 D. ArmitroiiB
iii. 26
V. Dwight
ii.463
Pavun B. BrowQ
ii. 173
V. Kenan
i. 419
>. Wataoa ill 28S,
286, 28e
t.. Poet
iii. 427, 450
Piotj D. Lowdan
IT. 6
». W. U. TeL Co.
ii. 011
Emoo b. Paul
It. 104
Pearae, Ex ports
iT. 151
FUton P.Bond
iT.233
B. killian
iT. 11
C.DoDgU*
It. 422
B. Petti.
ii. 48a
r. StDWSij
iii. 461
V. Quebec S. Co.
iii. 263
0. Pophan a 406
iT.466
Pearwin v. Carlton
iT. 412
P.j'.ci
iT.284
P>r«,ii<
ii. 154
Co.
iii. 814
>.AbU
Ii. 891
V. Dawson
ii.639
.. Attartrarr
iv. 152
V. Ooschen
HL 228, 260
t. C.T. ii 477. 687
B. Morgan
t. Heiir
ii. 487
«. Caller
ii. 474
iii. 188
uDoUon
It. 64
V. Peanon
ii.439
>. HaiOewa
tii. 85
v. 8i»)tt
Ii.e23
r. Pajne U. 76, 128 ; It. 31, Ml
V. Spencer
B. Vfheeler
Hi. 419, 424
r.Rouer
iT.261
ii. 474
P.Bale
iT.229
Peaw V. Cole
iii. 41
0. Shtdbolt
11.497
p. Folger
ii. 400
V. Slate
Iii. 51
B. Gloaheo
il. 482, 649
.. WtMm R. Co.
E. Hint
iii. 60
B. mi»n
ii.' 164
B. Pattinson
It. 508
Ptjnier r JamM
iii. 228
B. Sabin
ii. 479
^•00 ». Whilcomb
iii. 00
B. Simpson
P.T«w'. Indelible Ink
11.366
Peck B. Conway
It, 480
Itabody t. HamUton
U.70
ill. 432
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Peck i-. Goff
ii. 510
Pemberlon r, Hicki
It. 878
W. 320
ti. Harriott
ii. 162
V. Uiler
ili. ibi
[>. Oakea
IE 47
f. Uabbftrd
il. 607
Femberton B. & L. Aai'n v. Adami iL 241
V. Jennen 1
2*7,888
Fembiua Mining Co. v. FeniMylTama
tr. Land a. G20
iT. 430
i. Sei, 43t
iii. 332
[>.LUt
ii.68e
Pence v. Angbe
ii.irt.
V. Lockridge
iT.370
D. Hakepeaoe
ilLStiO
v. Lockwood
iii. 417
Pendar b. KeUev
Fendergast v. Tibbettt
ill 79
■>. MatIi,mB
i». 174
iT. 6.37
V. No. Sufiordthire B. Co.
ii.608
Peodeiwr v. Cole
i.2U0
v. Peck
iL87
Pendleton n. Dyett
IiL464
■>. iUndaU
u. 404
iii. 260
V. Smith
iii. 433
V. Fomeroy
iv.39
i..Wftrd
iT. 370
Pendrell v. Pendrall
il.210
n. YouDK
Peckbamo.bUTDHi
ii.62
Peofleld D. Thayer
ii.44(j
iii. 89
c. Tower
i». 81S
V. Hadwen
iV. 40
Penfold V. Mould
li,438
d! N. ^-uUh in H.
iT. 203
V. UniTerial Life Ina Co.
iii. 369
U.284
V. Warner
i»,46
Peeks V. M»yo
ii.481
Penhallow v. Doane 1
212, SfH'i
Pedder «. Hunt
i». 221
Fenhyrn b. Hughei
T. 74. -i
Peeblet v. VMptco Qnkiio Co.
ii. 284
Peninsula & Oriental S. H, Ca b.
V. Watt.
i». 827
Shand ii
469,608
Peek tp. Froet
U. 15
Peniniular Iron Co. v. Stone
i. 802
B. Gumej
ii. 490
r« i.298
V. No. StaflordihiK
ii. 608
Penman v. Hart
It. 178
e.Peek
U. 610
Pena b. Smith
ii. 15
Peel B. January
i. 262
Pennart'BCaM 111.488; i»
128,428
r. Northdote
ii.e24
Pennegaro. Swte
11.126
Peele,ExparU
li. 42. 44
ii. 611
V. MaSne lai. Co.
iii. 331
B. Uollii
IT. 166
o.Merch«iWIn».Co. Hi.
821, 322,
Penniman'i Caw
i.4I9
S24, S25, 827. 880, 881
Pennington v. Brinaop HaU Coal Co.
u. Snflolk In». Co. ia. 820, 324
111440
Peeler v. Lkthrop
i. 302
V. Gittingi a
438,466
Peer d. Hnmphre;
ii. 324
B. Healey
ii. 41B
Peet t.. Chicgo 4 N. W, E. Co.
ii. 604
B.Todd
iii. 24
Peete v. Morgan
i. 439
Pennock b. Coe
ii.492
Peerej v. Haughton
ii. 494
Pennouk'B Appeal
ii63»
Peggy. The
1.166
Pen nock's Estate
It. 806
Pegnun r. Slolti
ii. 16
Pennock & Sellert b. Dialogue
11.369
Peigh D. Huffman
iii. 81
iii 61
Feigne «. SutcU*
ii. 241
i.361
Pelk 0. Chicago, tc. B. R. Ca
i. 439
B. Neff !. 262 ; ii. 107. 120
; III 170
Peiroe r. Baironght
IT. 76
V. Kotloff
1.822
o. New Orieaiu Building Co.
ii.2B6
i.3l6
B. O'Brien
iT. 62
o. Lord Baltimore
ii.46S
V. Peirce
iL128
B. QuickiilTer Co.
i.847
Pekin f . McMahoo
Ii. 196
B. Wheeling Bridge Co.
i.8H
Pdayo V. Fox
Iii. 138
888,439
Pelham. Sir WiUUm, Caae of
It. 88
Penn. Co.. In re i
887,322
V. Rom
I. 306
V. Clark
iii. 206
P«U o. Ball
IS. 4.%
V. LiTeright
iLflOO
c. McElror
It. 152
B. Miller
iL600
Pellecat v. AngeU
u. 468
B. Penn.yWania B. Co.
ii.840
PeUetler u. Couture
ii.236
B.Roy
ii.eoo
r. HayU
i. 166
B. Weddle
ii.284
Pelletreau r. Jackion
iT.261
Penn., Del. t Md. Steam NaT. Co. e.
PellB V. Brown ir. 128, 266, 270, 271, 277
Dandridge
Ii, 300
PellT V. ttoval Bzch. An. Co.
iii. 304
V. Hungertord
ii.269
Pelt V. Payne
Pelton B. Harriaon ii
1.469
Penn, R, Co. v. Allegheny R. Co
i.396
164, 170
t>. American Oil Worki
ii.646
0. Eeiuwelaep, &c. B. B. Co.
iL604
ii. 149
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Ft>uLB.Co.i>.HeiidenoD iL4ie,«»
People V. Gaolt
ii.l2
».KeiT
iii.4S6
». Gibbi
a 415
r.Ltngioa
ii.eoo
c. Gillia
iT.26
1. McCloiker
ii.416
». Oir»rd
ii.340
r.Mu]t><>iniIiii.Ca.
iii.291
0. Glenn County
L449
r.lUlltt iL2M
; iiL440
V. Godfrey
1.431
..Price
ii. 600
r. GiMtio
i.469
r. Vwdiw
ii.280
V. eaU ,
i. 235
».W«ht«
il.260
V. fiaiiDUi
i3T
r. Whilcomb
ii250
B. Hirper
1,460
Pwny .. N. y. liw. Co.
iU. 2se
». Hawkina 1. 409. 439
Pomj-it r Foole
i.67
V. Hawley
ij.840
PembMOi Boom Corp. r.lAinsoii ii. 806
r, Haye«
i. 409
Fwnwer.ErieCwuirCo.
i. 419
v.a^t
iii. 464
PnocoU Ou Co, B. Pobley
ili.440
V. HtU
i. 264
Fnucol. T.L Co. t. Wait. Union
I,. Hilbdale & C. T. Co.
ii. 313
Td. Cft i.
268.489
i. 439
PeDtoD».Bobwt
ii:34e
D. iTFin
- ii. 66
PcDUr.Clu-ke Ui
188,156
B. Jackion
iii. 482
Panrden r. Ching
iii.44e
r. Jackson ft M. Plank R. Co. ii. 340
Ptnnl r. Brookmire
i». m
r. Jacob
iy. 608
ii.3S2
1'. Jeffenon County Board
1.469
c.ADdenon
Ii. 856
V. Judges of Datcheu
i. 322
r. AiDH
ui. 4G2
ii.l2
t. ANCMon ol Wrtertown
u. 272
V. KendaU
11484
r. Biker
ii. 117
V. Kernan
i, 42
t.Btfton
ii. 34
K. Kerc
iii. 432
ii.Tfl
V. Kingman
iii, 432
fiBcUtt
ti. 340
I. Kingston & Middletown T. R.
i. 239
Co.
11.813
>. Biutol & K. T. Co.
U. 318
u. Landt
U.216
..Brook!
1.439
V. Lawreoce
i.406
f.Bi)dd
ii. 340
D. Lord
i.409
cBonu
i. 288
i. 403
rCunpbeU
ii. 3^
V. M'Oarren
11,366
428.429
V. McNulty
1.409
..Cwid.
ii. 80
V. Major.'
ii. 12
'. Clucigo Gu Tnut Co.
ii. 277
c Martin
ii. SO
f.CUrk ii. 12
iT. 60S
V. Manran
ii. 282
..Cpka
ii. S56
V. MaxweU
L409
..CoUin,
U.296
D. Medical Society
ii, 298
r.ConiDiMionen
i.l29
r. Mercein ii. 179, 194
205,220
i. 429
(Sm Barry r.Mercein.)
u. Monledto Water Co.
'Commoo Council
f.413
U.277
•.Cwklin iiM
It. 424
D. Moore
1.28.1
..Cook i.
413,466
V. Moorman
ii.340
■Coinof Senioii*
L283
B. Moma ii. 272, 276, 2S6
•■Ctm,
1.37
B. Korth Ktbf S. R. Co. ii.
277, 800,
"■Croiirdl H. 16. 19.24
806.467
.CuMUng,
i.283
B. North San Francisco Home-
(.Ctiti.
L87
itead Ais'n
iT.608
rDiTton
1.466
t. Ny Sam Chnng
Ii. 12
KDMlin
L4ig
e. N. T.. Ac. R. Co.
iii. 468
..DDeodi
U.S40
0. Ontario
ii.212
..DODOhM
ii.S2
B. OtUwa H. Co.
ii, 806
..Dnnton
U.12
B. Paciflo M. B. Co. ■
ii.2Q4
c.DsTjei
ii.206
V. Phillips
ii. 12
.. Elk RiT« Mm Co.
ill. 440
V. PlnckMy
1.411)
'.EppiDftr
a 12
r.PUtl L464;Ui
414. 429
t,E«T
ii.lB6
r. Potter
i. 284
>.Pitefai>
L239
P. Powers
W. 806
rTdlna
It. 424
V. RiTerslde
i.221
(.F«MC»
li.277
B. Roper
1.41ft
>,Gial
i. 410
B.Botsiter
L4ao
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
People 0. Riwkel
ii. 296
Perham v. RaynaU
iii. GO
V. S. 4 B. R. Co.
iii. 430
PeriL-le», The
iii, 248
o. Salem
ii. 840
Perles p. Aycinen*
ii.64t>
V. Sailon
iii.a60
Perln v. Carey
11283,287; It. 28.3
V. ScliMkno
it. 113
V. Megibben
iii. 39
V. Schmidt
i, 12
Ferine v. Dunn
It. 182, 186
V. Slieriff
ii.30
D, Teasne
Perkins. £i parte
iT. lie
V. Smalliug
1.12
LS31
r. Smith
i.I2
Perkins, In rt
W. 319
V. Souihern Pacific R. Co.
i.323
V. Augusta Ini. Co. & B. Co. Hi. 314
V. Spicer
1.409
V. Bancon
iii. 89
V. squire i,
288,418
V. Baynton
V. Beil
ii. 361
V. Stewart
i.283
ii. 498
P. St. Niciiola. Bank
iii. 88
e. Bnerfleld Iroo & Coal Co. L 248
V. Slout
i.87
... Cliallis
iii. 80
r, Super»iK>niofN.T.
ii.290
r. Dibble
iv. 194
r.SupeivUonofNiagan ii.
,^2,290
V. Drye
iv. 16»
p. Taylor
i.460
». Fisher
It. aa
V. TioMe
i.409
■>. Franklin Bank
iii. 101
■7. Thtwp iL 294, 296
r.Gay
ii. 891
r. Todd
U.233
f. Gibson
iv. 162
V. TompkiM
li.30
1.. Little
iT.68
V. UnderhiU
iii. 4fil
V. N, y. C. R. B,
ii.661
B. UpwD
1.469
p, Norrell
iv.486
■7. Utica iDi. Co. i. 462
, ii. 290
r. Perkins
lv,805
V. Van Al«yne
ii. 205
o. Portland S. A P
R, H. ii. 604
P. Wagner
ii.340
V. Sterne
iv.m
r. Warden of City Priion
ii.340
0. Strong
V. Swank
iv.460
v. Warren
U.2G0
ii.343
V. Welch
i.331
r. Walker
iv. 334
p. Wemple i. 489
: ii. S32
V. Wash. Ini. Co.
iii. 267
V. Whitney
ii. 12
V. Westooat
ii. 192
u. Williams
i.828
r. White
iii. T8, 79, lOS
p. Wren
ii, 806
Peru, The
iii. 164
People ex rtlai. NickeiKin
ii.206
Perley o. Chandler
ill. 482. 483
People's Bank v. Bogart
iii. 88
V. Hilton
iii. 440
p. Knrli
Ii. 479
Pemam v. Weed
iv. 466
0. Shryock
iii, 66
Perrel d. Dupre
iii. 483
People's Ferry Co. v. Beer*
1.869
Perrio v. Blake Iv
216,217,219,221,
People's 0. L. Co. v. Chicago G.
L.
222, 22S, 224, 226, 226, 227, 2-28,
Co.
ii.SO
23t, 238. 259
People's Gas Co. c, Tyner
iii. 440
V. Garfield
iii, 44G
People's Ice Co. v. Employeri
L.
«. Granger
iii. 402
a™. Co.
iii. S66
V. Lppper
iT. 491
People's Int. Co. v. Paddon
iii. 267
D. Leverett
IT. 436
People's Nat Bank v. Clayton
iii. 81
V. Lyon
iv. l'J4
People'* S. Bank v. Batei
It, 136
V. rf. Y, C, R. B.
iii. 432
Peoria, &c. Ry. Co, ». Haidwick
11,269
V. Noyes
iiL79
Peoria Nat. Bank c. Rhea
11.441
D. Protection Ins.
Co. iii. 300. 307
Peoria Target Co. v. Cleveland Target
iv. 463
Co.
11,866
„. Cooley
li.621
Pepke D. Cronin
1.801
V. Hsnkinsoa
iii. 38
Pepper v. W. U. Tel. Co.
11. 611
Perring v. Hone
lit 26, 32
Pequif^ot V. City of Detroit
ii, 49
Perrii n. Heiamer
iL3T3
PerL'CTal v. Phipps U. 860, 381
Perrot v. Perrot
iv.78
I'erciyal p. Hickey
i, 364
Perry v. Adam*
ii. £84
V. Hushes
11. aw
B. Barker
It. 182. 183
Percy ». CockriU
ii, 107
o. Coming
ii. 866
t>. Hillacdon U. 272, 673
i», 371
r,Cr«g
iv. 188. 139
Percy Summer Clnb e. Welch
iii. 427
f. Cross
Iv. 270, 381
Co.
V. Diion
iv. 438
1.91
V. Fames
iii. 448
Perens t>. Johnson
Hi. 69
«.Ford
ti. 269
Ferei c. Rabaud
iv. 110
D. Green
iii. 118
iq.l7.jrb,G00l^lC
TABLE OP CASES.
tarj r. Hmue of B«f v^
iii. 2G9
Petrie u, WUUam.
li.236
r-Juluon
iii. 48
Pelt IF. Pelt
ii. 426
cRctne
ii. 13
Pectee r. Appleton
iU. 26, 33
r. Lono
r. McHeniy
iv. 404
V. Pettee
a 101
Iv. 806
B. Front
iii. 78
p. Meddawcroft
ii, 120
Pettengill u. Hink.
iii. 376
V. Ml Hope IroD Co.
ii. 4&g
PetCibone v. Giiiwold H
684; i». 176
E. New Orleani, *o. B. R. Co.
V. Moore
ii.494
.469;)i. 840
V. Smith
iii. 440
r. Sfiion
IT. 43T
Fettle D. Bogton Towbont Co. i. 369
B. Penn, E. Co.
IT. 4H7
Pettigrew e. ChellU
ii,4Q0
V. Perry
ii. 127
V. Evanaville
iU. 440
E.Price
iv.m
PettingilL b. Porter
iii. 424
r. Traefltt
ii. 366
Fettman ... Bridger
iii. 402
B. Weeb
iT. 478
Feugh i: Davi.
iv. 143
Pmjcleir p. Jacoba
ii. 139
V. Porter
i. 297
Ptrrjf Cd. b. Jeflerton Co.
i.462
FejTOMx V. Dari.
ii. 12S
Penrnun v. Wolffe
ii.490
v. Howard 1,871,878
iii 169, 170
PeniiD Uonarch, The
iii. 248
Pejier v. Cole
iii. 76
PenoD >. Cbue
ii.236
Peyioe'. Caie
ii.608
lMh,Th«
iu.281
Peyton v. St. Thomw'. Ho«pital iii. 487
FMaD,Ai
ii.209
Pfaff V. Golden
iii. 470
Pdtreii 0. Tondwr
ii. 76
v.Fng L422;ii
534; iv. 806
PtnirUii Gmdo Co. p. Bockboldt ii. 122
Pfeiffer ■.. Matthews
iii. 487
PeniTiiD Bulwayi Co. o. T
ameai
PflfFiier V. Stillwater
iv. 451
Xtatj Ini. Co.
ii. 291
Phantom. The
iii. 248
i. 407. 429.
Pliari. V. Leachmau
iT.62
439
Pliebe, The
iii 161. 218
Peierr.Bererly ii. 280
iv,
325 326
Pheian v. Mwa
iii. 82
F. ComptoD
ii! 510
PhelpB a. Buck
ii. 226
T. Kerdd ii
812
iii. 431
V. Butler
iy. 161
P«er M-QUl, Caiie of
ii.231
a. Comber
U. 545
iii. 80
V. Elliott
i396
PMertaff, The i. 78, 102. 138,
42. 145,
U.Green
iT,366
147, 155
0. Harri.
iv.331
Peten b. Actiro Manof. Co.
ii.8e6
B.Hay
iT.346
r Btllisliec
11.549
B.HiU
ill. 210
.. Bont
ii.259
V. MoNeely
iii. 06
p, OiDfleld
tv. 451
». Murray
ii.402
». Fleming
it 289
B. Nowlen
ui.440
..Goodrich
iv. 174
B. Oak.
i802
B. HobU
iii. 109
B.Park
iy.432
V. UuhRO)
iT. :M8
B. Phelp.
iv.46
».Pli«ni3(lo».Co. iit.
288,
308,829
B. Sage
lv.194
.. Planner
ii. 49S
E. Simoni
ii. 182
0, Tanell
lY. 152
B. White
iv. 461
E. Wwreo In.. Co.
Jii
231,802
B. Willlaniwn
iii. 226
ii. 610
B. WillDD
iv. 467
AltTKn E. Chemical Bank
if. 429
Phenf g TrOilB u.
436; iii. 870
.. Freebody
iii. 206
Phenijt Ini. Co., Ei port*
i309
PetertoD e. Boiwell
ir. 806
Phettiplace o. Bayle.
ii. 632
E. Chandoa, The
iii. 314
Philadelphia v. Davis
D. Elliott
ir. 610
..Clark
iv. 161
r. Miyer
ii. 261
V. Girard
iv. 283, 608
K Maror of New Tork
ii. 291
B. Scott
iii. 427
r. Rniiell ii463iiii. 89
Fhila. Fire Ag.'n b. Brown
iii. 876
^ r.Simpkin.
ii.36e
e. New Tork
i.439
BMerton't Appeal
lT.208
Fhila. Kovelty Manuf. Co. v
ley NoTeltT Co.
Blake.-
PWIIon E. NoUe
Iii. 79
ii. 366
PMob. Reynold.
Iii. 76
B. Bonis
ii. 866
PWrel, Tlie
iL2S0
Phil., Wil. & Bait. R Co. B
Fhil. &
Pnri B. CnmnicrcUl Nat. Buk
i.302
H. Steam T. Co, u 8S9 1 ii. 687
P«ri» e. Hi-ller
iii. 206
V. Quialey
ii. 22,284
11. Fhenix In.. Co.
iiL 391, 307
ii. 492
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASB3.
PhilBdelphU, &c R. Co
t>. Ander-
Phlilipt B. Smith
It. 4711
■on
K-Larkin
ii. 800
ii. eoo
V. 'Oiompion
It. 186
It. 461
Phil, ft Read. R. Co. V. B«tdju^ iii. 228
V. WataoD
ii. 840
0. Derby
ii. 600
V. Wickham
ii. 296
v.Tniiua
Ii. 25B
V. Wooster
ii 441
Phil. & 8. S. Co. t>. FeoDtrlvuiIa L 42S,
PhilUpsbnrgh t.. Bruch
a 280. 286
489: iii. 2
It. 637
Phil, t Suobnry R. «. Lewu ii. SOO
Philpot t.. Briant
Iii. 112
Piiil. ft Trenton R. Co., Cue of ii. 340
Philpott B. Swann
iii. 370, 881
M. i. 487 ; iiL
LSeO; iii. 232
Phinney v. Mutnal L.Idi. (
Philbrook p. New Eng. Mut ba. Co.
282, 866, S70
iii. 870
...Warn
iii. 427
PhiUpp* V. Beet
i. 462
Phipard u. Pbipard
ii. 448
PhiUpi B. Dippo
Iii. 109
Phippen V. Stickney
ii. 639
,.. Nook
1.299
Pbippe, Case of
iL41, 60
Philler r. P»tte»on
iii. 86
D. Harding
iii. SS
Pliillipi V. Gove
ii. 481
": Ke^nge
il. 438
PhUUpa,£iparM
ii. 280
iT.283
G. Allan
U. 89S
». Miibury Bank
111108
V. Allen
IL 812 ; iv. 76
V. The Nicanor
ill. 802
V. AiUing
iU. 124
PhBDiK, The
L74
D. Atkinaon
iii. 68
Phcenii Bank v. Hu»ey
iiL 94
V. BeaU
U. 846
«. Rieley
f Sfi
0. Biitoli
11.604
PlMEnix Caster Co. v. Spiegel Ii. 866
■>. BlatchfoTd
ill. 66
PhcBuii Int. Co. V. Aiberr?
iii. 376
iii. 487
iii. 253
D. Bowen
iv. 466
V. Cochran
ill. 302
». Brydge.
It. 308
0. Erie ft W. Tran.. C
. il 608: iii.
P. Bury U. 274, 276, 800, 801, 302
V. Cayley iv. 336
V. McLoon
263,279,30t
iiL 214
t.. Cook
iii. 66
V. M. S., &a. R. R, Co.
iiL 281
p. CoTeM
It. 114
u. Panona hi 263. 260. 271
». Crajfflinoiid
It. 806, 807
v. Pratt
11L290
D.Earle
iL 608, 604
•T. Raddin
iU. 866, 870
V. Energia, The
iii. 207
V. ByUnd
iii. 267
r.Eyre
ii.3»3
V. Tomlinton
11468
V. Garth
iT.637
... Tucker
iii. 376
t.. HalHday
iii. 440
V. Wilcoi, &c, Co.
Iii. 260
V. Harrow
iv.eos
Photphate Sewage Co. c.
Hartmoat
e. Hatch
i. 67
iL2S0
V. Headlam
iii. 178
Phyn B. Boyal Each. As*. Co. liJ! 306
...Henry
ii. 461
Phyaioo B. She.
1L269
r. Hunter
11.120,406
Piatt v.£Bda
111.72
r. Hath
ii. 647
V. Sin ton
It 636
0. Im Thnni
Hi 78, 86, 116
PibuB r. Mltford
It. 216
B. La Forge
It. 28
Picard v. Hlne
iLlB4
n. Leavitt
It. 186
Kckard v. Pullman S. Car. Co. L 488
I'.uS'
iii. 146
il.2B8
r. Sean
o. Smith
11.488.484
il!200
iii 96
Pickens b. Dart*
Ir. 681,682
iT. 419
V. Knlaeley
iLlGO
v. Madrid
il. 126
V. Marlow
tr.tlU
Picker V. London & 0. B. Co. Hi. 80
•.:&?
ii. 178
Pickering O.Appleby
iL610
■ IT. 179
D. Barkley 11661: m.217
D.Moor
it 492
P.Buek
ii. 621
v. Moore
Ii. 64
11.622
ii. 402. 494
ii 4A9
0. Phillipi ii. lot
iiL 87, 80, 419 ;
"Fiik a 464. 468.462
It. 806
i: Holt
iii. 162
e. Roger.
ii. 70
e. McCtdlough
11806
D. Scattergood
1. 880; iii, 187
... Moore
11 366
m.440
V. Stapler
It. 467
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CA8G3.
netting s. Stephentcni
rickiK r. Downer
>, FeixoKiD
Pii^ford p- Orud J. R.B.
FScUei. UcKiuiok
FkUncTbeSute
PickmiD V. Pekbodj-
V. Woods
Fkkilij G. SCarr
Ficblock R Lyiter
Ftckup e.ThuDOi Ini. Co.
Fkkwick, Tbe
Ptcol v. Stnienon
Pkqael e. Cmtu
t. Swan ii. 192, V,
Pidcock r. Biihop
Pidgi". Pidgo
Pidgin f. Cimm
FiecM of Hihoganj (538)
FleU p. Btlchen
Rs B. HcinrictuhoffeD
Fitmi. Aiiop
>. Boaton SkTing* Bank
U. 105
il. 177
I. STB
B.Dnw
>. JuTugin
1. Kennedj
I. Kittredwe
a. HeClelbii
V. Nuhm Fire loi. Ca
KO'Briea
t.Putrid«a
>.PeDdu
E.Pierce
t. Potter
(.Scbenck
r. SeUeck
?. Stmihert
B- Thornely
r. Tranlov' In*. Co.
, E. Timer
r. Wlnior
E. Wood
ritrfoat c. Fowie
ntm *. FoiMld
PWhq I, Crooka
>. Dnnlop '
VOL. r. — 0
iU. 90, 109
iii. 4S1
fii. 212, 258,
206, 314, 831
It. SO
m. 9fi; It. 461
iU. 37, 48, 66
iii. 41
iii. iJ9
Hi. S5
tii. 41
fl. 263
Hi. 437
iii. »78
ii.407
li. !
ti. eeo
li!. 424
fii. 106
fl. 108
Iii. 21g
iii. 40
It. 131
fl. 384
11.140
!U. 448
11.408
IILU
I^run i>. Hooker U. 666 i Ui. 44, 48, ll!t
V. Poit ii. 849
V. Steinmrer liL 25
Piescbetl v. AUduK iii. 262
Fietermuitiburg v. Natal Land Co. i.462,
467
ii. 463
PiBBOlt f. Strattcm iL682: ML 282;
iT.lM,4H0
mgot'B Cau
ii,4G8
Pigott 0. Bagler
iii. 67
Kke,/n«
iii. 248
V. Armiitead
I».171
f. Baker
ii.104
V. Brittan
Iv. 110
V. FitiBibbon
U. 154, 164
0. GalTin
It! 261
fi,26
r. Jenkini
i.467
V. Nichotai
ii.873
Pile D. Pile
ii. 76
Pilkingtoa'i Cue
iii. 476
Pillani V. Van Mlerop
iU. 84, 121
Piilow V. Hardeman
iii. 104
I'. ItoberU
IT. 461
V. Sentelle
ii. 164
Plllibary 0. Alexander
iii, 461
«. MitcheU
fv. 4T6
D. Hoore
iii. 448
V. Morrii
iii. 437
V. Pillibury-Wuhbnm
Flonr
MUUCo.
ii. 306
PllUworth V. Hopton
IT. 79
Pilmore v. Hood
ii488
Pim V. Downing
iY.307
B. mohoUon
(.400
0. Beid
iii. 374
Pimb'i Caae
i».426
Pinbary i>. Elkin
jv. aM
Pincknejw. W. C. Te!.Co.
ii. Oil
Pincombe v. Badge
iv.471
Pindar o. Ainsle;
It. 110
Pine D. Smitb
ill 91, 102
Flnero ». Judaon
It. 105
Ping On, Tbe v. Blalhen
142
Pin horn d. Soiuter
It. 118
iii. 65
Pink D. Chnrch
il. 448
e. Fleming
iii. 30-i
v. Trade and Labour Unioni il. 16
Pinkerton v. Gilbert
11.284
p. Woodward
ii. 696
Pinkbam v. Hattox
ii. 494
Pinnaa, The
Iii. 248
Pinnington v. Galland
Iii. 424
Pioneer, The
i.44
Piper r. Maooj
ii. 698
V. Mercantile M. Aco. Au'n iii. 366
V. Monlton
It. 60S
r. Smith
iii. 37, -W
e. Woolman
ii. 22
Pipkin I.. Wynna
iii. 421
Pipon p. Fipon
Pi5;en..*e.wn
\L 67, 400. 42S
ii. 164
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[^H nivgtjHl piigH Jin nfamd to.]
Fipt^K. EUiun
IT. 6se
iii 267
inrie»..MiddleDDckCo.
iii. 2,14
Plant InT. Co. o. JacksoDTUle By. Co.
V. Steele
iii. 83i
i.302
Firriei.. YorkSt.F. 8.C0.
Planter, The
iiL20e
I^tol IT. Riocwdaou
It. 610
Planlere' Bank e. AUard
It. 171
Pib:«ini,/>ir< iL 851
V. Davis
i».29
Pitcher v. iMjcoek
ii. 23Q
t7. Markham
iiLlOS
V. LiviagBton iT. 476, 477
e. Sellmaa
iii 111. U2
Pitkin V. Bralmird
iii. 138
v. State
ii 312
V. Fletcher
111.462
Planters' L. & 6. Bank c. Beny I 427
B. Noyes
ii.6M
Plaoz V. Boaton & A. R. Co.
iLM7
0. Pitkin
iii. 67
IT. 449
Fitmiii V. Hooper iU. IM, 192,
97,227
FUtt V. Hlbbard
IL 601, 000
B. Univenal Hanne In*. Co.
iii. 336
V. Johnion
iii 446
Pitaey a. Boltoo
It. 305
V. Mickle
iT. 636
V. Olea'a Fmlla In*. Co.
iii. 281
V. Snl|)es
Playforl t>.Tnited Kingdom
iu. 66
mtou HuuiclpaUtT v. Geldeit
iii. 432
iT.266
Ktt. The
iii. 162
TeiCo.
Pitt V. Chappelow
iii. 114
iiBll
B.Dacre
i. 478
Pletwantof. Pendleton
ii. 601
». JftckWD
It. SI
c Pleasants
ii. 26»
V. Pitt
ii.ll7
PleMUit Township v. MtBA Life Ins.
V. Smith
li.462
Co.
i.842
PltUm e. Foster
iii. 40
Pledge p. Can-
iT. 187
Kttard 17. OliTer
ii. 22
0. White
It. 179
Rttegrew o, Pringle
Plttman v. Samael Hughtll, The
Iii. 30T
PleTins u. DowDlDg
Pleydell v. Pleydell IL
ii.494
ii. 612
868; It. 276
Pitt* D. CoagdoD
iii. 112
Plimpton V. Farmen' Mut.
Ids. Co.
i>. LsDCMter Mill*
iii. 440
iU. 376
„. Mangum
ii. 489
B. Gleaion
a. 440
B. Sbubert
ii. 816
T>. MaicolniMUi
iisaa
u. Wangh
iii. 31
«. Spiller
ii. 366
I^mburg .7. Fint HatioDBl Bank
of
Plomley. In re
ii.22e
Pittaburg
PitUbnrg Carbon Co. i>. HcMilUn
i. 42B
Plowden o. Hyde
ir. 628
ii.277,
Pluche B. Jonei
ii448
482
PInmb e. Sawyer
i466
Pittabnrg M. Co. 17. QuintreU
i[.2ei
Plume V. Bone
iT. 174
F. Spooner
ii.28i
Plainer 0. Plumer
il. 343
Pittiburg & Conn. R. Co. u. Pillow
ii.600
Plumley v. Ma*wu:hiuetla
.480; ii 340
Pittsburg & S. Coal Co. •>. Bate*
i.42g
Plommer n. Lyman
iii. 85
V. Louiiiana
i.438
r. Pkmmer
L466
Pittsburgh. Fort Wayne & Chicago
V. Bastetl
li.6l4
B. Co. f. ShaeKr
iii. 12s
V. Sargent
11806
I^ttaburgh, &C.B. Co. v. Backus
i. 391,
p.SelU
ii. 179
439
t>. Webb i. 364, 367, 360, 371 ; ii 193
V. Benwood Iron- Work*
ii.340
e. Wildman
iii. 236
0. Brace
iii. 469
D.Spack-
p. DeTinney
ii.2ao
man
^i.462
V. Biiea
ii.602
Plunket 0. Hohnes
It. 257
V. HoIio*eU
li.602
t>. Penson
iv. 160
K. Rusi
ii. 269
Plymouth b. Painter
il. 296
V. SuUiran
Ii, 269
Plymouth (Connteai trf) v
Throg-
Rttsford D. Chittenden
ii 209
iii. 471
Pltaman v. Boyce
iii. 451
Plymouth Rock, The
iiLl&4
Pi.leyu. Roanoke NaT. Co.
il. 312
Plympton v. Boston Di»pen»ai7 it. 76
PizaiTo, The
i. 168
Po. /n ™
ii.64
Place V. Norwich & N. Y. Tr«w Co.
Pocsntico Water Co. v. Bird
li. S40
iii. 217
Pocock c. Alt-Qen.
iT.608
p. Sawtell
iv. 168
Pocopaon Boad, The
ii.S40
V. Washburn
11.186
Podmore r. Gunning
iT.805
PUdd*,The
ili. 232
Fodrasnik d. R. T. Martin Ca UL 81
Plaisted !>. Holmea
11.620
Foe t>. Duck
i.422
Fhuich^ I.. Fletcher iU, 2M, 866 266, 286
Foer V. Feeble*
Mi 481
Planing Hachine Co. r. Keith
U.866
iiiSS
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tha miHsbial pAget an nfamd to.]
FbJII«>.HtttiD
U.483
ii. 481
t. Stoat
iU. S2
V. Slieeaa
ii. 494
PnideiMr >. Blftckburn
ii. ise
V. Sniiili
Ul. 267
F. Greeohow i. 35,266, 323
351,408
Ponder v. Rhea
iT. 95
•. M'CtonoD
W
137, 144
Pontile The
iiL 248
r. W«ddy
iii. 30
Ponilac Nbl Bank a. Langui ii. St)6
F(ikn)kZ.p»duPub.Co.
.Zi»bovsliy
PonUda. Tlie
iii. 854
li. le, 22
Pool, Case of
i. 401, 404
FoUr.Erarett
iii. Ill
In re
ii. 193
FoUndt. GI7D
ii. 816
tt. Blaikie
IT. 32
e. Sputui, The
ill. 187
n. Gloyer H.443; ir.SOS
Foldeti r. Buurd
iii. 419
B. So, P.C R. COl
li.269
Folto.FStiganId
m
327,328
0. Trexler
ii.840
..Ford
iiL III
B. WiLhav,
ii.424
Police JuTf D. Hampton
U.477
Poole V. Bentley
iT. 105
rRMTBI
i».12fl
V. UuskiuBon
ill. 461
Mng J, Ohio KiTer B. Co.
ii.259
V. Kermit
iii. 170
PAeDonglul
1.342
V. Nedham
iT. 120
..Fmril
ii'.229
V. Protection In*. Co.
111.297
^Olim
iii. 66
V. ShergoW
ii. 475
iv. 846
D. ^mondi
v. Tolle*on
11.588
I'-SMB
ii.205
Iii. 104
Polki,ThB
i. IM
Poole'« Caw
11.843,346
FoBinl. £>pafM
1.419
11.122
>.BukofBnglMd
iii. S5
i>. Brown iL4T9; m. 86, 105
..B«ne.
iii. 446
■>. Driver
11126
tDwI^t
iv. 279
D. Whetham
i. 37
:!»"
iii. 427
iii. ao
Poor V. Considine
IT. 203
iT. 48
r.Ljoo
ii. 16
E.' .McClnre
iii. 427
(.(%<)«
iii. S6
Poor'* Land! Charily, h rt
It, 603
ii. 378
Poorman r. MilU
iiL 91
(.Reud^n
iii. 217
Pope, Rt
it. 429
i-Shufler
Ui.466
V. Allen
iT. 179
., Somerwl Mat. lot
Co.
iii. 37a
ii.641
PiJlukT D. MiDcbener
ii. 22
V. Bign
It. 104
PDlln „. Bre-er
IT. na
.-.oSi
11.880
Mlaj=.John»on
IT. 306
c. Famiworth
iT.S06
Mock r. Bute
U.226
t>. Uaman
iii. 66
». Pimert- Loan 4 Trntt Co. L aW,
V. Lewla
i. 466
449
; iii. 161
V. Head
iv. 62
r.r«idImp.Co.
1.469
V. Nanoe
iii. 86
..UMoa
It. 194
103, 104, 166,
'PoUock
11.164
173. 217, 218
».Pa«
1.247
p. O'thra
Iii. 419
RBttcy
iT.WJ
V. Porter
ii.46S
My.Th.'
i. 85
V. Rialey
iii. 61
Wlyr.M^Wl
UL445
u. SwisiIJovdlDB. Co
ill. 287, 283
WydoTB .. PrincB
U.468
V. Weitem Uaion Tel.
Co. ii. 611
JWro 8. Pomero
ii.lOl
Pope Manuf. Co, v. GonnuUy 4 J.
"o>troT B. Aiii«w(»tfa
ij.469
Manuf. Co.
ii.806
ii. 441
Popliam u. Bampfield
iT. 126. 130
RDonSdion
ii. G99
Popkin .. Bumitewl
iv.46
rDtuij
IT. 461
... Popkin
Poplewelff. Wilrmn
ii.l01
'■g»^
i.413
iii. 76
'■Mm
iii
438,4^
Poppe 0. Langford
1.331
„ r-M.T.*N.H.B.R. Co.
l.ai2
Popplewell „. Hodkiuon
ilL4S7
PoBfet r. PSrring
iv. B35
Poreher v. Daniel
ii. 164
^ >.Ricraft ^
111, 421
i It. 467
Pordnye o. Cole
U.465
FMW»t.The
1.369
Porlej V. Wetham
i. 87
F(Dd.. Allen
IT. 203
Ponchet n, Porwhet
iv. 608
•.Befgh
\y.m
401. 611
Port V. Port
ii.e7
*.Ci«Siiuii»
til. 38
Port Adelaide, The
UL 206, 210
*Edd,
iT. 148
Portal r. Hine
1L2E0
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ine Baijfn*! p*c*> ■>« nltmi to.]
ii.46S
Poiten V. Potten
ii.441
Poneoui v. WillUiua
ill. 2oe
Pottlethwaite v. Fraeland
Ui. 206
Porter, /n rt
ir.203
Poittnaiter Geoeral n. RobUni
1.247
V. Aikew
U.126
Poit Pnb. Co. r. HaUam
Ii. 16, n
V. Bradtev
It. 277
D. Haloney
il.22
u. Cocke
It. 486
Pothonier v. Dawioo
ii. 642
V. Corrj
Hi. 102
Potinger «. Wlghtman
ii. 227
n. Ua*)dtoa
i. 260
Potomac, The iii
170. 231
V. Dahoqm
U. 162
Potomac Steamboat Co. v. Upper Pot.
f.Durtuun
iii. 440
8. Co. iii
418, 427
n. Ueydock
11.434
Potomac. 4c. Co. b. Cumberland
Ac.
c. Imu
i. 113
R;R. Co.
11.461
r. Jadaon
iii. H, 106, 100
Pott c. Altemu*
ii. 373
r. Lane
ji. 041
Potter D. Brown 11. 480, 460
400.461
11.366
B. Chapin
ii.28a
V. McCollnm
iii. BO
B. Coward
ii. 402
u. Merrill
iii. 452
B. Duffleld
ii. 4M
V. HDDser
iii. 116
B.Gardner
ir. l«l
e. PilUbaiT
iT.188
B. Hall lit 478, 470
.-. Porter
ii. 461
B. Jonei
It. 5IW
I-. Powell
ii. 1B2
V. MaJeBtio, The 11. 460 ; iii. 05
p. SeTey
V. The Sea Witch
It. 170
p. Marine Ini. Co.
iii. 281
lil. 170
0. Ocean Ini. Co. 1. 42 ; Hi 285, 236
0. Toamay
ii. 362
803, .■WH
V. United SUtei
i. 857
B. Pelen
ii. 4Hi
V. U. B. L. iDt. Co.
Jii. 370
B. Phenlr Ini. Co.
lit. 370
f. WoodB
ii.6l>9
.-.Poller 11.88; i»
386,610
Porter'. Ca»e
11.60,282
c. Rankin iii. 206, 206,811
820,881
Portetfleld «. Clark
IT. 27B
V. Sander.
11477
Porteus o. Watney
iii. 206
t. Suffolk In.. Co.
iii. SCO
PorthouBe v. Parker
iii. 106
It. ISO
Portland, The
1. 80, 81
r. Thornton
ii. 2Bi
Portland u. Stacy
iii. 138
Pott^p. ^dl
iii. 76
Portland Bank r. Stnbbi
iii. 188
L66.67
Portland L. A, U. Co. »
Eait Port.
». Blackw«U
(11.65
land
il.300
V. Chajrfn
U.490
Pottmoro V. Taybr
Portsmouth, The
ii. 476
ill. 176.217,234
V. IW^OTk, 4c B. R Co.
ILSiKI
ii. 6.14
B. Smith
lU. 410
Portsmouth
ii. 76
1-. Wallace
ii. 281
Counlew of
Poullain B. Poullain
i\.m\
ii.90
Fonlion, Ex parte
i. 31X1
Ponlter b. Bhackel
■i. 162
. TTateoD ii. 286
Poultney b. Well*
11.201
Poaey b. Bockner
ii.40S
11.474
D. BuUitt
ill. 48
Pound B. Tnrck
L4S0
PoBt D. Campan
It. 471
PouBBard b. Splen
ii. 468
V. Jone.
m. 174, 248
PoDverlu B. La. M. A F. Itu. Co
ill. 271
B. Kearney
i*. 122
FoTall, ^zpart!
Ii. 481
n! Kinma H. Co.
m.26,3S
Pow B. Da Til
11.632
iii. 76
Powdet Co. B. Burkhardt
11.600
V. Majon
ir. 606
Powder RiTer L. B. Co. b. I4imb
ii. 610
f. PhcBQiz Im. Co.
ill. 210
Powel B. CloftTor iL 194, 221
IT. Poit
IT. 114
Powell, Ex pant
1.283
D. RobertMO
B. Biackett
i».463
It. 283
P.Brown
ii. 852
1.842
e. Brum wick County
1. 3S6
p. WeU
It. 480
B.Clark
It. 467
Postal Tel. Co. u. Adrnn
1.480
B. Dayton, £c. B. Ca
11.468
i. 42B, 480
r. Glenn
It. 278
B. Lathrop
11, 611
p. Goiom
iT.Sl
r. Weitem Union T Co. ii. 800
B. Gudgeon ill
B.Head
284,802
Pott Co. V. Toledo, to. R. Co. ij. 286
Ii. 873
Poitel 1-. Card
U.470
B. Hellicu
ii. 448
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
PowtU .. Hrde
iii. 2M
Prentice r. Eano
■ 111. 81
..Koo^ler
iv. 449
PrentlM v. BreDnan
L345
l.^.tB.Uui.Co.
ir. 474
V. DuUUoD
ilL lis
iv. 60, 66. B8
c. PiiUey
ii. 160
..Uewer
iii. 48
c. Savftse
a 468. 469
c. MoDDier
ui. 88, se
V. Sinclair
iii. 67
c. Uonson & Briinfldd M»n af Co.
V. Slack
U.629
iL158
3«; iv. 805
PrentlBB, E., CaM of
iv. 868
r,Miimij
ii. 162
PreabreT v. Thoma*
V. WilliamB
iii. 41
..Mjert
ii.606
It. 96
0. PenntylTanU
».P«in.B.B.
ii.S40
Preib. Church i>. Cooper
U.46S
ii. 008
Presb. Corp. v. Wallace
IT. 437
fcPowcU
ii. 128
PreecoCt b. Carr
iT.403
t>.BMCll
iii. 109
B. De Forest
ilL4S3
«.TtCoM.Co,
U. 260
iT. 194
V. Wat«n
ii. 468
V. Flinn
ii.616
PDweU-i Eitua
iv. MI
V. Hayea
11.296
Pnei>.Bntcb«r
iii. 260
^. Locke
ii. 604
t.SheU
iT.ee
V. NeTers
It. 482, 483, 489
«. WhitmoM Ui
834.286,244
D. Norrii
ii. 241
Fd-gr i.. Bildeagle Boom Co. iii. 449
V. PhUllpi
Hi. 448
t. BuUwiDkle
IT. 264
V. Truemao
it. 476, 470
r. Fowler
iii. 123
V. U. Ina. Co.
iii, 288
t. O'Neal
ii. 587
V. Witllami
Iii, 436
Powii .-. Corbrt
ir. 176
PreicoR Nat. Bank v. Butler ill. 80, 89
Fa«kH D. liuiei
iii. 261
Preaident, The
1.75
FowKly >. Blackmui
IT. 156
Preiser v. IIUdoU
1264,449
F«w7...Bl«gi«>e
IT. 76, 79
V. State
11.340
r.Uuuhld
il. 245
It. 216
Pnierr.flooTer
It. 29
Freaa Pub, Co. r. Falk
11878
B. P[«ler
fi. 116. 430
V. McDonald
IL 16
.. Whiitle
iT. 527
Freaton u. Bovmu
iT.466
Prut E. BMopre
ii. 632
B. Carter
ii. 441
^Bijm/
11.365
V. Crofat
It. 464
«;CUrk
iT. 152
V. DajMOB
iii. 105
.. D«Uiiig HoDW M. F. Ini. Co.
>^. tUwiej
iT. 116
iii. 870
r. Neale
11.686
.,F«rt«r
It. 118
D. NeTaaota
iu. 461
B.FUnier
11.217
0. Pratber
a. 661, 687
.. Globe M.F.II1I. Co.
11459
u. Smith
11.18
r.HD«g|]u
iT. 194
K. SouAwicfc
iL441
r.I-SU
iiL427,445
Pretty u. Bickroore
iv. 110
;:J:^&,
Hi. 25
Pretty man d. Conaway
ii.430
It. 536
Prewlt V. Wilton
ii. 178, 613
■ UcGhee
It. 541
Prewitt e. Chapman
iii. 77
»-P«pi
Iii. 68
Price r. Al Ship*' 8. D.
Ins. Asa'n
i.Iteid
111.164
iil.2!«
V. Sanger
It. 467
». Belle of the Coaat, The 1. 869
V. SweetMT
iii. 449
V. Blghan
u.m
PnttC(MlCo.i>. Brawle;
11.196
«.Cour1ziey
iv. 319
Pnu UudC Co. o. Aitral BaflniiiK
V. Dowhnnt
it 120
Co.
11.366
V. DoDglaaa
It. 418
FnjrEaie
1.468
f. Elmbank. Tbe
ill. 248
«. UiTor of Jener City u. 274
V. Evans
It. 438
P»bto..Sroi™ ' '
iii. 416, 417
V. Furman
ii. 236
>.Be«d
iii. 440
r. Hall
It. 20S
Pn«>.Coka
It. 148. 188
V. Hartshorn
til. 227
IMn >: Bo*il Buk of Uveniool
c. Hewett
11.241
ill. 116
V. HohbB
iT. 89, 62
Fnid«|ut ». ComptoD tii. 183
fradilifer. CoDD. ftiTer H. Co. ii. 2S9
V. Jenkins
D. Jones
11. 441 ; It. 466
iii. 78
nMtiMv. Achom
11.4S2
V. Jnnkin
lv.484
V. Dulath Co.
S96j iT.4e8
5. Kirkham
Ui. 128
..Od^
ill. 440
V. Methodlit Church
ill. 402
50byGoO>^lc
TABLE OF CASES,
[Th« muyinl pig
Fiice e. Mulford ill. 46
V. Neal iii. 86
V. N. J. B. K. & T. Co. iii. ii8
V. F&ge iii. 118
D. Price iiL 115, 128, 164, 4S0, 459;
iT. 46, 62
v. Shasffer i. 260
e. Thompson iii. 461
V. White ii. 188
Piichet D. Int. Co. of No. Ameiica
Prickett B. Ritter
Pride B. Fooki
Prideaux u. Criddle ii
Pridgeon c. Pridgeon
Priest i>. Brown
B. Cum mines
V. Nichols
Priestley v. Montague
Prieatly V. Femie ii. 632; iii
Prigg u. Com'th i. 404 ;
PrignoD V. D&DH>t
Primeao u. National L. Aai'n
Prinie'i Estate, In rt
Primroie o. Browning
V. Weitem Union Tel. Co.
Primal, Tlie
Prince u. Bartlett
B. Case
r. 112
iii. 176
B. Ouean lai. Co. iii. 174
PriDce's Case, The i
Prince Frederick, The iii
Prince HeiDrich, The Ui
Prince Mannt Co. c Prince'a Metal'
lie Paint Co. ii
Prince's Met«Uic Paint Co.
Hanaf Co.
Prince S. S. Co. n. Lehman
Prini:e«a Helena, The
PrinLCBia, The
Princeton, Tbe
Prindle e. Andenon
Pring V. Clarhaon iii. 112
Pringle B. Witten ii. 4T6
Prina Frederik, Tbe i. 156
Printing, &c Co. b. Sampson ii. S66
PriDlup V. Pfttton it. S05
Priori!; of LegisUtlTe Appropria-
tion*, In re i. 861
Pritchard i>. Atkiiwon iiL 461 ; It. 479
0. Bailey iv. 181
B. Draper iii. 60
D. Meekina iii. BO
V. Pritchard ii. 192
tf. Walker ir. 641
Pritcbett I'. Clark i. 262
Pritia D. Ritchey U. 46
Prize Cases, Tbe 1. 66, 78, 86. 147, 148,
S67
Probat V. Delatnater ii. 260
Proctor B. Adams ii. 322
i>. Bennis ii. 866
0. HodsDQ iii. 424
Proctor B. ProctOT
«. 100
B. Sargent
ii. 466
D. Seara
ii. 236
D. Stone
i. 264
r. Webster
Ii. 22
B, Wells
iii. 413, 416
Frodgers v. Laogham
Iv. 463
Processor Morse, Tlie
i. 869
Prole V. Soady
ii. 188, ITS
Prop, of the Canal Bridge v
Gordon
iL201
ProprietotB of Ken. Pw. v.
Laboree
I
456; It. 4SS
B. Springer
iT.482
Prop, of Trent Navigation
ii. 598, 560, 600
1-. Wood
603; iii. 213
Proprietors, Ac. v. Arduio
ii, 477
ProseuB V. Mclntjre
It. 309. 418
B. Mason
it 408
Froaser b. Lnqtieer
iiL 89
Protection In». Co. p. D»Tii
iiL123
u.HaU
iii. 273
u. Harmer
111285
B. Wilion
ia268
Protector, The i
828; iii 176
Froudfoot i>. Monte Sore
iii. 286
Prouty V. Ruggles
ii. 306
Providence, The
ii. 69
Providence Bank i>. BillingB
L 414. 422;
Providence & N. T. S. Co, Bi iii. 217
B. BUI Manuf. Co. iii. 217
Providence W. Ina. Co. v. Adler iii. 260
V. Bowring ill. 210
B. Bnimmelkamp iii. 307
Provident Ass. Sodety o. Edmonds
iii 80
Provident Institntiun v. Maasftcha-
aetts i 342, 420
Provident L. Ina. Co. o. FenneU iii 260
Provident Life In*. & Inv. Co. a.
Baam iii. 869
Provident L. & T. Co. e. Frisa jv. 478
Provident S. L Asa. Soci
Llewellyn
Provlndat Ins. Co. c. Lednc
Provost B. Caldet
B. Patch! n
Provost of Beverly, Case of
Prudential Ass. Co. d. Edmonds
V. Knott
Public Bath No. IS, The
Puckett B. Alexander
D. Riulisrdscn
Paddephat. Goods ol
Pugh t> Anon
V. Bnssel
0. Good
D. Leeds, Dnke of
B. United State*
V. Wheeler
Pugsley B. Aiken
m. 370
iii 331
iv.468
iii. 164
iii. 612 :
iv. 216
Ii436
ii. 16
Ii. 5S7
Ji. 467
H.441
iii 441
Iv. 112
ii.618
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CAS^.
tlliA nuo^friid pii^v* iin Tqlernd
PiiluU,The
i. 370
QoACEBHBUiH V. Duiks I. 419. 466 ;
Pnlbonugh acbool Boud, h n
1,407
ii . 479
Puldftr B. Page li
S60, S66
r. Wis. ft M. B. Co.
i.840
ma r. BeU
ill. 401
Qniiiring e. Downs
1 . -j-ia
c. Pullen
iT, 64
Qnaiatance b, Goodrow
i.109
Poflgj D. MniiicipaUt}^ No. 2
iii. 428
QuBrman b. Burnett
ii. 260
Pulliun «. Burlingame
iv. 869
Quamli B. Beckford
It. 167
PoLing B. TrftTelere' In*. Ca.
iii. 370
QoBiti Hill C. G. M. Co. V. BeaU ii. 16,
fglliDui t. Saltimore ft Oliio K Co.
373
ii.8Be
Qnay b. Lucu
It. 16
•.Hill
ii. 18
Qneade, Re ii.
162. 170
PdInu P*l*ce Car Ga r. Gkvir
ii.602
Quelle Bank v. HeUroan
iii. 76
F.Low«
ii. 6B2
Quebec Fire A«. Co. v. St Loui
iii. 331
r. Hitlbews
ii. 692
Quebec M. Ini. Co. v. Coram. Bank
t. Met. St. By. Co.
ii. 478
of Canada iii.
2SS, 289
c. Pennpylvwii»
Pnbfonl c. ifnnter
i.43fl
Quebec S. S. Co. v. Merchant
ii. 269
ii. lai
Queen, Tlie (<w Bex)
c. Richards
ii. 490
Queen, Tlic iii.
232,246
Mief E. HaniB
ii. 641
V. Anderson
1.867
Poliertofl p. Pnhertoft
ii. 173
V. Bradfleld
iii. 461
PiTMll E. Allemong
ii. S40
V. Cambrian By. Co.
iii. 469
ii. 16
V. Carr
1.867
iii. 83
ill. 432
r.Sowler
il.22
u. Judge of City o( London Court
PimJuMB.U>»i«>n
iii. 109
1.367
Piirt(-c.Jack«)ii
ii. 188
IT. Keyn L 19, 80. CI, 884
Puriom ... Boyd
11.104
i. 37
Puidy .. The Peopla L 464
; ii. 272,
B. Moat
i. 466
27B
V. NaRh Ii
198,209
PirdoT,.Kc.gwi iT.268,
264.266,
B. Kymer
B. rfernwag
11.596
267
ii. 366
ftnJd B. Suidi
iii. 481
il. 683
PMiMinw Conception, The
i. Ill
B. Wilson
i. 284
Pnnell r. Slo.er
Ui. 461
Queen Ins. Co. v. Kline
iii. 876
Pauley d. H»y»
ii. 236
B. Stale
ii.277
Potmnw B. M'CIintM
iii. S8
Queen of tlie Paclflc. The i. 370
111.248
r. SntherUnd
iii. 48
pBrjtMT.Com'th
ii.390
ftuey », Gemsea
ii. 4-JO
206,207
c. Com'ih
i. 467
Queiror i-. Truenwn
11. 628
Querini SUmpbalia, The
Hi. 207
ii. SCO
Quesnel -. Woodlief
iv^.467
».Dol)Hiii
QueyrouM v. Thlbodeaui
ii.441
r.D«icb
iii. 133
Quick B. Miller
ii. 149
>.AtDch
ii. 623
Quickstep, The
ill. 282
f. Home Int. Co.
ill. 267
Quigley v. Beat^
B. SL Paul Title In.. Co.
U. 422
[. JohnioD
ii. 430
iU.263
V- Potnim
ii. 92
,0. United States
1,87
r. Story
iv. 261
Quilty i>. Battia
ii. 149
». SiilliT,D ii. 621 ;
Ui. 90, 96
Qulmby «. Boston ft Maine E. Co. ii. 449
V. Wiley
ii. S61
^.DiU
It. 84
E. Wood ih
203,206
Quin V. Britt^in
IT. 167
P;«tt E. Pyitt
111226
Quinby H. HiiKins
ir. 403
^b<a r. Smith ii
167, 170
Quince v. Caliender
ii, 461
Pfe B. Piioo
ii. 260
Qulncy, Ei parte ii
343,346
P»«R t,. PoweU
i.473
B. Steel 1,895; 11.286
^ers-Crter
iii. 419
Quincy Bridge Co. o. Adams Co
11,285
Pjk. ., WiUiims
iv.461
Qulnlan t-. Pew
iii. 217
|>m...Ot„tNortJi8niE.Co.
U.416
iii. 370
Pymm ., Btirt
iii. 207
Quinn u. Complete E. C. Co.
ii.269
".Drejfni
iii. 208
B. Halbert
ii, 461
PyD.».wiod
ii. 240
B. Kansas City, ftc. By. Co
ii.269
^ott^.DiMen
ir. 210
B. MoTse
iSL 487
Pr*e e. WiMiEghun
It. 451
n. Parke & Lacy H. Co.
ii690
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Quion D. Perham
"! Wallace
QuInCoD D. Courtney
Quirk u. Muller
RiBA u. Bjland iU. 4S
RabMW B. Orlean* Navigation Co. ii
Rabb D. Griffin iii. 29 ; i'
Uaborg u. Peyton il
Babjr B, Reerei iv
Rachal i>. Rachal i
Rachel Uulie, Wili of ii
Rackley u. Sprague iii
Racouillac v. SaoBSTain iv
RadcliS v. U. Insurance Co. i. 146. US
RadcliS'i Caw iv """
Radde v. Nonnan ii
Hader c Maddoz i
a. Union Townihip i
Radford u. Carwile Ii. 164
11. FolBom iT. 148
u, Radford ii
B. Willii iv
Radnor u. Rotheram
iv.48
Ralph Bovy's Caae
iil73
Raflaeauccia, The
iii. 187
Ralphs B. Heniler
iv.BOB
Rafferty, /n re
1.460
RalBtoD V. State Righta, The
liL218
Raffled B. Wiohelhani
ii. 4«2
Ramazotti v. Bow ring
ii815
Raft of Cypreii Logs
Ragan b. A\ken ii. 300
i. 369
Ram berg v. Wahlstrom
iv.370
iii, 468
B. Kennedy
ii. 622
Radakiisen
iu.83
Bagan's Eitate
iv. 366
Ram Coomar Coondoo ti
Chnnder
Ragg u. King
iii, 166
Canto Mookerjee
iv.449
Raggetl, In Tt
iv. 179
RamduloUday r. JJarieujt
RammeU b. Otis
iii. no
RagBdale u. EatU iii. 463; iv. 06
ii. 16
Rahilly b. WiUon
ii, 690
Rammeliberg v. HitcbeU
iii.Sfl
RahiB D. PhiU. Bank
iii. 98
i, 87S
Rabn D. Singer Mannf. Co.
ii. 260
iv. 70
Eahret, It, ™
i.489
V. Gilchrist
ii44I
Rahiray Bank v. Breviter
ii. m
r. Joyce
Ei. 176
Railway Savings Init. v. Ining
St.
V. Ram«y
iL228
Chnreh
li. 948
V. Thompson
U. 209
Raiford «. MiM. C. B. R.
Hi. 488
Ramaay A G. M. Co, v. Kel«u
ii.S46
Baigsuel i-. Ayliff
iii, 76
B.CO.
11.260.
i. 466;
2»4
il. 461
Ramtey.., People
V. Ramiey
L248
,iL269
V. DavU
iv, 304
■7. Port
Ii! 260
ii.4»>
o. Fuller
ii. 340
B. United Statei
i.2B7
B. Georgia
i. 410
ii.490
c, Halloren
ii. 600
Ramnx o, Crowe
ill. 115
B. Johnaon
i.254
Band, EtUCe of
iv. 619
V. Jonei
ii. 000
D. Hanton
U. 12l>
D. McClure
i. 419
V. Hubbard
iii. 88
V. Maine
i. 419
B. Walker
iT.305
304,608
Randxll, Petitioner
i. 308
V. Mill.
i. SOB
R.Co.
ii. 269
i>. Naf 1 Bank i. 342
; iii. 70
II, Beatty
iv. 681
B. Pratt
ii. 604
V. Bookey
iv. B07
ii. 472
*■>. BHgham
i 342;ii.SO
4 trm niemA to,]
Railroad Co. u, RichmoDd L 486
n. Rock L 826
■I. Schurmeir Iii, 461
B. Skipner iij, 438
V. Sprayberry ii. 604
V. Tennesiee L 419
f a. Trimble ii. 866
V. Whitlon L 803, 347
Railaback n. Lovejoy iii, 37
TI. Raitsback ii. 164
Railton n. Wood i. 462
Railway Co., Ex pant i. 822
V. Hutchina ii. 860. 366
c. Lawrence ii. S40
B. Nevill ii. 600
B. Ranney ii. 260
B. Vallely ii. 600
Raine V.Bell iii. 314
Raines b. American F. U. Co. ii. 460
Rainey b. Herbert iii. 4B1
Raini t>. Rays iv. 418
Raisby, The - iii. 248
Raisin p. Miti:hell iii. 230
Raipio Fertilizer Co, d, Snell i. 302
Raley v. Umatilla County iv. 122
Ralli II, Janson iii. ^96
B. Troup iii. 234
Ralph t: Brown
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Vn»mM,tb^fS
omrareriWIto.]
IIndiDr.Chabb
It. 86
TUtoim B. Wales
ii. 179
..ae«reUod
iv. see
Batcliff'< Com
iv. 387
F.Coclp«n
ui. 319
Ratcliffe d. Bamard
iv. 161, 162
E. Coak
ii. 629
r. Sboolbred
Iii. 282
{.346
22,284
Hathbon v. Badtong
u. 630. 632
r. Hunillon
ii. 21!
V. City Fire Ini. Co.
iii. 376
t. Kehlor
ii. 621
e. Drakefbrd
iii. 63
g!UcL^Khliii
i. 466
iii. 419
u. D^ckman
-. Fowler
U. 862; iv. 641
iii. 231
i.Huble
iT. ISO
Ralhbnn .■. Greer
iv. 466
IT. Hood
iii. 86
V. Ralhbun
It. 466
ji-Stwoa
ii. 470
V, Tharaton County
ii. 468
>. FhllUpa
iy. 3(i!
Rau V. Von Zedliti
ii. 461
..8.aco.
ii 260
RauBCh. In Tt
iv. 46
>.KiodiIl
iii. 87, 306
Raven . The
Iii. 248
>.Rd«wU
ii. 862. 363
Raw V. Aldereon
U. 846, 647
». SmEtb
iii. 106
Rawdou 1.. Dodge
iT.461
,. Sw«et
ii236
RftwlEngB „. Adam.
iv. 80, 50
Bti»de11,/fc
i». 608
RawUni D. Vidvard
ii. 15
BtDdle r Kchirdwn
iii. 28
1.. Wickham
ii.400
Biodolph 0. Carlton
I. Piriih
U. 118
iii. 88
iii. 75
Kawli ». American M. L
Ins. Co. iii. 869
^ Qoidnick Co.
i.S42
V. Deabler
iii. 207
..Wendel
It. 278
Rawlyn. v. Van Dyke
ii. 103
Budolph'i CMC Lieut.
ii82
Rawton, fU
ii. 681
ludolpb Nu. Butk f. Boroblower
V. Corbett
ii.226
iii. 88
il. 70, 126
lUogckf -: mX^ R. Co.
iv. 277, 278
Rawitron b. Taylor
iii. 440
iii. 410. 482
Bay r. Adams
iv.311
BMfBlj r. WelMter
i.281
%.Adden
ii. 146
RMger.The
i. 143
p. Alden
M. 146
r. Loper
iv. 418
».GreMWe»temRCo.
u. 284
...PnJig
iv.43
SukiD F. JODM
iii. 66
V. Sherwood
11.86
ii. 481
B. Simmons
ii.4B8;iv.306
>. Potter
iii. 381
V. Simpion
ill. 89
t. Reive
iii. 816
V. Smith
iii 106, 109
Bimi v. Hogbea iL 460, 464 : iii. 121
V. Tatam
iv. 161
RuDeUiD.Gemer ii
461 ; iv. 4S
V. Tnbbs
IL 241, 687
Rtimef V. Orleani N. Co.
ii.284
V. Underwood
11403
Bbum p. Jonea
iii. 70
Ray & Thornton i>. Bank of Kentucky
F.HMk
Ul. 107
ii.401
HtoHne F. Bnnmi
ii. 191
RaymoDd c. Boaton Woren Hoae Co.
Sum .. Sherwood
iU. 80
ii. 366
SiMleul ». B«nit«ad
It. 360
B. Eerker
iU. 470;lv. 491
Bipe;.H»toD
1.362
B. Leavltt
ii.466
B>pbul t>. Bank of England
iii. 82
i-. LoyI
U. 198
>.Boetain
ii.281
■. Middlelon
iii. 76
Rij.id,TlH.
i. 66, 67
V. Morriion
iv. 460
Bipid Tmniil, The
iiL 1B4
B. RnMell
Ii. 16
B»pid T. L. Co. V. Sauford
ii. 286
V. Tyeon
V. Viughn
ill. 228
B.pi«. /- ™
i. 268
iU. 68
S<pp.. Latham
ill. 46, 48
r. White
ii.844
Ririm ^ler P. Co. >. VflB
BciiKi i D. B. R. B. r. Dela
iY. 278
Raymond. Sir Charles, Case of iu. 52
te iii. 449
Rayner v. Godmond
wareA .
B. Mitchell
u.2ao
^R.Cao.1
ii. 459
B. Mowbray
iv.5S7
R^eigh r. Muter
iii. 471
B. Preeton
iii8T6
luchford r. Meadows
Iii. 147
Raynee b. Bennett
ii. 146
Hwdill V. DaTb a
582; i». 138
Raynor v. Padflc Bank
i.427
f . Ptenten' Bank
iiLOe.109
V. WUion
It. 104
».Batdar
iY.402
Rea 0. Dnrkee
ii. 146
•.Vance
ii678
B. ShmmotM
IL602
sObyGoOl^lc
kl piigH arfl nlflnwl to.]
Re*
.Wood
Beab
». McAlittor
Bew
V.Adams
Amidon
IS,
Brewer
Chspraui
tit
Erie By. Co.
Gre»t EMtoiT
R. Co.
Hull of a New Brig
Legard
MuniDg
Hanih
PtMer
Troelove
Beade v. Bentley
[L22
ti. 4TS
flL96
ii. 69S
ULee
U.176
UJ. 178
U.160
166, 176
iii. 440
U. 416
iii. 170
172, 210,
V. Livinntan ii. 17S, 441, 442 ; W. S09
Bekdhead u.llidland R. Co. ii. 600
Heading v. BlackweU ii. 280
0. Wilion ii. 226
Reading Fire loi. Co.'i Appeal ii. ST
Reailing K. R. d. PeaDiylTania i. 489
Headman v. Conwa; ir. 110
Ready d. Keaisley iv. 290
Reagan v. Fumen' Loan & T. Co. i 221,
828.320,861,430
Reahert d. Sanford ii. 149
Real KbL M. F. Ins. Co. v. Roeule iii. 257
Ream it. McElhone ii. 612
Reaper*' Bank i'. Willard iii. 04
Re»veB B. WatermaD ii. 603
Reavis u. Rearii ii. 106
Rebecca. The > ii. 630; ilL 206, 218
Rece V. Newport News Co. ii. 286
Reciprocity Bank, /n re i. 419
Reck D. Clapp Iv. 469
V. Phenix Idb. Co. UL 282
Reckendorfer v. Faber ii. 366
Rector n. Aghley i. 826
P. Fiiigenld ii. 122
V. Waogh iv. 369
Hector of the Afceniion u. Bnckhart
ii. 284
Rector of Holy Trinity Chnrch v.
United Slatei 1. 462
Rector, &c c. Mack
Reddall v. Bryan
Red da way e. Bantam
Reddel v. Dobree
Red f earn b. Ferrier
Hedfern v. Hedfern 11
Bedford u. Peggy
Redgrave v. Hurd ii.
Hedington v. Browne
Redlon c, Churchill
Redman v. Hartford Fire In«. Co.
i: Snnden iv. 448
D. Wilton iii. SOO
BedmoD D. Fhimii Fire Id*. Co.
Iv. 194
I 816; ii. MO
ii. 366
BS, 288
Redmond v. Indnitrial B. Ah
■n ilLSTO
Bedpath e. Bkdi
ii.H
u.VaiiRliai)
Red BlverlJiM v. Cheatham
ia,2l7
iisw
Red Sea, The
asia
Rodway v. Gray
ii. 16
Reece v. Miller
iiL413
Beed V. Bachellor
ii. 236
V. Bladea
ii.520
B. Bnya
ii. ISO
V. Canfleld
iii. 186
P. Cotter
iLSGG
f . Frankfort Bank
ii.S07
«. Head
ii.s&t
V. Holliday
B. Home SkTiagt Bank
ii.373
iL2W
«. Howard
iii- 65
«. Hw«.y
iii. 186, 196
P. Jewell
ii.631
V.Lane
ii.236
o.LanBdate
iv. MS
t.. MadUon
iL195
V. Meagher ii. 4M
V. MorriKin iv. 42. 44, 48
V. Norria
iv.«8
v. Fierce
iv. 4J1
v. Beed U.67, JH;
iv.306.43T
V. Beynglda
ui.«4
iii. 66
r. iSted State*
ii. 438
iii. 138, 224
u. Ward
Ui. 4T0
V. Wllmot
u.fi-JO
V. Wilaon
iii. 98
Reed'* Appeal
U.430
ii.afie
e. Machen
ii.4B2
V. Pnrdy
ir. 118
V. Sayre
iv. 109
Beedie i> London & N. W. B. Co. ii. 260
Reedy v. MiUiten
ii.436
Reek* r. Po«tletbwaite
iv. 190
Reel f. Elder U
117 ; IT. 68
Reel n. Chicago
iiL 461
V. Peltzer
iLaT3
o, Wagner
iv.686
Reeae t>. McQullUn
iv. 471
0. Water*
ii. TO
Reeae R. SUrer Wnlng Co. »
Atwell
ii.441
iii. 260
Reeaide, Schooner
Ree*ide f. Walker
i.822
Reeve v. Conyngham
ii. 146
V. DavU
iii. 133
r. Gallivan
ii. 16
«.Long
It. 249
V. Parkins
iii. 60
Reeve* v. Ayere
in. 88
'■ 9,'-PP^' « on. «
iL68l
T^. CDn»titQtiaa,'Tbe a 687; iii- 231
u. Coming i-449
r. Harrig H. 49T
r. Jiihniion Iv. 486
D. Mf^Kenzie iii. 473, 47T
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
tHw i—rghul vtM
Rtcret r. Tmpan ir. 326
s. Wood Coniitr ii. 340
RelbnD. Tbe i. 466
RefuiV.E.Co.p.PaciflcG.E.Co. ii.3e6
Beg. {tt QnMD tud B«s)
R^gel, Bz parte ii. 82
Btnier b. Looiaiwu S. H. & F. Ins.
Ca. iii. ST6
R«butti.Rchart ii. 126
Behoboth d. Hunt ir. 369
Brichut t. Fein i. 826
Kachcl V. BUhop of Oxford ii. 477
BckUi D. Gmensfelder ii. 269
Keichwild v. Commercial Hotel Co,
Bcid B. CamptMU
iv. 41
v.Darbj
iii. 131
B. Fitch
ir. 309
rU»n
i. 37
>.EIirt
i. 413
«. KolUnibMd
iii. 25
>.Hotkiiu
i.87
».EDg
ii.366
t. UoTd
r. Moiile Bank
U. 4W
iii. 81
E. MorriioD
iiLoe
.,P.rT,e
iii. 107
p.Reid
L46T: ii. 162
«. ShenoM
.. The SutB
iv. 3ie, 844
iY.424
B«>dpith'. CaM
ii. 47T
Ui. 109
Reiffi. Bant
iv.-W5
Kdll? r. Cimpbell
ii.259
.. Chonquette
iT.S34
*. Pbillipi
iT. 190
..SmiuT
ill. 67
BdiDv P. RiDgroM
iii. 296
ssi'ffi"'
iii. 432
ii. 122
Beinboth o. Zerbe Run Imp. Col it. 871
BeiDbttdtB. Fritache
i. 4«7
Bdnitt,/.™
i. 87; ii. 20
B<!iiHtadlert>. Reeves
i. 302
Btd >. StnttoD
I>. 848
BMMher v. Borwick
iii. 302
BiiMr V. WUliMQ TeU SBTiagt Aaa.
tUia r. HMchett
ii.865
i». 143
Bein tr. Ilntt
ir.809
Beimutein b. Uwqnwdt
ii. 687
B. E. Lee, The
ii.600
BelfB. Tbe Maria i
i 183. m. 199
IUI«W!e,ThB 1
i. 188, 196. 246
BedMKc M. Ini. Co. ». New York A,
C.M.S.CO.
Bdier. The iii. 248
BcUet nre Ina. Co. V. Bhaw iii. 257
BeUe V. Wetiem niii<m Tel. Co. ii. 611
Briph ■. Gilt ir. 453
BtlfeaB.KuinaCi^,&cB. Co. 11.259
Beni«7 e. BarUngtoD 11. 4S0
Bewick B. CKyle iU. 97
Tdt^rrsd to.]
Remick o. Sandford ii. i
Reminrton b. Hurington UL 1
D. linthicum ir. A
B. Wright ii. i
Remmel b. Towniend ii. (
Remmington v. Cadf ir. I
Removal Cuei i. I
Remsen v. BeelLmui iii. 1
V. Remiea ii. i
ReD D. BuUceley it. i
Kenali v. Cawlishaw it. 4
Reoaud v. Abbott i. i
V. Touranffeaa iv, 1
Kendall v. ADdreD iii. A
Rendle v. Reodle ii. i
RendBberB, The ii. I
Rendsborg, The i.
Renick D. LudingtoD ii. {
Renier b, Hurlbert i. S
Renihan ■>. Wright ii. 1
Rennell a. Kimball Mi. 1
RennerB. Bank of Columbia iii. 103, 2
B. Downer iii 105, 1
Rennyion't Appeal iii. 4
Reno B. Hogan ii. t
Reno Water Co. tr. I*ete iL !
Renpor, The iii. 2
RenseDB b. Staples iv. 4
Retuhaw v. Triplett iii. I
of
iii. 4
Reotch B. Long ii. 504
Renchrop b. Botirg iii, 433
Rentoo v. ChapUn ill. 69, 61, 64
B. Marrrott Iii. 68
Renw ick D. Macomb It. 1S6
B. Williams iii. 91
Renf an b. Merserean It. 104
Reppert v. Colrin iii. 61
RcpreienlatiTe Election, In re i. 228
Republic Bank v. Yoang iii. 81
Republic of Chili v. London & River
Plate Bank i. 26
Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger t. 297
Republic of Honduras v. Soto i. 297
Republic of Mexico u. De Arrwigoit
L2a7
Republic of Peru v. Drerfoi L 26
D. Peruvian Guano Co. i. 25
B. Weguelin i. 2ff7
Republican Pub. Co. b. Conroy ii. 16, 22
Requa i>. Domestic Pub. Co. It. 103
Renck b. Kern iii. 462
Rescue, The v. George B. Robert*,
The lil. 248
Reserve Hut Ins. Co. b. Kane iii. 369
Respnblica b. Chapman ii. 40
B. De Longchamps i. 39, 473
B. Keppele ii. 264
Resseter b. Waterman ii. 610
Restitution S. S. Co. v. Pirie Iii. 206, 207
Reiton V. Melville ii. 429
ReuMtu V. Staples iv. 451
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
[TiM uugimil p«i«a in nlsired to.]
Renter e. Electric Tel. Co.
ii.291
Bex or Reg. e. Howet
V. Hudron
ii.l93
i>.Sal>
IL 468. 479
iii. 450
Beutgen v. Kaaown
Revel «. Wnkimon
1L86B
5. Hatchinaon
i.3e
iY.74
Keven. n. Lewis
Ui. 167
iLlT9
Revere u. Boiton Copper Co
a 316
ii.263
Revett 17. Harrer
li.231
ii.8&
Revis V. Smith
ii.2a
D. Inhabilant) of Brampton
11. lohabitanti of Cromford
ii.87
Rex or Reg. v. Adderiey
iv.05
ii.263
ii.296
D. Inhabitant* of Cumb
1.460
V. Allen
1460
i.467
I'.i^^y
i). 812
ii.228
U.26I
ii.3«
V. Aih/orth
L37
::!.'r'
U.300
i. 36
ii.296
o.B«ikofEneUiid
U. 290, 296
V. Bulow
i. 487
ii.21»
ii. 209
ii.242
V. Bunet Vnian
a. 198
V. Ini. Co.
iii. 876
o. Bedford level
ii.64d
17. Iveni
iLGffI
n. Beeston
ii. 633
v. Jackion
iL12G
f. BellriDger
U.2M
t>. Jiuticefl of Cutnberiand
It. 96
D. Betteaworth
iLlTO
1.822
r. Bigg
ii.289
i.36
!>. Blrwiitle
L467
u. Langton
11.277
0. Bower
U.2^
». Leake
iU,4ei
o.Box
iii. 77
o. Licenilng JiutlcM
1.469
■r. Brighton
11.82
V. Lisle
11.295
17. CtMdwick
11. 86
17. Lister
U.370
e. Cheafor
U. 848
p. Lloyd
iii. 451
e. Cfaeiter, Biihopof
ii. SOO
...London L 462; H.
278, 310
0. Cbotley
Ui. 449
V. LondoDthorpe
ii.348
c CUrcQce
1.462
V. LoDgtoD Gas Co.
v. Lord
iii, 438
•>. Clarke
iLI93
ii.a86
D. Clement
1.800
hi. 430
0. CllTJger
B. Cordbrtb
ii. 179
V. Lord Tarborongb
iii. 428
a 216
(r. Lord* of the Treaiuiy
lU. 471
c. Croke
U.300
0. Loxdale
1.463
». Croeby
i.286
o.Lufte
U.218
c. Crou
111.448
». LumUv
p. McCtaverty
ii.436
D. Crump
L24B
U.298
i, 26
1.188
V. DanieU
ii. 370
B. M'Gregor
i.368
0. DeUral
11.104
...Marqais of Stafford
It. 344
V. De MuineriUe
ii. 194, 220
e. Mayor of Hasting*
1467
n. Diion
11.340
T,. Mayor of Liverpool
U. 800
p.Dodd
iii. 26
D. Mead
U. 181
o. Dorhun
ii.206
V. Merchant Taylort' Co.
ii.296
!7. Edington
IT. 160
V. Miller
U. 203
f.Elie
Ii. 871
B. MiUis
ii. 87
V. Ely. Biihop of
11.302
r. Mole
U. 867
V. P.^dkiier *^
1.800
B. Moore
11.340
v. Forty-ninB CMk* of Brandy i. 29,
K.Morgan
1.466
366
■7. Morrish
iii. 462
t>.FaHeI
U.370
B. Mucklow
ii.866
». Clyde
U.866
o. Hunden H. 192, 208
p. Great N. of E. R. Co.
ii.290
V. Pasmore - U. 290, 800, SIS
0. QreenhiU
aiH206
V. Peck
U.266
«. Grifflthi
i:467
ir. Peters
U. 867
V. GyngkU
11.198
V. Petrie
Ui. 461
». Hill
1.469
p. PlersoB
H.223
p. Hay
U. 484
B. Poole
li2»
B. UisciiuoD ii.
840 ; It. 608
■7. Property Derdkt
a. 367
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CABE3.
[The nurgliiiil piigH me nferr^ to.]
BaorReEf. lUchirdaon
t- KoblnKD
ii. 297
Co.
of Penna.
i. 467
iiL32S
t.Rah»D
iii. 24
Rhode Island t>. MRU&choBettB i. 324
1. S^dlera' Co. ii.
294, 2W, 2i)8
Rliodes, In re
ii. 436, 451 ; iii. 365
>. St. John
ir. 89
V. CleToluid
ii. 234
>. SuntUff
iii. 432
f. Monies
ii. 612 ; iii. 46
I. Si. Hichul'a
iv. 160
V. Rhodes
if. 451, 537
•.StPsnl
iv. 451
17. Rodgera
ii. 15
r Selboroe
ii. 193
V. Seymour
iii. 89
cSmilb U. lM;iii
. 427 ; IT. 89
V. Switlienbank
ii.'m
t. Solegimrd
i.366
V. W«lsli
1.285
e.Soper
ii. 216
-. Whitehecd '
It. 203
c. SpiHic«r
, ii. 204
Rislto. The
iii. 248
>, SuTtrton
ii. 318
Ribbans v. Crickett
iv. 464
e. Sl«Ten»
iT. 86
Rice, 103 Casks of
i.367
t. StockUnd
u. 87
Rice, In rt
i.322
>. Smnd Bowd of Works iii. 432
V. Albee
ii.269
(.Thorp
ii. 219
V. Austin
iii. 34
V. ThnnWn
i. 467
p. Benedict
ii.6ei
r.-nbihelf
ii. 90
p. Bo-ton&W.RR.
U.e04; iv. 122
.. ToUon
ii. 79
V. Boyer
ii. 241
r,Tr.in
iii. 432
r. Cook
iii. 89
r. TnnbridgB OveneerB
i.46-2
V. Coolidge
ii. 22
V. Uakm Ins. Co,
iii. 8 19
V. Courtis
ii.407
e. 0. K. TeL Co.
iii. 432
V. D'Arvillfl
ii. 259
r.Vwlo
H.298
R. Harbeson
ii. 468
r. Victor!* Pwk
ii. 284
D.Hart
ii.eoi
■r-VUIei.
ii. 231
V. Hogan
iii. 94
p.ViD.
1.487
0. Homery Co.
ii. 463
.. Walioo
fi. 632. 634
V. King Philip HilU
a269
t. Weitwood
U. 294, 296
B. McLarren
iii. 180
r. WliMler
ii.36a
V. McReynoldi
ii. 138
t. Whitt«ker
U.293
V. National Credit Int
Co. Hi. 263
>. Whilwdl
ii.314
r. New Eng. M. Ids. Co. iii. 282, 284
r.Wire
i.487
V. Parkman
ii.340
».WiilSin« i
«0: U.20e
r.Peet
ii. 451
I. Wrraton
ii. 90,96
B. PoUy & Kitty
The
iU. 178, 182,
5epn.P.M.Co.t. Holmei
iii. 81
186,199
fieiTMh t. Coon
ii. 348
<.. R. B. Co.
i:464
R<JMl. Sir George, C«m of
iii. 4G7
ti. Rice
U. 164 ; iv. 179, 608
K^nith (-. iUrtin
iv. 126
e. Richanlj
iii. 37
K«JDOldl, fiiport!
ii.71
B. RnddiDUUi
iii. 427
Iii. 105
V, Sander*
iv. 194
B.AIIB.B.C0.
ii. &45
V. Shefdierd
ii. 146
Bdllock
iii. 64
0. Stearns
iii. 98
Cheltle
iii. 79
0. Tower
iii. 376
DogglM,
iii. 113
V. United StatM
L 248. 467
a«7
ii. 340
D. Wood
ii. 618
Hick.
m. 26, 61
Rice's Appeal
ii. 280
Jei
lil. 207
mce's Case
ii. 226
Btynold. U. 209 ; iv. U, 416
Rich V. Aldred
ii. 566
SheldM,
ii.368
V. Atwator
U. SBB; iv. 460
ShDler ii. 8t4
iii. 461, 488
p. Cookell
ii. 168, 171
Stockton
2eO; U.120
r. Coe
ii. 682; iii. 101
Sirong
Ii. 182
B. Flanders
i. 409, 466
8.,in i
478 ; Iii. 481
V. Gllkey
iv. 632
SwcMMT
ii. 198
V. Kneeland
ii. 699
Topptn
m. 1S8, lei
t>. Lambert
1.299; iii. 217
WUawth
It. 369
D. Mnnroe
11. 62S
Wiue
Ii. 280
Richard J. Carney, The
Hi. ISB
Rqwui, Brofc 17. Pool
RtadwMwhe, The
ghftp.Neirport,**. R-Co.
iii. 26
Richard v. Hupp
iii. 440
m. 367, 868
U.34S; iv. 206
i. 4S9
V. Barlow
iii. 76
Bhn*
hirt..B«riioo
ii. 2S0
K. Bellingham B. L. Co. It. 4S
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Bichud* I). Bergftreiuiy, Ijt4y
V. Butcher
p. Batler
V. Chambera
tr. Cbue M. Co.
0. CoUim
s. Day
e. Deibridge
li. «
i>. Farmen' InititDte li. 277
0. H&rper liL 419
ir. Holmn It. 148
o. Knight i*. 160
V. HallHni la 89, 66
B. Micb. 8. & Nortfaem Ind. & A.
ii. 604
B. M'Kie It. 306
V. Monroe ill. 81
v.IUcliudi iilSe; IT. 68
V. Rou uL 410
V. Rots i. 456
B. SyniB It. 194
D. Travellera' lui. Co. iii.S66
Bichardion v. Anthony ir. 118
u. Beebe ii. S2
V. Borigbt 11. 238
r. Boiton 1. 301 i ii. 3S2
B. Carbon H. C. Co. 11. 259
V. Chlckertng It. 4R6
V. DaggBtt
K. Dorr
V. Du BoU
V. Dancui
V. Goal
c. Great Eai
r.HogB
V. Hughitt
V Mattitoii
D. Melliih
V. UUbtun
V. N. T. Central B. B.
V. OlmiUad
V. Richai^wm
t>. Sibley
V. SkoUeia
f. Sin at) wood
V. Stodder
V. Stone
B. Tober
V. Wallia
I'. WilllamioD
K. Woodbuiy
Tticbardaon'i Appeal
Richart b. Scott
Richditie, Ex paria
Richelien Uot«l Co. v. Miller
<i.463
ii. 614, 644, 661, 642
ill. 78
o By. Co. ii. 600
iii.36
iii. 26
1. i. 142; ill. 266,
2«S,26ft,
i.S02
a 466; Ui. 466
lii. 438
i, 419,468;
lii. 72
ill. 176
U. S66
IU.66i It. 4»)
iT. 166
ii. 6.32
It. 14»
iii.228
ii. 120
lii. 4S7
m. 79
iT. 807
4 ue nfomd to.]
Blchelieo &0. NaT. Ca v. Beaton M.
Ini. Co. liL 287, 318
Richer i>. Voyer ibl 89
Blcheaon d. Simmons ii. 107
Richmond v. Adama Nat. Bank
II. Aiken
J. Gray
461
It. IM
iT.461
iL44l
1-. Long 11 274
r. Smith tt. 69S, 6H
D. State iL 287
V. Voorhee* ii. 164
Richmond (Dnke of) it. HlhM ii M
Richmond Mfg. Co, v. Atlantic De
lAine Co. iil 440
Richmond Turnpike Co. i>. Vattder-
bilt ii. 26&
Richmond t D. B. Co. ■>. BedeU ii.630
B. Benaon iii. 207
V. Greeawood ii, 16
tr. JeBeraon ii. 269
Riohmond NerTine Co. v. Rlchmmid
ii. see
Richter d. Poppenhoaen iii. 67
B. ReyDoIda i. 284; ii. 366
Bickard v. Moore ii. 404
Bickardi o. Mordock iii. 286
Rickenbacker v. Zimmerman It. 418
Bicker b. Charter Oak Life Im. Co.
lii, 300
1-. Ham iT. 464
V. KellT iiL 468
Bickm B. Madeira It. 161
Bicketa b. Diekina it. 474
Bicketta c. Jollifl ii. 461
V. Pendleton iii- 04
lUcketti' Tmata, A It. S30
Rickford b. Ridge U. 88. 106
Rlcka B. Bloont ir. 436
V. Doe It. 460
V. Willlami it 637
Bico B. ft M. Co. V. MnagraTe it. 370
Blcord B. Bettenham L 106, 107
V. Central Pac. R. Co. ii. i84
Bidden B. Fricbard iii. 81
D. Biddell It. 46
Ridden b. ThraU ii. 448
Riddle B. Bryan It. 4S«
B. Proprietor! ot Locks, Ac. on
MerrimacBirer U. 27^200, 202
G. SteTena iii. 86
V. Welden ill. 476. 4T7
B. WhitehiU iT. 148
Riddle's BsUte It. 418
Ridenhour e. Kansas City C. Ey. Co.
ii. 241
BIder B. Blckerton 11416
B. Rnlieon ii. 16
B. Wager It. 628
Rider L. R. Co. b. Boach ii. 800
Rideway StoTe Co. e. Way 11. S43
Kidge B. Wilson Ui. 472
;abyG00<^lc
TABLB OF CASES.
ccxxiii
rn» DHClD^ I>a*. »« rtf.r>«l to.]
B>^'*TnBti.7iir«
It. 201
Biplej r. Scufb
111.208
KAtd>^jv.Cmj
Hi. «6; It. 811
B.SeligmMi
It. 806
Ridnlj Bulk s. FMaa
Iii.S8
iii. 87
tidtnj,.CiMn
iiLSfi
B. WightmM
Bippe c. Becker
iii. m
..Dij
tU. 109
i. 268
..QfU
11.463
V. Chic«o, Ac. R. B. Co.
RiidoQ Iron & Loc. Worki b. Mt
lU. 413
11.101
Ui.S9
iT. 371
•dan
11.10
11.866
Ridiogic.Joliiuoo
L3e5
Rishton e. Whfttmore
11.404
HHto.Ar,
i*. ia5
Rleieii o. Bromi
ui. 461
>.]fidler
it. 411
It. 113
Ridley, /■&
IL 170
iii. ^0
>. Coleman
It. 617
Bliley 0. Gray
ill. 01
rSbntrooke
L284, 40e
V. PhcBoiz Bank
1.66
..Ttjlor
11143,44
V. Ryle
111.482
lUdrud r. FhilUp*
UL 226, 296
Ritchie t>. Atkliuon
iU. 227
^atr.hrt
ill. 66
u. Boyd
11.401
Wfe..Gejet
i». 131
u. Bradihaw
iU. 88
Bi^J, li- parte
iv. 582
D. Broadbent
am
It. 307
B. Couper
iU. 156
iv.sei
„. Kaniaa, &a By
Ca
IT. 122
RipionB.Conley
ii. 449
„. HnlUn
ii.120
BiRi >. CommerdKl Int. Co. iii. 360
0. People
ii,260
..hbnmmCo.
L 829,842,410
». Summers
11. 478
r.Han.y
11.5.30
t-. Waller
11.256
..Pdnwr
It. 632
Ritchmyer v. Moral
ii.343
„ r.8.lir
It. 16
Riltenhouu e. Independent Une
ofT.
Bighlt.BMrd
W. 114
ii.611
r-Crebw
It. 206, 274
Ritter v. Hofltaan
1.260
>.DubT
It. 112. 118, 114
f. Ne-YorkMnt.L.lii^Co
111.309
■.Price
It. 616
R1.«M B. Walker
It. 450
BightoB r. Kghton
It. 171
RiT«8 r. SoUrj
iT.467
Kpwjr. LoYsjoy
It. 194
Rirai „. Gemoi
Iii. 286
Eik«..AU«.
It. 805
Ri.er Wear Com'ra v.
Adanuon
ill. 232
MV-ADdSrtOB
m.79
RirerB r. Greffi
iii. .169
>.0«rdeM
It. 208
RiTe» r. Dndley
11.282
.. Hirtford Ini. Co
at 270,311
Bix V. Bix
11. 101
>.Han»
li.588
r. Strong
ii.509
■■HcCord
It. 182
Rijiey v. Pearro
iii. 76
..lWk»y
11.236
Hoach t>. Caldbeck
Ii. 16
t. HowleV
11.429
0. Coiine
iii. 481
iii. 232
r. GarTMi
iL 226,226
.i^^'
ii. 76,431
ii.283
B. Hammond
B. Qnlck
It. 587
11.240
Biidg* c. Biker
111.437
i>. Peny
iii. 28
^^^Jndwn
iii. 1:j3
«. Van Bitwick
1.884
BindiktA... Buret
iii. 76
r. Wadham
It. 836
838,473
RiiKT c. Buhdder
il. S43
Road Co. V. Creeger
11.292
BiDgc. F»«aUin
111. 1S4, 136, 160
Roadi V. OTBTwen of Trnmpiogton
t. Hnniingitai
il. 452
Iii. 462
„, ».PlMn«A».Co.
ii. 4B0
iv
171, 436
B'sgdoTe.The
Iii, 170
Roake v. Denn
It. 336
5i>igw».HoltKl.w
ii. 4«4
Roan n. Holmei
iT. 46
Ut>H0ldr.H<ao»
IT. 424
RoAuoke, The
1.370; iii
217, iSi
Bin^ .fKidT Lmim
"wOrtDdCttfoCai..
11.281
Roanoke B. & L. Co. t
lv.162
twroogh U. 159
Roarty b. MitcheU
jr. 148
Bonu ill. 24
Roat V. PuD
It. 4S7
JwSkHIJnger.Tbe
111. 164
Rob V. Vo.
ii. 616
Upk>,.S^nt
i». 356
Bobardi v. Jones
1V.2B2
»ipl«r.M.ttSrot
ill. 197
Bobarti B. Tucker
1U.66
».J:io»ln..Co.
iii. 262
Bobb V. ConnoUy
i.401
•. Ebon QlsM Co.
11.866
V.Green
11.269
.Kuy^bory
U1.41
..Hodge
Iii. 66
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Robblai r. Bonnan
Ul. 433
v. Cheek
iii. 89
r. Chicago
lu274
D. Fuller
Ui.e4
e. LuweU
m.8o
V. Oldham
a.tJD
V. Pinokard
ML lis
t>. Bobbins
ii. 101
t. Bheiby Taxing District L 429, 4S9
V. Swain iv. 418
e. Webb ir. 480
Bobei^ r. WinM 11. 4M
Bobenon v. Relwr iii. 91
Bobert, In re ir. 418
0. Comm. Bank 111.119
V. New Eng. M. L. Ins. Co. iii. 369
Robert Faltoo, The i. ST9 ; li. 125
Robert Hollaiid, The ia 232
Robert Ritaan, Tiie iiL 199
Bob«rt'« Will, Hatter of il. 46B ; It. 613,
Robert*, Re ii. 82
V. AndenoD it. 464
V. Aiudn 11. 630
p. Barker ii. 347
c. BeatCj ii. 608
i;. Bozon iv. 146
V. Cii. M. IM. Co.
111. 872
p. Cooke
It. 641
P.Cooper
iT. 449
t-. Corbin
iii. 88
V. Crawforf
It. 170
e. DixaUorDisweU
iT. 81, 146.
219,846
V. Eberhwdt
iU. 61
t.. Evaua
11164
p. Fleming
It. 148
p. Hall
Ui. 79. 81
V. Holland
iv. 869
B. Holt
111.221
V. Jackton
ir. 891
B. Knighia
IL TO ; Ul. 186
t.. MulUndM
ii.48S
0. Meyen
11. S7S
p. Novel
ii.666
p.Pea-ke
lU. 7(
p. Phcenlx M. L. Ina. Co. iii. 869
p. RelllT i- 301 ; ii. 82
e. Richard* ill. 440
V. Robert! ii. 16, 520
». Ryer ii
0. SalUboij It. 164
e. Scalea ii
O.Smith a 260 J lU. 76
p. StuyTeaant S. D. Co. il ~
«. Turner ii. 691, 600
I'. WatkiDi li. 164
V. Wlrain ii- 286, 237, 240
c. Wyatt ii. 677
RoberCaon, The ill. 164, 464
Robertton a. Amawn, 4c. Co. 11. 479
0. AttanUc Mnt. Ina. Co. ill. SSI
V. Baker i
p. Berry & Co. U. 866, 87S
V. BoitoD & A. B. Co. il
•tnml to.]
BoberUon f . Bulliona fi. 274
p. Campbell it. 166
p. Carutlieta iii. 821
p. Clarke iii. 131, 178, 2W
D. Claakey ii. 145
V. Swell ii. 616, 621
V. Ewer iii. 236, -286, 306
V. French iii. 180
V. Hardy iv. 2tt3
p. Kennedy iv. 468
p. Majorlbanki iii. 284
p. Metropolitan lua. Co. IiL 376
p. National S. Co. ill. 210
p. Norrli iL ISO
P. ^ckrell IT. 261
p. RoweU iii. 86
p. St. Jobni Ir. lOS
p. Smith ii. S89
E. United Ini. Co. iU. 269
p. Van CleaTe 1. 418
E. WaU ii. 22«
V. WeitQ. M. i F. Int. Co. iii. 331
Robmon t'. BittiiiKer iii. 448
Robey & Co.'e Fertereranoe Iron
Work! D. Oilier ii. 649
Bobie p. Flandert It. 93, 70
p. Sedgwick ii. 277
Bobin P. Caitile ii. I8S
p. Hardaway iii. 307
Robinetl t. The Baxter ill. 186
Bobins p. CoiyeU ir. 616
V. Embry ii. 816
V. GibioD UL 109
B. Gray ii. 6i)2
Itobinion. Exparte L 881 ; UL 64, 77
Inrt ii. 1&4
p. Aldridge iii- 43
p. AnderaoD iii. 28
p. Appletoo It. 152
p. Baker iL 639
p. Batchelder U. 608
D.BUDd U.9%469,4ei; ir. 441.
61S
0. CampbeU L S41
p. Clieney ill. 96
0. Chitlendea ill- 188
p. Clapp Ul- 448
c. Commonwealth Ini. Co. iii. 178,
320
1-. Coulter ii. 238
c. Cowpen L. Board iiL 432
p. Cropsey it. 144
p. Crowder iL W7 ; UL 88, 44
p. DaTiioa iL 468
r. neering It. 113
V. Duleep Singh iiL 4&4
p. DunmorB U. 617, 601
r. Durall Hi. S69
p. Floyd ui. 64
p. Franklin a B. Co. Iii. 206
u. Gallier il. 486
p. G. F. Blake H. Co. ii. 260
V. Grave Ui. 419
V. Gregory iU. 44
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Botitewn p. Gninold
ii. 147
Roddick v. Indemnitr H. M. lue.
Co.
iT.2M
iii. 282
rHumaa
ii. 4Tfl
Roddy e. Mo. Pac. By. Co.
ii. 468
I. Hiwktfi»d
ill
S3, 104
iii. 80
..Hofmu
iv. 869
Radee v. Detroit F. & H. Ini
Co
iii. 807
cHolit
iii.
188. 164
>.Hnnt
iii. 365
11.436
i. 67
Rodger V. Comptoir d'Escompte
de
(.KnighU
iii. 228
Pari*
11.649
i.LkkeDMl
It. 280
Rodgera v. Bnrchud
It. 469
(.Uiion
It. 161
V. Jonea 11.
4D4
iT, 181
D. HDKanDid
It. 307
i;. Meranda
iii. 66
v. McDoiuid
ii.3S6
■>. Nilea
li. 479
; iii.
147, 148
V. Wittenmyer
ii. 461
v.lIsriDeIiu.Ck». lii
229, 330; 816 1
Rodliff o. Dailioger
11.680
B-Hollett
ii. 6!i2
Rodney v. Chamben
li. 178
■.O'Neal
11.164
B. Wilson
lii. 109
..PiTxe
It. 468
Rodney H. M. Co. d. Stewart
11.498
..FicknU
iT. eis
Rodocanachi t>. Elliott
iii. 291
B.Pa*en
11.206
B. MUbum
lii, 207
r. Price
iii. 284
Rodrignez b. Heffeman ii
626; iii. 59
*■ Queen
ii. 150
Boe B. Ashbumer
iT. 106
>.Be7Doldi 11165.166; iii. 86
B. QrifflthB
It, 262
..Ring
ii. 438
B. Hayley
It. 478
■.Bobinion ii
125,
226,486
V. Hodgton
11.228
D. SimmoDi
iii. 68
t.. Jeffrey
It. 278, 279
». Slurt li. 649
iii. 138
I'.JoDea
iT. 262
f . TreTor
iT. 170
o. Pogaon
It. 74
>. U. S. HuHul Ace. A»-n
iii. 365.
p. Prideaiu it
620
; It. 107
369
B. SiddoDi iii. 424
; JT. 466
r.Drqnh«rt
iT. m
V. Taylor
iT. 608
».WMk.
U.236
B. TrwHOart
iv
493,404
V. mikiMon
iii. 31
V. Trannar
iv. 208
>. WiUiuni
iv
162, 176
V. ViDKtlt
=. WiltinBOO
iT. 819
lW»n«ni'> C.«,
11.71
It. 112
Bobinion'i EiUU
It. 278
V. York
iT.462
BoliuoB Buk D. Ulller
iii. 37, 8B
Roebuck, The
111108
RobiwD D. CodmM
iT. 46
Roebnek v. Duprey
It. 474
Bohwo ,. HontTM., The
LI
; Iii. 248
Roecliff, The
iU
226,232
.. JC». B. L. Co.
ii. 468
Roehler b. Merfianlci' Aid
11.298
V. OUrer
111.106
Roehner b. KiiicketbockeT UU Ina.
Bobf D. CoteboDT
iT. 305
Co.
iii. 103
r-MnmhT
0. Mew ToTk Cent. B.
il. 16
Boemer v. Simon
11.866
Ca
iii. 440
B. Striker
ii. 260
t. PMon
ii. 164
ii. 260
BoccU V. Bch»buker
ii. 479
RoffB. Wall
ill. 196
BodM t. UUman
iii. 437
Hottey V. Bent
It. 131
Hocher v. Bother
lii
164, 172
V. Shallcroat
ii. 470
Bocheila Dinilling Co. v.
DeTBDdnrf
Bogan B. Walker
It. 806
ii. 478
Rosen, Ex paite
ii633
Bod)e«t«r Water Comw., Matter of
%. Allen
U.407
ii. 340
11.491
RochforiB-Hacfanan
iT. 181
V. Batchrior
iii. 48, 44
Bock V. Mathewi
iL467
t>. Coleman
1.261
Bock Ceanw v. Edgerton
Bockhold'i. O^ M. B.
i.268
r. Coy
It. 466
It. 466
0. Crow
11.343
Ais'n
ii. 800
V. DaTenant
Ii. 278
Rockiagfaam p. Panriw
iii. 466
t>. DaTli
lit 280. 282
Bock blind Bridge. The
Bo<±weU B. BraSey
1. 869 ; iii. 282
B. De Forwt
It. 281
iT
166,156
V. Dill
11.280
V. Elkhom Bank
ii. 2B1
V. Eagle Flee Ina. Co. of N
Y.
t. HoWr
It. 161
It. 208
„ ..BubbiQ
L4ie
B.ETart*
ii. 269
BodUrdr. Cooke
It. 807
B. Grider
It, 862
VOL. t.—p
sObyGoOl^lc
[Tb« Mittul p>g« » nland to.]
Bogert D. HanwOT
iL479
Romilly e. Jamea
!t. 276, 277
D. Houck
Ul. SI9
Komine i>. Sule
i.384
il. 491
Romp, The
11.620
». Jimei
iT. 152
Kona V. Meiei 11.
592; iv. 270
r. Jones iii. 410, 4IS
iT. 171
Ronayne v. Sherrard
iv. 451
r. Keokuk
ill. 89
Rondeau e. Wyatl iL 408, 611 : i*. 461
V. KicliUne
iii. 31
Rood V Chapin
iT. 448
r. King
ii. 426
iii. 54
p. Lambert U.
666,590
V. Staflord
ii. 287, -2*0
V. Mwldocb
ii. 407
Roof, f . Herron
iii. 05
0. Uarch
ii. 681
Rook «. Cleaiand
IT. 364
n. Moore
ii.880
Rooke B. Niabet
iii. M
e. Niagara loi. Co.
Hi. 2B0
Rooke't Case
iii. 48.1
r. Oatrom
lii.4«4
Rooney c Gilleipie
B. Sewall&IBayC. Co.
iT. 113
p. OTerton
ii.269
ii. 21i9
p. Parker
iii. 432
Rooper v. BarriBOo
It. 17a
p. Pittla
iT.532
RooseTelt b. DoheHy
ii. 022
V. RiTal, The
iii. 231
V. Kellogg
iL 480
■>. Bogen a 101, 176, 281
iii. 61;
B. Meyer
L326
iT. 208, 806, 462. 537
Root ». Bone
ii. 373
..Ron
i».287
I.. French
iL 497, 614
■> Schneider
ii. 615
B. McGrew
t. 41»
ai.*s7
V. StUTTeMnt
fiooth V. Quin
iT. 281
i>.Su.pbent 11466; iU. 98, 110
iii. 46. 67
V. TbSmaT
ii. 545
B. Wil.on ii. 668, 666. 672. 685
V. Tjley
IT. 806
Roota p. Dormer
iL 470
B. Union Stone Ca
U. 46S
Rope B. Hen
iL 812
Roger. & Co. v. Simmon.
Ii. 2B5
Roper, In r«
iL 164. 164
V. Lendon
iii. 876
Ca
u.sa6
B. RaddiOe
iT. 629
ii. 24
Bop^i ■-. SlUich
iT. 61
RoL3e,£r^^
iii. log
L287
V. Proctor iii
110, 111
Ro« V. Willoaghby
Roialie & Betty, The
iLI78
Rohl n. Pair
iii. 300
L151
Bohlflng B. Carper
iii. 63
RoicaiTick B. Barton
It. 168
iii. 376
Ro»CDria v. Thomas
ti. 465
Kokes s. Amazon loi. Co.
iii. 876
Roicow B. Hardy
iiL94
Roland V. Barkiey
iT. 438
Rose. The
ULiiSl
iT. 825
iii. 248
D. Gundy
il. 324
0. Clark
ii. 87
Roife r. Harri*
It. 130
p. Himely L 26
iL 119, 121
Roiia 0. Ste"«rd
iii. 86
V. MynaU
iT.44»
Rolker e. G. W. Im. Co.
iii. 268
v.pig^
iT. 184
RoilMd V. Hart iT. 162, 172
173, 179
v.RoU
IL 101, 177
Rolle, Caie of
ii. 4B6
r. Rou BemToleDt Aaa.
iT.283
Bolieaton v. Hibbert UL 146, 147
iT. 63
«. Smith
iii. 147
B. Wataon
iT. 162
Roliin i>. Steward
iii. lis
p. Wortham
liLSeS
RoUina e. Ciay
ii. 812
iii. 81
i>. Hincki
Boienau b. Syrlog
It. 809
V. Msrah
ii. 220
Roaenbaum b. Bauer
L322
p. Riley
iT, 299
D. Council BluS Int. Co.
L396
V. Steven.
Iii. 43, 47
RoKnhiatt. iTz parts
L43B
Rolls D. iMac
usee
Rotenfeld b. Roienfeld
U. 125
B. Pearce
ii. 448
Roaeofleld b. Adsmt Esp. C«
L308
RolitoQ u. iliMtoiui Fund Commit-
V. Haighl
iii. 26
.ioner*
1.828
Ro.enkran. b. Barker
iii. 46
Bolt D. Lord SomerTUle
iT. 78
Ko»enilial b. Louiaiana, The
LS70
Romaine ii. Chauncey
il. 99
V. Ueyiioldt
iL366
Roman Catholic Church v. Miller ii. 447
Ro.etto B. Gurney
iii. 296, 331
Rombach v. Piedmont, &c Ini. Co.
RoBPTear, 4c. Co.. Ex parte
iL646
iii. 369
HoieTelt B. Fulton
IL487
Rome Bank e. Haaelton
Ii. 441
RoteTille Atta M. Co. v. Iowa Gulch
Rome ft D. R. Co. e. ChMteen
ii.260
M.Co.
iL84S
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CA.8ES.
BsHr.fi<
i.2«
Rouse B. Tooard
1.480
Bwher.^n
iv.206
EoMiillon V. BoiwsiUon
IL 120, 468. 466
,:im,a.
li.«l
Routh V. Macmilkn
iii: 206
Bm, hr*
.42,M84
Rdux B.^l^tt Co.
ii.878
..AcaTO,Th8 Ui
183, 173
il. 269
p. AllED
U. 494
ijl. 296, 320, 831
>. BedeU iii. 79
; IT. 461
RoTena, Tiie
iii. 108
>.BoDn>e
iii. ITS
RoTer, The
iii. 206
0. BnuUhaw
iU. 870
It. 480
.. Chkawo, &c. By. Co.
ii. 260
Rowe V. Brig
e. Hamilton
iii. 348
..Ck.™
iT.325
a 129, 162
..Dnpet
ii. &:»
V. Hop wood
V, Pickford
ii. 286
..Durd
i. 342
ii. 544
r. F.u,t
iii. 4:iT
V. Putnam
iU. 79
>.FeddM
iT no
El. Smith
UL42T
tG«TUoii
iT 362
V. St. Ry. Co.
iiL440
rLGluafotd
iu. 189
«. Teed
It. 461
iii. 80
I'.V^Ln,
ul. 106
^ BUI a 660, 6M
Ui. 376
..Hnri
iii. 109
V. Young
iii. 84, 90
1^IrT^DK
il. SS6
Rowell r. RoweU .
Ii. 99
•.JohiJon
ii. 600
p. Wdley
Rowland o. Banga
It. 75
».McliK7W
1.42
iii. 461
..H.du^
■L291
B. Long
iii. 26
>. Hellen
a602
0. Miller
iT.480
r.HiDer
Ii. 400
.^.Rowland
It. 60, 120, 468
r. MoDbuik U. Ry. Co.
il. Ses
V Wolfe
iii. 444
*. NorT«U It.
189, soe
Rowland! v. ETSna
iii.5S
>,F>rkriii
Iii. 26
RowIandaon.iJr parte
iU.34
*. Boh ii. 93, 117, 209, 429
iT. 512
IL 614, 546
i-Sidgbeer
11.466
t.. Empire loa. Co.
UL3e2
f. SoMhem Cotlon-CHl Co.
ii. 661,
v. Home
li.fl06;iii,67
687
Rownitig V. Ooodchlld
ii.8IO
iT. 811
Rnworth v. Wilkea
ii.SSS
t. WhitaoD
iT. 163
Rowion V. Earle
U.641
BoHiler B- Conit
It. 46
Rowton V. Rowton
It. 46
•. Uiller
ii.477
Roiborougb u. Heuick
iii. 81
>. TWdgir An. Ca
1L68S
Roy V. Ganiett
i».229
Bwoa. Ei parte
i.283
Royal Aquariom v. PaikinMii ii 22
>. CUTOU
iiL04
Royal Arch, The
iU. 172, 106, 881
B. 8tat«
i.283
Royal Bank of ScotlMid
.Tottenham
Rmn» .. The Water ITitdi
ilLSU
iii. 81
SawtUt.Pr7or
iii. 448
Royal BriUBh Bank v. T
urqoand ii. 800;
f. Vanghan
11.478
Iii. 27
B«b •>. Colrin
ill. 44
Royal B. P. Co, «. Raym
ond ii. 366
KiMMTdam Aiom Co., hrt L 467 1
4
Bodwrham n. Green iii. i
taOaock v. Dweliing-Houie Ina. Co.
BodiKlukl B. Conwy iii. 88,'
r. Carrie Ii. 460 : ilL
BothKhild'a CaM
Bmhwell B. Hamphreya
i.2
^ 1^41
BoBcbe B. Williamaoti ii. 64
Rpumage b. Hecliaaica' Fire Ini. Co.
iU. 376
Bomdi B. Smith iii 88
Bwke V. White Hoai CoUiery Co.
ii. 260
BoBte p. Bradford Banking Co. iii. 66
v. Ina. Co. iii. 288
B. UoRte ii. 410
Rojoi Fishery of the Banne, Cue of
iii. 410
Royal Ini. Co. n. McCrea Ui. 376
Royal Mail S. P. Co. v. EngUih Bank
Iii 284
RoyaUit, The Hi. 162
RoyaU, Ex partt I. 260, SOI, 401 ; ii. 32
V, EppBi U. 363; IT. 282
Royce v. Ouggealieini iii. 464
Royer n. Coape ii. 366
Royle r. Hamilton W. 346, 419
R. a. Bank of Vickiburg v. Slocomb
Rnbber Co. v. Goodyear it' 366
Rubicnm e. Williami UI. 481
Ruby Qoeen, Tbe IU. 232
Rucb V. Rock Idand It. 122
Rncher v. Conyngham ill. 172
Rocker v. AltaaCt iu. 816
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CABEa.
ii. ei3
RMMUr.AUen 11889; i*
.194,306
B. Hamnahm
ii. 404
V. Anitin
It. 38
B.HiUer'
iii. 110
0. Autwick
ill 61
t>. London Am. Co.
iiL300
D. Blake
iT. 167
Buckman u. Psliude Land Co. il. 226
V. Carringtoo IL 886. 482. 600
ii. 43Bi It. 4G6
K. Clark 11480; It. 430
iL154
::iffi
iU. 482
ILBie
It. 615
Ruddiman ■>. Smith
iL260
r. Field
u- 126
Ruddock'i Cue
Iii. 48
r. Gee
It. 00
Buddy V. Midland, &c. Rj
Co. U.6W
0. Hallett
11.480
Rudge B. Richeni
fv. 183
' e. HudMD R. R. R.
iL2fiO
Rudolph V. Southern Ben
Lecirne ii.SOe
e. L«Qgitaite
Iii. 80
Ruff «. Rutherford
.CT i.260
D. McCall
iii. 68
iv. 845
e. M'Lellan
ii. 312
Roma. Ex paru
UL 6T. 68. ee
e. Madden
iL429
RaSner v. WdtoD Co«l Co. 0. 201
>. MayM of N. T.
Rugby Charity, Tr. of
V. Merrr.
V. Men of DeroD
li.274
weather
m,460
e. Minor
U. 406
Rugely V. DavidMn
iU.08
e.RicbMdt
iL343
Rugg V. Miiielt
U. 402,406
e. Richmond & D. R. Co.
iLseo
Rugglei V. Barton
IT. 104
p. Romtey
iT.62
e. Bucknor
iii. 221
e.BuHelf iil2e,230iiii66;iT.41.
V. Gen. InL Ins. Co.
ill. 860, 286
160.161
V. Keeler
ii:48S
V. SkipwitL
a. 63
Rngheimer. /n «
ii.340
r. Smi'th
It. 167
Rulie V. Buck
ii. 150
B. Southard
It. 148
Rul£ B. Ronauld
iii. 84
K.Splater
I.. Thornton
Hi. 70
RumbaU v. MetropoUt»n Bank ili. 89
iii. 286
Humford Chemiiaa Co. v
Muih ii. 366
o. Watt
It. 162
tL260
V. Watt* ia. 419. 424
il. 4S8
t wlSdward
iii. 86
Eunwey v. Mew York, &c
R.CO. !.208!
ii. 532
U.MO; ui. 418,427
Buwell'a Appeal
it. 173
V. Phoouii luB. Co.
iii. 3T6
RuhU Cement Co. p. Le Fftge
ii.S66
Bnndell v. Murray
ii-seo
Rutt B. Loir
Iii. 488
Bundle V. DeU^rare & Ruitan Canal
Rmton 0. Rntton
iT. 536
ii.275
Rntjjeni v. Hunter
iT. 100
li.l78
Rutherford .. Green
ii.280
Bnnkle v. Meyer
ii. 20
B. Hill ii. 277 : iU. 24
■>. Uniled SlatM
1.287
Runlet I.. Otis
IT. 142
0. Munce
IT. 44
Bunnela v. Ballon
iii. 441
u. Rnff
It. 808
Runquiic f. Dilcbdl
iii. 206
e. Rutherford
It. 616
Rnnyati V. Le«Me of Cotter ii.283
Rutledge V. Onnt
V. Smith
ii. 47f
^Merterean
iT, 47. 156, 160
It. 806
c. Stewart
iv.48
Rutter D. Baldwin
iL 1T9
Bunyon v. Cotter
RyaU D. RoUe or Rowlea U
346.616;
«. Montfott
tu!l05
It. 188
V. Smith
iT. 466
V. RyaU
iT. 306
a;,"sssl„
iT. 806
ii. 616
Ryallt ». Leader
Ryan. Ex partt
ii. 2-.!
U. 484
Ruiden ». Pope
lU. 138
Inn
i.44«
Rum v. Mut. Life Ini. Co,
ill. 860
t>. Adamioo
iii. 876
Ru>h D. Dilki
ii. 168
V. Bagaley
ii.260
Riuhfortb u. Hadfleld
iL 684, 688, 637
w.Chew
ill. 81
Biuhton V. Aipinall
iii. 104
I., Egan
ii. 64, 70
Buu B. Alpaugh
iT.460
V. Fowler
ii.260
-.Per^
V. Freeman
iT.28
».Ruu
iT. 278
n. GrDnner
p. Mutual T.W.C.AM'n
iL241
D. Stntton
It. 456
il.259
i;. Telfener
Ii 612, 616
t.. Nolan
iL140
RiMtel «. GulweU
iT. 473
V. State
i. 409
Ruttell, Cx partt
i). 441
V. Thorn a*
1.826
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLB OP CASSS.
• ^der
I. WUcox
K Wombwell
Itje'i tettleiDent, Rt
HTtrua B. Brown
c. tiller
Hf luds r. Fletcher U. G
Ktle [, Brown
RjDd s. Bjad Farm Oil Co.
Siin D. ColmnUa Foel Ca
r. Gilnuui
Sabine, The
S«tem,Tbe
Sukr.FoTd
Sukell r. Androi*
>. Kellu
cSiilett L
Sidrider v. SaperriMra
SuktiUe'i Cue
Sieo N*t. Bknk r. Sanhom
Sicrider v. Brown
MiUngtoD V. KineDiHn
Sadler t. Diioa
c. Heolock
i.4«S; ii. MO
lii. 48
Ui. 9S, 120
cUe
p. Unmh
'.Swller
Sadler 4 Jackion, £j parte
Sa.<lan' Co. ••. B«dcock
Saffofit V. Drew
D. HcDonoQgh
cStrord
SiSrer D. Elgood
Sdimn, ke. Soe. o. BayDec
Sage 0. Burton
'■ Cartwiight
c. TaiMikv
r. Wilcox
c Winona, Ac B. Co.
Sager b. ForttniODth
flfen B. NuckoUa
SagoiT r. WiaiDuu
Sih Qnah. In n
Sairller b. Charcb
Sail]; r. CleTeland
SiiDibnrr e. Blattbewt
Saint B. Klley
St Andrew'! Church v. Tompkiiu
i». 176
St AiU>7ns. Smart 111.46
BLChtrieiNaLBankc. F«7ne iii.SO
St-Clurv. Cox 1.262
>. United SUtet lii. 14;i
1. WiUiami It. 60
r. 617
11.389
iiiSTl
ii. 416
11.494
It. 64
liL 476
liLSO. 61
1. iM2
Hi. 122
il. 2GU
iv. 244
It. 461
ii. 34S
■ ani^Hndto.]
Sl CkHid, Tha iii. 1:
St. Geoi^ r. SL George It. 2'
*. Sl Margaret ii. l:
*. Wake a 174, 1
St George's Cbnrcb v. Branch ii. 4
Sl Helen'* Smelting Ca e. Tipping
St. Helena Water Ca v. Forbei il. »
Sl Jago de Cuba, The iii. 169, II
SL Jaine* M. Academy v. Gaiwr 11. 1
B. Benedict iv. 451
B. Conger ir. 469
B. Diefendorf Ii. 04t
B. SL John IL 160, I7&, 467
B. Sweeney iii. 437
SL Joae Indiano, The L 78, 80, 81 ; ii.
642
SL Joaeph & G. L S. Co. c. Fabner
1.439
SL Lawrence, The iii. 1 <0, 868
" L^er"! Appeal ir. 60B
Louis e. Ruti L 342 ; iii. 427
V. St. Louis iii. 4.W
V. Western U. T. Co. i. 489
Sl Louis Bank v. Altheumr iii. 24
Louis Bridge Co. v. Curtis iv. 467
St. Lot^ H. L. Ins. Ca v. Grares
St. Lonis Nat. Bank b, Rom it. 549
St Louis Packet Co. v. Keokuk
Bridge Co. iii. 427
St- Louis Public Schools v. Boatman's
Ins. Co. It. 96
_1. Lodis Street Fouud^ 1 aRi -'«»
Sl Louli, «c. R. Co. B. Dalt^
B. Falta
ii. 284
11.286
U.2G0
Hackett
Harper ii. 269
Knight Ul. 206, 207
McBride i. 803
Merriam i. 826
Newcom 1. 302
Ramaey iii. 427
Shackelford ii. 2S9
Weaver ii. 269
Willia ii. 260
St. Luke's Hospital d. Barkler i. 46, 314
St. Mark's Church v. Teed ii. 463
Sl Mary, Newington i>. Jaoobi til. 433
~ .. Mary's Church, Case of IL 276, 293,
St. I^uJ F. & M. Ins. Co. t>.
St Paul Trust Co. v. Finch
St. Paul &c. R. Co., Bt
B. Todd County i
St Paul's Church o. Au. Gen. Iv
B. Ford 111
St. Phllip't Cbnroh c. Zlon Pre*.
Church ii
11.2)
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
St Bonwr «. Qt; of New Oriomi
Samion d. Thornton
It. 466
m.46*
Samion o. Braggingbn
lii. 168
aato, /« r.
ii.64
Samnel,The
L874
S»Jaci», The
lii 228, 246
Samuel „. Bailee
iLeia
8«le p. Lambert I
iL4»
V. Berger
lisee
0. McLmh
It. 306
V. Cheney
ii.482
f. Pntt
m. 490
v. Kitlinger
11.441
ILISS
Samuel E. Spring, The
iii. 179
V. Thornberry
ir. 306
Samnel Marahall, The
yi. 2. VII
Samuel* >. Evening MaU Aat-n ill 284
8allnEU V. Bennett
ii. 23i5
San Antonio v. Mtliaffey
Sao Antonio, &o. Ry. Co.
i.m
SsUsbUTv t>. Fint Nat Bank lii. 89
V. Marliie Int. Co. or St LonU
. WUion
ii.259
ilL 2&7, S14
Sanborn. /•> n
L2B7
V. MarahftU
iiL4eS
n. Benedict
ii. 468. 492
V. NewtoD
ii 187. 140
0. Carleton
i.23e
r. SulDer
a 461
0. ChunberliD
It. ISl
SftUibur; Mitla c. Fonahli
U.340
B. Fireman's In*. Co.
iii. 257
Stttlabah ». Marth
iT. 114
B.Roger.
ii.4»4
Siaiingu. H-EinneT
Sdly.T'be
ili. 466
f. Sanborn U. 438 ; W, 187
i. 156
V. Stark
iii. 65
Sally Ann, The
L41
Sandeman r. Scurr
ili. 138
Sally Griffith.. The
isa
Sanderlin r. Baxter
iiL419
SaUy Magee, The
1. 86, 87, 161
Sanders, /■ n
i.439
Salmon », Dari.
ill. 48, 46
V. Qodding
It. 467
0. DuDcnmbe
i. 462
V. Martin
iii. 437
V. Smith
iii. 4d4
V. Vanieller
liL222,228
V. StuyTMant
iv.281
V. WagoDMller
iT. 464
V. Wootton
U. 126
ui.e7
Salmon Fall* Hanuf. Co.
■ Tangier
-. CftldweU
11.389
iii. 217
V. Dob«oo
iT.636
Salomon v. Hertz
ii. 26g
r. Grave* 1
484; It. 461
V. Pfeialer & T. L. Co.
iii. 106
L-. Judge
iii. 95
ii. 10
tl. Penn. Coal Co.
iii. 410
t>. NiaKH
lii. so
B. White 0.886,288,306.307
p. Pender
tl. 618
Sandee v. Cooke
iT.214
Saloy 0. Ne« Orleana
i.419
Sandford e. Dillowar
ilL 06, 110
Salt Co. o. Eaat Saginaw
Salt SprlDK* Nat Bank ».
Saltbom, iTie
1.410
D. Handy
H.e21
Jurton iii. 06
iY.58
iii. £48
Sandifer v. Lynn
ii.259
Salle B. Keld ii
614, 661, 644
lii. 41, 48, 47
Salter v. Bart
iii. 102
Sandringham, The
iii. 248
«. Hurst
ii. 687
SandB V. Clarke
iii. OS
D. Knoi
ii. 60S
u. Codwiie
38S ; iT. 464
D. Lyoham
B. Nlanl*tee RiTer Imp.
It. 424
ii. 286
Co. i. 301
i». 806
e. N. Y, In*. Co.
iii. 2u0
». Sanden
ii, 287
D. Smltli
SOS; iT. 437
Saltui V. Everett
ii. 326, 621
V. Taylor U
481, 404, 604
r. Ocean Ini. Co.
iii.21S, 2S0
Sand* to Tliompion
iT.m
V. United Ina. Co.
iii. 203
Sands, Comfort, Caae of
i. 882
Salvador, The
i. 12S
Sand*, Sir George, Case of
It. 426
Salrador ■>. Rnpkiai
iii. 309
Snnd* 4 Crump e. Taylor
ii. 4S0
Salvadarean Refugee!, Cue of i, 115
Sandwiehr. Qt Northern Ry. Co. iii, 440
Salwsy V. Salway
ii. 143, 230
Sandyi d. Diiwell
It. 210
Salzenateln ». MsTia
i. 489
Suner B. Bilton iii. 484, 468 ; It. 7S
SaniiqeB u. Payne
i*. 49
Snnfofd d. Allen
iii. 123
Sammei'* Caie
iv. 358
V. American D. T. Oo.
ii.259
Bammit c. Wightmao
L aeo; ii. 120
V. C»tawi«.a B. B.
HI 468
IT. 617
V. Di«k
iT.435
b: Camperdown Cotton MiUt ii. 84-3
U.Gregg
i.35l
V. Henry
... Hoddinott
iT. 118
D.Kane
It. 187. I WO
iii. 440
t>. Meaaer
ii. 366
SuDion V. KoM
It. 109
x.Mickle*
ill. 63
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE 0
? CASBB.
ccxxxi
tTba >«^tHl PWI ■» nfemd til.]
Suf<*dv.PM
L S42, 391. 439
i».62
(.Buifcrd
iT.306
B.Drew
111.827
c. ffnki
JT. 461
V. FfMt"
It. 187
Sufori Fork Co. r. Howe ii. 281
u. Hackney
It. 461
Su Fnnciico s. ItaeU
D. Hattenuan
il. 486
r WeiWni D. T. Co
L439
0. Newmua
ill. 489, 44S, 447
Smnr «. WatnbiUT
ii.468
u. New York Cent a. Co. iii. 413
SuuMri- Miller
11.386
B. O-Briani
iii. 114
SufiiDD I. Hack
ili. 25
iv. 306
SmJoHlDdiano, The
1. 78, 80, 81 ;
t..8milh
U. 869,383
ii:612
V. Wakefield
Ui. m
Sui MriM Comtv E. Soatbern Pml
V. Willlami
li.407
R. Co.
1.391
ii. 611
Su Romu, The
lli.210
V. Judge
iiL97,98
Suu AuDft Uari«, The
ill. 2M
It. 338
GmI4 Aaci4 VTeter Ca r.
Su Baeni-
Savage, h r.
I. 409; ill. 62
Tcntara
l.«S
?Be.l
W.480
Suu Cmi, The i. 66, 112; iii. 247
Sum Otu Co. Bank v. Bartlett iii. S9
Stntinima Trinidad, The i. 25, 123,
142 ; ii. 48
Sniog V. Dlidn 1. 198
Sipphin. The i. 297
Stppbo, The iii. 248
Scribed v.FletcbOT iii. 464
Sua. Tlw Ul. 167. 170
Suih.Tbe I876iiii. 205,245
Suih AnD,1lM
Suib Jane. The
Sink J. Weed, The
Soih Hilei'a mil
Svth Starr, The L 7
SinA Zane'i Will
8ant(iga,Tha
Eargtant, Caae of
B. Towoe
6ic|nit V. AppletOB
c. Botton, Ae. B. Co.
>. HelMi
c.Kindnd
>.Metcslf
D. Mania
iii. 17:
iii, 113
ill. 444, 446
ili. 468
Sanaa E. Robeni
SvtCT c, Gordon
Sartori e. HamilUn
Suai. UcCoTmick
Suwmn. Clark
Sattry Telaider Aronegary v
becntty Taigalie
8«tierlee o. Matthewtoa i. 4H
HtttrihwuUi V. Powell
S«al p. Hit Crediton U. 9
lit. 268
It. 122
iii. 91
Buniham It. 68, 281, 288, 346, 541
D. Com Bvch. F. & I. Ina. Co. iii. 876
V. McCorUe ii. 226
E. Maacm It. 400
Savannah i>. G«orsia I 460
Savannah F. & H. Ini. Co. o. Pelzer
Manuf. Co. ili. 370
SaTannab, F. & W. Rr. Co. v. Smith
ii.l»6
Sarannah N. Bank d. Haikiu iii. 84,
90,116
SaTannah Privateen, Tiial of i. 186
" iii. 378, 199
SaTary d. Clement!
D. Goe
SaTiege Ala's v. O'Briea
SaTingg Bank v. Allen
Ejariiigt In>t n. Uakin
Savings & Loan Society v. B
Savoie D. Ignogoio
Sawla 0. Guild
E. Union B. t S. Aii'n
Sawyer, In n
V. CleTsland I. H. Co.
V. Davit
f. Freeman
B. Haon. & 8t Jo. R. Ca
t.. Kelloga
ir. Kendall
V. McGmicnddy
D. Maine F. & M. Int. Co.
I'. Hayhew
V. Sawder ii. 161 ;
i. 801
11.805
i. 466
1.268
iU. 207
II. 610
ii. 340
lil. 166
ii. 492
ii. 600
ii. 3H6
It. 468
it. 461
iv. 110
ii. 120
r. Blurfldd W. ft 1 Co.
n. Manchealer, Shefl , ftc. R. Co.
iii. 410
: Sazonia, The iii. 331. 232
Iii. 3S1 Say ft Seal D. Jonee iv. 304
ii. 840; Sayer v. Bennett U. 646; ill- 68, 60
iii. 440 1 Sayers, Ex parte iv, 811
)^Goo<^lc
TABLE OF CABEB.
nrglnl picu uv refBiTBd to.]
iil. SO
ilL210
111.26,61,66
ii. est
Sk^en D. C0II7M It. 480
Savlea ». Bkles ii 160
». No. W. In.. Co. iii. S82
D. Tibbetti It. 440
Saylor r. Btuhong iii. 88
Savre u- Coyne Oi. 37
V. Prick
D. Totrnieod
Sajward v. Denuj
u. Steven*
Bc«ife ti. Farrant
B. ThomtoD
a. Tobia .
Scsmiael 0. Chlaa H. Int. Co.
ScanlsD, /n re
o. Cobb
Scaramangs v. SUmp
Scarf V. Jardine
Scarfe v. Mo^an
Scarman b. CMlell
Scarpellini o. Atchmon ii. 186
Suarritt, Matter of ii. 1»S
Scalterwood v. Edge It. 214, 266, 2SB
ScliaeSer u. Fannen' Ini. Co.
V. Meuenmith
Schnfrotli v, Ambi
Schammel i: Schammel
Schanck e. Schaock
Schap* B. Lebnar ti. 461
Schauer b. Field
Schechter, In re
Schefteis c. Tabert
Scheibler v Oilclireat tii. 104
Schell B. Dodge i. 816
Schellenbeck v. Studebaker iii. 41
Schemerhora d. Miller
V. Vuiderbeyden iL 46S; ir. 244
Scbeock TI. Marcer Co. Hat. Ini. Co.
iii. 879
Sebenle; v. Commonwealth
SchermeThom v. Barbydl
V. CottinK
u. I<oiaeB Iii. 166
Schlb^br B. Westcnholz ii. 120
Schieffeiio v. Harrej U. 608
B. New ToA'IiM. Co. iiL 210, 802
B. Siewart
Schierloh v. Scblerloh
Schile B. Brokhahnt
Schilling r. Romlnger
Schillinger u. United State*
Schiawl f . Dickaon
Schlott V. Schjott
Schleluman v. Eallenberg
Scblenks v. Central F. R7. Co.
Schlereth v. Mo. Pac. R. Co.
Schleslnger b, Arline
V. Kansai Citj, ius. R. Co.
iii. 437
Iii. 440
. 231, 268,
297
iT. 870
ii. 164
iiL 86
Ii. 196
ii. 269
iU. 76
iv. 122
. Ii. 378
SchkM t>. Heriol Ul. 217. 234
Scbmaling v. Thomlinton '""
Bchmertz v. Shreere lli. 48
Schmidt B. Blood iL 666, 681, 640
V. Brieg ii. 366
V. Cook ii. 195
B. HoTt It. 178
D. Opie ii. 613
V. Peoria Int. Co. IiL 378
It. Iteed > iT. 451
B. Royal Mail S. Co. IIL 20fl, 234
B. United Ing. Co. Iii. 21)3
SchmiMeur u. Beatrie iL 79
Schmitt B. San Frandico Iii. 461
Sctimittler v. Simon iU. TS
Schneider b, Norrii U. 611
B. SchifCman ill. 89
Scbnell b. Schroder iv, 162
Schnelle & Q. L. Co. e. Barlow ir. 473
Schnur b. Cilizens' Tl«ction Co. ii. IS6
Schofield B. JoDBB ii. 164
B. Solomon ii. 122
Scholefield b. Bicbelbergw L 68; iii S7
V. Heafield ii. 246
1-. Templer ii. 482
Scholea v. Brook ii. 490
Schoiey v. Sew L 266
Scho!fleld V. LandMboronfh ill. Si
SctioU B. Albany & R. Co. lli. 206
SchoUmier o. Schoendelen 11. 448
School Director! c. Jame* 11. 227
School Diatrict b. Batiche it. Ill
b. Douchy U. 46B
B. Macloon IT. 4S1
B. Wood ii. 270
School Town V. KendaU ti. 62D
School TruBleei of TrentMi tt. Ben-
nett ii. 468
Schoole B. 3aU iT. 18.^
Schooner Maud Webster, The L 309
Schooner May & Et*, The ill. 240
Schoonmaker v. Elmendorf ' IL 180
B. Sheel^ iT. 232
SchotBmana d. Laucuhiie & S, R. Co.
ii. 642. 646
SchoTe 0. Schminck^ ii. 373
Schraeder M. Co ■>. Packer Hi. 461
Schram b. Taylor U. 441
Schramm b. Boaton Sugar Ref. Co.
ii.4Qe
Schreiber b. Sbarpleu L 896
Schreyer b. Kimball I,. Co. ii. 492
Schroeder, Ez parte ii 402
V. Central Bank iiL 88
V. Fairef ii 687
V. FUbert H. W^i
B. Hudaon R. Co. IL 604
B. Schwelier, &c. OeMllachaft
ill. 314
B. Vaui i. 164
Schroyer i- Lynch ii. 610
Schnchardt i>. Allena IL 478, 400, 62)
Schulenberg B. L. Co. n. Hayirard ii. 3^
Scbult 1-. Ifoll It. 64
SchnlM-Berge b. The Guildhall ii. 461,
^cibyGoQl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[TtmmvgbmlvWfi^rniU>.2
ii. 368, 373
Scott ». Morria
ii.634
t.Wogrva
ii. 878
V. Pape
iii. 440, 449
SebsiiJi e. Moline, &c. Co.
i. 302
V. Perlee
iL469
Schnmieier v. St P&ol & F. B. B. iii. 427
B. Pettit
11648,644
Schuiirr p. Canon
ii. 645
u. Price
ii. 368
I. FtBtcber
iU. 248
V. Rand
ii. 122
ii. 616
c. Sandfori
ii. 268
Behujler i>. Cnrtii
>i. 873
«. Sohwarti
ii. 49
.. Hoyle ii
186, 139. 137
e. Scholey
11. 448; It, 160
p. Ph.mii In.. Co.
iii. 201, 818
V. Sebright
il.461
>.Bdh
ii.484
0. Seymour, Lori
a 128
,. Smith
iv. 113
V. Simon.
iii.468; iT.no
SchujMl Cj. 0. Coplej
iii. 79
V. SpMbett
Ii. 188
S;r;rs,.
i.801
!>. Sungfield
iL 22. 30
iii. 46
D. State
i.283; iy.368
Sifa«u,Tbe
iiL 176, 232
V. Stebbins
iT.540
Sdiwuu D. GilmoFe
a. 260
V. Stetler
iT. 478
I. SchmitE
ii. 77
». Snrman
a. 622, 828, ^4
Sdi-omr r. BoyUton H. Am. It. 480
». The Ira Chafifee
iii. 228
ScoS^ F. 0>7 ii
461; iii. 117
D. ThompBon
ill. 316
.-Fori
ill. 70
"■ Tyler
V. Wilson
It. 126. 438, 636
ScDgpDi v. Turner
iv.682
iii 414
SoSTtN
iii. 231
Scott City Bank d. Sanduaky iU. 63
ScotUod.The
iiL 179, 217
Scottin u. Stanley
Ui. 156
Soollwd Conn^ r. mil
ii. 460
Scotli.h Drainage Co. u
Campbell i.462
Beoltfr parte
i.439
Scottiih H. In.. Co. of
Glaigow «.
r. AlkDUagli
IT. IIB
Turner
iii. 270
».AUooU
iT.441
ScQtti.h Petroleum Co., In n Ii. 4T7
». AIL Gen.
U. 126
ScoTill V. Thayer
ii.29I
r. AT«ry
iii. 876
Scovillev. Caofleld
i. 88
Scow BoliTar, The
iii. 196
>. BcatoL
iii. 419
Scraflord, in n
ii. 12
T.Beran
iii. 117
Si^rafton v. Quincey
Soranton v. Clark
F.Bnin
ii. 467
ii. 478
•r-Clkin
iii. SO
Scratton v. Brown
ill. 4S1, 436
>. Cidbam
ii.SOO
iii. 419, 424
>. Cool Bulk
.ii. 226
It. 371
r.Ci«»
ii. QD8
Scribner x. fl.her
i.422
p. Croidale
It. 42
V. Henry O. Allen Co. ii 378
>.Di>oa
11.400
i>. Hickok
iv. 164
V. Eutera Co. R Co.
iL61I
ScriniBhire v. Scrimihire
ii. 01. 92. 459
V. Field!
iT. 146
i.473
..Knk
iT. 631
ii. 106
>.446Touof Coal
iii. 248
Scmgg. E. Brackin
iT.461
cFieeland
It. 438
». Gau
iii. 86
>. Gallagher
ir. 178
Scraghain e. Carter
iii. 66
iL GilliDore
U. 466
1.. Wood
It. 466
P. Oloon 11
494; iT. 461
ii. 474
r. Greet
iii. 109
V. Bradford
ii. 492
■.Hancock
IT. 489
iii 235, 239
i.Inm
iU. 67
V. Union Nat. Bank
1.469; iii. 86.
B-Jonei
i 326, 349
96
It. 471, 480
Scnll D. Brlddle
iii. 173
lIcddi
iT.79
V. Pniden
iT. 466
». Ubby
iiL 223. 24B
t>. RBTmond iii.
Sea In.. Co. f. Hadden
116.188,162,166
e-Liffori
iii. 106, 107
iii. 274, 331, 834
■.Lonine
ii.l78
Seaber ». Hawkei
ii.63I
■.Mmrfarlud
iy. 186
Seabrook o. A Raft of Railroad Crow-
■.HcGrath
ii. 621
Tie.
LS69; iii. 232
>.HcNm1
i.342; )i.486
V.Rom
iii. 40
■:ll«ad
iL44I
Seabuiv V. Am Ends
V. Crowell
ii. 366
V. Hetcwtile A. ft G.
In.. Co.
iii. 38
m. 876
F. Hungerford
Seacotd ■>. MiUet
Hi. 00
..»o.k7
1.467
iii 109
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
SMtorth'i CaM
il. 43S
Security Co. if. Cone
i*. 208
Soager, /n r«
w.m
Security F. In., Co. of H, T.
D. Ken-
Se^Mve ». Se»gi«»e
IT, 6£
tucky M. & F. Ini, Co.
iii, 267
y. Union M. Im. Co.
lli. 207, 876
Sedalia 4c. By. Co. v. WUkeraon ii. 281
8e>le 0. Se*le
ii, SM
Seddon ■>, Senate
iT. 478
Seaman v. Adler
iii. a07
iiL 37
IF. Baker t HeWhiater
iii.483
V, Dixon
iii. 80
iii. 376
B. Sunton
It. 460
iii. 291
V. W.tkina
ii.l7e
V. Foneresa
11L285
Seechriai ■>. Baakin
ir.434
r. Hubroock
iv. 460
SeedhoDM r. Bromid
ii.343
t. Hogeboom
iY. 466
Seeger v. Dutbie
iii. 200
V. Netherdift
ii.a2
», Leakin
iv. 214
V. Seamaii
ii. 466
Seekamp d. Bammer
ii.424
i.456
Seeley e. Biibop
iii. 424
r. Knapp Co.
m.S6e
,>,EDgell '
Iii. 78
Beai^ore v. fiarian H.
iiL 316
P. Peters
iii. 438
437; iv. 476
!>. Wcllea
iim
Searcj e. Hanter
iL286
i». 186
v, Yumell
ii277
iLS91
Searlght d. Craighead
iiL 61
Seeniuller v. Fncba
ii.636
SekTing u. Searing
a 138
Seghen s. Anthemau
iv. 620
8earU u. Dwelliag Houae Idi
Co. iii. 376
Scgredo, The
iii. 174
». Kee*ei
iLMl
Segriat r. Crabtiee
ii. 498
r. liverick
ii. 691, 600
Seguin V. DeboQ
ii. 691
D. Sawjer
iv. 161
Seguln'a Appeal
Seigman o, UoAcker
iL226
1.. Scovell
IiL 212, 338
iii. 76
Sean r. Ban of Unaeed
iii. 228
Seignior «, Wolmer'. Cim
iL632
iii. 122
Seller v. W, U. T. Co.
ii.eil
e. Chapman
iT.608
Seiple D. Irwin
U.622
u. Cunningham
iv.806
Seixaa v. Wood
U. 478,479
r. Lawrence
iii. 78
Seixo V. ProTeiende
iLS66
B. Mahoney
1.409
Selby V. Alaton
i», 102
V. l^lnam
iT.288
K. Eden
iii, 99
0. RnueU
IT. 283
f. Mutual Llna. Co.
iU. SS2, 370
t. T^rrj i 262 ; ii. 228
e. Netllefiild
iii. 424
v. Wingate
iii, 207
V. Selby
ii, 611
SealoD ». Orant
Selden b. Bank of Commerce
iii. 47
u. ScoTille
m. 76; 106
V. D. 4 H. Canal
iii. 4i2
Seaver ■>. Boston & Maine R
B. ii. 260
V. Heudricbwn
Ui. 171
V. Dingier
iii, 483
B. Preaton
i. 87
r. Seater
ii. 101
Seldner v. McCreery
Ir, 807
Seaven k. Clement
li.l28
B, Mt Jackaon Bank
iii. 94
Searey t>. Drake
iL494
Seligmann v. Hahn
iii. 37
iL634
Selkrii B. D«Tie» ii. 98 ; iU. 87. 39
Seafy n. Seymour
i.301
i-.T)aTi> A Salt
ii-406
Sea Witch, The
L149
Sellar v. M'Vlcar
iii. 311
Sebald D. Malholland
iii. 437
Scllen V. Nonnau
ii. 201
Seccomb v. FroTtndal Ini. Co. iti. 260.
314
V. Corwin
L248
S«comb V. Nntt
IL 645, 547
V. Phmnix Ina. Co.
ii.286
Second NaL Bank v. Anglin
iii. 76
f. Reed
iT.203
V. Howe
iii. 86
Sellick ». Hal!
Ki. 440
V. Merrill
ii. 441
Selloway b. Neptune Ina. Co.
ilL2fl«
V. Morgan
iii. 80, 81
Selma, The
LlOl
». W.lhridge
ii, 649, 690
Selway v. Holloway
li.e04
0. WilUami
it, 448
Scmtnu i: Brinsley
U.C82
Secor r. Eelter
iii. 31
S«mini)le. The
iii, m
V. Singleton
i. 266
Semmea v. City F. Idi, Co.
ill. 256
Secteat x. McKeDDS
iv. 46
.;. Semmea
iv.681
Secretaty v. McOarrahan
i. 322
Semple o, Burd
iv. 162. 173
Secretary of the Treaaury, 1» n L 20B
B.Glenn L260:ii. 120
Security Bank „. Nat. Bank
iii. 86
V. Hagar
i.B26
». N. W. Ftiel Co.
ill. 81
Seneca Co. Bank b. Neaia
iii. 90. 106
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES,
p^ Qurgliul pagflfl an nfamd bk]
SmcM Uttioaa v. Enigbt
iv.466
Sejton, In n
iii. 366
Sensed r. P&OK^
ii. 449
Shaaber b. BuihonK
Sliabercr. StPaul W. Ca
iii. 41
ScDter r. HitcbeU
i. 306
iT. 480
Sintill V. RobMon
IT. 46
ii. 448
Kenpi^ The
iiL
164.206
V. Hant
It. 436
S«rconib f. Catlin
ii. 284
V. Wilcoi
111.206
Sere b. Pitol
1
802,840
iii. 66
S«iffr.AL-[oii Local Bovd
iii. 424
11. 101
Sergetni e. Dwyer
ii. 440
Shadden v. McElwee
ii. 22
iLisa
if. 8f)2
Iii. 448
SergEot E. Sergent
ii. 128
Sliteaer u. Blair
iii. 37
S«rgei<>n B. Sektev
ii. 460
D. Chambera
It. 166
iU. 282
Shaffer o. McKee
iii. 86
Serit e. NortoD
Ui. 76
V. Richardaon
iv. 58
Sernino v. Ctmpbdl
ii. 164
V- Union M. Co.
ii. 250
m.207
Shaflesbury, Lord, Cue o(
ii. 226
Semn b. JeSenon
iL8T3
D. Hannam
il.226
ill. 91
Shain V. SnlllTan
iii. 89
SerrjB. Cufty
It. 62
i,302
g«*iloi>i V. UtOe
U.468
u. Lewii
11.84
t. RomtdkA
ii. 866
Shakerly n. Pedrick
iii. 166
Seton r. DeUwu« Ins. Co
iii. 330
Shall D. Biicoe
iT. 162
r. Hutbun
1.34S
Shamburger d. Kennedy
a.B14
». Low iii. 267.
269,286
Shaud, The
iii. 217
>.SUde
U. 610
: iv. 158
Shane v. Kanaaa at;, Ac B.
B.Co.
SMIle 0. fia^tdine Ca
iii. 44
ui.440
Serniih Nat Bank v. Cook
iU. 88
Shank) d. Dnpont
ii. 40, SI
SnrtU V. Brainerd
iv. 104
». Klein
iii. 30
..Ktcb
ii.611
o. Whitney
lil. 461
c. Jonei
iL866
Shannon, The
Iii. 231
>. Robbint
a. 461
IT. 632
Shannon r. Braditreet
ir.lOe
r. SewiU
li. 107
117, 241
V. Comatock
il. 480
r. U. 8. Int. Co. i
u. 321
330,830
r. Maraella
i». 179
„ r.Wilmer
886.338
ShapUuid V. Smith
It. 211
Bt-aU & D. C. Co. V. Boiton W. P.
Shardlow „. Cotterell
11.404
Co.
iii. 427
Sharman v. Shannu
a 610
Stwiri r. The Vom Cruz
i.469
Sharon e. Hill
i. 260
SlweO r. Bnnlick
iii. 207
». Sharon
ii. 87
r. Eaton
11.492
B. Terry
11.79
■NUdland
iv.868
Sharp 0. Emmet
li. 640
StttoD B. Breew
iv. 156
^loray
11.389
F.Onibani
11.590
I.. Grey
11.601
r.KckBring
li.154
t>. Johnion
11.200, 300
r. Wheat^
L 173, 441, 442
■>. Knoi
li. 612
S^bd r. Nat. Bank
iii. 79. 89
0. Ropea
It. 480
&jboldr.MorgKi
iL 125, 146
V. Scarborongfa
i*. 102
H,mmTv.BBU,y
1.67
V. Spelr
IL 209, 800
iT.4S8
V. Thompion
It. 4fl7
<>. Brown
ii. 569
B. Tint
iii. 866
».Coon«iaf.Lorf
iii. 410
f. U. 8. Ina. Co.
iii, 160
■.Barrow
It. 178
u. WhiteaidB
r-Delancey
11.487
; It. 461
Sharpe B. Criapin L42;if.
62, 226; 430
11.260
TFoy
ii.241
iBflidee
11. 681
B. Stallwood
il. 413
>.Le«i*
iii. 419
Sharpee She, The
».LeTin«fi
iii. 89
Shanha- b. Gibb.
Ir 76
».Londoii*P.lI.Ini.Co.
m. 260
Shatiock u. Shattook
li. 184
J-Sewton
ii. 643
Shattnck b, Cawidy
11.463
».Oibom«
ii. 366
E. Daniel
i.67
». Btide & S. G. Co.
11,286
D. Green
11. 478
». SpriDg Poreat Com
Aaa'ii
it. 281
B. Lamb
iT. 471
i. 322
r. Lawaon
iii. 37
9. Van Wyck
ir. 616
D. Mut. Life Ina. Co.
ii. 477
SiJiiMwr'a Caae
iT,468
0. Wataon
1L4>"
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CAB£&
[Ik« nuHBtauI rtftt ua lafund to.]
Shaaer x. AltertoD
ii, 441
Sheffield V. iMdm
il.«3a
m.449
f . London J. B. Bank
ii. 449
Shaul V. Brown
ii. 22
B. Pago
iii. 1U9
SluTer, />. r«
ii. J82
Sheffield, 4c. Ca v. Union
ii. 482
ti. Shaier
a. 866
Shair e. ^ma Ini. Co.
iU. 876
iL 281, 300
e. Auomejr 0«iieml
U. 117
Shefford B. Aclaad
iT.SSfi
D. Beity
ii. 69e
iv. 356
P. Beverldge
iii, 402
Sholbnme Fall, N. Bank B.
rownaley
r.Boyd
iT.6a
iii. 105
p. Bonnr
It. 14S
Shelbury v. Scotrfbrd
ii. 666
r. Coffin
ii. 241
Sheldon V. Benham
Ui. 107
r.CoopOT
a. 389, S72
r. BU»
iT. 66
V. Crawford
iiL442
r. Donner
iv. 148
r. Ford
iv. 181
V. Fairfax
ii.201
,-. FoBWr
iv. 161
V. HoHnagle
iv. 46
D.Galt
iii. 26,30
B. Horton
Iii. 100
B. Gookin
iii. 167
B. Sill
i. 840
V. Gould a. 107,
17, 200, 480
V. Stoekbridge
iv. 606
t>. Gravei
ii. 449
». Wright
i.262
V. Hear«y
It. 368
Sheldrake v. The Chatflold
i.870
B. Hill
ir.Bb
ShellaTB. Shivers
iL34S
D. Kaler
u. 866,666
ii. 277
V. Lady Bwley Cod Co.
ii. 646
». Ranlom
ir. 632
V. Levy
ii. 622
Shelley b. Ford
U.384
B. Lorn..
ill. 461
B. Wright
It. 261
B. M'NeiU
iii. 109
ShellCT'. Caw iv. 210, 211
217, 219, 220. 221. 222
214, 216. 219,
V. )S«rille
It. 616
226. 226, 227,
D. Norfolk Co. R. a.
i.466
228, 220, 230, 28 . 2S2. 233. 386
B. Nudd
IL 612, sie
Shelthar b. Gregory
iv. 177
B. Poor
It. 174
Sbelton V. Braithwaite
iii. 106
B. Bailroad Co. U
649; Ui. 79
p. CarroU
It. 62, 7i
iii. 874
B. Cocke
iU. 60
B. Shaw 1i. 106,
17, 342, 430
B. Hadlock
iLIGO
B. Smith
Ii. 478
u. 146
iii. 228
B. Shelton
iv. 806
B. TInuru Harbour Board ill. 176
IP. Sherfey
ill. 78
c. United Statet
ih. isa
ii. 193
f. While
T.68
B.Taffln
i. 262
V. Wllihire
i.681
Shenk B, Phil. St Co.
ii. 604
Sbawe V. Fetton
u.m
Slienton v. Smith
iU. 454
Shay V. Maiional B. Society
iii. 370
Shepard b. Creamer
ir.306
Shaylor o. Mix
iU. 105
V. De Bemaiet
Iii. 222
Sheafe b. Q-NeU
i».e2
Hawley
iii. 106
Shearer p. Park Hurtery Co.
fi. 179
Hill
iLBlS
„. Shearer
iU.39
Jone,
i». 166
Shearman v. Angel
iv. 414
Mit.aukM Oullght Co. UL 468
Shears ti. Roger*
Sheckel! n. ifopkin.
ii.44l
North Wettern Life Ina. Co. L284
It. 148
Pettit
ir. 869
Shed 17. Brett ill.
106, 107. 106
Philbriek
ir. 164
Shedd u. WiUon
iii. 86
Richard!
It. 859
Shedden v. Patrick
u. 03, 120
Shepard
U. 120
Sheedy b. Kowdi
il. 448
Hi. 440
B. Second Nat. Bank
■11.66
Sbephard v. Elliot
i». 166
Sheehan =. Fleeduun
iii. 88
Shepherd B. BurUudtar
if. 468
B. Treaturer
i. 413
B. Chewter
Ui. STtf)
Sheeliy v, Fulton
ii. 610
1LH6, 640
I'. MandeTllle
ii. 389
iU.331
She^n 0. Hickie
)i. 846
B. Johnion
ii. 480
iv. 476
B. Kottgen
iii. 23t
D. GmhhB
iv. 846
B. Lincoln
ii. 638
Sheeli' EiUt«
It. 278
B. M'Evera
It. 807, 811
Bheffer o. Moot«>m«T
V. National Life lu. Co.
11.638
V. MouU
ii. 231
Iii. 869
Pepper
iv. 186
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Bbepberd B. Pyb«
U.470
ShiUibeer v. Glyn
11.671
^Tshepbe^
It. 522, m
Shimer v. Shimer
It. 278
g. Thomiwon
L326
Shindelbeck v. Moon
IT. 110
t. Union Mut. Ini. Co.
lii. 376
Shindler u. Ho niton
IL 492. 602
SbepherdM*, The
L161
Ship's Case
ii. 479
»iqder '■ I>«Tu
a 496
Sliip Mentor, The
iii. 199
Shcppvd i.. Qouold
l«6
Shipley v. CairoU
iu. 79
."Ue-hUI
ii. 646
ii. 661
.. Ozenrord
m. 61
V. Kymer
11.626
>.Suele
iii. 170
Shipley's Case
ii. 801
-.Taylor LS79;iil. 197
Shipman v. HenbesC
1.466
Sbmu P. Nicodemiu
IT. 152
V. Holt
11.366
SlieTer u. Buteni Bank
iii. 109
11.646
Sberidin r. B«an
iv. lao
Shipowners' London Ais'n
1.. Lon-
t.Kmpp
It. 110
1.462
..Medk^
tIL2E
Shippv. Bowmar
li. 166
r. Sew Quay Co.
li. 606
I Gibbs
It. 203
Sbtrier t>. Sherisr
IT. 306
Shippen v. CUpp
p. RobUns^ Appeal
Shipper f. Fa. R. R.
It. 821
BberlDck ». AIUHK
1.439
Sbernun ». ChMiplain T. Co
IL 868. 478
Ui. 468
r.Co«
iv. 186
Bliipton D. Thornton
Ui. 212
r. Dodge
IT. 299
Shipway ». Ball
li. 138
r-Gu^tt
il. 463
Shires c Glascock
IT. 615
>. Hannibal, «c R. Co.
ii. eoo
Shirk B. L« Fayette
1.391
.. Hudson, 4c R. Co.
ii. 604
Shirley p. Crabb
111.451
«. New Bedford S. Bank
ii, 4S8
c. Sliirly
U. 16-2
R. Co.
B. Sugar Beflner;
It. 1G4
li. 260
V. Watti
IT. le-t
B. Sherman
ii. 77
V. Wilkinson
Hi. 283
ii. 274
Shb-rai e. Caia IL 688 ; It. 176
ii. SOO
Shirrefl v. Wils
iii. 42
SiKnger v. Newatb
ii. 662
Shirti e. Shirti
It. 67
Sbeinit E. Bentley
iT. 636
Shisler i>. Van Dike
II. ei0
SberredB. Oko
iU. 437
ShiW V. Diefleobach
It. 151
SberriU v. Hopbina
ii. 400
ShiTfily I.. Bowlby
Shoekley r. Shepherd
L 30.384
SberriD V. St. JoMph & SL L
B. Co.
ii. 196
11. 269
Shoecraft o. Bloihara
i. 802
Shenj B. Perkin.
li. 16, 259
Shoemaker t>. Benedict
iii. 51
/Picken
It. 461
V. H1n«e
11.590
.■.Pr8.u>n
iil. 483
V. McMonigle
It. 4G7
SherriQ f Bhakeipear
It. 451
«. Hechanlci' Bank
ill. 106
Co. liL 876
V. SoDtb Bend Park Airester Co.
..Burr
iii. 443, 447
11.366
r.H.11
i.364
r. United State* L221.
268; li. 340;
.. McInto«h
IiL186.199
lii. 464
E.Marwiak
iii. 46
V. Walker
It. 38, 46
■..JSL.
Jii.483
Shoe Jb Leather Bank's Appeal IL SOO
iii. 80
Shoe Manut Co. v. Cutlan
li. 866
t. Smith
It. 418
Shoolbred I.. Baker
ii, 146
>. Stone
U.026
p. Nutt
p. Waller
lr.44fl
Shope V. Schaflner
It. 48
Shiddi .. Barrow
1.346
Shopland D. Ryoler
ii. 2:S
r.CMtonH.L.Co.
L413
Shore V. Benlall
lii. 800
cDelo
iy. 467
Stiores K. Carley
It. 29
».Loiear
It. 194
Short V. Matteson
li. 479
V MitcheU
It. 456
r. Skipworth
11.630
r.Ohio
i.419
P. Smith
B.Riopelta
It. 186
r. Stale
ii. 64
r.SchS
1.66
V. Taylor
m.452
c. Tbonai
L299
». Trabae
lii. 96
ShieUt r. Bbckbnnie il. G69. 671, GT2
r. Wilson
1.308
Shieli „. SUrk
It. 369
Shortridge ». Macon
1.91
StuR D. Loniuana State Ina. Co. iil. 288
Shotwell u. Dodiie
Hi. 440
c.Miu.Ia«.Co.
11839
e. Jefferson Ins. Ca
lii.P76
sObyGoOl^lc
ccxxzviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[Th. m«,fa.l p.^ « r»l«md to.]
Sickles V. Brabbitto
li.661
V. MoU u. 288
iv. 286, 311
V. Falls Co.
Ii. 366
t>. Humy
ii. 461
Sidaways v. Todd
iL691
(7. SeiluD
IT. 67
Sidebotham v. Holland
Ii. 494, 510
0. Shotwell
ii. 106
Sideoberg ». Ely
It. 166
Shove V. LarBea
IT. 46e
Sidney, The
ii. 608
Shovellon c. ShOTeUon
It. 306
Sidney v. Sidney
Siebold, Rr parte
i*. S4. 65
Slirecli a. Shreck
ii. 117
i. 301
Sbreve i: CtieMman
L380
V. DaTi,"^
11,477
B. VMrhee*
iU. 430. 441
Siedenbach v. RUey
11.581
Slireveport u. Cole
i. 413
Siegel V. Chidsey
iii. 50, 65
Slirewsbur; b. Brown
iii. 448
Siegerl r. Abbott
ii.)>66
f. Scott
i. 460
Sieghortner v. WeiMenborn
iii. 61
Shrewsbury (Eul of) r. No.
Stafiord-
Siegtnan v. Keelar
11602
Bliire R. Co.
ii. 300
It. 309
Shrevrsbury'B (Countesa of) Caae ir. TB
Siemens v. Seller.
ii. 3«6
Shrewsbury'! (E&rlo()CaK
iii. 467
SiSken v. Wray
ii. 642
Sifllun V. Walker
iii. 41
N. W. K. Co.
ii. 800
Sigard u. Roberta
iiL 187
SbriTer i>. Sioaz City, &c K
B. Co.
Sigerson v. Matthew*
iii. lOB
il 004, 608
Siglar r. Van Riper
iv. 6:J
ii.a86
Sigourney o. Lloyd
iii. 92
Shrank k. Freiident, &c of Scliayl
V. MUDD
Qi. 37, 6*
kill NaT. Co.
iiL 418, 430
Sikei V. TlppiDi
IL 101
Shubrick V. Fliher
iii 33
V. Work
fii. 87
D. Salraond
Iii. 200
Silas t'. Adams
ill. 56
ShoM n. Ferguwn
iT.436
Silas Farmer u. The CalTert, &c. Co.
Slia«7 i>. Uoited State*
il. 477
ii. 373
Shufelt D. Shnfeit
It. 194
Silesia, The
iii. 248
Shnford K. CiUd
i.342
Silica, The
iii. 282
Shuler t'. BuU
iL212
Silk B. Prime
iii. 6J>
Shulti D. Moore
It. 174
SiU r. Hood
iL 474
Shalti B. Mut. Life Ina. Co.
iii. 2IJ2
V. Worswick
ii. 406. 430
D. Ohio Ins. Co.
iiL 212
Sillan r. Collier
ii. 16
V. The Sikta
ii. 17H
Sill em D. Thorn Ion
iii. 282. .■)7rt
«. Wall
ii. 69'2
SiUiman i. Hndson R. Bridge Co. I. 306.
D. Toung
iv, 466
4.39
Shoman, In re
ii.ara
Si lowAT V. Neptnne Int. Co
SLls..ferown
iii. 817
c>.Keigart
ii. i;J8
iii. 230
». Shuman
Ii. 200
Si mim u. Aikew
ill. 64
Shumway v. CoUiOB
iii. 464
Silsby «. BuUock
iL 164
y, Rutter
ii. 52a
». Trotter
iii. 462
1-. Stillman
i. ail
Silta, At
ii. 451
». Walworth AN. M. Co.
a 259
o. Low iiL 206. 287, 817
ii. 479
SilTer V. Ladd
L326
Shurldi ». TiUon
iii. 67
SilTer Lake Bank e. North
iL283,2&l.
Shurtleffu, Parker
ii. 16
286
p. Willard iL 286. 601. 531
Silver* v. Potter
It. 806
Shury V. Piggot iii. 423, 489. 442, 449
Silver Spring, &c. Co. v. W«»kuck
Shuiter B. Fletcher
iii. 284
Co.
iiL 440
Shute ». Harder
It. 808
Silverton e. Marriott
ii. 2G0
V. Pacific Back
iii. 89
Silvester v. Wilion
iv. 211
Shuti c. Shult
iL126
Silvia, The
UL 205, 207
Shuttleworth t.. L«yoock
It. 175
Simeon p. Baiett
iiL 291, 292
IT. Le Fleming
iii. 419
V. Watson
ii. 261
Slbbaid V. Bethlehem Itod Co
ii. 6^
Simmondi v. Pamiinter
Iii. 114
Sibelj V. Tutt
iii. 116
Simmons e. Atkinson Co.
iii. 80
Sibley ». Alba
It. 370
V. Baynard
IT. 819
E.. Aldrich
11.596
v. Brbwn
iT. 191
V. HDlden
Iii. 434
V. Burrell
iv. 608
Sibly V. Hood
f. Clark
L260
Sicard v. Whale
il'. 462
)'. Cloonan
iv. 467
iii. 91
!>. Curtis
fiL5B
Sichler r. Look
It. 186
t>. Leonard
It. 616
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Siam«ii R Hltehelt
U. IS
Simx c. Mead
It. 176
r. New Bedford, &c 8l Co. H. 600
1-. Pierce
iT.214
T.S«U1
i. 200
V. SiruB
ii. 438
r. Sarin KB Sodetj
li. 4S8
V. Willing
iii. 2«
F. Swift il 4a2, 493, 49(i
SimB'a Case
ii.29
*. Thomai
ii. 194
SimBon v. Eckitdo
iT. 148
D. UDited SUtei
iL 12
Sinclair, /n re
iii. 217
0. Vudyke
U. 2B, 82
D. Comitock
iii 433
0. Winteni
iv. 497
D. Frawr
ii. 120
Simmona H. Co. v. Greenwood iii. 68
V. HoillBtar
iii. 54
I- Wiibel
ii. 373
K. PearBOD
U.687
SiiDK. ». CUrk
iii. 88
Sindelare v. WaUur
Iii. 46
Simon V. AllBU
ii.25B
Singer ». Dickneite
iii.96
c. Barber
It. 508
V. HasBon
L4e7
B. MiDer
ii. 6H6
V. Waniiloy
iL866
F. MativM
ii. 640
Singer Mfg. Co. f. Bennett
ii.277
E. State
ii.a)9
V. Domeitic S. M. Co.
ii.l6
r. Sedgwick
Iii. 807
i>. LarBcn
11366
Sinionili r. Catlin
iT. 434
v. Loog
it. 366
c. Simonds
ii. 107
... Miller
11.602
t. Union Ini. Co.
iii. 203
...Rahn
ii.269
r. White
UL 848,244
P. WilTOB
11.866
SimoM c. Bumham
ii. 16
E. Wright
i.39l
t. Cornell
lu. 451
Singl^./nr. i. 891; 11.30
SimoiuoD 0. Waller
IT. 412
Single v. Goodnow
11.401)
SimoDton E. Gray
iv.48
Singleton «. Knight
iii. 41
Simpen i.. Simpen
iv. 229
V. Lowndei
iT. 307
Kmpwn, MatUr of
It. 681
B. Phenix Int. Co. iii. S87
201,318
V. AmmoQS
It. 156
V. St. Loni» Mat. iM. Co.
iii. 869
», City Saringi Bank
1,456
Singree v. Welch
iv.e2
-..Cri^n
ii.4e8
Singatrom t.. Schooner Huard
iii. 102
r. DDDcanaon
a604
Sinking Fund Case*
1.419
c. EggiDBloa
lLfll9
SinnickBon p. JohoBoni
if, 859
.. Giriwid
H.e2B
Sin not v. Davenport
L489
cGedde.
iii. 60
Sinquui, The
iii. 176
lli.440
SinBheimor «. United Garment WorkerB
e.Grtyion
ii.206
ii.260
r. Hud
hi 230, 231
Sir ChM. Raymond'. Cm.
iii- 62
■ Hirtopp
iii. 478
Sir Edward Clere'B Cwe
iT. 267
..Umb
iv. 449
Sir R.lph Aberorombie, The
iii. 248
». Loudon. Ac By. Co.
ii.604
Sir William Hwbert or Herbert's
.. Moore
ii.36*
C«e 11.806; iv
164, 170
>. Moulden
ill. TS
Sir William Peel, The
i. 117
t. blander
It. 162
Sir William Pelham's C«»e
iv. 83
t>. NichoU
ii.492
SWar Qurdyal Singh b. R^j.
^ of
ii. 1»1
FaridkolB i.86;ii. 120
'■ Rourke
ii. 602
Siren. The L 06, 101, 297.
857. 360 ;
r.SirapKHi il. 129, 103; iT.T5
iii
171,232
'. Story
iii. 217
SiTiui,The i. 870; iii. 172
248,364
'. Vi. L. IM. Co.
iii. 86D
Si«»on E. Seabury It
205,221
r. Vughan
iii. 64
iii. 79
». While
Ui. 04
SiBien, The i. 87 ; iii
130. 162
^. ..Wr^nn
11.666
SiiterB of Charity v. Kelly
iT, 516
ii. 260
Sitpr n. MorrB
iii. 376
t.B«doner
ii. 236
». flriitain
iii. loT
ii
187, 138
n-Bmiioa
iiL46
; iT. 826
•-ro<,[»r
iT. 113
B. Keller
i». 461
'.Cw*.
iv. 449
Sitka, Tlie
i. 124
».D».l»
iii. 441
Sittig E. Birkeatack
iii. 79
'- Emhardt
U. 239, 241
Six Hundred Toni of Iron Ore
iii. 148
r. Gumey
iji. 234
S. J. Chrittian, The
iii. 858
C.JtckwiD
iii. 13, 189
Hi. 4K4
•- Uvinert
iii. 100
Skatly V. Shots
iii. 461
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Bke&tt B. Bealfl
ii, 468
Slingerland n. Morte
11.606,609
Skeel V. Spraker
Skeete t>. Silberbwg
It. 179
Slinn. In n
ii:438
11.408
Slipper V. StidtCoTC
iii. 68
Skellon s. Doiliii
ill. 102
Sloan V. Central Iowa B7.
Co. ii. 269
V. Fenton EL Co.
iL2eo
V. MaiweU
iv. 608
SkilliDg D. BoUmui
U. 649
U.Moors
iii. 44, 61
ill. 98
P. Cnion B. Co.
iii. 79
Skinner, Expartt
ii, 194
Sloane, In n
IT. 160
V. Brewer
It. 163
V. Cadogan
It. 336
V. Da7tOD
m. 27, 4S, 54
V. ChlnlquT
Sloat V. Royal In*. Co.
1. 413
V. Eiut IndU Co.
ii. 46S
Iii. 281
V. Orde
U
198, 196
Slocomb V. Lixardi
iii. 106
<r. Ba^Qor
111.81
Slocombe v. Gluhb
ii. 17S, 244
o. Sheptrd
It, 473
Slocum V. Mayben^
1,410,411
V. Shew
11.366
t). Pomeroy
ii.460
u. StDow ii 483
iii. 483
«.We.temAM.Co.
111260
u. Tinker
tu.es
Slothower c. Gordoo
It. 467
p. TirreQ
U. 146
Slnbey v. Heyward 11. 494. 601. 646
V. WeiterD M. & F. Ini
Co
iU.296
Sly B. Edgley
ii. 259
Skinner B. Co. «. Old Staten Iikod
Slyhool u. FUtcraft
ii. 126
D. E.t.
iii. 81
Small ». Clifford
It. 370
SkulBeld e. Potter
iii. 138
t>. Marwood
11683
Skrine r. Oordoa
il.240
D. Moatet
ill 188
0. The Sloop Hope
iii. 163
u. Dudley
ii.683; It. 307
SUck V. Eirk
111.89
V. Kohinaon
ii. 635
B. BlMnb
iii. 440
V. Smith
ii. SOD; iU. 42
ii.463
r. Wealoheiter F. Ins.
Co. ia. 376
SluDiDB V. Style
ii. 168
Small'. Adm. 0. Lumpkin'
Exec. I 66
Slater v. Etyward Bqbber Co.
ill. 217,
Smallcomhe v. Bmgea
ii. 400
234
Snialley I'. Smalley
V. Wight
It. 508
». Hill
It. 451
iii. 72
u. Jewen
11.260
Smart t'. Sandara
11.686,842
I'. SUter
ii, 193
r. Smart
iL198
0, Wett
Hi. 81
t.. Wolff
>. 104
SUtDT V. Bndr
ii. 236
Smeaton v. Martin
ii.S40
p. Trimble
il.2.36
Smedei v. Bank of Utka
lii.»8
sutler V. CmtoU
il.434
Smethurat ... WooUton
11.480
SlBtlei7 V. O'ConneH
il.l&6
SmeU B. WiJUanu
l.S0:l
It. 46
Smiley «. Friea
It. 407
li286
V. Gamhill
It. 621
V. Glenn
il.161
c. Van Winkle
It. 96
Slaughter House Chs*
i. 3B1 ; U, 49.
0. Wrieht
Ir. 46
04
Smith, Caae of
iii. 66
Slnve ChUd Hed, Cue of
il.267
EzparU
iii. 112
SIbtc Grace, The
U.
249.267
In Tt i. 891, 409; fi. 87, 170 : It. 451
SUTer*, The
1.869
Matter of 1. 407
; 11.13; ill. 65
SlawBon V. Grand St. R. B.
Co,
ii. 366
Smith, J., Caie of
i. 236
SlajtoQ V. McDonald
11.477
Smith, The General
1.379
«. Mclnlyre
It. 194
Smith 0. Abbon
ill. 80
Sleat D. Fagg
11.607
17. Acker
11.629
Slee c. Bloom U. 384
311
812, 814
V. Adama
ill. 441
tp. Manhattan Co. It
148
144,187
V. Alabama
1.489
Sleech .., Thorington
ii. 139
e. Allen
iv. 463
Sleech-i Caae
iii. 64
t. AndeiaoD
U.280; iii. 27
Sleeman v. WilM»
ii. 226
V. Andrew!
iii. 413
Sleeper e. Puig
<c. Union Im. Co.
iii. ao6
0. Angel
ir. 364
ill. 268
V. Arnold
ir. 461
Slefcel !>. Laner
IT. 9
1.302,413
Sleigh K. Sleigh
ill. 109
V. AykweU
i). 466
Slemmer-a Appeal
liSeB; iii. ei
V. B., C. & M. a Co.
Iii. 37S
Slevin.& ^
It. 608
V. B. & S. Oaaligbt Ca
ii. 284. 380,
Slide & Spur Gold HIuw r
Seymour
291
It. 168
p. Ballej
ir. 181
Slim P. Croucher
U. 400
■r. Baker
Ii. 470
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
lli«.BukofScOtknd
ii. 488
Smith V. Gould
ii. 248, 340
>. Bukor
iL646
0. Oraare*
It. 406
r. Beu
ii.4U2
B. Qreenhow
1.302
>. Bdl
1L3S6
iU.331
V. Greenlee
ii.&3U
it. 407
V. Hde
11479
.BUck
». Hard
1.409
.BIONOD
it 610
V. HaverhlU F. Ina. Co.
iii. 876
. BoMoD & Ufl. a Co.
u. eoo
u. Headi
iii. 461
.Bowen
U. 23a
e. Henry
iL522
BOJM
ii. 441
B.HiU
iii. -ij
.Br^oe
lU. 79
r. UiMWCk
It. 17»
. Browo
u.4ie
If, 408
V. Honey
i.2tW
ilLSl
r. Home 11.604, 607, im
.Bnrtii
It. 482
B. HublM
ii.487
.Batler
iii. 16fi
f. HodKB
u. 4»2,M5
.CmneU
ir. 02
f . Huglie*
U. 482
.Cmaea
ii. 448
V. Iver
ii. 125
.Chmdwtek
ii. 400
iU.64
. Chuter Okk IiM. Co.
iu. 266
I''. JsckMn i. 803, 814, 304 ; Iii. 39
.ChBtfaMD
iv. 4«7
V. Janes
iii. 88
.CherrUl
11.178
V. Jeflrey*
IT. 806
.ChMhiro
il. 291
V. Jaye.
r. JoliDI
iii. 61
-ChMter
iii. 114
iv. 194
.atrCoundl
11.274
V. Jotuuton
iv. 467, 468
.CUrk
11.680
It. 612
.Cluke
iii.sg
90,538
V. Kelly 11. 98
It. 194, 413
.Cl.y
It. 187
E.. Kemp
iii. 410
..Clerar
ii. 362
B. Kemper
It. 807
. Cl«w.
ii. G61
r. KendmU
ill. 78, 77
r^ayffotd
1.. Kerooclien
i. 345. 349
..Colby
ii. 494
«. Kerr
iii. 48
B. Collini
iiL41
iv. 214
V. KinibeU
iv. 264
r. ColtoD
iii. 401
ill 113
■.CoImDUALif.Co.
Hi. STO
r^Kron
ii. 241
■-Comba
ii.436
016; iii. 261
r-Comth
ii. 12
V. L.tl>rop
if. 123
..Condry
iii.
230, 2S1
B.L.- '
ii. 291
(-.CookB
It. 306
•'.Uwtoii
Hi. 79
..Cooper
iii. 64
n. IdT
iii. 166
rCnnfofd
Ui. 440
V. LlbnuT BoMd
0. LitHedeld
<i. 687
p.Ci«>lB,Tba
iil.176
iv. 118
».Con7
It. 687
0. London & S. W. R. Co. ifi. 486
B.DU1M
ii.864
c. Loorale
ii 608. 609
V. DaTii
ii. 146
V. Lot Angelei Ae**!!
ti. 281
r. Dmnfa
li.497
e. LowMdile
iii. 109
r..l)Mr
ii.209
R. Lncu
ii. 164
..nowning
ii.366
0. Ludlow*
m. SO
.DnJM
It. 14S
::fe
1.802
.ButOD
u.
463,611
ii. 431
.Elder
iii. 218
V. McCrlT
iT. 89
.B*uw
11. MO
;t.467
p. Maliory
iiL6S
.E.«ett
iiI.66.(M
B. HanninK
iT. 162
.Rdd
ii.66I
f. Mann&c Im. Co.
iii. 820
nr« N»t B4d1f in We.t8eld
r. Mamtble
m. 464, 408
ii. 5S4
v.Mutadt
iii. 86
.Fbhn
iii. 106
V. Maryland
1. 40T, 489
.Fletdiar iiL43S,440
It. 110
1.. Matthew.
ii. 16
.r. 80
". Gib«m Ii. 889
«•• Good i 287
v. Goodwin ir. 162
V. Ooodyear Dutil V. Co. U. 360
V. OordoD i. 247
v. OoM ii. 644, 660
voi_ u—q
1. Mercer ' iii. 86, 88, 106
■:. Miller iiL 88. 109. 446 ; iv. 122
1. HiM. Mar. & F. In*. Cn iii. 269
t. HoQDlolltl] Mul. Idi. Cn. Iii. 376
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Tht iHuqilnl pug
Smith B. Moure ii. 531
V. Moras 1.419; ii. MO
V. Muikett ' iii. 107
V. Mullilcen i. 362
(I. Mulock iii. M
V. MiugTOve iii. 440
V. Keglmner ir. 407
V. Kew EogUnd H. F. Ini. Co.
0. New HsTen & N. R Co.
V. Kew York, Mayor of
V. N. Y. Coot. R. Co.
r. Nichols
v. MicoUi
D. Niel
n. OtkM
V. UliphMit
D. Oiiell
K. f&rsoD 1.4SS:
n. Puton
D. Pekin, The
V. PendergMt
1.. Perr;
B. Pliilbrick
c. Pickh&m
i>. Flummer
i. S70
iL866
1.378
i». 106
ii. SSI
ii. eon
iu. lee, 167
ii. 403
iii. 106
». Price
B. Pritchett
p. ProTJn
B, Putnam
v. Raleigb
v. aaodail
e. Rtynoldi
e. Rice
V. Ride;
e. Roncli
IT. Koberuon
V. R oak well
r. Russell
p. Ssu Countj
V. St. Lawrence T. B. Co.
V. St. Michael
V. Sarmnt M. Co
V. fiSTin
V. fteiberliDg
V. Sh»w
B. Sliepheid
r. Shrtver
V. SinRletOD
B. SlOM
V. Smith a. 16. 78, 77, 78, 99, 116,
117, 126, 226, 281, 246, 267, 812.
366, 41G, 446, 469, 606, 667 ; iii.
24. 31, 37; ir. S06. S64, S70, 641
s. Snow IT. 270
B. Sorby it. 148
ii. 281
Hi. 470
ir. 430
iii. 273
ir. %
iii. 70. 89
i. 302
iii. 41
Smith V. So. Royaltoa Bank v. 451
V. Spence U. 170
V. SpinoUa ii. 462
F. Slirr ii. 166
r. State i.283; ii. 12
V. Stewart Ii. 866 ; iii. 188
V. Stone iiL 48
D. Strong IT. 476
V. Slrother i. 221
V. Surman iL 494, 604, 611 ; ir. 461
Suiridge iJL 807. 316
Swan Iv. 327
Iwift
e. Tebbin
V. Thsckerab
V. Tolcher
V. Tracy
V. Treat
V. Union Bank of G.
D. United States
0. Unirenal Ins. Co.
V. Van Blarcom
V. Vincent
0. Wabash, Ac Ry. Co.
V. Walker
0. Ward
17. Ware
B. Watson
V. Weguello
B. West
o. Weston
V. W. U. Tel. Co.
V. Wheeler
V. Whiting
L176
ir. 608
Hi. 437, 448
ii.476
ii. 616,621
iii. 427
ii.466
Iii. 33
i. 2fl7
202
iii. 86
ii.«ll
ii. 6SS
Ii. 416
Saddle Co.
D. Whitney i. 822, 341, 84S, 869
r. Wilson iii. 83
17. Winter ii. 465; ui 68
B. Wood i. 467
B.Wright 11604; iii. 26. 240
V. WyckoO iii. 90
B. Young ii. 2S0
th'B Appeal ir. 49
Smith's Estate ii. 438, 448; ir. 68
Smith Manuf. Co e. Sprague ii. 866
Smith Paper Co. b. Serrin ii. 343
Smithnrat e. Edmunda ii. 492
Smithwick c. Ellison ii. 347
Smoot u. Lecalt ir. SO, 31
Smout B. liberty ii. 646
S. M- Whipple, The iii. 164
Smyies d. Hutings iii. 448, 440
Smyrl v. Nioion Ii. 609
Smyth, Ex parte iii. 471 ; ir. 107
V. T«nkeraley iv. 96
Snipe D. Turton i*. S31
SnMhall B. UeL R. Co. U. 164
Snarely v. Harkrader U. 226
Snead n. Watkins ii. 639
Snedeker ti. Waning ii. 343
Snee c. Prescott ii. 642, 643. 644
Sneed i>. Atherton ir. 8TI
V. Morehead ii. 602
r. Sellers L SOS
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASGB.
[Xli« mu'gjiiA] jWfVA ai« rafaiTfld Ukl
Snta.EtpaTt,
lU. 88
iii. 214
hrt
ii.eag
Sodawiky v. McFarland
Solier'B EBUte, In rt
iii. S3
..OunpbeU
i.467
ii. 562
^Clliclgo 1
8*2 ; iL 306
iT. 637
LDtLud
Ui. 26
Sohn o. Waterwn
i. 419
D. DeUwtre Iiu. Ca
iiLSStt
iu. 33
I. DiriEht
i.87
Solarte v. Falmer liL 106, 106
>.HirriMHi
JT. 870
ii.261
It. 471
Sollee B. Meugy
iii. 124
>. Rich
iii. 176
Sollory B. Leaver
ii.460
ij. 417
Solly V. Fort««
V. Ratlittoiw
iii. BO
ii.638
a.tcs.
iii. 20
B. Wiiitmore
iii. 815
IT. 306
Solomont i'. Bank of Englaad
iii. 79
».Troj
ii. 277
0. Ro..
ii.406
SiiidM, Son.' Co. e. Troy
ii. 277
I'. United SCatet
it 386
Si»dd; t. Buk
ii. 490
iT. 451
8«).k,h-«
ii. IQ.?
Solway Prince. The
Ui.248
g-SnttoD
ii. 228
Soltykoff. In re
11286
SDorerD.PnU
[1.226
Somers r. SomerB
ii.o»
Sao-,/.n!
L284j ii. Bl
«. Stmte
1.236
■ Cunith
iii. 22B
Soniereall v. Bameby
m. 124
i.ColiunU>nIiu.Co.
iii. 282, 200
Sotuemet, Re U. 164
iv. 396
■P. HoDtttcDic a Co.
|[. 260
V. Cookson
ii.48T
«. Ratchini
ii. 188
Somerset, Duke of v. FogweU
m.4io
>-Uka
iT. 465
SomorTille, Rt
ii. 448
■ Hut
ii. 878
t>. SomerTUIe
U. 430
..180ToMof8cr«pIron lii. 8.->4
a. Wimbiih
iii. 421
I. Pmon.
iii. 440
Somes B. Brewer
iT. 464
..PeKock
iii. 61
Co.
».PuUti«-
iii. 464
U.636
E.SDOW
a. 101, 126
r. Equitable Safety Ins. Co.
iii. 268
■.SUTtm.
ir. 44
». Stinner
iT. 98
.. WiTwiok iMt'n
iT. 16tt
V. Sugrue
iii, 832
..Wope
iii. 186
P. White
iii, 138
SowdenrOuion
iii. 272. 2HI
SommerTille o. Williami
lii, 108
».mu.
iii. 402
Sonday'i Caw
ir, 276
Siowe o. CntUer
JT. 265, 267
Sondheim ». GUbert Ii. 490 ; iu. 41
Sno-hiU .. Sno-hiU ii 136
230; iT. 322
Soome V. Gleen
iii. 866
Snyder .. A Flo.tiDg Dry-dock i. 389
Soon Hing v. Crowley i. 301, 449;
I. ALintic M. In*. Co.
iii. 314
ii. 340
>. Crilchfleld
ii. 120
Sooy D. State
iii. 461
>. Firmer*' Ini. Co.
iii. 87S
Soperr. Arnold
It. 461
cBilt
Ui. 476
B. Bmirn
It. 846
B. Hub i258;ii. S32
Sophie, The i. 104.
111. 174
r. Miller
Sopliie Wilhelmine, The
Iii. 172
». ?h»ro
i. 81)6
Sorenaon «. Davis ir.
870,460
t. Violi H. Co.
ii. 2&tl
Sorley v. Brewer
iii. 167
Snyder-i Appeal
ii. ITO
Somborfter v. Sanford
!i. 451
irr'^F
iii. m
Sorrels v. McHenry
ir. 471
ii. 22
Sottomayer v. De Barro*
11.93
iii. 228, 234
Souders >'. Van Si<;kle
iT, 185
Socul Rtgiiter Ah'u v. Hoirara Ii. SM
Soule V. Alter, The
m.282
8oci(t^WnA»le r, Mildera
ii. 46B
V. Chase
1.422
Society of Friend* r. Hainei
iT. 1«4
D. Heerman
ii. 476
Sodecy V. Wbeeler
i.4e&
V. N. Y. & N. H. R. R,
ii. 418
SoG. for IW or tbe Ooipe
0. Hvl-
iv. 29fl
V. Sliotwell
South, Ex varte
Ui. 79
iT.307
B.KevIUYea
i. 177. 455
South Afnta Ca o. Compsnhia de
>.Wbe«ri«r
ii. 284, Sse
Mofambique
iT.183
Soc for 8»Tltig( f. Cdte
i.429
South Australian Ins. Co. v. Randell
Sw: Aff Vteiution of »ck
. Meyer
ii. «65, 477. 690
iii. 872
ii.29e
Sooth Bay Meadow Dam Co. v. Gray
Soekrtt ^ Wr»y
a 170
ii296
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
South Cirolto* V. 6«orgi* i, 489
Spanker ir. ButlarfteU
«. asi
V. We.ley L 361
Sparger v. Moore
It. 46
Soutli Hetton Coftl Co. v. Horth Em-
Spargur t. Heard
it 164
(em NeiTi Aw'n ii. 22
iL106
South NuhTille 8t R. Co. c. Mor-
Spark*. B, Bell
ii. 181
row ii. 352
146, 480
South of IrelBDd CoUierr Co. b. Wad-
Sparrow b. CarruUtera
ii. 166
dle ii. 20
IT. 63Q
South Sea Co. v. Dimcomb ii. 582
1-. Kingman
iT. 88
South Staflbrdihire Tramwaji v.
K. Strong
Sparlali e. Benecke
1.816
SickneM Au. Co. lii. 306
11.402
Southampton, Ai Ii. 0X0
V. Ewing
ii. 4«7
Southard v. Steele lii. 49
B. Putnam
iii. 89
Southbridge SaritjBi Bank v. Hmod
1L34.55
u. 343
p. W. N. Flynt Q. Co.
ii.258
Southby D. StonehouM i». 836
Speaker of Leg. Am. c. Olaaa
L286
Southcote'i Caie Ii. 563, OM
It. 283
Soutlierin r. Meodum iv. 1B4
Spear n. Spear
U.226
Soalhern ». Wollaatoo it. 283
B. Sweeney
Spears v. Hutly
ii. 16
Soulheni Back t. Wood ii. 407
U.642
Southern Cal. R. Ca i.. Rutherford
1.236
ii. 26fi
Speckert b. LonUnUe
1.466
Southern Dry Dock Co. v. Gibaon iu. 170
Spedding r. NereU
Ii. 632
Soutliem Eip. Co. i>. Hood i. 430
Speed i: Ati. 4 P. R. Co.
a. 269
V. Huonicutt ii. 608
c, Kelly
iL429
V. Newby Ii. 608
Speennan e. Degrare
iii. 163
r. Todd i. 802
Speer b, BtairaTnie
iL840
Southern Ini. Co.d. WoWertou Hard-
Speight, In re
iT.S27
ware Co. i. 260
Speight u. Oliviera
ii.205
Soutlieni Medina College v. Thoinp-
Speigbn 0. Peten
iiiei
lon ii. 366
Bpenre „. Chadwiok
iu.217
Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lafferty
V. Dunlap
ii.441
ii. 269
V. Sthulti
ii.260
D. Orton i. 842; ii. 277
V. u'^M. Ina. Co.
iii. 76
V. United BUlM i. 2UT
ii.365
Southern By. Co. v. Aiherilla 1. 489
Southern White Lead Co. d. Colt ii. 366
Spenceley. h n
iL436
Spencer, Re IL 170
i IT. 608
Soatbeme b. Howe il- 482
V. BlaiadeU
ii.44S
Southey x. Sherwood ii. 380, 381
V. BrockwBT
i.261
Southgate, The iii. 217
i>. Carr
ii.241
B. Champioa It
430,433
Sonthwell 0. BowdTtch ii. Q81
t'. Hale
ii. 402
SouthweaterD R. Co. v. HitoheU iii. 440
V. Kelley
iiL164
c. Paulk ii. 340
B. Marlborongh, Duke ot
It. 207
i. 248
SoQthwick ... AUanUc iDi. Co. iii. 376
V. White
iii. 222
V. Southwi.* ii. 128
V. WilUam*
ii. 120
SoMliworlh V. EobWna It. 582
Spencer's Caae IIL 461 ; It. 96, 472, 473.
B. Smith iii. 162
4S0
B. Van Pelt i*. 162
Spencer and Newbold'a Appeal
iv. 869
Spencer & White v. Wlljon
ii. 644
Soward b. Palmer iii. 468
Spencera v. Daggett
Sperry, Eitate of
il. 609
Sower*! Appeal ii. 128
iiLSS
Spackman i>. ETana ii. 300
Sperry b. Delaware Ina. Co.
i. 161
Spader i: Daria U. 443 ; W. 430
B.UOTT
ULT6
K. Lawler l». 176
e. Pond
It. 134
Spafford o. Dodge iii. 240
Spea t Irene, The
L14S
Spahr v. Fannen' Bank ii. 277
Spejer v. Deajaidin.
iU. 87
Spaight u, TedcMtte iii. 176
Spicer V. Eari
IL2S6
Rpain, /» r« i. 430
r. Uartin
It. 480
Spalding B. Rom ii. 468
». Ruding Ii. 640
V. South Botton IMD Co.
u. 269
Spickler, In rr
l4S»
Spangter, Matter <a L 401
Spietmaa i>. Klie>t
It. 450
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Ths ~ "!'-■' ra^M ua rcAcnd la.]
li. 16
SpieiM >. Puker
SpieriDgp. Andru
S^n 0. Gilmoie iii. o», m
I. DliDoii L 800
Spill I. Mknle U. 2i
Spilier F. Seller ir. 181
SpiDDeT >. Oc«an M. loi. Co. ill. S14
Spiiett t. WUIowa ii. 13B, 441
Spink «. Bdtimora & O. K. Co. ii. 269
Sillier I'. James Hi. ^9, 90
Spofford B. WwUn It. 171
Spobier I. Uoo ii. 121
Spokuw K, Fint Nat. Bftok It. 371
Spokun ConntT v. flnt Nat. Bank
iv. 871
Spoulir'B Appeal It. Ml
Spooner r. Holinef Iii. B2, 89
t. M'CoDDetl Ul. 427
•. BowUuMl
iii. 102
..Spoooer
ais4
ir. 472
1220
Spcgw t. BMler
li.206
*. Biker
iT. 471
r.I^etcher
iii 100
r.Tert
iii. 206
Sprtkw B.'Van aE^m
i.439
It. 640
.Ipre., The
ilLIUS
SpriBI'.CllD)'
ia.8fi
r.Hode
11.486
V°B^^^
11.592
ill. 217
^mg«r >. atiMU* Hatonl Oaa Co.
1.413
r. FoMer ' L 842
>. SlMuorge ii. 636
B. Uoitod SutM 1. 246, 266
Springir'B Appeal iv. 418
Springer Lith. Co. v. Falk 11. 378
Spriagfcld V. Harrii iU. 440
F. Walker ii. 274
Swingfidd CoDi. Bt. Co. p. Welih
ii.lQG
Spriogfidd B. & T. Co. V. Gi««o ii. 281
Springfield P. & IL Ini. Co. v. Allen
ill. 376
>. UnU 11. 407
gpringlleld Spinning Co. v. Riley 11. 269
Spring rdleT W. Woiki v. Sao
HiiM W. Work* il. 840
SpringTiHe Hannf. Co. v. Unooln 11. 926
Spnat B. DoniwU iii. 138
Spntt, The Hi. 164
Spnnt V. Bmwii Iii. 208
bpnoi r. HeaODgway ii. OSS
Sptoola V. Fmdaricka i. 2:S
Spockr. Leonard Ui.OT.es
Spa^tDD v. Swain Ui. 84
5m>.Peanoo ill. 194
Sfoin, Eiuie of i*. G26
I. V. T. n. K. Co. li. 608
B.Wliipple 11.203
Squire v. W. U. T. Co. li. All
Sqoirai v. Sqairei li. 101
S. S. White Denul Co. v. Siblev 11. 873
S. S. WilhelD, The i. 360
SUadt Embdeo, The L 143
StaaCa p. Ten ETck iT.476
Stace; Clarke, The Ui. 170
Slack r. Beach iii. 89
V. Cavanangli il. 280, 241
Stackpole d. Arnold IL 612, 680
V. Beanmont iv. 126
o. Healj iU. 432, 438
E. Simon iii. 284
Stackpoole e. Simon iii. 370
r. Stackpoole li. 121, 231
Stacf, Hatter of i. 401
V. Thrasher ii. 420
Stafford B. Bacon il. 466
V. Bncklev fU. 400
IT. Ingeraol 14:67; iU. 438
D. Hoof li.286
V. Van BentMlaet It. 162
». Yatea ilL 109
Stafford, Marqait of o. Coyney Ui. 461
Stafford, Havor of o. TiU ii. 291
Stafford Bank ef. lUmer Ui. 24
D. Spragne ir. 179
StagR 0. BeeknwD 1*. 311
Suightr. Bnra ill. 448
Staiaback d. Rae iU. 232
Stainlunk rt. Sbepard UL 172, 868
Stairley e. Rabe ii. 414
Stalker v. M'Donald iii. 81
Staliknecht v. Penii. B. B. Co. U. 416
SCaliworth v. Stallworth It. 408
Stalworth v. Ions ii. 206
Stamma v. Brown iii, 306
Stamp u. Cooke It. 687
D. PraDkUo il. 149
SUnard H, Co. e. Flower Ii. 616
StancbQeM n. Newton ill, 440
Standard Bank v. Stokes ill. 437
SUndard C. Co. v. Peters C. Co. li. S60
Standard Ins. Co. v. Langiton iii. 366
Standard OU Co. v. Tiiumpb Ins. Co.
Ui. 200
Standart r. Bound Talley W. Co. It. 467
Staoden v. Brown li. 600
D. Cfarisnuu It. 122
V. Standen It. 336
Standiih D. Babcock UL 24; iv. 806
p. Lawrence Ui. 487
SUnflll p. Hickei 111. 483
Stanford d. Stanford It. 203
Stanhope b. Stanhope il. 1)6
Sunbope's Case 1. 4<>0
Stanley v. Bemea iL 420, 4S0
D. Hewitt ii. 371
e. Jones iv. 440
r. McBlrafii iii. lOS
p. Riley iii. 461
V. Sciiwalby 1. 67
V. Stanley U. 426; It. 206, 811
V. Twogood It, 10»
;abyG00<^lc
CCxlTi
TABLE OF CABG9.
[n* otuflul pww n>-»d to.]
SOiil^ V. WKb
iv. 221
Slate V. Bank of Carolina
a 812
SUMcU t. Gwgi. L Co.
iti. 96
t>. Bank ot Maryland
148
BtMBKtt r. Boberti
iv. 171
<;. Banki
a 193
StaKton r. Ata. * C. R. Ca
iu.89
p. Bamea
l2s;S
e. Blouom
iiL109
iLe4
r. Embrey
l260; ii. 123
p.Betl
ii. 12
». French
It. 612
K.Bennndei
L456
t>. HkU iL
140; It. 310
v. BienTenn
il22
r. Kew Tork. &£. B. Co
ii.281
plBllia^U
ii.34e
ii. 206
li. 12
B. Shipley
L302i iii. 76
c. BoatonCAKLaCo.
ii. 2BS
v.Wibo^
il. 191. 193
p. Bowman
iL12
Stanton Manuf. Co. t>. McFariuid ii-SM
r.Boyd
L228
Stan wood r. DonniDK
ir. 80
p. Brewster
UL464
I. Green
i. 381
D. Bradbnry
01461
SUples r. FranUin Bank
iU. 102
p. BrookoTer
im
r. Heydon
m. 419, 420
P. Brown
l410
t. Nolt
ii.460
V. Brown & Sharps MMnvL Co. ii 25»
r. Okinea
iii. 110
p. Buchanan
i. 473
... Spntgne
in. 44
c.Bumham
a 20, 22
Staple ton n. Conway
ii.461
p. Butler
ii.SOB
r. Loniiville B.Co.
iiLTO
p. Bum
in. 454
Stapyicon v. Scott
ii. 476
r. ButLne & Schlemn
iLS!
Star V. Peue
li. 106, 107
p.Bozard
ii.S40
Star N. Co. i.. O'Conner
i*.480
p. Caldwell
ii.i2
Surof Hope, Tlie
Siar. Tlie Brighl
SUr Wapia Co. tf. Swetey
UL 174, 234
p. C»rew
L419
t. 439
p. Cawidy
ii.340
iii. U
c. Catlin
iiL 442. 461
SUrbnck c. Mntrmy
L 261, 262
0. Central N. J. TeU Co.
ESIl
u. N. E. Ing. Co.
iii. 288
0. Sha«
m. 156
Milwaukee
ii.298
Slarin o. New Tork
i. 326
V. Chamblyaa
IL69T
Stark .-. Cannadj
IT. 806
r. Cincinnati
i.440
^.HopwnT'
iT. 62
V. CiTil District Judge
iL16
1.. HunWo
p. Clarke
ii.2S3
r. Mercer
W. 183, 184
ti;Cleland
i.46S
*.Oben iii.76: i». 838
p. Cloud
ii.607
r. Parker
iL60e
P.Cole
1466
Starkey v. MiU
U.463
n. Collins
ii. 13
Starkicp. Paine
iLS66
p. Cone
ii.7B
o. Perry
ii. 192
r. Cook
iii. 89
Starkweather p. QoTeland
Ina. Co.
p. Cooler
i.409
iii. 376
p. Crawford
i. 225
SUrliRhl, The
iii. 284
f. Creditor
u. 340
SlarlinK f. Hawka
1.346
p. DbtI*
ii.'i2
Slarne. .-. HiU
iT. 214, 264
p. Dawson
ii.3i9
Starr v. Child
Iii 429, 430
V. Delaware, «& Co. L 3S1 ; ii. 611
e. F,ili.
IT. 102
p. Dewitt
l439
». JackHin
iT. Ill, 110
p. Dews
ill 454
>.. Learitt
iT. 471
r. Dilliard
iU.479
Surrelt D. Wynn
U. 194
p. Dodson
i.283
BUrtup u, CoTlasd
ii. 480
P. Donaldson
U.340
« J. Adami
ii.49,804
p. Dover
ii.l!
«. Ah Chang
L301
V. Doxtater
iii. 399
P. Aiken
i. 268
p. DriKgB D. Co.
ilSJO
V. Allm
a296
p. Duket
ii. 9.5
r. Allla
IT. 461
D. Edward
Eli
e. Andriano
ii. 64
D. Feely
L403
D. Archibald
i. 469
p. Felter
iv. 608
V. Artin
L409
p. Fittfceraia
ii. 20--,
V. Atherlon
m. 461
B. Fletcher
i.46T
p. Baird
ii. 193
p. Foley
i. 284
0. Balch
il. 22
P. Foot
ii.441
V. Baltimore ft O.K. Co.
li.340
p. Fonder
nm
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
tTk* DUBjliBl lagM m nitmi to.]
Mr-Fowmia
lii.SSS
State B. Mmjot. (Sk Jera«; City.)
r. Fowc«de
ii. 12
^. Mue
i.467
r. Fnller
i.402
V. Meyer
jr. 424
t.Geer
i.4SB
t>. Miller 1.419; iii. 464
iii. 429
g. Mitwrnukea Ctumber of Com-
>. Gliduii
i. 489
merce
li.304
V. GIOTBT
i. 37
r. Mines
1. 460, 469
r. GoodwQl i. 391
ii.840
V, MiwheEI
ILS40
ii. 340
V. M. L. S. t W. Ry. Co.
ti. 304, 812
r! tt»\g\>\
i. 429
«. Moore
ii. 12, 340
r. tUll i. 87 : ii. 32
V. McM)ty
ii.607
c. Hamilton Conotj Com'n
ii.2H«
V. Morgan
il.lO
V. HanlcQ
ii. 268
D. Morrii & Eetex R. Co.
ii.290
r.Hardia
u. 12
B. Morrlion
U. 697
V. Hftrtit
i.248
r. Murray
1.80
r. Hxrkin*
i.2-21
V. Newark
ii.288
».H.je. i.440iii.72
V. New Boatoa
ii.807
,. Heinen»nn
ii.340
V. Newell
ii.71
>. Herm&n
ii.2l2
... Hew Orleua City 4 L. R. Co.
c. Uili i. 304
U.268
1.418
(.HodgMQ
ii. 12
V. Hew OrlewiB M. Co.
L384
..Hol^
i.419
o. NIcIioUb
1.466
.. HopkiQP
it, ail
... Nicklewa
11.238
>. Hoskhu U.
269,340
...NicoUi
ly.636
r.Botte
i.469
p. Korri.
424; il.04
r.H(7U
L409
». Northern C. B. Ca
11.348
cHiU
ii.44
c. Northern P. B. Co.
1.489
cJMtMM ii.32,81
V. Noyei
11.840
r.Jeilat*
ii, 12
p. Overton
11.296
».Jeneya(7 i. 409,419;
ii. 298;
t.. PaiTiib
11.230
iit. 431
V. Parion»
1.439
». Jonet i. 286, 301, 449 ;
iL253;
0. Pacteraon
i. 37 ; >i. 87
ir. 60B
p. Paul
i.4oe
t. Jadgt of PtoUu
ii. 481
5. Peck
ill. 466
..Jodie.
i. 424
B. Peel SpUnt Coal Co.
ii. 269
r. KaiuM City, 4c R. Co.
ii.340
B. Pemberton
1.248
B. PendergraM
ii.206
R KibliDg
i. 489
p. Penn»
1 439
p. Einhner
B. Phiipit
ii. 253
I. KitteTT
iL12
V. Phipp. L
489; ii. 277
r. Kolum
1.460
K. Pitti. ft Conn. E. Co.
ii. 416
r. Koalilond
1.460
B. Plaiated
11.236
r. Krider
ii. 468
p. Pool
ii. 12
V. Uelede Q. L. Co.
ii.46S
P.Pratt
i. 189
C,tMh
11.98
p. PriWhard
11.13
(F. U.enck
iil.4S2
B. Quick
iii. 69
r.Le>ii
1.406
V. RandaU
i.404
rLehre
11.19
B. Rankin
i. 341
».Lewiii
1.891
D. Held
11. 12, 340
.. ybbey
ii.l98
i>. Relnhart
ii. 12
rLoper
a 82
D. Reus
ii. 193
-.Lord
i.439
V. Ki<:e
11.299
c. McBride
1.464
p. Richiirdwn
ii. 193
>, UcClDD
1.460
r. Roberta
11. 12
.. HcDiniel
iii.4e4
p. Robertion
il. 138
t-. Mclntira
il. le
E. Rollini
1.473
c.U.D>»r» o( EltwdolM
for
■iRoot
11.285
ii. 72
P.Rom
U.72
<F. H>D°n
ii.263
V. Ruder
It. 424
(.H^DfAeld
ii.283
p. Samuel
ii. 87
>-HlH»
ii.441
p. Scblemn
il. 30
>. Hithewi
11.696
V. SchooooTor
ii. 16
V. HiUhewt
i.236
B. Setier
U. 76
>.lii7tMir
1. 466
P. Simmona Hardwan Co. U. 277
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Bute v. Sinou
ii. IS
State Tnut Co. v. Owen P^«r Co.
V. SmalU
i. SOS
ill. 109
I?. Smith
ii. 70, 206
Stead V. NelMQ
ii. 168
B. Sommen
ii. 12
D. Salt IIL 48, 49
». Standard OU Co.
ii. 276
V. Wmiami
U. 806
ii. 277, 467
Sleadman b. Powell
It. 506
V. State (N. H. v. Ul)
.323
B. Wilbur
li. 164
V. StebbiD*
11.290
Steamboat Co. v. Chaw U. 416
iii. 170
V. Steele
b.602
V. LlTlDgStOD
i. 4SS
V. SteTenton
.438
V. McCutcheo»
u. 2ta
V. Stewut L 87
: U. 13. 269
B. Wilkini
ii. 609
... Btone L 823 ; li. 6BT
Steamboat Metropolii, The
iii. 164
v.8treukeM
ii.U
Steamboat Orleaoa v. Ph<Ebui
iii. 162,
>. SdIUtu
i.40e
163, 167
o. Terry
li.206
(5« Orleani e. Fli<Ebua.)
B. ThompMD
11. 206, 277
11635
». Tombecbee Buik
1.465
Steamer Oler, The
1SS9
v.Tnik
111.461
Steamer Petrel (1. Dumont L 370
iii. 170
V. Tudor
ii.296
Steamer Raleigh, Ac
iii. 170
P.Tafly
L449
Steamship Co. r, Joiiffe
1439
^. Tupjer
ii.3*0
1439
B. TuU
i.sa8
D. Tugman
L303
o.Tutty L413;ii. 107
Iii 841
V. Van Wagoner
iii. 397
iii. 88
D. Vt. Central R. B.
ii. 290
B.Dae
iii. 172
p. Vincennei Uni.
ii. 208
V. GodfVey
B. Ilerrick iL
i». 128
V. Vincent
il. 12
366,690
V. Walteri
1.462
iii. .17
v. Warren
ii. -287
V. Hubbard
iv. 451
e. Wftttera
11268
V. Jonei
ill 445
0. Welch
L 400, 427
V. Mullen
iv. 467
V. WellB
L404
V. Pliilllpe
11366
IT. Wealon
ii. 866
V. Quincy It». Co.
iii. 376
V. Wheeler
L. 840
V. Sampaon
It. lis
V. Wheelock
1.439
c United Statei
1402
ii. 49
Stebbini v. Eddy
It. 467
V. Wilkimon
iii. 442
V. Globe Uu, Co.
iii. S74
c. WUIiama
t. 467
Stebbing & Muon, Ez parte
m.e&
P. Wilson
iT. 468
Stedfast b. Sicoll
It. 249
D. Wincroft
ly. 62
S ted man v. Fortune
iT. 62
B. Wilh
1.469
V. Gooch
iu. 95
p. Woifer
1.283
0. Smith
iii. 437
V. ZuUcb
i. 401
Sleedman v. Roie
ii. 239
State Bank, /» nt
ill. 81
Sleeili V. Steeda il 463
It. 861
I.. Bartle
Ui. 109
Bleel V. Lacy
■iii. S89
V. Cape Fear Bank
Hi. 98
B, Le«ter
ill. 138
V. Hinton
U. 40S
V. MeKinley
lU. 89
o. Hurd
Ui. 06
p. PortUnd
Ui. 461
r. Napier
iU.99
V. Ratbbon
1.302
V. Slaughter
iii. 105
V. S. E. H. Co.
11260
p. Stale ii.
»7, 31S, 816
iii. 206
SUte Bank of Ohio v. Knoop
i. 419
V. Steel
IT. }04
StAie Capital Bank v. ThotDMon iii. 80
Steele r. Curie
il4fi6
State Ceniui, In rt
i. 449
V. Eltmaker
U. 638
Sute Fire Ini. Co., In re
iu, lie
B. Franklin F. Idb. Co.
III 268
State Freight Tax
i. 439
V. Frienon
iT. 418
State In«. Co. b. Robert*
iii. 876
r. Moxiey
It. 327
o. Taylor
State of Catifornia, The
ill. 876
r. Municipal Signal Co.
11 SS:^
i. 369
r. Southwick
am
State of Maine. The
111179
i: Steele
il7T
SUIe of Maryland d. Bank of Mary-
V. Thauher 1.
367. S70
land
ii. 284
It. 687
Sute Railway Tax Casea
1.266
Steel Edge Stamping & a Co. tr. Han-
State Tonnnge Tax Galea
L489
cheater 8. Bank 1.422; U. 634
It. 806
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
StMT.Are
SLcete tr. Sieare
Stwn t- Idthler
Slegill !>■ StegKll
Stcjgn I. HiUen
Steiglemu v. Jeffrie*
SleigUu V. Eggiaton
SuiD D. Benedict
V. Bienville W. 8. Co.
r. Bordea
r. La Dow
V. Sheinctrom
f. Ygleaiu
Btnn'aCMe
Sainer n. Zirickejr
BieinluTdt b. CniuilDghiim
Swiiinietz b. U. 8. Ini. Co.
Sldonwtc'* E*Ute
Sutler CuToU
SuLi B. Sbteck
Sieniui «. Bkrmon
Stenbei^ v. Wiloos
SteMsurd D. St. Pmnl R. E
Co.
Sl(ntc.HcLeod u.4ee
BliDb c. Brittow
Stephen r. Be>D
Stephen Hart, The
Stephen!, Ex porta
iU. 80
ii. 211
if. 09
t. Auitralaiian Ins. Co. iii. 268, 270,
v.Doe
ilL21
B, Foeter
D. Oifford
V. HumpIiTTea
I. Blonongahela Hat. Bank
B.OlKm
B. Beynold*
B. Siapben* it. 207,
StephMiioD n. Cotter
t. Heathcota
V. Filcataqiu F. & M. Ini.
«. SlepfaenaoD
IT. U. 8. Erp. Co.
Stepheoeoa's Adm. r. Sing
8iepp B. National Life &c. Am'
Blerger v. Van Sicklea
r. Van Siden
Bulling, TiM
SUriiiw; Ee parte
-.29, SO
It. ISO
iT.MO
ill. ao
. 174, 274
iL22S
u. 004
idington
M ■!« raferraJ to.]
Stern ir. Tloreuce iT. tH
c. Freeman . ii. 236
u. Ueikleliam it 236
Sternberg'! iSttate, Inn it. 632
S terry D. Arden it. 403
e. Bobinaon iii. 06
Stert, Tlie i. 146. 147
Stetion V. CitT of Bangor iii. 461
V. HaU i. 409
t. Hau. Fire Ini. Co. iii. ST4
r. United State! i. 26
Stettin, The iii. 207
Steuart V. Gtadetone iii. 64
Steuben Count}' Bank b. Alberger iii. 41
Bterena b. Androecoggin W. F. Co. iii. 81
V. BagweU It. 449
v. Baker iii. 37
p. Boalon & Wore
R.B.
ii'639
V. Bufialo & N. Y.
R.R
ii. 348
V. Caip R. L Co.
iL281
V. Central Nat Bank
i.387
V. Cooper
It. 104
:at.«h
iT. 122
11.697
p. Endera
It. 364
V. Faucet
iii. 30
V. Fiiher
Ii. 629
K. Gaylord
il
431,434
V. Gouriey
iii
281, 232
0. Griffitli
iv. 406
iT. 469
D. Hinsbelwood
ii. 269
u. Hope
IT. 531
B. Horlbut Bank
ii. 681
V. Lvnch
iL4gl
iii. 113
0. Hidlaod Conntie* B. Co.
ii. 284
B. Nuhna
iii. 461
V. Norfolk
iT. 368
O.Park
ill. 88
D. Paieraon & KewaA R. Co.
iii. 413.
417
427, 4S1
r. Pattenon
iT.277
D. FhiU. BaU Club
iii. 78
V. Phcenix lu. Co
1.30S
0. I^erce
iii. 468
V. Qneen In>. Co.
ii.463
j>. RejDOidi
iT. 870
B. RichardHin
Ii. 183
D. Ri>bia!OD
ii.441
V. Sandwich, The
Ui. 168
0. Smith
iT.72
f. Stale
iT.608
V. SteTens ii. 128. 836 ; Ii
.68.306
V. Story
iL146
D. Tot
iLlS7
V. TrBTorOanriek
il. 170
«. Wait
iT. 466
0. Warren
iii. 369
V. Whiatler
Iii. 434
r. Woodward
ii. 260
atoTBU! Point B. Co. »
ReiUy
liL 413.
8le*en!on v. Blakelock
;abyG00<^lc
ccl
TABLE OF CASES.
SUTeoMQ V. ColbriD
iT. 869
Stickney u. Bomuui
r./ordaa
«.129
D. E»«n»
iT- 278
iii 116
o.Qray
ii. 9S
r. SeweU
iL416
B.Kuwr
It. 466
Smei V. baTu
iLie4
f. King
i.422
ii.226
D. Lamb&rd
«L4e4
ir. 473
ii.aee
v. McLean
Ii.477
e. Hooker
iii. 443
n. Martin
It. 418
IF. Stilea
ii. 128
E. Maaion
ii. 430
Stilk f. Myrick
Still V. Hall
iii. 106
V. Newnham
ii. 432
ii. 472
B. PuUman P. C. Co
11.693
Stilley f . Folger
Ii. 168; i». 68
V. Snow
iu.842
ii. 343
ii. 420
iii. 76
Steward d. Blalcewav
Ui. 39
SdUweU V. Adami
11.184
v. Lombe
ii. 620
V. DoDghty
iiL 471 ; It. 76
D. Young
Stewart v, Ahwieia
ii. IS
V. Staple.
iii. 376
li.fl22
Stilphen c. Stilphen
ii. 182
V. AtUata Beef Co.
i.462
Stilwell V. Van Eppa
iT.4S0
B. Anstrik, The
iii.282
iL164
r. Beard
iT. 42
iT,S8
v.BeU
iii.S86
Stimion i-. Conn. R. R.
ii. 600
«.BIaii»
i.236
V. Whitney
iii. 25, 44
(F.Careleti
iv. 461
StinchfleldD. LitUe
ii. 031, 632
V. Croiby
5. Dogghty
iv. 194
Siindo D. Goodrich
ii436
iv.
110,461
Stiner u.Cawthoni
iT.63
». Drake
iT. 476
Stirling r. Load
e. KoTaaaa P. Co.
iiL 138
B. Edeu
iu
96,107
iu.2S4
ti. Emenon
ii. 514
StiTer« B. Gardner
It. 306
». Fallow!
ii. 164
Stock V. Ingli* ii. 492 ; iii. 271, 876
v.Fori)ea
iii.28
Stockbridge V. Weit SCockMdge ii. 277
o. Qaniett
iT. 586
Stockdale V. Eanaard
i. 285. 236
v. Greenock M. Ini.
Co.
iii. 881
V. Ina. Coa.
i.40B
V. Hall
lil. 170
Stocken V. Dawion
iii. 37
0. Hanulton
i. 811
Stoclcer v. Broclcelbank
iii. 81
». Hamilton Collie
D. Harriman
It.
ii. 466
508,610
Stockett c. Halliday
Stocking r. FaS«hiId
iT.466
IT. 142
V. Jonea
ii. 284
». Hunt
i.41»
D. Kahn
1.826
iii. 104
„, Lehigh Valley R.
EL Co.
iL280
Stockmeyer e. Eeed
ii. 269
„. Loring
ii. 468
Stockport Waterworke Co
D. Potter
B. McSweeay
iT. 469
iii. 419
r. Matliew.
iT. 466
Stockton, The
iii. 232
V. Merchant M. In*. Co.
iii. 296
Stockton V. Central R. Co
ii. 274
V. Neelj
iT. 264
r. Dundee Manuf. Co.
i.419; It. 1M
V. Pickird
ii. 188
Stockton S. & L. Socioty t>
Qiddinga
p. Potomac Ferry Co. i. 369
iii, 170
ii. 479
u. R. R. Co.
ii. 339
StockweU V. Bramble
Hi. Bb
iii. 232
D. ConllUfd
iT. 468
iT. 433
K. Hunter
iiL 466
t>. Smith
ii.366
D. Rotiinaon
i.413
V. SmithND
Stoddard d. Gibbt
iT. 29. 470
ti. 22
V. Harrington
i.422
». Spragne
iii. 464
r. Hart
iv. 194
D. Slewart
1.260; iT. 41
c. Kimhall
iii. 81
t>. Stone
ii.
468,687
V. Rotton
iT. 141
r. TenDeueeM.&F
lDi.Co
iii. 814
Stoddart V. Smith
ii. 4T«
r. United Stales
i. 101
Stoelke n. Hahn
iii. 370
t>. U.S. Ini.Co.
ii, 286
Stoe«iiger r. So. E. R. Co.
lU 76
». Waterloo Turn Verein
ii. 284
StoBTer B. Whitman
Ir. 449, 612
v. W. Q. & Pac. Steamihip
Co.,
Stogden o. Lee
ii. 170
iii. 234
Stokely'i Eitata
Ii. 429
P.Wood
iT. 162
Stokea r. Arey
ii. 16
0. Woodward
ii.620
r. Barney
iii. 46
V. Stichle'« Appeal
iT.636
-.Cox
iii. 376
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE 07 CABES.
frha margliul V9^ ua nlemd to
SbikM c. Eend4ll
B. L» BiTi«re
>. HcAllUter
s. UcKibbin
>. New JerM7 P. Ca
LSSi
11.614
It. 62
11.21
B-Pirne
lilionitaU IL Ml, 603
!. Wetton It. 27S
Slokoe B. Slngen iU. 449, 462
StoUeawen^ d. Thaeher U. 54Q
Slone, In n it. 891
V. AagustB iii. 430
c. BostOQ Steel & Itod Co. iii. 427
r. Brooki iii. 432, 461
V. Cartui li. 360
E. Cm ii. 102
«. (%vle«towa i. 236
0. Chictgo, Ac By. Co. ii. 600
V. City, &c. Bank ii. 482
tr. Deaaej* II. 479
c. Dry-dodi,4c. Co. ii. 241
E. Guzun ii. 164
D. GiUiam ii. 608
t. GrDbham iL 616
B. ailli IL 269, 260
>. Une It. 176
F. Macnalr ii. 146
>. Marine Iiu. Co. iii. 807
*. Hattbewa Ui. 477
V. MiitiMippi L 418, 410
V. Kttl Int. Co. iii. 306
p. New Toit ii. 380
>. Quaal a. 806
V. Sargent 1, 808
>. Scriptore iL 429
V. Sleeper a 498
K SouUi Carolina L 323
V. Tnut Ca t. 439
r. Wood ii. 631
1. YeoTU li. 340
Stmebraker t>. ZoUickolKr ir. 76, 208
SloDehun p. Ocean, &c Ini. Co. iii. S70
Stonehoaie v. Ere^n ir. 307, 616
Slonemett P. Bf. Co. v. Brown F. M.
Story V. Aihton
s! N. T. EL B. Co.
D. Odin
B. Pery
Story's Case
Stott e. CbnrcMl
Scondt V. Hine
Stoutler E. LaUbaw
Stonghton b. Baker
Stourton b. Stonrton
Stout V. City F. Ina. Co,
V. Jackjon
StDTsll V. Auitin
V. Barnett
StoTall'B Case
Stoveid V. Hnghei t
Stow
iLe
Co.
li.
B. Shngart
Stoneg e. Haoey It. 269
Sioneitreet v. Doyle if. 641
StooUooa E. Jenkina II. 241
etoomTaart, Ac, The o. P. A O. Steam
Nav. Co. ill. 231, 232
Stom.fx parte It. 461
B. Freeman iu. 480, 432, 486
B. Great W. B. B. Co. ii. 487
B. BoDtei ii. 620
Slwey B. Bobinaoo ill. 470
Storey's Appeal iT. 418
Storm B. Hann It. TO
B. SlirlinK iii. 76
E. Waddell 1. 247;li. 443
BtDTT E. Crawley ii. 604
Stom B. Barker 11.483, 401
E, PeuiacoU A A. B. Co. 1. 221
Stowe B. Heywood
V. MeaerTB
Stowell E, BenneU
B. Flagg
p. Kke
V. Robioaon
e. Zouche
Stowers D. BollU
Stradar b. Baldwin
Strafford t>. Wentworth
Strahan a. Satton
SirBhom v. Union Stock Tard A T.
Co.
Straight v. Wight
Strain v. Walton it.
Stnit 0. National Harrow Co. ii.
Straker v. Kidd [ii.
Strang B. Bradner iii
Strang, Steel, A Co. v. A. Scott A
Co. iii.
Strasaer d. Conklin
Stratford b, Twynam
Stratheden, Jn t*
Strathmore b. Bowel
Strathnaver, The
Stratton o. Beat
B. Grymea
V. Hereon
V. Hill
u. McMakin
e. Beiidorph
Strauder e. West Virginia
Stranglian v. Falrchild
V. Wnjht
Straus r'. ^mgoed
". Strain
Strauss r. County H. Co.
ii. 42
iL692
iii. 123
It. 477
iL26
It. 80
It. 261
ii. 206
It. 172
It. 476
iiL 448
Ir. 162
Iii. 66
ii. 126
L602.69»
;abyG00<^lc
il.l5 i
Straun s. Dnndon
V. Eagle Idi. Ca ii. dW
Strauia'i Appeal iv. 1G2
Strswbridge v. Curtiss i. 346, 847
StreatfleU if. Streatfleld iv. 218
SUeeperD. Eckart iL 522; iv, 430
Street n. AugiuU Iiu. Co. lii. 302
V. 61a7 IL 41i, 479, 480
Streeter ». Horiock it. 691
1'. Udey
StreighC v. Junk
Streit D. Wangh
Sireily 0. Winson
Strlble7 v. The Imperial Marine Ins.
TABLE OP CASES.
[Tb> BUn^lniJ (■(•• ura ntsmd to.]
Baker
Co.
i. 2S6
Stribling V. Row
StrickeP* Caie
iv. 60
ii. 260
Strickland, Re
ii. 196
V. Coker
ii. 244
o. Parker
ii,343
V. WeldoD
i».508
Strickler •. Todd
iil.443
iv.467
Stringer t>. Englilh & 8c
H.IDI
Co.
lit 331
It. 388
u.New
StriDgfleld V. Hai.keU
il. 263
Strode e, Clement
ii, 22
Strohn ... Detroit & M. E
Co.
ii. 608
Stroma, The
ili.l3H
Strond ... Alliwn
iv. 162
StroDK I.. Clem
iv. 62
e. ConTerte
iv. 46
p.Doddi
ii. 494
n. Doyle
ii. 4H
o. Firemen Ine. Co.
iii.243
V. FoBter
iii. 76
o. JacitMD
iiL 89
D. LiniugtoD
iii. 70
v.Lord
iii. 39
t.. Mmnf. Ini. Co.
iiL 371, 372, S7G
V. NaMUy ii.
EWS; lii. 216. 309
V. Phtenix Ina. Ca
iif. 279
V. Sheffield
!J. 403 ; UL 89
iv. 476
E. Smith
Iii. S3
D. Suie
i.40B
G. Stewart
148,806
B. Taylor
1L407
a. United BUtel
iii. 217
lii. 364
Btronsberg v, Costa lUca
i.297
Strotber d. Lucm
i. 178
; U. 459
Stroud e. Auatio
ii. 16
17. Barnet
It. 421. 422
Stronaberg v. BepnhUc of CoaU Rics ^
i. 381
r. Colien
iv. 136
Stnut B. Foiter
il, 149
iii, 2S1
Stroyan b. Know lea
lii. 4S7
Strubbee i.. Tnuteet
U.
360,866
Strutt V. nppett
Strare >.. Bchwedler
iii. 248
ii.87a
ill. 438
11.241
U. 196
iv. 131
i. 876
>>. Bell
;. Bute
>.. Clark
V. Harrlion
u, KirkwaU i
u. Lairtl
B. Wilkina
Stubba V. Lnnd I
Stuckert v. Andertoo
Btucky r. Keefe
V. Mather
Studd B. Cook
Studdert D. GroiTCBor
Studda B, Wation
Studdy B. Beeity
Btuder i: Bteiitein
Studiey u. Baker
Studwell V. Kitch
0. Sliapter
Stuettgen v. WU. Cent E. Ca
Stukeley v. Butler
Stull 1). Hania
Stulti V. Silva
Stumbaagh v, AndfraOD
Slumpb f . Baoer
8tupet«kl V. Tnuuatlautic, &c. Ini.
Co, i
Stuppa,7nre L 36
Sturbridge b. Franklin ii. 126
SturdeTant i.. Goodrich It. 512
SturdiTaot d. Memphia Nat. Bank
ii. 469; iii.M
V. Smhil iii. 162
Sturgeon v. Paintor It. 105
Sturgea n. Bridgman iii. 419
B. Carter 1. 409
V. Corp il. 162
V. Crowninahield t. 888, 404, 419,
421,466; Ii. 800,393, 894
V. Fourth Nat Bank iii. 83
B. Vanderhilt ii. 312
Sturgeaa d. Cary iii. 234
Stargia u. Boyer lii. S32
0. Chaiupneyi ii. 138
V, Ewing It. 69
Stnrm c. Atlantic Mot. Ina. Ca ill 376
V. Boker il. 690; iii. 268
Stnrtevant v. Ballard iL GaS, 628, 629
H. Brewer iU. 187
0. Com'tb L406;U. 12
e. Ford iU. 91
B. Jaouei iT. 461
Stun c. De la Hue B. 872
Stuuman Coun^ i>. Wallace i. 826
Stnyveaant t.. HaU iv. 174. 179
Sui^ley E>. Delafleld lii. 266, 286, 306
Sudeley and Balnea & Co., In rt iv. S28
Suffleld E. Brown iU. 419
Suffolk, Ciae of Doke at iv. 266
Suffolk Fire Ina. Co. p. Boyden iiL S76
Sugden r. Lord St Leonard* Iv. 682
Buggett V. Eitchell It. £17
^cibyGoQl^lc
TA.BLE OF CASES.
Sngititt'a TnuM
Suiter c. Park Nat. Bknk
Sulley T. Barber
SnlliD^ D, RiclimODd
Solliran i-. Burnett
V. DftTU
H-Edrlj
>. Fulton Steamboat Co.
c. New York, &c. K. Co.
B. So. Spy. M. Co.
0. RedBeld
;. SulliTan
>. UaioD Pac. B. R. Co.
BnUncher t>. CharleBlon Bank
Springate
Bprlngate
D. Ford
■. Himlet ii. 688
E. FarlridBe It. 49
B. PoveU iii. 64
p. Waiianu ir. 476, 477
Sonunerteld n. North Britiah & M.
lot. Co. iii. 376
Snoimeril c. Elder
li.409
I. Bergner Brewing Co.
c. Brice
r. City Bank
Ssmner n. Caiirell
cDalion
Samnll p. Sud Matiul Iiu. Co.
Siinbop I, AUord
SnndcriiD «. BndttrMt
Sm Hung, Bt
Son Ids. Co. n. Hall
«^ Konnts Line
c. Ocean Ins. Co, 1
.. Wright
Snnnjiide, Hie i
Superior Conrt it. Ripley
SupnriiaTa n. Dnrant
■. Reonlcott
0. HcFaddM
iv. a2
ii. 241
IT. 136
iii. 116
ir. 806
ii. 466
ii.23tl
iii. 217
1L620
Ii. 277
ii. 634
U. 22
1. SOI
iii. 469
i. 801
». Sthanck
i^. UnUed SlatM i. 467
Sirplira r. Fanuworth lU. 404
SDrptu. «c. of the Ship Edith Ui. 170
Surrey, The it 908; 111. 207
SnuD, The ill. 199
Sbmo, The Brig iii. -248
SoMuDah, The i. '"
Suie B. Pompe iii.
S«Kabw:ta b. Wagner i.
Saiqaehaana Canal Col d. Bonham ii.
SMquehaona Valley Bank e. Loomis
SaidiSe ». Booth
iii. 94. 96,
lOe, 113
ill. 443
'dvndto.]
Sutcliffe V, Dobrman
). M'Dowell
Suter V. Suter
Sutherland, Duke n. Heathcoto
Sutherland c. Old BomiaioD Ini
Iii. 66
iii, 109
ii. lie
ill. 461
Co.
Pratt
Sutliffu. At wood
Fowler
Sutro Tunnel Co. b. Segregated B,
M. Co. ii. aOO
Sutterly i-^Camden Com. Pteu
ill. 376
iii. 269
UL 461
11.468
It. 480
U. 668; iii. 180
ii. 861
U. 441
Sutton a. Baillie
V. Buck
IT. Oraddock
D. Grey
V. Hufiman
D. Sutton
u. Temple
V. Warren
V. Wauwatoaa ii. 667
Satton {First Pariib in) ti. Cole ii. 281,
2B3. 292, 299, ess
Sntton'i Hoipital, Caw of i '"" ' """
1.177;
ii. 86
Snydam r. Dequlndre
?. Dun ton
II. marine Ini. Co.
STendien v. Stnnt>erg
V. Wallace
Swafford b. Ferguion
s. Whipple
Bwaim f. United SEales
278, 302, 303
i. 264
Ii. 164
B. Thompton
Swaine v. Kennerley
V. Perllne i
Snainion i: N. E. Ry. Co.
Swallow, The
Sw.n, The
Swan, Ez partt i
Swan u. Netmith
V. North B. A. Co.
e. ScedmaD iit. 47, 48
D. Steele iii. 31, 41
Swan Land kc. Co. v. Frank ii. 441
Swaun V. Back 1. 419 ; ill 464
11.610
It. 414
i, 44, 46, 70. 72
it. 260
ii. 82, 87, 91, 109
Hi. 79
!>. Smith
11. 602
Swannar u. Swannar
1».05
SwaatoD ». Raren
11.160
t.. Reed
ill. 138
Swaniey v. Purker
iii. 88
Swartz «. LeLt
iv. 194
SwMe.v u. V«nderhayden
il.286
SwiiKef o. Black man
ii.431
Swearengen. Ez pant
ii.S2
ii. 611
Sweatt r. Boiton, &c, &. Co.
L430
Sweed o. Brownlow
1.803
„Gooi^lc
TABLE OF CASES,
\TbiB nuigliiAl pagoi iia ralamd to.]
Sweener d. Baker
V. f hick-tun
iL22
Symondi b. Cndmora
ir. 3&6
Iii. 76
B.Hall
iv. 96
Sweet u. Horn
iT. 181, 194
i>.Jottea
U. 866
B.Pym
e. Union Ini. Ca
m. 293
v.IU>a^
iLS40
Jymar. New YoA
iv. 109
V. Southc»t«
iv. 170
Synje b. Synge
u. 175. 468
ill. 440
SyracuH City Bank b. TaUman iv. 166,
Sireelapple v. Biudoa
iv. 31
194
Sweeting v. Pe»ree
iLa22: iii. 260
Syraciue, Ac. B. Co. v. CoIUm iiL 88
1U.248
Syracnae S. Bank b. Porter
iT. 327
Swwtlind V. BueU
iy. 870
Sweetwr v. French
ill. 47
V. Silber
ii. 441
TiiFR B. Conmee
iv. 201
Sweetzer v. Hutd
iii 48
Tabb D. Binford
iv. 470
Swell B. De I*nd
iii. -26
Tabele v. Tabele
IT. SO. 44
Swetland ». Crrigb
iii. 76
Taber o. Cannon
11.680
Swell V. BUck
Ui. 207. 228
B. Cliina Ina. Co.
iii. S81
... Colg»t*
&. 476, 4TS
V. Packwood
ii. 368
«. Cutti
iii. 440
B. United SlalM
iii. 177
D. Horn
IT. 183
B. WiUetta
iv. 826
!>. Patrick
IT. 476
Tabor <-. Brooki
iT. 148
Swift V. Same.
ii. 4S0
«. Hilea
iii. 89
u. BrowneU
iii. 232
V. Tabor
iv. 161
B.CWT
iii. 64
Tackaberry v. Taokabeny
ILIOI
G. Cobb
iv. 432
0. Duffleld
iT. 249
Myers
U. 366
o-Kimemer
iv. 4S
Taffi) «. Wamick
ii. 843
B. Heyen
i. aeo
Taft V. Buffum
iii. 69
r. PhfladelphU & B. B. Co. i. 331
V. Cliurch
Ui. 42
r. Roberta
iv. 359
V. Morae
iT. 540
V. Smith
Ui. 79.81
p. Taft
ir. 62
tr. Swift
ii. 193
Taggard v. luring
T. A. Qoddard, The
iii. ISO, 187
t>. Tamer
iii. 155
Iii. 138, 206
v. ThompMU
ii. 316, 625
Tainter b. Cole
iT. 368
V. TjltHl i
D. Udioii Im. Co.
S41 ; Iii. T9, 81
Taintor b. Prendergait
U. est, 682
iii. 291
Tait c. Crawford '
It. 171
c. WilliaiDBbarBh
ii.300
V. N. y. Life Ins. Co.
iii. 266
Swift, &c. Co. ti. U. 8.
i.466
Taitt, Ex parte
Talbot r. Bedford
iiL 66
Swigert D. Aapden
iii. 64
It. 476
c. Thomas
ii. 622
V. Braddill
iv. 167
ii. 259
p. Chamberlain
il. 430
Swindall e. Swind>U
ii.226
V. Clark
iii. 106
Swindon W. W. Co. o. Wilti iii. 440
iii. B5
Swineherd, The
i. 172
L.. Gay
iii. 124
SwtnnertOD v. Columbia Ins. Co. iii. 294
V. HuiKT,
ii. 840
Swinion V. Bailey
iT.582
L-. Janson
1. 100 : il. 44
Swire r. Francia
ii.620
B.Nat. Bank lL491;iii. 86
Sword 0. Young
iii. 207
p. PrOTine
iv. 143
Sydney, The
iii. 263, 2&8
B.Seeman
iiL 247
Sydney Co to
Iii. 1B7
V. Talbot
iv. 624
Sydnor c. Gee
ii. 621
Taltot's ^
iv. 346
... Sydoor.
iT.278
lif. 469
Syera v. Bridge
Iii. 818
Talbott V. Fidelity Ins. Co.
i. 462
II. Syera
ill. 25
V. Stemmona
U.4«S
Sykei B. Sykei
ii. 372
Talcott p. Wabash B. Co.
U. 600
Sylvester r. Bo»
It. 461
Taliaferro v. Rolton
iT.462
0. Downer
iii. 89
Talley b. Curtain
ii. 441
V. BaUton
ii.224
V. Gt. W. Rj. Co.
ii.eoo
F.SWM
iii. 80
TaUmadge b. East B. Bank
iT.480
Symance v. Tattam
iv. 266
D. Grannia
ii. 131
Byrne* r. Syroet
iT. 264
r. Wallia
U.472
ii. 193
Tallman ». Coffin
iT.122
Symondi b. Bamea
ii. 891
V. Murphy
Ui.464
V. Cincinnati
iL3BB
^Sprague
U1.8Q
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[The BUHKiul pagM us rttttni i
■Mii»ui».Wood
i». 219
Tatham p. Loviog
11.367
Tilniu9geB.Zanenil]e&M.B.Co. il. BOO
Tatlock t'. Harris
iL666; Iii. 78
TilmigB 0. Wilger.
i». 174
Tattereall v. National
BleamBhip Co.
TitUrum'a Cue
i». 13
ii. 479
TilTuide V. CriptM
iii. 473
Tatum V. Gregory
i).366
Junamij Water Worki d. Neff Or-
V. McUllan
iv. 148
Imdi Water Works
1. 41.9
p, St. Loui.
iii. 427
Tunplin'i Qoods
iT.632
Taul p. CampbeU
Taunton p. Ccwtar
iL182; iT..%2
TuDTanD p. SlmpMm
iii. 2-28
iv. lis
TtDcil r. S«aton
ii. 562
p. Horrie
ii, liiH
TuikerTiUe (Earl of) o. Coke
iT. 346
Taonton Copper Co.
p. Merchants-
Turner d. Albion, Trmieei of
ii, 840
loB. Co.
iii, 269
e. Elwoitbv
iv. 371
Tavemar-a Caw
iii. 465
..Hyde
iii. 87, 41
Taviitock Iron Work* Co., Inre u, 293
V.SiDg
ii. 480
Taw 0. ^atj
Tayler v. Walter*
iv,466
V. Scoiell
ii. 648
iii. 463
Tutqneraj-WiHanine & Landau, In re
Tayloe v. Buih
iii- 38
iT.248
V. Gould
iv, 29. 261. 283
Tinsley p. Tnrner
ii. 49-2
p. Merxjhanti- Fire Id>. Co. ii. 477
Tipler ». Labeanme
iv. 476
>'. Thomeon
i. 248
^/Marl»n.
ui. 222
Taylor. The Mom*
i.319
V. Smith
ii. 243
(S« Motes Tajlor.)
Tiplins ». Jonei
lii.44S
Taylor, £a: parte
iv. 806
T.poer p. Meriott
iv.asa
Inre
ii, 198;iv, 508
Tippu p. Bean
ii.306
V. Ashton
ii. 489, 490
c. Blaiadell
iii, 65
V. Baldwin
iv. 370
». Brown
Ui, 456
p. Bank of Alexandria ii. 286
g. ETanl
ii.448
p. Barclay
i.26
>. Kimball
iii. 30, 51
p. Barron
ii.429
Tippendorff p. Dowoing
iii, 427
«. Benham
ii. M
TipKott p. Balfour
in. 206
p. Best
1. 15, .»
Tmnto, The
i.37l
V. Brodericfc
iv. Wt
Tarbei p. Bwdlej
Hi. 36
I'. CaidweU
u, 121 ; iii. 105
'T^T
ir, 168
ii. 468
ii. 176
B. Carpenter
ii. 366, 872
Tuble'. C»M
L 87. 401
p, Carryl
p. Chicbeeter & M
1.369,677.410
T»rboi p. Eaitn. Steamb. Co.
iii, 207
B, Co. ii. 800
;£;?-e.r-
iii. 109
p. Cole
It, 118
ii. 120
::£r.
- ill. 4ft
TwliDg p. Baiter
ii. 482
iv. 96
p. O'Riordan
ii. 488, 479
p. D-EgviUe
Iv. 617
TirltoD D. Lagarde
ii. le
p. Delancey
1.468
iii. 200
p. Diplock
11, 4:^
Tamnt p. Backiu
iT. 283
V. Dobbin*
Ui. 78
Timnfi Tnut, I« re
iv. S86
p. Downey
11561
Tirry p. Ashton
ii. 260
p, Dunbar
iii. 302
Tuwr, 7. r.
ii, 164
t>. Ficka*
iii. 440
Tirt c. Crawford
iv. 466
p. Field*
Iii, 87, 66
Tini«lia>« BtbUe, /» n
i. 46
1.. French
ill 88, 8ft, 109
Tuker !>. BartleU
iv, 69
B. Fried
Hi. 33
p. Crane Co.
ii. 498
«; G^m'Sh
ii. 407
P. CimniiigtiaiiM
iii. 308
iii. 451
r. Tuker
ii, 168
p, Oriswold
ii. 296
Tuminia, The
Iii, 188
p. Haggarth
iv. 424
TM»ellp.LewU
iii, 93, 102
p, Hampdon
iii. 449
P. Bmith
iv. 179
V. Hampton
iii. 449
Titam p. Ha*lar
iii. 81
p, Harwell
iv. 181
Tice e. tSL Mut. Ina. Co.
iii. S76
p. Holme*
ii. 161
p. Clement*
iii. 61
p. Horde iv, 446
482, 488, 484, 4811,
p. Hilbert
il.446, 4e6
487, 488
p. Hjlop
iii. 28«
». Hutchinwn
i. 07
p. Pernie
ii. 211
0. Jones
iv.430
1.466
p. KeeTer
1.455
». SBlIiTan
Iii. 109
p, Lapham
li.4S2
50byGoO>^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
[Thaiurgli
Taylor u. Little Sock, Ac. By. Co. ii
V. Lowell iii. 288, 2B9, »}S
D. Lncher It. 143
0. MuClAin Iv, 1B4
v. M'Crackin ir. 44, B-2
V. Mc^Donald ii. 403 ; iv. 171
0. M'Keand U. 498
B. MsDcheiter S. & L. Ry. Co.
Tebo p. The City of New York
Iii. 24S
e. Jordan iii. 206
TeeEfuden v. Lewis ii. 438, 441 ; ir. 306
' Teel V. Yoit i. 260
Ten 0. Teft ii. 107
Teitlg V. Boesmui iii. 24
Telegraph Co. ■>. Qritwold
V. TezM
Tel&ir v. Stead
Telford t>. Patton
Temperton v. Rustell
Terapeet, The
Tempett b. Fitzgenid
Temple d. Baker
Hawley
i. 16e
ii.49S, 608
ii. 610
». Manindale
iii. 460
V. Pomeroy ii. 621
p. MeadB
ii. 164, no
V. Sammis iv. 637
t.. MerchanU' F. In.. Co.
iii. 876
D. Scott iv. 203
V. Mile.
iy.306
V. Turner iii. 161
■>. Mixter
It. 436
Templeton d. Voihloe iii. 440
Ten BrcBck p. WelU, Fargo & Co. ii. 692
p. Horrit
It. 326
KHorton
.287
Ten Eyck i-. Brown iii. 128
0. NeYilh
ii.487
11. Craig Iv, 164
p! Phillip
i.l21
Tennant, Ex parU iii. 26
i.230
Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bank ii. 482
TenneMce v. Davii i. 303, 325, 3»1
». Plumer
U. 606, 624
e. Porter
11. 18, 839
V. Sneed i. 260, 419
«. Pogh
ii. 176
V. Onion & P. Bank i. 328
f.Roi
iii. 122
Tenn. CoJ Co. v. Hamilton iii. 440
i>. Roy»l Saxon. The
i. 371
Tenn. M. Co. v. Jsmea ii. 269
0. Ruwell
iv. 160, 17B
Tenney d. Alger iv. 200
V. Sample
r. Foote iii. 40
V. Saurman
11.487
ir- JohQlOQ iu. 66
». Shelton
ii. 632
t.. Prince iu. HB
«. Shorn
iv. 478
Tenny v. Agar Iv. 276, 276
i>.Sip
iii 76, 88
Terboei p. Willianu iii. 483
t>.B£itb
ii. 494
Terhoven p. Eeroi Iv. 17S
«; Snyder
Iii. 06
Terhune p. Terhune ii- 101
«.8Mn»
i.410
Teljeaon r. Carter iii. 206
». Snraner
Ki.341
Terrell o. Andrew Connty iv. 459
I.. Taylor 11.448; 111.66
It. 64. 278
Terret p. Taylor i. 415 ; ii. 306
e. TownwDd
iL341
Territory v. Dormtn ii. 12
B. Turner
ii. 540
V. Guyott i. 864
r. United Statef
i. 297, 497
V. O'Connor t. 384
V. Welch
iii. 440
Terry, Ex pane i. 301, S81
D Weld
iv. 142
D. Whitehead ii. 838;
iii. 424, 436
V. Belcher ii. 622
V. Ypeilanti
i. 642
17. BiueU iii. 88
Taylor'H Goods
iv. 632
P.Carter iii. 37
Taylor niukton, The
Iii. 248
u. Hutchinson ii-206
Tazewell County ». Darenport IL 430
p. Life In*. Co. iii. 869
Teaff K.Hewitt
ii.848
p. Little ii. 272
Teal D. Auty
1». 461
V. White ii. 87
0. Walker
It. 157
Telley K. Griffith ii. 154
Teall 0. Felton i. 402, 410; ii. 610
Teutonia, The I 66; iii. 222, 228
V. Schroder
iv. 327
TemonU Ini. Co.o. BoyUton M. In».
Teape's TruBti. /n re
iv. 836
Co. iii. 200
Teas. V. St. Alban*
ii. 404
Tewksbury v. Howard il. 494
Teiaa v. Hardenberg iii 6t
Teat V. Suto
ii.l2
Tebb ». Hodge
iv. 151
p. White i. 91, 328. 326; iii. 89,01
Tebbett. V. Dowd
iii. 113
Texas Banking. &c Co. v. Cohen iii. 376
P. Hamilton Mnt Ins. Co
iii. 282
Texas Banking Co. v. Hutchins ii. 630
Tebb* r. Carpenter
ii.281
Teias & N. 0. R. Co. p. Crowder ii. 286
Texas Land & C. Co. v. Carroll iii. 88
Texas Mex. Ry. Co. v. Locke 1. 413
Texas & P. Ky. Co. p. Adams Ii. 608
V. Brick ii. 106
p. Interstate Tnni. Co. i. 430
V. Bogen Ii. 2G9
V. So. Pac. Ry. Co. U. 220
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[The mufliiiil pasM ■» nf amd to.]
T*iH A P. R7. Co. V. ThompioQ u. 2&9
Ttw Sttadard C. 0. Co. v. Adooe
T»JN e. Brau iU. 90
T.P.0ik«,Th8 i.42
Tlitdier V. Boitoa Qulight Co. ili. 206
r. Diminore ii. 4M
V. Moore ii. 681
r-Pbinney ii- 181,441
TUekerD. Hirfy ii. 488
Tluckeraj n. Fumer, Hie i. ST9
TlwMeM. The Brig iii. 240
Tbutm, TiM iii. SOG, 280
ThuDM D, CkldweU ir. 152
Thime* ft Co. n. Rembert'* Adm. ij, 1S4
Thtmea Inm Work Co. ir. PaMot
Dnrick Co. it 042
ThuDn & Hmmt M. Iu. Co. d.
Btmilton iii. 291
V. Fim iii. 272
Thup tr. Conndl; ii. 236
ThtUber v. ALen iii. 64
>. D«rtiDootb Bridge Co. ii. 33B
*. McColloh iii. 228
cOiOMU ai^; It. 496
R Wiulow iii. 79
ThUeliOT HMtlag Co. b. Bnrtia ii. 866
TlkutfTv. FoMer ii. 482
B. TnrtMr Iii. 461
Tkiiton e. Edward* Ii. 608
llwf er D. Arnold Ui. 438
B. ClemenoB iv. 471
D. CnmsT ir. 174
r. Dwiglit U. 681
■. Hhdwui ■ It. 640
p. Goodie U. 408
V. Goald ii. 188
■L Batchiiuon U. COS, 6SG
V. KiDg Ui. 115
e. New Bedford S. Co. ili. 413
r, PijiM tii. 424
r. Th»jer iT. 41
B. Tnnier ii. 441
H. WeUiuKton ir. 641
Tbtiwod B. Great 17etterii In*. Co.
Iii. 314
Theed t. DebenhKin iiL 448
ThcUuKin IT, Woodford It. 264, 284,
Thtliuion B. Smith i, 247
Tbeobtldi r. Dufloy It. 85
Uteobgical Edncktion 80c. e- Att'7 '
Gen. ir. 608
Tbeda, The Iii. 814
TtiibanU b. OlbMn i. 468
Thickoeue ir. BromUow IU, 43
Thickinin e. Howud ii. 690
Thiel f. Conrad U. 690
TfaielniaB b. Goehlfl iii. 01, 105
Thii* B. Bjen iii. 206
Tiiin *. Richard* iii. 206
Tbirt74iiiith St.. Hatter of iii. 460
Thir^^cond St., Hatter of iii. 460
Tbom V. Bigland U. 400
TOL. I. — r
ThomM. Ex parts
1.480
Thoma*, Re
Ii. 274. 467
B. AthertoD
iu. 41, 49
o.Beal*
in. 441
V. Beckman
ii 468. 461
E.. Bi*hop
■i.eso
,.. BlaDd
ir. 478
V. BrownrillB, &c. H. Co.
ii.281
V. Builder*', ic. Ini. Co.
UI. 376
D. Churton
it SO
t.. Clndnnati, &o. By. Co
\:.*^J
B. Coinmeroial H. Am. Co. Iii. 876
V. Carrie ii. 611
V. Darii U. 843
v. Day U. 666
K. De Baum U. 182
V. Dering ii. 476
V. Folweli H. 105, 166
V. Oeneri* iL 267
r. Gregg ii. 364
r. Gyle« ii. 246
B. lUnioii ir. 39
V. Hatch lu. 480
B. Hole ir. 637
tr. JenkB ii. 636
V. KnowlM iL 468, 492
B. LaDB i. 864, 367
B. Lewii y. 448i iU. 157
17. Nelson ir. 105 '
B. Newton iii. 79
r. 0*boni ilL 188, 104
■7. People, The ii. 436
f. Balfroad Co. iL 290, 800
D. Rockiand Ini. Co. iii. 331
r. Roora iii. 76
i. 141
r. 85
436;
f. 848
D, Vonkapfl iii. 878
V. Wabaib, &C. By. Co. ii. 808
V. Walker It, 487
v. William* ii. 16
f . WIncbeiter ii. 4S0
B. Wood ir. 68
Thomas's Appeal ir. 176
Thoma* Can-nil, The iii. 232
Thoma* JefTer*on, The i. 871
ThoiDu Melville, The iii, 206
Thomae Newton. The iii. 217
Thomaa Quigley, The iii. 248
Thomu Tippen'i Case (Sir) ir. 221, 256
Thnma*«en v. Whitwell i. 860 ; iii. 217
Thomlinton v. Diriiton ir. 319
Thomond (Earl of) v. Eari of Snffolk
iL144
Thompion, The i. 166
Thompu)n, Ex parte IL 140; It. 617
Thompton, Re 1. 164, 170; ir. 306
D. AlUnshaw ir. 376
B. American Tontine L. & S. In*.
Co,
f. Andrei
iii. 2
iii. 67
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
iT.4S8
Tliompaon v. Beed
H.463
D. Bank of 8a Carolina ill. 9S
■7. Reno S. Bank
ii.441
r. Bell
li. 463
0 Sou
it. 205
V. Bdnelter
U. SSd
V. Sandford
iT. 380
V. Boitick
IT. 870
V. Sioux FaUa Nat Bank
iU. 81
I.. Boyd
iv. 48
V. Smith
iiL 148. 149
p. Brown ii.418;
It. 422, 480. 489
B. Snow
iii. ItiL
f. Buwh
iiilisa
B. Stanhope
il. 380
n. Carl
iy.46e
V. State
il. 117
i: Ciirmichael
It. 41B
t>. Stewart
U. 131, 620
V. Clubley
iii.ee
B. Swoope
ii.283
D. CoUinf
iU. 194
0. Taylor
iu. 270, 811
r.Cook
iii. 97
■>. Thompmi IL 188
. iT. 46, 608
o. Crocker
Hi. 4*1
p. Tod
iT. 461
V. CummiDg
iii. 94, 96
V. Tolmle
ii. 120
». Darenport
11.881; iT. 142
V. Trail
ii. 644
V. DoUJTer
ii. 681
V. Trevanion
ii. 180
V. Domiuy
U.649; iii. 207
p. Tryon
It. 214
v. Emniert
i.2e2
V. United StalM
ii. 12
r. Fanual
iii. 100
V. Wataon
lr.608
iii. 166
B. Webiier
U. 441
t>. Flnt Hat. Bank
iii. 33
V. W. U. TeL Ca
ii. Oil
n. Gardiner
ii. 494
V. Wliitmaa
i. 260
n. GibMii
It. 200
E. Wilton
iii. 88
V. Gile»
iii. 81
Thompaon'i Caw
t. 285
e. Gnutd Golf B. B
and Bank-
Thomson 17. AdTocate^eneral ii. 429
ingCo.
ii. 8S0
V. Bank
iii. 88
e. GT««n
ir-'M
D. DeaD
i. 316
». Gregory
iv. 46B
iL 178. 441
V. Haight
11. 368, 369
It. Heater
ii. 173
V. Hale
Iii. 81
il. 477
V. Bawki
i». 608
p. Lee CouDty - i. 349, 419, 466 ;
V. Hennanii
Hi. 1S8
iii. 89
V. Hoop
iT. 638
p. Lnddin^on
V. Paciflc H. Co.
It. 203
0. Hopper
iii. 288
1.429
0. In*. Co.
iii. 876
p. Peake
iT. 5.16
v. Retchain
iL 208, 469
p. Royal Eich. Aw. Ca
iii. 860
r. KimbaU
iii. 106
iT.283
».KyBM
IT. 508
p. Waterloo
iii. 419
B. Lacy
ii. 692, 696
t. Weemi
iiL 878
D.Laki
il. 441
p. Wincherter
U.484
e. Leach
It. 237, 258, 466
Thomaon-Houston El. Co. p
Bnub.
e. Lockwood
ii. 463
Swan El. L. & P. Co
ii.49S
V. I>^"ullo<igb
p. Capitol El. Co. il
616 ; iii. 81
iiLSS
Thoreaon p. Mlnneapolii, 4c. Work.
■>. HcElamey
iii. 461
ii. 479
.. M'Kean
iT. 464
Thorley, h ™
i.467
K. MarshaU
Ii. 242
Thorley-. Cattle Food Cap.
HatMBi
V Maihicer
ill. 477
iLIS
0. Mimg
ii. 87
iii. 207
fi. 366
11.22
». Mori^w
iT. 66. 67. S8
p. City Kice Uilla
11.468
v.HniTay
It. 325
iiL 1S4, 186
V. Noble
Ui.SS
V. Newcom
It. 466
e. Patrick
Ii. 578
p. Pinkliam
ii. 461
■..Peck
ii.490
V. Worthing S. B. Co
ii. 866
r. People
ii. 313
It. 151
s. PerdTal
iii. 68
iii. 314
0, PerUafl
U. 624, 626
Thome p. Cann
IT. 143
p. Peirine
iii. 80
p. Deal
iL670
v. Phillipi
iT.279
P. Heard
il.616
«. Fowlea
1.26
p. Tilbury
tL6e6
u. B. R. Companiea
i. 342
p. Watkini
ii. 420
p. Bead
Ui. 293
V. White
UL 182. IW
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Tbocwi^TonU
ill 80
Tbonieloe «. HiU
ii.S66
ThoiMll r. IlaiDH
ii.6S8
TbonhiU I. GilDHT
iT, 808
■nioroldj v. Thoroley
ii. 132
Thonioii f. Dm
ii.459
tDtTenport
ii. 626
rDiion
iii. 37, 38
».G™nt
lU. lia.427
r. Heir* of Henij
iT. 461
.., Kemp.l«
U. 471, 477. 611
B.Krepp»
IT. 32
-.Ogdea
U.48S
».P.yr»
It. 106
..PiK
iT. 181
B. Proctor
ui.37
c. Thornton
IT. 3S3
f. D. S. Ins. Co.
iii 236, 244, 337
B.Wood
It. 161
e, Wynn
Thorp, Mmtter of
U. 480; iii. 113
ii.231
0. BnrliDK
ii. 666
>. HcCoUnm
It. 488
R Minor
ii. 226
Thorpe IT. BMtwick
It. 610
0. Fo-ler
a. 498
.. H. T. Cent. dc. B. B. Co. il. fiOO
E. Ratlknd & BdtL R R. ii. 340
«. Shiplaigfa
ii. 146
_ '-Th'^P"
ii.46&
Tbon»enin r. Lea
ii. 836
ThnU fl. Hill
iL 468. m
mniher t>. Ballud
iT. sa6
..Ely
iii. 124
>.ET«r4»rt
11454
(.Unckud
iT. 62
Thmdgill B. Bic^entafl
Three Towns Banking
iT.466
Co. B. Mad-
derer
ii.441
TKrefsn v. Bonrick
iL884
Tlitelftll B. ffilion
iL164
Thrdkeld ». HtehUBh
iT. 476
iT. 181
Thunder b. Belcher
iT. 166, 167
Thurber b. BUckbnrae
L 261 ; ii. 109
B. Cedl Nat Bank
ii. 581
B. TownMnd
iT.28
iii. 4.S1
B. Stoddard
It. 16*
Ihnnbr c. Plant
iT. OS. 480
Thnnton b. Dickinson
It. 370
c. Hancock
U. 330 i iiL 487
>.Koch
iii. 2B1
K H-Kown
iii. 79. 91
B,Spf*«
Ii. 476
Ttiveitt n. HopUotrille Bank i. 409
Thwing B. WaaUngtOQ
Ins. Co. Iii. 212.
270
Thynne r. ShoTa
lU. 66
r. St Hanr
ii. 164
Tibhetl. B. Ungloy MTg Co. it. 61
Tibbits e. Bock Ul«nd & P. By. Co.
ill. 206. 207
Ilbble V. TboiDM
iu.7e
■ ue ntfuTfld to.] <>
Tibnroio Parrott, Inn L !
Tice i>. Annin It. 1
Tichbnme b. White ii. t
TicoDderoga, The ilL 218. '.
Ticonic Bank a. SUckpole iii.
Tidd V. LUter ii. 1
r. Binei iii.
Tidderly'i Case Ii. i
Tidewater Ca e. Coiter ii. f
Tidmanfa u. Washington F. & If. Ids.
Co. iii. i
Tidswell v. Ankent^ iiL !
Tiedeman d. Knoi ii. I
Tieney o. EtheringtoD iii. '
Tieroan b. Beam It. 1
B. Jackson ii. WO; it.!
V. ThnrmtD It. 1
Tiemey ». Wood
Tiffany i>. Tiffany
Tiflt e. Walker
Tighe V. Monlaui
Tilbury v. Siln
TUden c Green
u. Greenwood
p. Tilden
Tilford r. Torrey
Tilghman, EsUte of
It. 805
ii, 125
It. 142
ii. 610
iiL 413, 427
It. 805, 608
ia4ei
Titlingbait e
Co.
Boston, &C. Lnmber
li.611
V. Champlin
V. Wheaton iL 448
Tillman i: People Ui. 482, 461
TiUotson B. HcCrillii iL 194
B. Prlchard iv. 478
B. Smith iii. 440
TiUon V. Terwilliger ii. 520
Tilt B. People IL 259
Tilton, The i. 870, 871 ; iii. 181, 178. 176
Tilton u. Hnnt«r It. 446
V. Tilton il. 98, 09. 491 i it, 451
Timberlake v. Thayer U. 269
Timberman v. Craddock ii. 622
Timbreil b. Bullock iii. 464 ,
Timlin a. Standard Oil Co. iT. 110
Timmingi v. Timmings ii. 101
Timmins v. Qibbins Iii. 88
Timmons u. Elyton Land Co. i. 344
Timrod b. Shoolbrad ii. 480
Tlodal B. Brown iii. 106. 108
Tiodall B. McCarthy ii. 661
D. Taylor In. 207, 228
Tindley b. Salem ii. 274, 440
Tingle ». Tucker Iii. 180
Tlnicum Fishing Co. n. Carter ill. 410.
418. 416. 427
Tinker v. McCauley ill. 128
Tinkler v. Walpole iii, 150
Tinsley b. Beall iiL 91
Tinsmao ii. BelTidere Delaware B. K.
Co. ii. 276
Tinfon t'. Francis iii. 91
Tio V. Vmice iii. 229
Tippen (Sir Tbomu), Case of It. 266
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[ThA mufliui p«fl«« ue T«farr«d to-)
Tippet. V. W»lker
ii. 631
Tom V. 8raith
ia.271
Tippin V. Cown
It. 211
Tom tyile. The
111176
Tipton Green CoU. Co. .7
Most CoU. Co.
■Hpton
Tom Tong, Ex parU
1.304
ir. 166
TiulAle V. Grant
iii. 167
Tombler ». Koelling
11.661
i>. Harru
iL510
Tome V. DuboU
iL40S
Tison D. Howard
iL549
Tomei D. Bamey
L84S
Tiiien E. Tiuen
U. 862
Tomkina v. TomUna
li.128
Titan, Tbe U. 269; iU. 1B4
Titania, The
1U.288
Tomlin B. Dnboque, Belle.
t Hiaa.
Titley v. EntetpriM Stone Ca li. 4TS
R. Co.
iii 413
i>. Wolitenbolme
iT. 811
L467
Titnt I'. Bo«toD
ii.840
B. Bury
iT. 641
V. Glenn Fftlla Ini. Co.
Ui. 878
r.ElliaoD
11.448
V. Hobart
ii. 462
It, 625
». Neiltoa
iv.44
Tompklna v. Batia
It. 104
TiTnan'a Can
L 37, 188
B. Dudley
V. First Nat Buk
{J.468
Tobago, Tbe
1.87
i.462
Tobe J ». Barber
iii. 88
V. For»e»t»l
i.4O0
^.ElU.
Iii. Ill
V. Halleck
a 873
^.LMinig
Iii. lOfi
0. Tompkbu
It. 176
I. Moore
It. 109, 480
Tompion b. Tappan
It. 181
V. United F. ft M. In>. Co. iii. 811
Tom. V. Wiliiama
It. 208
B. Webeter
W. 119
Tom Turn, In re
U.89
«. Wood
ii.236
Tondro v. Cmhinaii
It. 118
Tobiai 0. Frandi
it. 3*8
Tonge P. WatH
Ui. 270, 811
Tobin IT. Harford
iii. 276, 812
Tongoy, The
iii. 164, 207
17. Jenkins
It. 508
Tongue v. NutweU
It. 278, 542
Toby D. Seed IL
626; iv. 186
Tonnele v. Hall
iT. 615
Tod V. Bavlor
It. 66. 68, 69
Tonion t.. Walker
ii. 382
V. OaWher
ii. 4T4
?sT,Lsr'
ii. 22
V. Kj. Union Land Co.
ii. 300
iT. 182
It. 616
It. 70
Todd,£ipjrt«
i. 467
V. HolliDg-orth
U.624
V. Aa»tin
iii. 443
Tooker's Caw
iiL48
v-BiTdna
iL279
Tool Co. V. Korm
iii. 464
v.Crejaet
It. IIM
Toole V. Becket
It. 110
V. Emly
11. 617
Toomb* r. mi
ii. 873
V. JackMn
i». 118
iii. 66
«. Kerrich
ii.260
Toon V. Huberty
ii. 87
111461
Toocal'a TruiU, In n
i. 42,76
ii. 616
Toothe D. Bryce
ill. 424
c. Stoakee
ii. 161, 177
Tootle D. Fint Nat Bank
11.490
e. Stokei
ly. 4B0
Topham v. Chapman
Topliff V. Topiifl
Tomince e. Torrance
ii. 407, 431
V. Union D. S. Init'n
iv. 451
11.306.
Tode V. Gron
ii. 467
iv. 278
Toebbe B. William*
ir. 619
Torrey v. Baxter
ui. 63
Tognini v. Kyle
ToUnd «. Spragne
V. Burnett
li.34S
i. 301^844
17. Coriiai
1.466
Tolbert ». Bunii
It. 541
B. Fiek
iii. 90
Tolcheiier, Tlie
f, Foas
liL 100, 116
Toledo Ids. Co. v. Speaies
iii! 2*0
V. Shaw
iT.409
Toledo, &c. R. Co. v. Begge
ii. 600
Torriano n. Toung
It. 82
V. John.011
11. 277
Torry 0. Bo wen
Totel V. BoQQetoy
iT. 615
r. PennB^lTMitft Co.
ii. 259
iu.46l
D. Pindar
il. 284
Tothi]] 17. Pitt
ii.3&4
c. Rodrlgvet
IL SOO, 620
Co. ii. S4S
r. Wright
ii. 600
Totterdell n. Fareham Brick Co. ii. »00
Tolen [■. Tolen
ii. 118
Toab 17. Schmidt
ii.692
Toler V. Armitroug
li. 486
Toulmln d. Buctianan
ii.441
,-. White
1.42
Tourtellot e, Phelpa
IT. 467
Toiiet .-. Toilet
It. 344
Tourtelot v. Reed
iii. 86
Tolley e. Greene
ii. 610
Toarton v. Flower
U.431
Tom, The
1.102
ToTey 17. Lindaay
ii. 118
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABB8.
le nurgiiul |W0h wa rofairsd to.}
Ibnndi Bridge Co
Jnn
ii.
Towfll E-. Gtiewood
ii
Tow(rB,AppletoiiBiiik
iii.
I, CUcigo. 4c B.7. Co.
it.
Toici Hinuf. Co. D
ThomiMoi]
ii.
Tntn I. Bkirett
Ii.
<r.Ul|[Dn
cOaboru
<LG04.
To«enB.&Q. Co.
.Innun
To«ltr.A[iierk»nBuUdiDg Society
kDimmt
ii.
>.JiaT<D
ii.
t>.KctleU
iii
(.iMTlK
ii.
e. SUtmuod
U.
r.TophM.
..ff.d.-orth
it!
To.l(r(.Toi.ler
iv.
ToMta p. R(her
iv
(.Owlwy
ii
TiiKD D. SKtion
Ton of CslomBi n. Earea
TonQofEatle e. KohD
Town or Elgin r.Manhall
To-rn of I'm* c. Bowler
TmmofPiwlettP. Clark i. 473;i
To»a rf So. OtUwn a. Perkins
Town of Thompaon n. FetTbe
Tonei'.ritkB
e. Jiqnith
V. Smith
V. Wiley
Tovniey c. Cmmp
Towniend, In rt
ilatter of
D. Biihop of Norwich
B. Bro-rn
B, Bombam
*. ChM. H. Heor Ca
r. Coming
e. DeTajDM tii
t. Hooitoii
V. Jemiion
D. Eimball
I. Lonin Bank
c. McDonald
T. P. Leathers, The iii. 248
Tncey e. The Walter D. Wallet i. 369
Tracy e. Hereford iv. 74, 78
V. Holcombe i. SIS
V. Lelhienllier iv. 214
V. Wood U. 57'2, 687
Trade MarkCaM* ii. 860
Trader b. diidetter iii, 76
Traders' In«, Co. c. Rohert iii. 371
Trader*' Nat. Bank u. Parker ii. 463
Tradirell, In re ir. 203
Trafford v. Aaliton iv. 148
Traflon b. Hawes iv. 4B3
V. United States ii. 369, 633
TnXn B. Boston Disinfecting Co. i. 439
B. Steamboat iii. 'ISO
Trainer e. The Snperior i. 379
Trainor d. Phrnnix F. As*. Co, iii. 376
Trammel! i*. Nelson iv. 466
u. Trammell iv. 461
Transportation Co. d. Chicago ii. 340 ;
iii. 432, 4S7
D. Wheeling i. 439
Transportation Line o. Hope iii. 282
Trapnall v. The State Bank iv. 161
Trapnell v. Conklyn ii. 193
Trappes v. Harler ii. 848
V. Meredith iv. 131
Trasher r. Everhart ii. 462 ; Iv. 468
Trask f. JacksoDTille, &c. R. Co. iii. 61,
ii.4B3
ii. 226
ill. 105
Iii. 448
Iv. 472
fv. 86
ii.284
T. SnsqnehaDna Tampike
e. Town«end i. 466; ii. 128; iv. 391
r. Westacott Ii. 441
Towosmdg V. Bank of Racine iii. 88
Toimsliend d. Windham iv. Mn
Township of Chickaroing v. Carpen-
ter ' i. :
Towniley v. Spriaeer iii. 106
*. SnmtaU ill. 82, 86, 93, 94
TownsoQ D, Ooyon iii. 313
B.TickeU iv. 456; 634
TowiMi V. H«TT»de-OTace Bank ii. 692
Tiirt>.D. 8. CoraidgeCo. U. 260
i. 849
V. Maddox
iii. 248
B. Martin
iii. 102
TraveJlera" Ins. Co. v. Edward*
iii. 373
1^. McConkey
iii. 365
t.. Nitterhouse
iii. 309
V. Oswego
i. 221
Traver v. Brown
ii. 866
TreadwelU. Hancock Co.
ii.300
^. Salisbury Man. Co.
il.80O
Li. Union Ins. Co. iU. 213, 287, 307
821
Treasurer t.. Martin
{.449
Treat v. Bates
iii. 440
Ii.20
17. Dorraan
iv. 159
L 254. 826
il.481
Tredegar Iron & Cool Co. v. Qielgud
u. 16
Tredwell. The iv. 203
Trefz u, knickerbocker Liie Ins. Co.
ii. 120
Trego V. Hunt iii. 61
Trehame v. Layton iv. 278
Treiber i>. Barrow* il 593
Trelawney. The i. 370
Tremont, The iii. IS2
Trent, The i. 153
Trent Navigation (Prop, of) r. Wood
ii. 508, 59», 500,603: iii. 213
Trenton Banking Co. u. Woodruff ii. 152
Trenton M. L. & F. Ins. Co. c. John-
ion lil. 369
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
TrentoD (School Tniitoei of) b. Ben-
nett ii. 468
Treuttel b. Bkrudon ii. 626
TrcTiYtia v. lAwreiice iv, 96
Trevor r. Trevor W. 218
V. Wood ii. 477
TrewhelU c Sow iji. 186
Tribune, Tbe Scboouer i. 870 ; iii. 20*2
Trigg B. Drew i. 41B
V. R«u) ii. 491
Triggs D. Newnh«m iii. 105!
Trim D. BHgbtman iv. 608
Trimber i>. Vtgnier ii. 460, 462 ; iU. 80,
93,06
Trimble v. AndenoD ii. 10
B. Green ii. 466
Trimm d. Mmb iv. 194
Tripp B. Cnrtenioi Ui. 89
B. ¥nnk iii. 460
B. Giflord iL 226
['. Goff 1. 460
D. Kilev ii. 866; iv. 06, 360
Trippe u. Provident Fnnd Society
iii. 260, 865
Triquet v. Bath i. 1, 10
Tritt B. Coiwell ii. 138
Triumph, The iii. 186, 196
Tromble]' v. Humphrey ii. MO
Troiuon d. Dent iiL 174, 207, 212
Troit V. Dingier fv. 608
Trott V. M'Gavock iv. 431
D. Warren ii. 614
Troller v. Erwio iv. 162
V. Howard ii. 626
V. Mill! i. 460
D. Wataon iv. 46j
Troubadour, The iii. ISB
Troughear v. Lower Vein Coal Co. ii. 260
Troughton e. Troughton iv. 175, 340
Trounitine d. SeUera ii. 477
Tronsdaler. Darnell iv. 113
Trowbridge v. Chapin Iii. 206
Trower v. Chadwick iit. 487
Troy City Bank b. Lauman iii. 98, 09
Troy F. Co. v. Logan ii. 289
Troy & Greenfleld R. Co.
wealth
Troy & Rutland R. Co. v. Kerr
Truhy o. Motgrove iii. 80
Trndeau d. Poutre if. 610
True B. Colllni iii. 106
K. Fuller iii. 123
f. Ini'lT. Co. Ii. 611
True Blu«, The iiL 314
Trueman e. Hunt ii. 236
r. Loder iii. 260
Trufort, /n re ii. 120
Trull D. Roxbury MutF.Ina. Co. Iti. 376
Trumbull t>. Portage M. Ins. Co. iii. 376
V. Trombull iv. 46, 214
». Union Tnut Co. Iii. 48
Tmnick v. Smith Ii. 668
Truntle b. North SMr W, H. Co. ii. 269
TruMott II. ChmUe iii. 311
■ u« ntemd to.]
Troscott V. King It. 174
TruBsell v. Scariett U. 23
Tnut Co. V. National Bank iii. 70
Truiteea n. Lewii iiL 89
V. Ljach iv. 480
TnuieesofBaptUt An. c. Smith iv. 608
TruBteea □[ Columbia College v.
Thaeher iv. 480
Truileei of Pint Bap. Ohurcb e.
Broolclj'n F. log. Co. iii. 267
Trustees of Mclntjre Poor School d.
Zaneiville C. & M. Co. iv. 508
Trustee* of Phillipa Academy o.
King ii. 880, 288
Trustee* of Rogby Charity v. Uerrr-
weather i:- ■•'
Trustee* of School* r. Tatman
Truitee*, &c. p. Mayor, &e. ii
Tua D. Carriere
Tubb V. Harrison
Tubervil v. Stamp i
Tuchman V. Welti
Tuck V. Prieiler ]
Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. Tuckahoe
.450
.276
R. R. Co.
iii. 46B
Tucker V.Andrew*
ii. 175
V. Bafflngton
iii. 194
B. Campbell
iv. 869
B. Dabbt
ii. 226
V. Fisk
ii. 180
p. Gordon
ii. 473
V. Hadley
iv. 162
D. Humphrey
iL 644. 548
V. Linger
iv. 76
D. MoreUnd
iL2S8
V. Momil
iii. 7ft
B. Newman
IiL 486
B. N. H. Saving* Bank
iii- 89
V. Oiley
iii. 66
f. Salem F. H. Co.
iii. 440
V. Spalding
fi. 3M
B ^d-m n
iv. 346
iiL 13H
F. Tower
iii. 433
B. Tucker
iiL IIS
V. Vowle.
iv. 460
B. WcBlgarth
ii. 414
B. Wbileboad
iv.632
B. Wilson i
228,
6S2; iv. 189
D. Zimmerman
iv. 80j
A Cordit
Transp. Co.
iii. 217
Tudor r. Macomber
iii. 242, 243
V. N. E. M. M. In*.
Co.
iii. 296
Tudorlron Work* 0. Weber
ii. 289
Tuer'* Will Trn.t., &
iL 461
Tufft. Warman
iiL 232
Tufnell V. Con«able
iv.608
Tufts V. Bennett
iL408
Tulare County Bank v
Madden Iv. 186
Tulk D. Moxhay
iv.480
Tulier,/nr,
iv.506
E. Foi
ii.4&l
U. 170
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
TdU. t. Fleming
ii.82
Turnpike Cq. v. Mjem
11,292
Tdlr B. Tdlj ii
126j IT. 361
p. NewB Co.
ii. 811
TimiMr 0. Uidlmnd B. Co.
iL260
V. State
i.419
Tinmoti. Flood
ii. 476
Tu^MDd tl^l^haU
Iv. 513
r.Lsgiie
iiL 106, 109
ii.280
Tnuullc-FollMd
U,431
Turrill V. Dolioway
ii. 26
::^S^'
It, 170
Torton V. New York Becorder Co. ii. 16
iU.109
B. Turton
ii. 36S
teSeXr
Hi, 46
Tnsaaud d. Tuaaand
ii, 366
a. 47, 48
Tutela, Tlie
iii. 240
T«n>D,/>r<
Ui. S70
TnttiiU V. United Btatet
i. 804
TninK.i:i parte
ii. 76
Tutt B. Addami
iii, 48
W^- Bita
1L4M
Iii, 128
r.Dn7fa.
LMl
D. Block
i.413
..HiiUgm
IT. 131
V. Fowler
1L13S
iii. 88
B. Jackion
It. 466
..Jiii;on
ii>.288
11.848
■r. Rimrt
iii 420
V. Slandiih
IiL 116
». TroQt
i[. 612
V. Walton
iL296
t. W,lkM
iL 116, 120
>. Wilson
ULQl; Iv. TO
Ttoer, Matur of
ii. 226
Tuxworth u. Moore
ii. 501
>. Am. Baptiit Mill. Cnlon 1. 'J8T
TwambW v. Henley
iv. 479
i>.Buik of No. America
i. 803, 314,
Tweddie t<. AtkinaoD
111.369
3*4
D. Binion, Sir a«orge
ii, 464
Twella V. K. B.
iU.4G8
ii. 286
Tweke* a. Williami
iT. 154
r. Bunowa
iii. 268
Tweniyman v. Hart
111.185
I. Cameron
ii. 343
Twenty-third St B. Church e. Coi^
iii. 432
nell
ii.468
.. Enrille
L344
Twin lick on Co. «. Marbnry ii. 280 ;
il.448
iT. 148
t.Gi^
ii.226
Twitchel 0. Commonwealth i. 826, 407
ii. 236, 240
Two Anclion & Chaini
iii. 248
t. Oruigtff'i bu. Co.
ii.281
Two Catharinei, Tlie
Ui, 191, 196. 248
il.490
Two EJlena, The
Iii, 170, 218, 232
rBsbiob
Hi. 413
Two Friend*. The
i. 112. 866. 868
rBoap
ii. m
Two Hundred and Ten BbU. of Oil
I. LjTerpool Docki
ii. 546
iii. 248
r. Major
iii. 84
Two Maryi, The
U. 636; iii. 166
*.yar;lM)d
im
Twombly v. Monroe
iv, 118
*. He;en
ii.76
Twopenny o. Tonng
iii. 60
i.Hermott
i». UB
Twort V. Twort
lv,369
>;Uoiri»
i.. 72
Twycroea u. Dreyfni
1,297
■.Newport
iT. 76
Twyne'B Ca«.
11,632
».0.W
iU. 178, 186
Tye P. Gwynne
Ii, 470. 473
>.PnrtMtlouIai.Co.
iii. 314
Tyeta v. BoMdale, &c. Iron Co. ii. 494
>. Robiiuoa a
368, 878, 880
Tyler, £i parte
1,266
t. Suniaa
iii, 106
It. 806
Tyler. Rt i. 88
; 11,389; It, 508
». Sawjer
iT, 467
..St*U
Ii. ISO
i..Beacher
11.840
■.SIODM
iU, 88, 106
V. Fickett
It, 467
>. Tbomu
ii. 632
iU. 434
(.ThompKiQ 11.116.430; uL 41B
V. Heidom
iii. 461 ; It, 480
>,To<nJend
It. no
v. Home
iii. SJl
r. Triaby
ii. 240
V. Lake ii
140,162; It. 310
•.Turner
U. 101, 117
• Co. It. 632
r.Ward
ii. 4S0
t>. Odd FeUowi' An
n ii, 226
TmiCT. Sir Edwird, Caae ol
ii. 184
e. BaTage
1.376
Taraer-aCaM
iii. 177, 182
V. Tyler
ii. 79
Tmiff and Skelton, &
It. 461
r. Waddlngham
iii. 24
Tanaj^ ,. Smith
It. 70
B. W. U. Tel. Co.
Ii, 611
I. WiUiuoa
U.28I
■>. Wilkln»on iii. 439, 441, 442. 443,
r. Wilfon ti
aOO; >i1, 217
446. 447, 448
Tarnpike Co. v. HUk^
11.283
». Young
ill 98,106
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[lb* nUiitfn*! p«c» in nlsmd to.]
Tynu. o. DuUnig
il. 4M
Tynbm^ u. Cohen
iii. 31
Tyree b. Bingh>m
iT.608
iT.436
Tyrie u. Fletcher
iIi.S41
Tyrrell v. M>r>ih
It. 830
..Morri.
iT.4S8
Tyrrell 'b Cms
iT.301
Ty»on ,>. Applegito
IT. 306
r. Gurney
iii. 288
D. Tywij
ii. 178
Udbll b. Atharton
u. 616
Udny V. Udny i. 42 ; H. 42, 209, 49)
Uffbrd «, Spauldtng
i,4T8
Uhl D. Binnmoo
iiL60
IT. 178
Ublman it. Amholdt 4b S. B, Co. ii. 866
V. UhlmaoD Ii. 101
UUry c. The Waihlugton iii. 109
Ulen V. Kittredge iii. 90
Ullee, Re ii. 6% 81. 209
Ulmum. Briggt ii:.36
Ulmer «. Hllla ii. 5S1
UUter Ca Bulk v. McFsrlui iii. 86
Ulster Co. Say, Inst. u. Leake iii. 876
Citzen V. Nichol* ii. 692
Umlauf u. Umbnf ii. 126
Undkuimd, The Iii. 248
UnderhiU d. An**™ Mut F. Ins.
Co. Ui. 376
t>. AIl«n iT. 461
0. Hernandez i. 67
,0. Saratoga & Waih. K. It. it. 126
DDderwood b. Brockman ii 491
t>. CampbeU It. 493
V. Dobbin* ir. 461
V. Oerber ii 366
t>. King It. 176
II. Underwood IL 468
V. Wolf ii. 479
Ungar i>. Sagg ' U. 366
Ung«r u. Bom iii. 80
Ungley v, Dngley It. 451
Unlao Vencedon, The
Union, The
Union Bank v. Crine
B. Emerion
u. Gilbert
V. Hyde
D. Lenuitou
B. Hiddtebrook
u. Union Im. Co.
V. WiUii
Union Bonk of L*. b. Coaler
17. FoQteuean
B. New Orleftu iii. 69
Union Bank of London v. Kent Ir, 160,
179
Union Bank of Muykod d. Bidgely
iii 174
i. 148
iii.ee
iLS4a
iii. 80
111.04, 96
iU. 180
il. 616
i. 427
iii. 286
iii 106
iii. 84
iii. 104
Union Bank of Tenn. o. Ellicott ii. 81&
Union Cattle Co. b. Int'l Tnut Co. iii. 89
Union Central Lifalni. Co. D.Cbown-
ing 1. 891
Union Cotton Mannf. v. LobdeU ii. 463
Union BipresB Co. i>. Ohleman ii. 611
UnioD Inst, for SaTingt v. Boaton iii. 116
Union Int. Co. b. American I
Co.
iii. 279
iii. 164
Iii. 200
i.4S6
iU. S2I, 332
iii. 216
iii. 287, 302
iii. 807
302, 867, 370
iii. 440
k Ui. 260
It. «6
It. 194
iii. 369
V. Dexter
n. Grant
V. Hoge
0. Robintoo
c Scott
B. Smith
V. Tyaen
B. United Statei
Union Mille Co. i; Ferris
Union M. Ini. Co. v. Borwi
D, Campbell
Union H. L. Ins. Co. n. Htnford
D. SieTen*
Union Nat. Bank u. Barber
B. Kanaaa City Bank
e. Oceana, tc. Bank
Union P. Co. o. BliTen P. Co.
Union Pac. Ry. Co. f. Artist
D. Botsford
V. Callaghan
D. Colorado Ea
D.Harris
B. Johnston
i: Kelley
B. McDonald
Union Slate Co. v. TUtou
Union S. Co. b. HaU Signal Co. i. 802
Union Steamship Co. o. Aracan, Th«
iU. 232
tr, N. Y. * Va. 8. Co. IIL 282
Union S. & T. Co. v. Mallory U. 661
Union Stock-yardj & T. Co. c. Weat-
em Land & C. Co. ii 468, 690
Union T. Road v. N. E. H. Ins. Co.
ii.S84
Union Tmst Co. v. UcClellan iii. 61, 8ft
u. TrumboU ii. 687
Union, &c. Co. •b. Erie R. Co. u. 466
United Ins, Co. v. Lenox iii 333, ftM
United Kingdom H. S. A. Au'n v
D Ry. Co.
i. 342
iii. 88
aL440
ii. 269
ii. 7fl
Ii. 269
1.380
i. 802
iii- 207
ii. 269
ii. 196
MbtUI
ii. 616
United Lines TeL Co. d
Borton 8. D.
Co.
ii.281
United States v. Adam*
i. 2»7
i>. Addison
iii 464
B. Ah Poing
ii, ae
V. Ah Toy
U.30
V. Alabama
iSSl
V. Alexandw
iL840
p. Alger
i489
V. Allred
1.806,808
V. American Bell Tel. Co.
iisee
D. Amea
1866,481
B. Amor
U.S9
p. Appleton
It. 467
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
[Tha nmrgiiml F>aM an ntund to.]
d StitM D. Arlona
LSO
United Statea b. Coqnltkm,
The 1. 467
Aruago
U.39
E. CorneU
1.429
Atheni Armoiy
1.284,302
tr. Cooeh
i. 244
Attantic ft Pwdflo R.
Co. i. 57
B.Craig
ATerv
i. 806
B. Crawford
1.462
Badean
i. 46, 287
e. Crookshank
1.247
ii.264
V. Crotby 11. 43
; iv. 441, 518
BalUn
i. 285
V. Cruikihaok
i. 391
i.311
V. Cullerton
i. 283
Bank of the Matropol
■ i.297
V. DaUea Uil. Road
It. 466
Barker i. 481iiil, 89
94, 106. lOG
V. DfiTidaon
i. 809
Banea
1.244
17. Davit i, 36. 326, 361,
362, 867, 429
BanMT i.
297, 338. 411
V. D«Ti» & Haolon
1.363
2S9IBaletofCottOD
1.367
D. Deba
i.4S9
2TS Bureli of DiitiUed Spirita
V. Dewey
lii. 182
U.366
V. Dewitt
L 264, 439
64 Barreli of Spirits
i.409
i. 137
Baleman
1.268
». Dodge
i. 401
Baxter
111.46
V. Dougloa
ii.71
L363
V. Dulath
1.439
Beebe
1,861
V. DaDcao
St. 67
Beebee
i. 244, 361
u. Eaaaon
i.268
Beban
.297; 11.468
D. Eaton
1.361
BcDDer
i. 39. 182
V. Eckford
i.297
Berdan F. A. Haniif. Go. i.WT;
V. E, C. Knight Co.
1.439
U.366
E. Elliott
i.489
i.374
iL340
Betuu i. 814, 884,
341, 861, 364
V. Ferreira
1.326
L863
E. Fisher 1. 244
894, 460, 468
&'
i. 287, 322
D. flik
i,462
BWne
i.287
i: Fourteen Packages
1.375
£14 BozM of Anna
1.123
B. Foirkei
1.330
Bn^emui
11.71
V. Freeman
lii. 182
i.284
V. Frelinhayaen
i.284
Britlon
1.881
E, French
1.412
Brown 1. WT. 467 ; It. 848
E. Gates
1,467
BniDe
11L1S8
11.340
Bmlii^tOD. *c. Ferry Co. i. 363,
K. Gibert
11,12
369
V. Gill
1.297
Burr
1.800,883
V. Gillies
ii48.60
CaUfornta & Oregon Land Co.
V. Gilmora
f.4B6
287; It. 485
V. Givinga
iiL 178
CatnptNll
L403
V. Oleeson
i 297, 826
Canal Bank
L24a
V. Gomez
1,322
Can
i.299
V. Gooding
1.194
Caaitdy
L439
D. Goodwin
i. 326
Centnl Fac. R. Co.
i.802
V. Gordon
I. 301. 325
Certain lAtid
ii.340
r. Great Falls Mannf, Co. i. 288
CbiTOaong Look
i.305
0. Green
ii.206
11.430
t. GrUwotd
i. 244, 283
CiTcnit Jndgea
i. 826. 326
E. Grosstnayer
i. 67
Claflin
i.466
V. Crush L 303, 866. 867
Clark
i.246
... Gulllem
i. 78, 161
Clarke
1.297
r. Gunning
11.366
Cobb
i. 331
r. Guthrie
1.811,322
Co*
i. 221. 299
i:. Hack
i. 247
Colby
Ui. 182
V. H»ll
g^
U.366
V. Hallock
[.144
1.463
E. Hamilton
i.300
^^
U.521
111.399
E. Band L 89
E. Harris L 804. ill. 482; It, 467
Coolidn 1.836,
888,868,364
■7. Hart
i. 302. 411
Coombt
1. 368, 878
tr. Hawkina
1. 246, 297
Coop*!
1.268
... Hay ward
i. 178
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
tTbe DUTglitf] p>cM im nfernd M.]
United State* v. Hewea
i.4ao
nnited SUtea b. Hcaellati
L2U
B. Higgenon
11.81
B.Macdaoiel
1.297
D.Hinz
i.28«
B. McElroy
L244
B, Hogan
i. 128
«. M'Glll
1.381
c. Holmea
1.188,368
V. HcGinnis
il. 274
». Hooe
m;ii. 683
V. MackemiB & Qanievoort i. 384
V. HoweU
iii. 128, 468
841.368
r. HuckabM
ii. 451
V. McUmore
1.207
r. Hudson & Goodwin
i. 314, 834,
V. McRae
i.26
3S6, as8.
339, 341, 364
V. Malsk. Brig
i-I8»
V. Hughe*
i. 4og
V. Maney
1.341
V. Hunt
iii. 182, 183
V. Marigold
i.25l
«. Illinoi. Cent R. Co.
iii. 451
B. Martin
i.284
f. Jngftte
1.244
V. Mechanics' Bank
1.347
r. Irwin
1.266
V. Monroe
i.246
r. Jackson
i. 368, 439
B. Mooney
i.304
f . Jabn
1.380
p. More
1886.385
P. Jarnet G. Swan
i. 80
B. Moreno
1.25
V. Jamei Mwriwii, The
i.43g
V. Morgan
I. 380
». Jarrie.
iii. 58
1. 2S8
0. JarvU
ii. S44
Iv. 436
B.JeSen
i. 80
V. Mofiby
L 45, 326
ii. 259
e. Murphy
ii. 1T9
r. Jellico H. C. Co.
ii. 277
B. National Exchange Bank i. 330
V. JuDkini
iii. 180
V. Nelson
ui. 00
V. Joaia L 296, 297, 826 j ii. 12, S40
V. New Bedford Bridge
LSI, 439
11.71
r. Norach
ii.64
i. 2ff7
t>. North Carolina
iL400
V. Kazinaki
1. 123
r. Norton
i. 467
v. KeeUer
1.91
1*. NourMi
1.248
11. 12
V. O^Keefe
iii. 178
K. Kellar
i. 297
r. Kendall
i. 884
B. Old Settlers
i. 297
f. Keotuck; Biver Mill*
i. 302
t^. Olien
il. 12
D. Keokuk
1822
B. Ordway
i. 258
V. Keokuk & H, Bridge Co. 1. 221.
o. Oregon & C. R. Co.
i. 462
467
B. Ortega
L 30, 815
V. KetBler
i, 30, 186
V. Paoheoo
iii. 427
V. Kimball
i:297
B. Padflc R. Co.
L57
=, King
ill. 17B
B. 14 Packages
i, 875
B. Kirby
I. 411
V. Padelford
i. 01. 284
V. Klein
.284
B. Palroep L 26, 186. 297, 363
B. ElintDck
.187
V. Panello
iL71
B. Kodiah, The
.363
V. Paieinore
i. 465
D. La Abra S. M. Co.
.287
iU. 282
V. LafoDlaioe
i.se
V. Payne
iii. 899
V. Lament
i. 287. 322
D. Percheman
1.178
B.La|^ne
i. 67
o. Perei
iL 12
V. Latlirop
i. 401
V. Peters
1.409
v. La Tengeuioe
i. 878, 376
D. Peteraon
tr. Lawrence
i. 37
B. Philbrick
1.462
B.Lee
1 297. 328
u. Pirates
L IBS, 867
B. Leliman
ii.64
i>. Pratt Coal Co.
ii. 154
B. Lewis, The
i.369
B. Preslon
i. 466
B. Lewia
i. 244
V. PridgeOD
1.384
B. Liddle
V. Prioleaa
i. 297
B. Lilla, The
i. 86
B, Proctor
UL 18-2
B. Lincoln Co.
1.419
V. Quigley
i. 67
B. Long Hop
1.391
V. Itsnisay
i.»t8
V. Loo Wajr
1189
i: Rmd
i. 123
V. Louisiana i.
266, 207, 361
B. R&um
i.287
B. Lrncb
im
p. Rauscher
i. 87
B. Lytle
1.466
('. Ravara
1. 45. 816
D. McBntnef
ill 800
L46S
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
(ThB mu^liul pagoi uenfenvd to
liltd SMn v. Been i
838,891
nnited Statei k. Wincheater
L 867,368
::S2sSr{^
i. 178
i. 128
V. Wong Dep Em
». Won»on
u.se
i. 842
::ar
i.l70
i. 221
D. WorkingnieD's Am.
Council
ii. 259. 467
..Rbggold
1.207
e. Worrall i. 331.
888, 839, 478
I. Robert and Minoie, The
i. 123
V. Wyngall
iL60
>. Roberta i.36S
; iii. 176
e. Ybanez
i. 128
>. Roboon
i.297
e. roung
i.S26
■.RoUiuoii
1.367
«.TukeSi
11. 661. 537
cRodgen
i. 368
U. S. Bank v. Bank of GMrgia i>i. 86
■.Rogen LS6S;ii-30
iii. 400
B. Blnney
iU.41,43
i. 306
f. Burton
iiL94
cRni
i. 367
0. Carneal ill. 96
99, 107, 106
r.RngBlM
iii. 183
V. Flrtt Nat Bank
iii. 86
«.BuueU
i.297
i-. HalBtBftd
i3»4
t>. S«ll;, SchooDor
i. 373
V. Merchaott- Bulk
ii.281
i. 869
V. Plantew- Bank
11.276
-. Schwftlby
1.268
V. SUl
iii. lie>
^Swmm'
L322
V. Smith
iii. 98, 99
>. 1766 SbaTM of Stock
Leo, 67
V. Tylw
iiL114
»Sbiw
i. 802
n. S. El. Ughting Co. »
Editon
.. SbM li. 590
; lu. 138
I«nip Co.
li. 366
>.6ban
i. S22
n. S. Electric Power C<x tr. SUte li. 382
>. SU Lota of Oround
1.284
U. S. Expreu Co. v. Allen
i. 844
t. SUddw
1.123
C. 8. Ini.Co. u.OiwegoCanalCo. iii. 449
r. Smiley
1.30
», Scott
iii 166, 178
V. Smith L 163, ISe
i iii. 182
U. S. Manuf. Co. o. Biuhlng
Co. 11.366
V. Soatbam PadOc K. Co.
L302
U. 8. M. A. Aw'n V. Barry
Ul. 366
«.Sul7
iii. 186
United State* PetitioD, lU
i.26B
..St«4td
i.342
U. S. Printing Co. v. American P. C.
>. Blue Bank
i.297
Co.
if. 366
r. Sleew 1
108,868
United Stale* T. Co. o. Qildenleeve
B. StoweU t. Wa, 467
ii.611
>. Bnn i
8S2,830
Unity' D. Bel^e
U.611
>. Tarkv L Sao
iii. 176
11.76
r. Teiaa i
298,861
V. Burrage
1.460
>.TlMmo
ii. 71
Unity In*. Co. b. Cram
ii.8I2
>. TbomaMon
1.284
Unity Joint Stock Hub Buk A**..
B.Thomdaon
1.831
E^paru
11241
•■•nnilCT^
L297
Uni*errity o. Brown
It. 404
V. Trans. Ha Freight Aw'n
i.462i
f. Finch
i.67
ii.467
::?i
1.419
r.Tnimbiin 1.42; ii. 28
11.286
tlc^l'OTPac.E.Il.Co.
466.466
UnlTerwty Fnnd, ft «
1.296
i.460
UotermByer «. Frennd
ii.366
c. Van DoMS
i.308
Unwin V. Hanaon
1.462
>. Villato
L424
r. WolMley
U.632
..Wagwr
i.297
Upchnrch V. Upchnrch
W. 616
^Ward
ii.52
Upham B. LefiiTour
ii.642
».Wait
1.37
r. Prince
IU.90
>. Watts
1.87
Upper Allowayt Creek o. String U. 292
»WMd
1.367
Upper S, Co. «. Blake
i.870
KW«a
i.239
U. P. R. Co. ». RolliD*
It. 461
>. WM L 284. 297
111,438
■tWdla
i.297
Upshare 0. Aidee
U.601
>. Whiteomb U. B. Co.
i.30*
Upion V. Holme*
li.468
■.White
tsa
Upton IT. Gray
ii. 631
r Wilder
Ui. 171
iii. 464
.. WUkini
It William n>4«iiHnA
1.297
It. 278
». WiUinn
iii! 146
e. Suffolk Co. AOUi
11. 621
.. WiUon 1. 2«
%t8, 462
D. Townaend
lii. 464
i^Wiltbeiger L834
862,364
V. Vail
ii. 489
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CABES.
Urbma v. Grlmei
iL286
UrbailDa Bank t>. Bftldwln
iy. 439
Urmiton v. FiM
ii. 473
B, WhitelesK
ii. «7
Urqnhwt v. Bunwd
iii. «I4
V. Butterfleld it. 62, 309, 430
r, M'lvBr
ii. 020, 889
ii.482
V. Oli™
iT. 606
Ulher v. Diuncey
iii. 44
V. Moss
iv. 118
V. Noble
iii. SSO
e. WMt jMiey R Co.
i.86
U»aton B. U.lltoD
i». 282
Ulhar «. lUch
11182
UUey ». Union Tool Co.
U.312
Utopia, Th« t>. PrimiiU, Hm
U. 822;
ill. 282
Ii. 110
Utterton F. Tewib
UiielU u. Boatou U. Ina. Co.
iii.331
TiODinf OU Co. p. Buffdo L
O.Co.
ii. 866
Vadila V. LawM
ii. 120
Vadan u. Haoce
It. 418
TagUano v. Bank of EDglana ill 8 .
Vail V. Dorant ii. 622, 640
If. Tail 11. 363; It
D. Tan Doren iii. 80
Talarino v. Thompaoa . 1. 39, 46
Vale V. Bavle ii. 600
Talejo V. Wheeler iii. 1S7
Taleniin «. Talentin ii. 164
Valentine o. Bell il. 160
V. Healej iv. 8T0
a. Jackion iii
D. Richardt it
D. WethereU i*
Talentlne, Siicceuion of It. 512
TaUico T. Rt. Co. v. Brizbam, The
iii.!
Valette f. Ma«on iii.
Valiant, The i-
Valk V. Bank of State iii. 106
u. United SUtea 1
Vsik'a Caw i. 67
Villnnce t>. Dewar Ul. 286, 286
E. FaUfl 1. 467
TalUndigham, Ex parte I. 314
Tallejo D. Wh«eler iii. 306
Talliant e. Dodemede iv. 473
Talpe; v. Rea il. 461
Valton V. National L. P. L. Am. Soc
Ui
Van ABmam, Ex partt
V. Bleiitein ii. 2S4
V. Van Aemam ii. 212
Van Allen v. Abkuoh, The i
t>. Vanderpool ii. txa
Van Alst v. Hunter Ir. 508
Van Amee v. Jackion it, 306
Van Amringe n. EUmakei Iii. S7
«. Feabodj ii. 626
•Ito.]
Van Aridale c. Van Andale iv. SB
Van Arsden v. Morton L 842
Van Avery u. Union Pac. Rj. Co. iL £69
Van Bergen s. Tan Bergen iii. 441, 447
Van Berger v. Demarett i*. 191
Tan Beuren u. WlUon flL 188
Tan Blarcom u. Daget iv. 75
Tan Bokkelen u. Cook L 249
Tinges it. 806
Tan BracUin s. Fonda IL SOS, 479
Tan Bramer a. Cooper ii. £37
Van BrocUin v. Tenneiue L 268, 884
Van BruDt v. Mather ill. 41
Van Buren r. Olmitead iv. 166
Van Bnakirk v. Van Bnakiik Hi. 41
Van Caateel v. Bookv ii. 645
Van Cleaf v. Bunii i. 260; iv. 64
Tan der Tolgen if. Tatea iv. 290
Tan Denee ir. Tan Dertee iv. 641
Van De Vere r. Katiaai Ci^ ii. 340
Van Doren d. Alden ii. 364
V. Todd It. 168, 163
Van Dotan v. Van Doaan U. 87
Van Du;ne v. Van Duyne iv. 306
Van Diuer n. Van Duwr iv. 34
Van Dumr v. Allen ii. 498
Van Dyke u. Seelye iii. 41
Van Dyne d. Thayre iv. 45
Van £pp« D. Harriaon 11. 472
V. Van Deiuen ii. 188, 140, 141
D. Van Epp« iv. 871
Van Etten b. Newton iii. S07
Van Foaaen v. The State ii. 1 17
Van GnyaUng v. Van Knien Iv. 608
Tan Hoeaen n. Coventry Iii. 44il>
Tan Hook v. Wbitlock I. 467; ii. 888
Tan HoDiier e. Hannibal, &c. B. R.
Co. iiL48T
Tan Horn v. Hann U. 461
D. Van Horn ii. 260
Van Home, Matter of iL 229
D. Dorrance L 461
■>. Fonda iT. 871
V. State L 460
Tan Eouten b. Moras Ii. 77
Tan Hnaen v. Kanonae ir. 194
Tan Keuren u. Parmalee UL 61
Tan Kleeck v. McCabe ilL 83
D. Befbmied Dntch Chtirch Iv. 642
Van Hatre u. Sankey ii. 180
Vanner b. Fro« iii. 166
Van Neaa v. Hamilton ti. 16
». Hyatt W. lei
ti. Pacard H. 346
Van Nett v. Toe ii. 636
Van Omeron d. Dowick iii 174
Van Orden ■. Van Orden iv. 68
Van Patton b. BeaU iL461
Van Pelt i. M'Oraw iv. 102
Van Raugh r. Van Andale U. SOS, 469
Tan RemUdyk n. Kane iL 468. 460 ;
Ui. 48, 64
Tan Beniteker «. Ball iii 461
i>. Barnnger iiL46I; It. 180
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
t. Qnukenbon iii. 482
V- RidcUff iii. 406
0. Beul iii. 461 i St. 4B0
p. SliDgarlMDd Iii. 461
Tw Ripet «. No. Fltiufleld i. 460
II. ^moDi ' i. 459
Tin Sinlwood b. The J. B. Cole i. S6T
Tu Sdem, in r« ii. 2B
Tu Shiick !>. Third At. B. B. ir. 96
Vtn Sickle b. Keith ii. 612
Tu SIrck B. Kimball ir. 47 1
Tu Sljke D. WiKoiuhi L 427
Tu Victer e. Flkck iu. 76
Tu TilkeobuTKh v. W&tKm ii. 191, 103
Tin VediteD e. Pnirn iii. 106
n. Vtn Vecbtsn ii. 868; i*. 271
Tu TegfaieD t>. Van Tegbten ii. 127,
Vu Wirt V. Wooley
Tu VicUa v. Heob
Ca
Heohauiei ft T. In«.
n HulRMd Co. ii. 800
Tu Winkl* v. CroweU ii «3, 646, 687
v. StUerfield ii. 269
Tin Wyck ». Allen ii. 479
I. NoTTell iii. 61
E. Seirud (L 441, 442
Tu Zudt V. Mat Beo. Ufb Int. Co,
Ui. 8a9
Tuntidalen v. VanarUiUen ii. 226
Tmtu E. Brewer it. 182
Tubibber t>. Btuik of Loiuuum iii S6,
I. Colliiu iii. 106
>. Cowing Ui. 66
>. Erie Bj. Col ii 284
c. BdUdb iT. 612
>. H'NiiiT IT. 466
E. FhiUlH il. 629
>. Toonw ii. 480
TiKoort V, Hoore iv. 44S
Tud«U V. South B. F. Dock Co. il. 300
TudmbeuTcl v. United Lu. Co. 11. 121
TuderbDTKb r. HnU til. 26
Tuderbeyden V. CnndAll It. 20$, 266.
Tuderkair > Tanderkur
Tudniip r. Qrand R«pid« B. i
Tindeipunk u. King
>. HUleT
TiodmUce >. United Statei
Vwideraee ... Adorn
I*. 848
V. WUIU ii. 682, 684
i IT. 188, 180
Tanderer'i Appeal
Vand/ck u. Hewitt
iT. 807
Hi. 841
Vane e. Lord Barnard
It. 78
Tangine i>. Taylor
It. 466
Vangoard, The
iii. ISO
Vanhorn e. Harriioa
iv. e
Vhd meter a. Jonei
ii. 483
V. McFaddin
It. 161
V. Spurrier
Iii. 80
i. 302
Vanquelin t>. Bouard
11. 42Q, 463
U.641
Vanunt v. AllmoD
It. 194
Tantittart d. Vansittart
U. 193
Vaaatrum b. Llljengren
iii. 81
Vaniyckle o. RichordiOD
iT. 418
VanMnt d. Arnold
iii. 06
Varble d. Bigley
ii.G09
Vardon'a TroiM, B«
H. 162
Varick V. Edward* a 476 ; ir. 261
V. Jackson
1T.4B2
r. Smith
ii840
Varoey o. Young
ii. 194
Vamon'i Tnwta, Re
Ii. 170
Vamnm i>. Camp ii
419, 468, 632
VarreU ...Wendell
It. 346
Varuna, The
iii 186
Vaiiar v. Camp
ii. 477
Vaue t. Comegyi
IT. 262
V. Smith
ii241
Vaudemark o. TsndenwA
IT. 630
Vaughan v. Bardar
11.463
B. BUncbard
Ui. 470
V. DaTim
U.tMl
V. Dicke*
IT. 278
B. Menlore
iii. 486
<7. Northup
'ii481
17. Parr
M.236
:;rS„,.^
It. 179
ii. 164, 241
Vanghn b. Barret
11. 431
...Harp
1.221
». Hoore
ii14S
Vans B. Hendenoa
It. 637
V. Keibit
ii64
V. Parke
It. 808
0. Sheffer
111.282
Vaw'. Eetata
It. 336
Vauxhall Bridge Co. v
Earl of
Spencer
11.460
ViTiweur B. Kmpp
i297
Vawier b. Jeflrey
It. 628, 680
Veach ». Rice
i.2»
Veai B. Veal
ii, 448
Veaiie n. Holmei
11.681
D. Hoor
i480
V. Parker
ii. 6-22
B. Somerbr
iii 143
B. Williama
ii. 639
Veazie Bank t>. Fenno
1. 266, 429
v. Fanlk
iii. 102
v. Winn
iii. 88
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Vechte V. Brownen iU. 483
Vedder v. Fellows li. 296
Vegelnhn v. Gunter li. 269
Veghte V. R&ritaa Water P. Co. iii. 449,
Veil V. Mitchell
U.fl24
VeUian i.. Lewis
ii. 690
Venulile V. BeaachAmp
iT. 371
D. Curd
11296
t. Levi<:k
ui. 43
u. Kicbardi
1. 808
Venables v. Baring
iiLSe
B. Smith
ii. 260
Venice. The
i. 146
Vennall d. Qamer
[ii. 231
Veotrw* o. Smith
ii. 324
Venua, The i. 6B, 76, 78, 158
iii. 861
Verden c. Coleman
316, S2S
Vere. Ex parte
u. seg
Vermil^e v. Adams Express Co.
Iii. 76,
89,91
ii. 400
Vermont HarbU Co. v
Smith
Vermont & C. R. B. tr.
Vermont Cen-
tral B. R.
ii. 312
Vemam r. Smith
ir. 474
Verner v. Vemer
it. 22
iT. 179
0. Keys
ii. 486
V. Kifk
iT. 616
V. Manhattan Co.
iU. 67
u. Morton
11622
V. Smith
iii. 376
iv. 473
B. Vestry of St Juuei
iii. 461
u. Watson
i. 469
Vernon's Caae
I. MS: i*.M
Vernon It. Ca tr. Los Angeles
iii. 440
Venwn Socie^ {Trustees of) o. Hills
iL 2»6. S12
Veronica Madre, The
ia, 174
Verret v. Bonrillain
U.430
Verrill ». Weymouth
Versailieg i>. BaU
It. 203
11.266
Verser v. Ford
ii. 193
Veitoe D. BeMley
iii. 478
Very v. WatWns
It. 183
Vessel-owners' Towing Ca o. Taylor
Velter u. Wallace
ii.209
Vetlertein p. Barker
h-.806
D. Barnes
iT.805
Viall B. Carpenter
Vibbard d. Johnson
Ui.424
ii. 472
Vibilia, The
iii. 367
Vick V. Eeg*
Viokers E. Band
ii.626
iT.461
Vickibnrg B. Hcldn
ii.241
t. Tobin
1.439
Vicksburg. ftc. B. Co.
V. Phillips
ii.441
Victor, The
m.232
Victor Scale Co. v. Shurtleff
ii.34
Victoria, The
L108
iii. 23a
Victorian, The
iii. 2
Victorin u. CleeTe
iii. 209
Victors V. Daries
11406
m u* niamd to.]
Victory, The i. 326; Hi. 170, 207, 28S
Vidal V. CommaB^rB ii. 200
B. Qirard i. 490 ; ii. S88
V. Philadelphia ii. 2S8
V. Tliompson ii. 469, 460
Vidal Sala.The i. 370
Viele D. Germania Ina. Co. iii. 376
VierheUer's Appeal iv. 437
Vigera b. Ocean Ins. Co. iii. 203
V. Sainet iii. 26
Vigilancia, The i. 80, 869
Vignaud v. Toaoaconrt iv. 438
Viles B. Waltham IL 430
Villa V. Rodrignez It. 143
Village of Middletown i. 460
Village of Princeville d. Auten iii. 461
Village of Winooski o. Gokey i. 460
Viliers r. BaU iii. 448
V. Handley iv. S&4
t. Moniley U. 16
ViUiers <-. ViUiers It. 83, OM
Vinal V. Bichardson iii. 123
V. West Virginia Oil Co. iii. ST
Vinas If. Merchants' MuL Ins. Co. ii. 23
Vincennei Unirersily n. Indiana il. 274
Vincent f. Bishop of Sodorft Man It. 330
V. Chicago & A. R. Co. ii. 004
If. Lincoln County ii. 274
f. Michel iiL 441
[■. Spooner iT. fiO
>f. Vincent ii. 99
D. Walker It. 136
Vindobala, The iii. 40
Vine, The ui. 246
Viney u. Bignold iii. 370
Vinson d. Bcveridge iii. 26
Vintv. Pftdget ir. 170
Vinton «. BaldwlD li. 622
B. King iii. 91
D. Welsh iii. 4I&
Vinton's Appeal iv. 7B
Vinlschger, Ik rt i. 322
Viola, The iii. 232, 248
Violett V. Patton iii. 90
r. Violett iT. 44S, 464
Viret P. Viret ii. 173
Virginia, Ex parte i. 209, 303, SUl
V. Paul i. 32-2
r. RiTes i. 80S, 322. 3<J1
Virginia Commissioners, Ex parte i. 322
Virginia Coupon Cases i. 408
Virginia Her. Co. v. Crozer L Co. t. 413
Virginia F. & H. loi. Co. c Morgan
iii. 870
Virginia Land Co. o. Haupt ii 281
Virginia Rnlon, The iii. 2
Virgo, The Ui. 233
Viicher v. Vischer ii. 117
■:. Tales ii. 467
Vitrified Pipe* (1266) iii. 228
ViTcash i>. Becker L 46
ViTien n. Meney Docks Boud iU. 248
Vizonneau v. Pegratn U. 1S&
VUerboom v. Chapmao Ui. 229
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[nu maighul pigfl* H* nfomd to.]
Vogdr. Pekoe
TojilcT V. Gum
Vogt c. People
Tognel, Exaarte
Voifht E.Wright
Toiiin s. ComnmcU) M. Ids. Ca i
21
TaUDte, n i. U
Tollnier'i Appeal
Toluiieer, Tbe, ft Cw^
Tod Hoffman ef. Quincy
Von Joet F. BorDM7
Von Tiothi D. Bambergier
Ton Windiich n. KUiu
Tooriieef, Hatter of
r. B orchard
D. Polhemiii
r. Reed
Toorhiei o. Voorhiei
TMrhiir.CbUd«
V. Freemao
Ton B. Huwt
Torebeck r. Roe
Tori* c. Sloan
Tot 4 GraTca b. U. In*. Co.
Toe* ». Cockcrof t
V. Handf
ToMD. King
ToMen V. Dantel
Tooght I. Voagfat
Tovln c. HiUer
Tojteo.XIbei
Tnde.Tlie
Treede Scholtjt, The
Tnetaad c. Van Blarcon
Tiaoman o. McKaig
f. Turner
Vmow Judith, Tbe
TtDw Anna Catharine, The
SOS, 220
i. 822, 419
iii. 448
y. 494; jy.
ii. 46S
ii.2Se
m. 68,64
ii. 34S
It. 116, 869
Ui. 424
ii. 164
TiwH
iretba,Tbe
Tikmc^e,.
Talllui r (TKoUe
T«ri« V. Cos
TJT7UI s. Arthur
IT. 112
ir. 146
i. 148, 14T
i. 74, 81,
121, 131
i. 8»
ii. 873
iU. 60.64
ii. 126
i 648; It. ^0
iU.67
ir. 473
W. «. W. il. 126
Wibuh « Erie Canal Co. n. Beert i. 419
Wibuh. tc Ry. Co. v. lUinois i. 439
r. McDanieli U. 269, 600
Wibuh. ic. Ry. Co. v. Morgan ii. 269
E. The People i. 43Q; iii. 4fi8
WwhamDth v. Martini ii. 616
Wachwen NaC Bank e. Sioux City
S(o>e Work! i. 302
Wiek V. Sorber it. 461
Wadd V. Haielton
ii.488
Wadddl V. Blocker
il.479
E.Cook iL860;iii.65
Waddell'i Appeal
il.340
Waddington v. Brieto*
iT.461
V. Naylor
iii. 437
V. OU»Br
ii. 509
Wade V. Chicago, &e. R. Co.
iii, 8t
V. ColTBrt
a 462
V. Creigblon
iii. 89
V. Donau Brewiog Co.
li.843
V. Green
iU.124
!>. Malloy
iT. 74
...Paget
iT. 102
V. Pettibone
It. 438
V. PuUifer
U.S26.4S8
E. Wade
iii. 116
w. Wittington
iU. 82
V. Wortaoian
i.BOe
Wadesboro C. M. Co. v. Bonu
ii. 277
'rt^r"""-
ii.690
ii.343
p. Veaiie
i.8U7
Wadley E.Jone»
11.37
WaJeworth u. Pacific In*. Co.
iii. 299
E. TiUotron
ill 440, 441
p. Wad.»orth U. 54
It. 506
1-. W.U.Tel. Co.
tL6U
E. William.
iT.l»4
Waeub, /n re
U. 148
Waffle E. N. T. C. a Co.
iii. 440
Wagaman e. Byere
ii. 18
Wiger n. Detroit, L. 4 N. B. Co.
ii. 468
e. Pro»idenoe Ini. Co.
iu. B78
Wagner e. Breed
iT. 178
E. Crook
iii. 81
V. Jayne Chemical Co.
B, White
ii. 269
lit 466
Wagstaffu. Anderaon
iii. 188
E. Smith ii 400
iT. 310
Waht E. Bamum
iii. 24
WaUiDg E. Toll
ii.2.S9
Wain E. Warlter.
Hi.
122,123
WaioerB. MitfordM-F.lM
Co.
ill. 869
Wainford e. Heyl
11149
Wainwright E. Crawford
Ui. 164
E. Read
iL476
V. Webiter
Iii. 88
Wait. In Matter rf
iii. 86
V. Borne
ii.
470, 612
iii. 08
B.Day
iT. 309
E. Gibbi
UL 178. 190
c. Green
ii. 498
iv. 870
V. Thayer
iii. 86
v. Wait
It
64,466
Waite E. Dodge
iii. 31
E. High
iii. 64
u. Kaluriiky
iU, 86
r. Uggett
iL4Bl
r. Morland
Ii.
164, 162
Wailhman v. Milea
iiL54
Wnke ». Halt
ii. 348
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
Wake V. Wftke
IT. 67
Walker v. Hull
li.SSS
Wakefield v. Hartlii
ih. sei
V. JoMph D. G Co.
ii.44S
U. PiMlU
V. Suiida7 L.H. Co.
iL164
V. Lido
iii. 88
iy. 122
V. London 4 P. In.
Co. iii. 870
WUeman v. Banki
It. 166
r. Long
11.164
r, GroTer
11.682
iii. SO
o.Roacbe
It. 70
V. Mackie
IT.SS6
Waland d. EIUqb
iii. 46
D, Haitland UL 276, 800, 802. 804.
Walbnni v. lEgilb;
Walcot e. Botdeld
iU.:», 27
806
li. 226
V. Matthew*
U. 824
e. Walker
iLSSl
o. Metro. Iw. Co.
lit 267
WalcoUK. SwamiMcott
ii274
V. Midland Ey. Co.
11692
Waldbrooke o. Oiiffiu
11.642
u.Moltran.
iii. 64
Walden ■>. Elremen loi. Co.
iii. 267
B. Moore
iL480
0. 1« Boj lii. 286, 280, SOS
n. New Mexico « S. F. R. Co. i. 881
e. Lonbiana Ini. Co.
lU. STS
c. Oigood
JL618
i*. ». T. Firemu Ini. Co.
iii. 286,
i^.Feck
ii. 160
287
V. Preiwick
iT. 162
V. Sherbnroe
lii. 60
f. Fue
a4T&
Waldo, The Hi. 170, 200, 216
r. Roger.
ilLlO?
Waldo V. Chicago, St. P.. & C.
K-Co.
K. Saurioet
i.891
ii.eoo
V. Schuyler
iT. 08
Waldion V. CbaM
ii. 6B0
V. Sharp*
It. 113
n. Coombe
i.42
V. Sherman
ii. S47
V. P. 8. ft P. E. Co.
Iii. 438
V. SimpwD
iL]47
r. Saoden
It. 806
B. Skipwitb
iie20
p. Waldron
ii. 164
u. Snediker
It. 176
Wala V. Coin
It. 179
V. finowe
It. 223
i.llt2,241
v. 8. E. Ry. Co.
aS84
V. Wale*
ii.l06
r. State
i. 406
v. Whitoer
i.801
r. StetKin
iii. Se, 106, 487
Walford v. DachoM ot Pienne
U. 166
t>. Swartwout
ii.a32
Walker. & 1. 466 ; U. 181, 206; It. 472
V. Symoida
11. 416 J It. 807
Case of Anne
U.162
V. Tupper
B. VilLiTaM
iii. 33
Co. iU. 46
i.S2S
V. Bank ot HonUEOnterj Co. iii. 112
r. Wait
iii. 66
V. Bank ot New Ytak
II. 632
r. Walker il
164; It. 176.538
!>. Bean
IU.41
V. Watrou.
iiL438
e. Birch
11639
V. We«tem Tramp.
Co. iii. 217
■>. Board of Public Worki
1U.427
I.. Witter
li. 120
D. Boatiek
ii.2fi3
U.MS
V. Boitan loa. Co.
iii. 217
V. WooUbb
iii. 76
t>. B. & M. & Ca
ii.260
Wall V. Bright
It. 689
V. Brogden
iL22
V. Bry
iii. loe
..Bra^ki
1*.480
V. Hind.
iL84a;iT.366
r.BnrneU
11.824
o.Magnire
It. 201,278
r. Clarke
ii. 10
r.R^
iL22e
..Coa^xe
ii. 871
U. 198
11.288
r. Wall
iL120i 1t.4«S
o.DenlKHi
li. 471
lii. 38S
iii. 60
WaUace, In n
iL87
v'.EjXh
iii. 66
V. Agry
111.88,96,109
e. Farniwoith
li. 389
V. AnderMU
IT. 181
i>.Fitta
It. 96
V. Attorney Qoieisl
ii. 429
o. Foibea
ill. 128
V. Barlow
ii. 474
f. Oeiue
iU. 76
t>. Bradabaw
iii. 260
ti. Glenn
1.418
V. Breeds
U. 496
0. Grayioo
11.288
V. Brown
It. 451
D. Great KorthemRy. Co.
11. 241
r. Campbell
It. 131
V. Grtawold
ir. 44
D. Dinniny
It. 103
V. Hagiterty
ii. 618
B, Driver
ia427
D. Hamiltou
m. 116
V. Pinberg
ii. 164
v.Rincb
111.34
V. Georgia, &«. Ry.
Co. ii. 269
V-HOUK
Ui. 67, 61
r. Haimitad
lii. 461
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
WiBmc >. Ih. Co.
iii. 876
WiUtoD ». NeTin
1.891
V-JODM
ii.220
Walt«r D. Dowoy
iii. 468
■.Jotiutona
1». 186
r. ETorud
ii. 286
e. KiImOI
iii. 27
W.Ford
11.448
cH'CoDiid] LWT; 1L1S3: iU.QT.
V. Oreennood
i». 870
W
118;iT.M6
V. Hodge
IL 163, 447
■.UlDor
iT.208
<^J>IIH(
ii. 626
V-HOIM
U.241
cManDde
iT. S26
>. Ohio In*. Co.
ill. S3S
0. Hon
IL M2, 649
v.Ow«ii
It. 418
f. Strinkopff
ii. 378
>. I^tlenoD
ii.407
W.lter'i Appe.1
Walter A. Wood H. Co. ».
iT. 640
>.Tellf>lr iiaiS; iii. 201
Minne-
>. TIuuhm & H. Idi. Co.
til. 318,
>polit E. H. Co.
wJiarmlre e. Waltermira
1.828
SSI
ii. 126
». Tnrelen' Int. Co.
It. 136
Wdter* i>. Brown
iU.106
«.Woodg*te
U.684
V.Jordan
it- 68
WdliKT Lotal Boud f. Grmcey ir. SOB
K. Moorae
■UL109
Will, fr.ll. W»tor Co.
. W.IU.
K. Morgu
It. 461
Wdl.
i.413
V. Pfeil
iii. 437
W»lW>.BowIiiig
ir.ses
f. WeitBrn * A. E. Co.
iU.207
^Lod.
ii. 22
V. WoodbridgB
ii.226
■.thjdu
It. 62
WrithlOl >. RlTB.
iT. 148
>. Hldlud, &c fi*. Co.
>. South Euten k Co.
U. 604
W»lthew V. Kmrraitai
iii 284
11.260
W.ltiDeT«r V. Wtacoailn, Ac
R. Co.
..Waller
It. 48
u.2eo
Wilkntain v. ColDmbbm
Idl Co.
Wilton T>. Crowley ii. 866 ; It. 167
UL 296, 831
o. DodMn
iii. 124
VtOtT p. Holt
iL241
». G*iDe«
U.286
r. SdbooDer UtMrty
i. 25
r. Laymx
11,366
WiUmg .. AikM)
It. 175
V. LondoD, Brij^ton, Ac
B. B.
*.MichiK>ii
i. 489
Co.
iii. 232
». Potter
ii. 696
t..MMall
iii. 124
WJliDB". CMe
11. 193
... Neptnne, The
iii. IS, 189
WtliiDgtford IT. Alien
IL 129, 162
r-OliTM
ii.277
Wdlb >. FnMtoM
iT.S28
p-RobiMon
iii. 49, 61
cHuriMH)
iii. 462
e.Tift
Ui.427
o-LoobM
IT. 449
e. United Stetei
1.297
11.646
V. Wilton It. 419. 528. 631
r.Uewe
iL360
Walworth V. Brackett
ii. S12
». PortlMd. Duke of
It. 445
Walwyn t. St. Qaintin
iii. 112
Win* ». Pmton
It. 95
WUip. Wmli
ill. 419
ViUwyn B. CoBtta
ii.533
Wuneiit Buik p. Bnttrick
iU. 105
WiUMdcT ■>. Wmlmulcr
iL126
ii).464
WilwlH r. Milne
Wiln >, W.1D
iL348
Wamtley c. Hortui
ii.468
It. 461
a 236
Ttlpole >. Bwer
iiLSea
Wunntu Hilli >. OU Colony 8. Co.
..Quirk
iT. 191
iii. 234
WiliMid ,. Wiinai
iLSae
Wanderer. The
iii. 206
W.kh,/«™
iL19G
p.Bdfi*
liL134
United TeL Co.
1.462
1L448
Wann v. W. U. Tel. Co.
iL6II
-.Colek^ch
il. 4»4
ii. 348
>.Sui^
liLlOS
Watuer p. Local
ii. 164
iiL aao, S14
WaplM p. Eamei
ilLSOe
kId!!^
iii. 876
T. United SUtee
1.66
».I«iiDoa
iii.48
Warbotton r. Gt. W. fi. Co.
ii. 260
«. N«w Tork 4 H. E. R. Co. i. 478
r. Lytton
ii244
*.PM±Ud
It. 478, 480
WaibutMa p. Warbntton
It. 58
ii.23e
Ward p. Amory 0. 138; iT. 211
«.Wilah
11226.425
a23e
>. WMhbigUn M. In. Co. iii. 288
p. Andrew!
St. 120
_ ..WhilttMb
iL644
V. Annatrong
It. 806,806
Wd.fa-.Appc«l
U.448
T.Arredondo 1847; ii. 46.1
WtUnnshaiB-* CkN
iT. 10
o.Bamaid
L466
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
|Tb>mugliiil rag
Ward V. Blake Hannf, Co. i. 302
V. Bodemsn iil. 138
V. Brigham iiL 24, 25
V. Chamberlain i. 248, 806
V. Chioa M. Im. Co. lii. 287
V. Comett lii. 80
V. Cretwell iii. 413
V. D«TJd«on ii. 281
V. Dudley U, 343
V. Farmer iv. 370
V. George F. Bl&ke Hacnt. Ca L 802
n. Henrj i. 410
V. Hobbs ii. 479
V. Howard iii. 70
V. HoweU lii. 40
V. Hubbard L 413
V. Jenkina i. 402
V. Johnaon it. 201, 200, 889
V. KohB U. 16
V. Lanuon ii. 6S3
V. I^nt ii. 422
V. Unthal iT. 886,337
V. Uwb ii. 683
V. LondoD Omoibiu Co. ii. 260
B. Mann 1. 807
>. Harrland 1. 439
V. National F. Int. Co. iil 370
V. Seal m. 448
V. Feck I. S71
0. Perrin iii. 109
V. Robertion iii. 424
B. Backman iii. 162, 162
n. Sea Int. Co. ii. 812
0. Sballet 11. 174
V. Sngg iii. 80
V. Sumner ii. 620
V. Tbompaoa 1.369; iii. 30
t>. Turner ii. 446, 447
V. Ward iL 128,188; iii. 440
D. Wood iii. 316
Ward'i, &c. v. Elklne ii. 604
Ward's Will ir. 524
Warde v. Myre ii. 866
Warden, EaUte of ir. 414
V. MonrillyaD ii 699; iii. 216
D. Bailroad Co. ii. 280
If. Cnion Fac. B. Co. u. 281
Warden v. Adami i*. 194
V. Jonei 11. 178
Warder v. United Sutee L 297
Wardlaw e. Gnj iii. 66
Ware a. Bradford It. 431
e. Cann It. 131
V. HamUton Brown Sboe Co. ii. 286
0. H;ltoo L 64, 167
B. Polbill ii. 280
e. Miller i. 419
V. Street iii. 8S
V. Weathnall It. 476
D. Witner ii. 42, 62
Wareham a. Brown It. 346
Wareham Bank u. Burt ii. 468
Warfleld u. Fiak ii
Waring v. Betti iii. 96
idta.)
Waring u. Clarke L 300
e. Dewberry iii. 482
V. EdmoDdi ii. 448
V. Maion ii. 479, 480, 481
0. Prigg iT. 203
tt. BobinaoD iii. 69
V. The Mayor i. 439
V. Ward iT. 421
0. Waring IL 128; It. 606
Warkworth, The i. 467
Warley d. Warley i». 421
Warlow D. BarriMD ii. 630
Warmack a. Brownlee iii. 440
Warn t>. New York Central B. Co. i>. 260
Warner v. Bates it. 306
V. Beer* U. 272
H, Conn. Hnt. Life Ini. Co. iv. 836
D. Ctmningham lii. 57
B. Erie B. Co. ii. 260
D. HolsingtoQ It. 06
V. Littlefield il. 441
D. HcBryde iii. 419
B. Martin IL 62% 626, 633
D. Peo^ile "■■ ""
i: Smfth
iii. 28
iiL429
0. Swearingen ii
263 ; It. 642
V. Texas £P. Ry. Co.
ii. 610
0. Van Alatyne
IT. 162
u. lot
Wamock e. DavU
iii. 809
War Onskan, The
112; iii. 247
Wart B. JoUy
il.22
Warren, Re
ii. 170
V. Allnutt
ui. 90
B.Bali
iii. 68
B. Stake
iii. 419
V. Brown
iii. 76
V. Franklin Int. Co.
iii. 260. 336.
376
::»"
iil. 91
ii. 434
V. HaUey
ii. 612
B. Harding
It. 617
V. Hembree
iT.20S
0. Howard
It. 806
V. Hunter
iii. 440
u.Keep
V. Ln.t!
li.366
1.262
u.Lyneb
It. 463
V. fij(J:cIithy
Ul. 461
i.262
Ii.620
iii. 418
0. Uilliken
ii 492, 690
B. Ocean Ina. Co.
ii.201
e. Prescotl
ii. 189
0. Rudall
iT.76
B. Taylor
It. 627
U.430
D. Warren
a 128, 164
Warrender b. Warrender
ii. 91. 117
Warr[ck u. Hunt
iT.4S9
Warriner t>. Rogers
U.438
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
TfMiiDgtonii.Pnrbiir
iii. 124
Wateti V. MerchaoU' Im. Co. iU. 804
Wmior, The i. 871 ; iii
131, 196
«. Monarch F. a L Af«. Co. ill. 376
1.467
V. Stewart
IT. 47, 161
Wuten r. Stnne
ii.46e
r. Taylor ii646.
m. 68, 61, 66
Warter r. Waiter
11.126
V. Tazewell
iT.32
Wuthen v. Sieflert
It. see
Walartowo n. Co wen
iii. 438, 460
Wuwii^, The
Ul. 260
Water Witch, The
iiL 172
Wuwick c. Bruce
U.236
Watkio V. Hall
il. 16
>. Foolkea
il.21
Watkin., Ex parte L 800, 826, 873
g. Hunt
iv. 429
K. Baird
ii.463
r. Roger.
iii. 86
V. Birch
11510
IT. 448
V. Edwards
It. 170
..Medler
11.622
V. Holman ii. 468 ; lii^SS : It, 807,
WMhbnni. Matter of
i.36
410
V. Fannen' Ini. Co.
111.302
v.Suh
It. 464
>. QoDld iL 3ST
360,372
K.OtU
i. 247
V. Uiami Taller Iiu. Co.
Ui. 302
x.Peck
iu.446
>.F1cot
a 474
0. Robert*
y. 666
Waihbnm IiOU Co. t>. Bartlett
iL286
0. Sears
It. 278
TMhbom & Uoea Hautif. Co, c.
Beat
V. Stocked
It. 306
■Em All B. W. Co.
U.S66
V. Thonitoa
IT. 20
r. Sdiance If. Itw. Co.
ilLSSI
t. United Sute*
1207,342
THhbonie p. HwTilla
It. 148
v. Watkini
ii. 117, 120
WubiDglon V. Momr
1.460
D. Young
It. 418
..OgdM
It. 461
Watkinaon v. Bank of PennirWaiiia
WMhinpon (Hlot-Boat) >. Saloda,
ill. 67
The
iii. 176
166, leo, 171
WaduDgtoD &c. R. Co. e. Alexandria
Watn'eyy-Trut
V. WellB
11600
I Wn. B. B.
L803
iii. 66
B. HcDade
ii.269
ill 87, 61
TTMhinpon Bridg* Co. v. Stewart i. 316
WatriH V. Firtt Nat Bulk
ii. 848
Wuhiogton F. Ini. Co. t>. Darlion
». Pierce
11.468
iii. 281
Watroui V. Glialker
11166
iii. 164
V. Morri«>n
11 434
Waihiiigton UniTenitr s. Boum
i.316
WalKJD, Ex parte
11 643; ill 84
Vum p. Walter L 286 ; ii. 22
». Bailer
ii. 162
Vim e. Bucknain
ir. 29, 30
V. Brickwood
It. 421
Vmmo p. King
It,. 326
V. Chicago, &o. Hj. Co.
ill. 461
Talehman, The Brig ii. 407, m
V. Chriatie
Hi. 182
V. Cincinnati, Ac. B. Co,
11.866
Water Co. ,. Ware
iL260
...CroB.
11240
Water Meter Co. =. Deiper
aaee
V. Belafleld
111286
Watertmrr b. Mjrick
iii. 248
r. NckeDB
It. 143
». Sii^air
iii. 80
B, DnykiDck
lil228
>. StniteTant
iT.486
B.Gr/j
iii. 487
Watnfkll V. PeoUtooe
ii. 343
V. Haley
11.64
L4S8
».Hm
It. 394
..Wofinop
ii. 481
11269
WaiMtoo,TlM
iii. 248
D. King
U.e46
WatennaD b. Banks
It. 461
». Lane
ii.400
(.ChkagoftlR, Co.
y. 277
■>. Loring
m. 06
■.Clark
It. 122
t>. McLaren ii. S40
m. 122, 123,
e.Hiu)t
iii. 66
124
.. Jotaiuon
111.420
0. Mdswaring
iii. 870
it. 366
V. Martin
It. 827
K. Hattowif It
167, 104
■a. Mercer
1400,466
B. Shiptnan
ii. 866
_ p.8oper
Iii. 438
r. On-
11.468
U.463
i;. Owens
iii. 81
•^ v. Com). Mat. LUe lu. Co.
111.860
V. Perrign
11610
B.I>aTall
It. 433
K. Randall
Ui. 123
b!h%1mi
iii. 416
D. Roode
11 470
V. Sbattlewortl
111.78
P. H. L. IM. Co.
UL374
«. Smith
It. 264
„Gooi^lc
TABLE OF CAfiSa.
WaiMD 0. Sbnw
L419
Weart b. Bom
It. 467
0. Swano
IL flIS; m. 268
Waatherbee ». Furar
1L168
0. ThompMH
It. 306
B. VlolBtt
W.461
WeathMfoid, to. Bjr. Co. t>
Gruiger
B.W«t»Otl
aiSSjiT. M
U.281
B. Weill
i».162
Weatherhead b. Ffadd
It. 418
>>.WiUiMIU
U.681
Weathirtlj' b. Waathenly
It. 148
WatMti't Cue, MlH
H.170
U.461
W«tt B. AUgood u. ao9
u.a^^nd
It. 62
n. 441
■>.Lmch
iL461
B. Jonet
11.236
p. Potter
iii. 173
B. Joule
11.620
WattMUB. Fwiirick
U.6I8
i. Norwood
1L429
WUM B. BaU
It. 80, 81
B. The 8. Q. Oweaa
liL16(
B.Boanw
Iv.'m
B. Walton
111.206
B.Brooka
iT.464
WeaTerrlUe, te. Co. b
™'5..,
B. CamoM
i. 870; iii. 208
Couaty SopeTTtatti
p. CofBn
Ul. 406
Webb B. BeU
lii.4T»
B-Cole
It. 612
B. Bindoa
It. 460
t-.Crooke
il.424
B.Bird
ill. 448
p. Ererett
1419
B.Flaoden
It. 194
D. Girdlettone
a2Sl
B. Hllf^M
iT.461
B.Hart
ii.269
B.J(K^
It. 421. 627
B.Kslwn
m.419
«. Maxan
It. 186
11.468
V. PaterDoatH
m. 462.463
111128
B.Pierce
ill. 188
B. Steele
li. 191
e. Plnmmer
11.666
B. TittaUwaNM Boom Co. U. 3«fi
B. Pond
lli. 124
o.WatM
H. 126
e. Fortland Maniit. Co
111.430
Wattson 0. Uarki
111.217
B. Fowen
11.378
cFaUKTOr
B. Protect. las. Co.
iil.SOa
iii. 427
B.Bice
It. 143
Waogh B. Cairer
ill. 26, 87, 82, 83
r. Bnnell
It. 106, 47S
V. Denham
U. 639
iii. 200
B. EraerMMi
U.28e
B. Towmead
It. 42
V. Morrii
11.466
B. Webb
U. 126
t.. Riley
a64
Webber v. CloaaoD
111.438
B.DaTii
a402
W.Tell ». Mitchell
It. SOG
B. Batten H. B. Co.
111.436
V. Clementi
V. Gnat W. R. Co.
11.604
1L686
B.Lee
L822; lT.461
B.HerrUI
It. 869
Co.
111.272
B. Shearaiao
It. 112. 483
War V. DarldKMi
1L681
D. TirgiaU
Webber'* B»t>te
L4891 ii. 366
1L687
li.226
^^
It. 468
Weber d. BaneU
ii.461
It. 190
B. Bridgman
It. 648
Powen
lL26e
B.Couiiy
It. 478
Beed
ir. 96
B. Kirkeadall
(i.461
Smith
Hi. 78
r. SamnOD
Webeter e.Bnj
iU.13a
Towle
iii. 68
Hi. 28
Way'i Tnutk A"
!i. 438
B. Clark
fU.X4, S3
WarmaD b. Sonlliard
1.842,894
r. Cobb
uL89
WaTmell v. Re«d
11. 466; iU. 266
V. Cooper
p. Defartet
i.806
W. B. Cole, The
111 138
UL269
Wead B. Gimy
It. 270
». Dwelling Hoiue In*. Co. It. 122
B.LaAiD
It. 478
B. Oilman
It. 634
Weakly u. BeU
B. ball
ill. 107
B. Hunter
LSBO
iT.449
B.'Le Coupte
il.463
WealB V. LowM
It. 06, 209, 261
B.Ma.My'^
U.4«S
Weall B. King
' h:471
B.Peck
11. GM)
Wear •>. OlbMn
11.692
V. Seekamp iU. 18J
161,168,171
Weare v. Goto
U.632
V. Sharpe
11. IS
VaoHsM
It. 870
B. WebJter
11. 164; It. 76
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
W«Uttr IT. innto
r.WoodfoH
It. 608
Weldon v. RItIgk
11.164
ii. 461
B. Winilow
11.104
Wcd^ B. Moore
W(«d B. DonOTBD
iii.78
WeUand «. WllUftmt
It. 370
It. 38, 46
WelUod Cuwl Co. p. HaltiAiw li.481;
1.466
It. 201
B. London lb L. F. lu. Co
111879
Weller b. Baker
IL 131
■.MiUer
iil. 117
p., Snorer
1U.416
V. Pusira
ii.2ao
p. Weller
It. 32, 60
r. Vin HaatM
ili67
Wellea b. Boaton Int. Co.
iil. 876
WndoD r. WiIlBU
It. 449
>. Caitle
IU.468
W«^ p. Baler
111.89
p. Cowlea
il.340
i>.Goode
11.630
u. Hareh
iU.44
kHiiU
iT.96
e. Middletam
It. 440
>.HerTOW
U-lflS
Wellealey ». Duke of Beaufort iL 206,
r.S.T.,teEy.Co.
il.600
220
>.F«tUn
It. 68
p. Welleder
li221
». Propart
iL*2Sl
Wellealej'i Gate
L2B6
r.W«td
11.626
WetUDgton V. Downer Eerouoe Oil
WMmtr. Oeorn
<r. MoCansEiui
L849
"Co.
11.490
It. 474
p. jMkHU
u,«ia
11.260
p. Swwey
iL461
W«»w D. Brajtcm
ii.B66
0. WeUington
WeUlQgioii&VB.Co.p.CM:
It. 622
W,etht-.N.B.Mort.Co.
L804
tiier.Ac.
W^m ». Peon. E. Co.
U-aeo
Co.
ii.2T7
W^ml<A«.EMM
Uf. Be
Wellmftt. p. DtamnkM
It. 461
T«..Vaier.
It. 241
Wellons V. Jordea
It. 122
L419
Well.. jEi port.
128*. 301
WcidDer e. Hoggett
11. esi
WelU, J« r.
It. SS6
'T^.T^r-^
111. so
r. Abemethey
11.480
il. 186
V. Alexandre
1L468
W«^nd t>. SanwkU
11. ST4, 284
8. Babcock
m.4o
11.600
r. Balta
li.366
V. TowDiend
It. 148
B. Beall
It. 70
WBimer.fz porta
I.28S
P. BtighMn
Hi. 77
Wdnhld ». Hutiul BeMrre
F. L.
v.Caliuui
11.406
Au^n
lit. 368
::aKr
11.104
WciiMock p. BeUwood
11L8S
11.488
111.280
p. Cortii
11886
cBeU
iL380
p. Day
a 494
Weir k B«lff Appul
It. 89
p. Oartintt
111.419
111.437
p. Heath
IT. 283
Weil r. M«JiKm^^
11.840
Hi. 828
WeiNr >. Weiwr
It. 460
p, Hortoa
U. 610
WriMng,r,.Miiiph7
It. 20
p. HoweU
111.488
Weiu ^ Wolfe
11189
p. McGregor
11.201
V«bcr g. CmJ Boftt
1.8S0
1,816
Wildi.An> L887;iLie8
lU. 44
>.Agu
11.288
p. Hoora
It. 46
..B.C.T*rlorUlg.Co.
111.100
p. N. T. C. K B.
11,661
RBnddn.
It. SB
B.Otnian
111.167
•.BnoM
U.IH
•. Parker
If. 391
..Hick.
111.229
«. Fhila. Iiu. Co.
Hi. 278
v.UDdo
UL03
p. Porter
ii. 408
r.PhilUp.
!t. 466
v. Prince
iv. 84, 1B9
w.8,^
1U.82
B. Smith
iT. 126
». wddi
11. 101
8. Tucker
IL 444, 447
w«k»ine B. The ToMmlU
111.190
B. Taoaickle ii
409; 111.96
WMv.Ciae
11.402
p. Whitehead
ilL109
..Hadlar
Ii. GOQ
B. WiUiami
li.63
..Hont^
ill. 412
Wellt'i E*tate, h rt
It. 846, 414
r.WeU
il. 128
Well*, Fargo «. Co. b. Fuller
iil. 207
Weldben p. Soattergood
U. 64
p.Min?r
1.395
Weldoii p. BDck
ULOft, 17
Wellihear v. Eelley
1.466
V. Dicki
a 878
WeUh 8. Carter
a. 478
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CA5E3.
[3^ Bu^liul pagH an nfurtd t«-J
Welih t>. Chandler it. 30
V. Phillipa ir! IM
0. Pittiburg, Ft, W., 4 C. R. Co. U. 606
V. Taylor iii. 419, 449
'WelCon D. Dickaon ii. 840
D. Miuouri i. 489
Welraart Van Pillaw, Th« 1. 161
Wempte u. Daagerfleld UL 106
WendaU t. Crandall It. 3DS, 886
Wendell d. N. H. Bank W. 1S2
f. Van Renaselaer
WandoTer v. Hogeboom
Wenlock V. Blver Dee Co.
Wenman v. Ljon
Wennall v. Aonej'
Wenohak 9. Morgan
Wenileydale, The
Wentworth o. Day
i>. Mc Duffle
B. Outhwalie
11. Portimouth, &c. B. Ca
[■. Wentworth
Wena ». DeliHveo
Wenzler p. Mt-Cotter
Werckmeiiter ii. Pierte i. B. U. Co.
ii. 878
Wcrdermao v. Soci^t^ O^n^rale
Weringer, In re
Wenier e. Marphy
Went wag v. Pawling
a 488
ilL 130, 184
U. 300
ii441
11.436
IT. 194
It. 110
11.140
Werra, The
Vest u. Bancroft
i>.Beck
D. Camden
n. Citiiena' Ini. Co.
V. Cnttiog
V. DoQglai
V, Hanrakan
v. HcCoumU
^iRandaU
iii. 2
ill. 4S2
It. 84e
It. 418
ilL9«
11467
ilLSre
11.479
11.461
Ii. 16
Ir. 144
ii las
if. 841
ir.466
It. 881
u. Reed It. 143
V. Skip iii. 65
V. Tbomat ii. 592
B. Ward i«. 207
V. Wentworth a. 480
V. Wert U. 62, 171, 606
0. W. n. Tel. Co. ii. 463
Weit Branch Ini. Co. v. Helloutein
liL876
Weat Branch & S. Canal Co. v. Hnl-
liner ii. 840
Weit Cambridge v. Lexington ii. 93
Weat Coait G. Co. v. Stinion Iii. 44
West Duluth Land Co. d. KurtE U. 226
West IndU & P. Tel. Co. d. Home
Ins. Co. iii, 289, 291
West of EogUnd, &c. Bank v. Nlck-
<dls It. 166
West RiTer Bank v. Taylor UL 106
Westacott u. Smalley iii. 89
Weslboarne, The iii. 248
Westhrook p. H'Millan 11. 474
V. Miller i. 462
Westcott D. Brown 1. 262
V. Cady S. 853
V. Campbell It. 62
F. Tyson iiL 61
Westerbeif v. Kincoa Creek ii. 196
Westerdell v. Dale iU. 184. 147, 156
WMterlo B. De Witt ii. 488, 44S
Weiterman g. Weitennaii it 175
Western v. McDennott Ui. *48; It. 480
V. Wildy iii. 860
Western Ast. Co. u. B. W. Tiaoa.
Co. iii. 272
Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie
11.284
0. Needell iU. 08
Western Coundei, Ac. Co. v. Lawes
Ac Co. ii. 16
Western El. Co. o. La Rne ii. 866
T. Sperry El. Co. 11. 860
Western O. & M. Co. v. Knickerbock«r
Iii. 448
We*tera Ins. Co., £'x parts
Western M. ft I. Co. e. Gamer
Western Nat Bank ». Flanagai
Western Slage Co. v. Walker _ _.
Western Trant. Co. v. Downer 11. 008
iiL2I7
V. HoTt IB. 228
Western T. Co. c. Newhall IL 60S
Western Union TeL Co. D. Adam* U. 611
■. Alabama 1. 429
iii. 27B
i. 616
111.86
iii. 45
1^ Allen
IL611
r. BeriDger
iL«lI
0. Bright
L4S0
ttOll
a 611
n. Carew
11.611
n. Cook
LSti; U. 611
o. Cunningham
iL61]
V. Dn BoU
11.011
e. Graham
ILOll
0. HaU
U.611
B. Hoffman
11.106
D. Hyer
ILOll
e. James
L 4S8; 11. 611
iLOll
0. Lyman
ILOll
r. Martin
11. 611
L439
u. Nations
11.611
V. Neill
ii.011
V. New Tork
il. 840
i>. Pacific State*
i. 48»
i.48B
t>. Short
H. 611
v. Sbotter
ii.eii
t>. Shumate
u.611
V. Taylor
iLOll
p. Tyler
U.611
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
W<n«n Dnkm TeL Co. p. WUio
U.611
Whaley v. Jenkiaa
It. 637
r.W£H)d .
ii. 611
Whaley, *c. Co. b. Green
ii.260
Watwn DniT. v. Robinson
ill. 404
m.428
WaUTO W. AM'n r. Surkey
11.467
Wharf D.Howell
it. 142
WutPTTtit r. New York U
298,800
ii. 280
Vtum «. Bmtoy
m. 88
iv. 608
WMtfleld Bank d. Cornen
iteai
V. Wri^C
ii. 16
Wert H«m B. Fourth City M. B.
So-
Whatman v. Peareon
ii.2flO
delj
i. 460
Wheat B. Brown
It. lie
W«thoff».The01nf
iT. 420
u. Crou
ii. 477
lii. 282
Wheatley, Re
ii. 162
ii. 366
B. Bkugh
iii. 440
D. Neir York Air-Bnke Co.
U.866
r. ChriimaQ
iii. 440, 441
Car-
Wheaton u. China H. Ini. Co
ill. 290,
prater
ii. 860
818
WcMlik* D. Westlake
ii. 164
i. 842
176, 177,
0. Eait
Ii. 286, 238
466
D. Gates
Ili. 402
i!i.a8
B. Maple
lii. 448
HI. m
D. Pet«t« ILS74,876,382
WerimoTeUud a. Dixon
ii. 487
Wheaton 'b Case
1.30
<i.Fo*Kr
iii. 470
WheetdoD u. Borrows
iii. 410. 424
I. PoweU
ii. 441
Wheeler t>. Chicago
i. 466
It. 76
V. Cobbey
11.373
WtrtOD >. Aldea
iii. 441
V. Caaa. Mut life loa. Co. iii. 876
V. Anuld
iii. 437
«. Field
11106
B. Barker 11. 538
; iT. 307
K. Glasgow
11.448
t.Bwoii
iii. 47
r. Guild
111.79
1.297.
V. Ins. Co.
IiL 370
816
428,420
V. KirkendaU
It. 109
11.480
V. Kirtland
iT. 62
'iFottST
Ui.206
K. Laird
ii. 494
cHioot
iiL 206
V. M'Farland
iL689
V-HOTM
iiL 170
r. HcOoira
ii. 612, 616
>. Mycn
iii. 76
u. Morris
iv.46
r. PeDoiman
IiL 130
B. NewboDld
Ii, 681
B. Sampmui HL 41S, 4IG,41T
c. N. W. Sleigh Co.
V. Philadelphia
il. 616
». White
il.S66
i. 469
Wert. Pnb. Co. r. Lawyere' C<M>p.
i.4ee
PobCo.
11.378
('.Sage
iii. 61
Wrtherbee r. Foitor
as44
V. Sidnola
lii. 427
Wellwrby o. StJnion
i. 802
r.8!one
iii. 76
Walnpp t. Great Yarmonth S.
C.
V. SuiDDer
Ui. 133
Co.
iii. 246
B. Train
iLe20
Wetherdl b. City F. Iiu. Co.
iii. 378
B. Walton & W. Co.
iL4S2
Weihiriff^elboo
iii. 166
p. Warner
ULOl
Ii. 479
r. Waion Mfg. Co.
II. 269, 260
Wetherwax o. Paio«
iU. 8S
B. Watertown Ins. Co.
iii. 876
Weihej t. Andrews
iii. 91
B. Wheeler
ii.l2S
WeBaore b. Braoka IL 488. 448
B.Wood
It. 537
B. Brace
iT. 480
Wheeler t Wll«,n Manuf. Co
tiHemhaw
iii. 192
B.JacoU
il. 236
>. aice
i.309
Wheeling Bridge Case, The
i. 4se
r.8<»TeU
iLsei
Wheelock c. Coizenj
iii.48S
cSuie
1.466
r, Noonan
iii. 461
B. Traalow
i». 131
B. Wheelwright
iii. 674. 586
_ B.W«tQO«
11.99
Wheellon b. Hardi.ly
ii.621
Wetter d. Kiley
iii. 86
Wheelwright b. Depeyster
11,824
We*er o. BaltuD
11.403
Whelan r"cook
L67
ili. 66
WheWale b. Partridgo
Wheleai b. Second Sat Bank
iL230
Weylaod v. Weylaud
iT. 418
iL284
Whalen,/-™
1. 288
Wheipdale o. Cookson
i». 488
_ B. Brecnan
iL467
Whetstone d. Bury
iv. 801
Vhalay u. DnrnwoaA
Ir. 8S1
.. Crane Btoi. Mannt Co
iL281
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
WLetitone v. Whetatone
U.461
White V. Hart
1.419
Whicher ... CottreU
W. 118
B. HarTey
ii.498
Whlncup V. Hoghei
WhlppeE p. wEppen
ILWl
r. Henry
iL206
iL128
B.Hicki
It. m
Whipple V. Do*
11. 191
r. Eight
It. 278
rr^Robbiiu
il. 123
B.mSton
it 461
WJitaUM r. FMitM
fu.ei
V. Bolland
il. 610
WUitoB B. Btodder
il. 469
0. Jonei
iii. 64
Whltaker, The
ilj.2*8
V. Joyce
ii. 226
WhiUfaff. A> U. 228. 229 ; Ui. 81
B. Keith
ill. 100
v.BMi
U.166
V.Keller
It. 608
V Edmnnda
UL77
B. Ledwlch
iu.78
t.. H»wley
ili.4e8
::a.
!1.494
B. Sumner
U.67R
W-467
5. W«rren
U. 188
V. McOaiiy
It. 466
o. WhiWkef
if. 186
r.McKee'
1.419
Whitall ... Clirk
il. 171
B. MadiioD
a6S2
D. WHliam Honpy. The
m.206
B. Manhattan By. Co.
lii.461
Whitbeck «. Cook
iT.«0
B. Maynard
B. MefUn
m. 4^
r. Skinner
ii.472
H. 16
WhitbtewJ. £ipart«
It. 161
B. Miller
U.4T0
Whltchnrch, Ex parte
li.4M
B. Moore
It. 418
V. Whitchurch
if. 98
v.NiehoU
ii. 22
Wbitcomb B. CoDTeM*
UL2e
V. Oibom
ii. 360
v. BmenoD
Hi. 217
B. Farki
ii. 18
r. Jwlyn
il. 386. 241
B. Patten
It. 98
r.Ro^
i:466
B.Peto
iiL437
V. Whitcomh
11.460
B. Phiibriok
il. SS9
>. Whittng
lU. 49. 60, 61
B. Proctor
ii. 640
Whitcomb-s Cm
1.286
B. Provident S. L. Ai^ Sodely
White, £r port. H.4H622,6i!5
ill. 282. 878
In re L 801, 841
11.82; It. 608
B.Reid
L 200; il. 120
0. Allen
11.048
iii. 76
cAradt
11.846
11.226
V. Arthur
1.297
B. Bnkei
It. 686
ir.624
B, Sayre
iT.868
». Bkrtle»
It. 185
B. Skinner
11.031
cBmi
ill. 419, 424
B. Smith
11.036
«.Boot
i:4oe
Ii.498
V. Bower i. S8S
r. BritUh Empire M. L. Am.
■:&•
U.S24
U,470
Co.
111.809
B. Story
iT. 64
V. Britiih MDaenm
iv. 618
B. Stnart
iT.36»
V. Brown
111.876
B. Tennant
iL430
::azlf
U.807iUi.4e
a. tTnlon Int. Co.
iii. 66
11.402
B. United Sutea
ilLlSS
». Cannon
U.494
B. Vermont & Han. a B. LS4»;
f . CaunoTB
lv.164
111.89
v.Cul«n
iT.621
B. Wager
11.164
v. Chat^n
Hi. 442
B. Wagner
It. 77, 82
p. Chitty
It. 181
B. Warner
iT.M2
.-.Cole'
11.628
17. Webb
ii666
17. ConUnental Dat. Buik lil 68
B. Welsh
U.49a
e. Crawford
Ul. 448
V. White U. 49, 107, 120, 287, 488,
r.Drew
iT. 46
463
It. 76, 181, 608
B. Dunn
ilL 179
0. Whitman
ii. 123
D. EwiDB
It. 186
i: WhiBiey
It. 167
V. Oay
It. 466
D. Wllkinion
111.06
e. Geroch
11.880
B. Wilk.
ii. 400
n. Qffford
ti.646
B. Wimami
iv. 163
B. Green
iT. 641
B. Willi,
It. 42
:;i3r
ILI6
B. Wiiaon
11 461 i i*. 198
U. 468
White'* Cue
L74
B. HmIow
UL87
White'! Bank b. NkhoU
iii. 432
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLB OF CASES.
V. Tnckett
WUlt'i Bank *. Smith lU. 143, IM
WUte 4 fllndle'i Contract, I» n ir. 210
WUte utd Smith, In n ir. 451
WUl«, Jr. p. White iv. 179
WUW Stw, The iii. 218
— ■ • ITire Co. «. SftTille iii. 284
I V. BTLeod U. 480, 481
TUtcbead D. AndeTMD iL 648, 647
>. Iran K., Ac. R. Co. ii. 193
>. Stmi iL IS
iL 014, 620
ii. 641
iii. 96
WUtahesd, tn. Co. v. Ryder ii. 479
Wtntcixniae v. Pnat IL 496, 647
p. QklatMd iii. 206
WUMln, Bt Iv. 439
r.AdMU 11.22
V. Pepper ii. 260
WUtdy V. Allen iii. 96
WhtUBun V. Children HL 76
WhitunoM D. HaroldHHi 11. 696
WhiUdde V. Hutia i*. 449
WUtMidM V. Barber U. 238
I. Coopar IT. SOS, 364
V. DoRto il. 139
Whitlkld V. FaiUMt ir. 261
I. Lara La Deqwucer ii. 610
B. B. E. IWlira7 Co. ii. 284
Wbitfard v. Panama B. R. ii. 416
Whithed 0. HaUory it. 60
WUtiu D. Braitow iL 846
>. Boner I. 260
>. Earb iL 191
v.Iake IiL4SS
*. Nicholl ii. 486
V. StacT iU. 123
r. White ir. 190
■>. Wilkiu iT. 6
TUtl^n. Orie It. 806
Vhitlock s. Dnfflald i*. 109
I. Waahbom Ir. 827
VhiUock'a Caae It. 346
Vhltman t>. Leooaid liL 62, 67
>>. Lex iL 288
WhltmaD Agr. Co. b. Straod ii. 492
Thitmanh v. Coaway ^^re Ina. Co.
iii. 873
t. Learaed It. 806
Whimey, Ex parU i. 392
c. Am. Ina. Co. iii. 811
B. Black tUTBT Ina. Co. Hi. 376
ilL76
c. Cla^
r. Clitbrd
B. Cotten
v. Dalch
V. EUot S. EUnk
V. Emmett
V. Fint Nat Bank
V. Gmiit
iii. 89
it. 284
iii. 70
iL 809, 871
Wbitner v. Richardaon
il.386
L884
-.Roger.
iU.22S
V. Snyder
ill. 79
». Twombly
iT. 608
». Union R. Co.
iT.4S0
>. Wheeler C. HUIi
Hi. 440
B. Whidrg
i. 422,482
0. spring
Whitsell D. Hillt
Whitiitt V. R a. Co.
Whittaker, Ex parte
Ac
il. 614
U. 461
.. Kenhaw iL 164
Whitteker n. The Charlrtton Oaa Co.
IL 681, It. 189
Whitteraore v. Adaou ii. 462
V. Bean It. 449
V. Cutter iL 866, 889, 871, 372
V. Whittemcm Ir. 407
Whitten, Ex part* 11. 33
o. Fitiwater il. 490
t>. -Hadale lU. 164
WhltteDtoD Mwaat. Co. v. Bt$fi\ea It. 467,
Whittier B. Colllna
v. OraSam
WhittiDiKton v. Folk
V. Whltdngton
Whittle r. Artu
V. HcFailane
Whittlesey t>. Fuller
WhitDnore v. Bean
Whitton D. Brig Commeroa
Wbitwell n. Harriaon
B. Vincent
Winilow
fT.Se9
lii.37
1L182
It. 612
iii. 199
UL808
ii. 498
Iii 76
Wbitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman
Whorf p. Equitable M. Ini. C<
Whyte V. NaihTJUe
Wichita B. Burieigh
Wlckeriham a. Bicker
D. Southard
Wickei V. Canlk
». Clarke
Wickham d. Hawkv
V. Wickham
Widgery b. Hukell
Wieler v. Schllini
Wleman v. Haber
Wiener v. Whipple
Wier'g Ca«e
Wiffeo B. Robert!
Wigg B. Shutdeworth
Wlggett u. Fox
Wiggin D. Amoiy
B. Batcher
Wigging, Ex parte
iii. 260
It. 02
1.449
iT. 371
Iii. 188
iT. 469
It. 84
iiL4&2
iL82&
iL638
iL494
il. 119
iiL 80, 1031
i).468l
iT. 128, 186
iLseo
iii. 306
U.470
;abyG00<^lc
cclxxxu
TABLE OP CASES.
[Tte mugtaul p...* •» nl«t.« to.]
Wiggini 0. Bethune
fi.4S0
Wiley V. Stewart
liL4t
r. BDrkham
Ui. 106
WUhelm «. BylM
ILUl
e. Hmthftw>7
U.810
V. Wiliielin
w.fli
V. TumliD
a. 690
Wlllwlm TeU, The
in. 24S
WiKgins Feny Co. e. 0
ft M. Ry.
Wilket 0. BodlDgton
iT.89
Co.
ii. 8*3; iy. 480
«. Farri«
ii.eoo
B. St. LOQi*
i. 430
r.Jacki
ULltO
Wi^te ». TbomaMD
liL102
B. Lion
It. 27a
iT. 73
17. Saunion
It. 1«
Wigbi V. Brown
iii. 800
Wilkie V. Day
ii.6«l
"'. siStfby R. B.
iL84S
B-Godde.'
iiL287
a 812; iT. 464
V. RooMvelt
iii 80
Wightmwi r. Toimroe
iii. 83
Wilkin V. Wllktn
iT.366
«. Wightman
IL 76, 83
Wilkini r. Aiken
ii. 382
Wigr&m V. Buckley
ii. 122
0. Carmlohael
fU. 160, 160, 171
B. Pttbt
1.409
«.Da»l.
ill. 59
WigKU D. School for IndigeDt BUnd
e. Barie
ii.S96
11. 479
n.EaiMt
il.429
Wifher ... Piliie
ii. 492, 640
V. French
iT. 160
It. 461
«. OUlii
iii 109
Wilboum V. SheU
It. 5S2
V. In». Co.
iii. 314
Wilbur D. Abbott
1. 2ao
B. Jewett
lit 487
p. Tobey
1164
0. SUto
ii.340
Wilby r. Elgee
ii. 468
i».498
B. Wwt C. B. Co.
ii.604
Wllkin'i QnardlMi
11.430
WUcocki t>. UdIod Idi. Co. ui. 290, 806
Wakinwn, In rt
iT.336
V. WiId
1.247
r-Adam
It. 414
WUooz V. BookwAlter
ii. 366
K. AUtOD
ii.62i
f. Cate
111. 408; It. 110
f. Built
It. 326
D. Dnper
■7. OilclirfBt
ill. 123
e.Fraaier
Iii. 3*
iv. 306
ill 68. 6*
„. low. We*ley«i Uni. il. 490
«. Hyde
iii. 296
rJuiktOD
m. 41
B.Kbg
iii. 826,620
p. Kwdck
t.262
D. Leland
L 466, 466; ii.340
ii. 448
D. Pariih
iT.866
r.Morrii
iT, 160
r. Payne
ii.87
r.NolM
ii.32
V. Proud
iiL446
s B«nd«ll
iT. 6»
f. Rogen
iv. 182
p. Todd
ii. 164
V. Unwin
UL 114
(., Wilcox
11. 226; ill S9
V. Verity
0. WilkiiiHn
iii. 666
0. Wood
iT.86
i840; a 217:
Wikoi & Ofbbi S. H. Co. *. Bwing
It. 124
ii. 812
WUd V. Hiloe
iii. 39
iT. 148
V. PatenoD
fl. 274
Wilka „. Kiwk
11.631
Wild'iCaK fll.40G;
T. 221, 604, 686
Witlamette, The
iU. 232
Wild Ranger, The
Wilday u. Biraett
iii. 217
Willamette Valley, The 1. 860, 387
It. 886
Willan D. WillM
iT. 109
Wilde u. Jeakini
Ii. 312
Willang v. Ay en
Ui. lis
B. Wilde
U.46T
WUlard B. Dorr
I 870; Iii. 162. 167.
Wlldenboi'i CaM
1. 166
192, S82
WUder b. Aldrioh
ii. 13B
e. Eaatham
ii. 164
B, Daienport
iT. 473
0. MeUor
ii. 16
V. Honghton
It. 166, 164
«. Millen' ft H
Inl. Co. iii. 206,
D. Keeler
iii. 64, 66
331
V. Pigott
ii.461
«.Norrii
i». 437
r. St. Fanl
iii. 61
«.8erpeU
1.806
miderman ». Baltimore
II. 287; It. 606
V. Tayloe
iT. 451
Wiideo t>. Sarage
iii. 24
V. The People
V. Twitchell
U. 267
Wilde; e. RobiniDH
iL4e3:iT.306
It. 448. 479
Wiidman v. Wildman
Ii. 36
r. Ware
It. 885
Wiie. «. WUe.
H. 41
Willcock*. Ex paru,
Willet V. ChamWi
U. 898
Wiley u. Athol
11.468
IIL 38, SO, 46, 46
/.Moor
ill. 80
Willeu r. Phillip.
ill. 228
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
V. WiniHiU Ir. 143
WmetU B. H>tch IL 687
!>. Paine Hi. 88
D. Fbmiz Bulk iU. 78
^lUiuD, The i. 66, 12&i ii. 662; iii. 176
Williun B. Hodges II. 616
It. «
ViUiam Bagktey, The i. 67, 78, 6
161 ; iu- oi}
Wmkm BecUbrd, The iiL M6
WiDiam Herbert (Ses Sir W. H.)
ym\ua Harrii, The I- 42
Wm. H. Beanuui, The iiL 282
VUliUD Jonei 11. B4&
William LniluiiKtOD, Tlie iii. 24B
Wm. H. Hoas, The i. 360, S71
WiUiatD Orr, Ttie tii- 282
Wimam Petm, The lit 246
WUbamea p. Barnard ii. 806
WiUiama, CaM of iL 411
Cue of iMae ii. 47
VUtiami, Ex parte iii 67, BO, 08, 06
hn 1. 469
B. Ackwoiu) IT. 113
B. AdldM i. SOS
». Araaoji L 104
B. Aih ii. 263
>. Bank of HlcfaigMi L884;U.284;
iii. 30
«. Bvhm ii. 460, B28
p. Bennett ir. 166
*. Boaanqnet tr. 146, 167
B. Box of Bollion til. 813
V. Bo;d ill. 66
'. Bradwar Ui. 109
7. BrimI
i.48
■ *i*rg{«nvd to.]
Williami e. Heard L 2B7, 326
V. Holdredge ii. 16
V. Holmes iiL 47T
V. Hope, The iiL 186
t>. JackMn ir. 448
V. Jonei IL 281, 441, 463 ; iii. 81
V. Keati iii. 67, 66
p. Kemiebeo Hut. Ins. Co. iii. 296
p. Kerr ir. 185
>. EimbaU IT. 418
p. Knight ii.189; It. 346
e. Ladew Iii. 440
B. Lacier Iv. 81
B. Leper lU. 128
p. Little iii 61
p. LontsTilla School U. 269
V. Habee ii. 236
p. McKlnlev il. 612
P. Matthewe UL 106
p. Ueroer iL 889
D. HiUinKloa U. 686
p. Hitchdl ii. 616
0. Monroe ii. 146
0. Moor ii. 236
V. Morland iii 439, 441, 443
V. Moirison ii. 366; iii. 461
e. Naftzser It. 186
p. N. B. Mat Fire Ini. Co. iU. 282,
376
V. N. T. C. B. Co. iii. 432
p. NichoU ill. 216
p. Nolen It, 06
V. Noiri* i. 830
p. North CUoa Ina. Co. iii. 274
p. Nottawa i. 346
p. OliTer 1. 326
B. Otey iT. 326
p.Brnffr
i. 26, 816
p. Plantei.' Int. Co.
U.264
p.BnchiUaa
iii 428
p. Price
It. 166
p. CaiT
iL466
p. ProTldeooe W. In.. Co.
LS70;
p. Carter
ii.487
iii. 253
p. Chicago Hsrald Ca
p. Colonial Bank
U,22
p. Robert!
iU.44
; iT.153
Iii. 89
p. Hobinwn
ii . 118
p. CoDttaental Ina. Co.
Iii. 273
P. Saflord
H.424
p. Coomba
It. 370
p. 8t Stepheiu, The
1.692
V. Conndl
It. 446
p. School DIrtrict
i.840
ill. 90
p. Shadbolt
lil.81
p. Dofniing
It. 483
p. Sloan
iL186
V. Drexal
iii. 86
p. Smith i.
146; Iii
106,107
p. Eerie
It. 96, 122
r. Sonttar
iii. 26
>:ETatM
ii. 622
p. Spencer
i».608
p. Erentt
n. 600
p-aOrr
It. 451
p. nadi
iLsae
P.8toU
iii 79
•.Fowl*
i*. 194,449
p. Suffolk Ini. Co.
IU. 286, 293, 307.
p. Fremo Chnal Co.
tL260
331
p. GermaiiM
iU.88
D.Teale
iT. 288
p. OilUea
111.39
B. The State
ii. 12
p. (HTen
1L462
B-Thoma.
iii 44
p. GraTce
It. 278
p.TuniW
iT.282
K Guile
U.448
B. United State*
L46
V. Hale
It. 64
fL164
P.HaT
iiL 164
b! V. 8. Bank
iU
1H107
».B>Ti
iL461; ilL166
p. Vieeland
iT. 307
V. Baywaid
' 1U.464
p. W. D. By. Co.
iU. 410
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
HI 440j It. 467
Willonghby, Ex parte
ii.eas
p. Walker
ii.621
B. Chicago Junctfoo Ryt. Co. ii 277
t>. Walaby
iiL47
B-JenkT
ilL461
D. Waring
Hi. 98
D. Knowlton
iiL78
r. Weber
L37
B. Lawrence iiL 419 ; It. 480
D. Welbaren, The
i. 42, 284
WlUa D. Carpenter
U.449
B. Wilcox
iii. 427
B. Cowper
It. 327
D. Williami U. ST,
L26. 128, 154, 429 ;
B. Paoly
B. SmdllDE
1.896: iL 164
iii. 64 ; It
40, 278, 283, 6S2
IT. 461
V. WilinlDBtou 4 W. a. Co. iii. 207
Wlllion B. Wlllaan
It. 476
D. WillOD
iiL04
WiUyami b. Bcottiih Widowi Pimd
V. Windier
10.138,164
L. A. Society
iii. 365
V. Wood!
ii. 633
11.339
WIUiMDion B. AlliMn
11. 490, eaa
Wilmanh b. Bancroft
It. 162
p. Berry
I M2i ii. 477
Wilmer b. The Smilax
.370; iii. 869
V. Bowie
ii.40S
ii.410
>. Champlin
IT. 184
Wilmington Tram. Co. b. OTTdl iL 468
■>. Cline
iL164
Wilmot a. Lathrop
It. 870
o.IMe
It. 192
11.480
v. Furow
u.es
Wilmot'i Caae
Ii. 164
K. Field
I 466; It. 203
WIIbod, Cms of
ii. 406
v.SoaMa
iii 38
Bxpartt lL40Si iiL112; iT. 166
V.TOX
ULe8
/■«
1.384; ill. 39
r. Gordon
ii. 245
V. Adami Kxp»M Co.
iii. 207
r-Hine
iii. 166
B. Baltimore & P. R. Co. 1-288
f. Hogan
iii. 170
B. Bank of Victoria
UI. 234, 280
o.Ini>ea
iii. 208
tr. B^tiit Ednntion Soe. 11. 466
V. Johnaon
ii. 488
B. Bamnm
i. 30S
v. LswieDM
ii. 461
B.Bird
It. 122
r. New Jener
i.413
V. Blihiw
it 146
..Fariaien
11. W, 100
B. BlaekUrd Cr«ek Uarah Co.
e. Price
iii. 178
i.439
>.Piobaa<»
It. 186
B. Blanco
L39
cSanmon*
ii. 478
B.Boiitel
ill. 187
cSinoot
11.286
B. Bowden
iii.es
>. Watu
11.236
B. Branch
It. 62
0. WilUamaon U. 101 : It. 229. 461
B.Brett
U.6S9
I'.Tager
il.463
V. CbaUant
iii. 462
Vmiamaoo-* Caae
11.20
WiUiDBi B. BUght
ia 152, 163
V. Collltluw
IT.STO
1L478
V. Conine
UL66
WillTngfein^GUe
It. 160
V. Conway F. lu. Co.
iii.S82
Willi™ r. Berkley
It. 12
B. Cooper
V. Dickton
ii690
Willi! V. Baddeley
il. 080
1.600; iii.a07
s. Bayiea
i. 801
B. Finch Hatton
iii. 468
». Dyaon
Iii. 46
B. Flembig
ii. ISi
».FMeni.n
iii 38
B.Porbea
ilL 431, 476
■I. Green
111. SO, 105
e. Ford
tL146
B.HiU
Ui. 41, 51
B. Frailer
11410
e. Jenkint
It, 845
B. Fuller
11.494
B.LncM
It. 541
B. General M. Ina. Co.
111.905
v. Palmer
111. 172. 368
B, Grwid Trunk Ey.
il. 000
;?SK
111.440
m. £7, 59. 63
IU.870
B.Oroelle
U.012
It. 888, 846
B. Goyton
a 030
r. Smith
It. 187, 319
D Hamilton
iLOOO
e. Vallette
It. 194
B. Harmer
ill 471
0. Wauon
It. 98. 449, 612
B.Hart
It. 480
r. WiUli
iT.806
B. Henil«y
I1.GS0
WilliMD B. PatlMon
1.07
B. Hentgea
111.133
Wllliiton B. Michigan,
IcB. Co. 11.286
B. HiU
UL 876, 376
Wlllock B. Koble
It. 606
B. Hooper
Ii.&S6
B. Riddle
iii. 04
B. Hanw
ia46
Willongby B. WUbugby It. 87
D. Jilckion
L26a
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
[Tb* ancfliul p*C** ■>• nlamd to.']
U. lU; iii. 273,276,
>. KimbaU
It. 173
». KDeppUr
ii.&B4
V. Knott
ii.5ei
i>. Knox Comity
i.302
>. KDubler
iT 145
X. Lawrence
ii 478
>. Lu:er
m. 78, 79
V. H>ck«nde
1.364
V. HcLenaghu
It. 70
<p.ManTmt l76; ii. 40 ; iii. 262
t.Uaida
iii. 270
..JUiy.TTw
iii 188
B.Huon
iT.827
B. Merrr ii
280; iy. 118
. B. Nswberrj
iT. 110
r. Nile.
L261
*. OMnua
iT.ee
.. Ohio, Tlw
i, 879
t. P.n.h.11
ir.l36
c. Ptnnock
iT. 311
«. RaokiD
lii. 262
••.Reed
ii.360
P-RooMta
11.867
>. Ro;ftI Bsch. Am. Co.
Ui.826
>. ShukleTtvd
ii.47a
.. Shlrely
iT. 608
>. SimptoD
r. Smith il
403; iii. 296
>. Spanlding
i. 460
i^S^cer
iT. 477
..sUgneU
ii. 486
e.TM^
ti. 16
.. Troop It. 147,
laO, 101. 194
v.TumauM
U.616
■. Vui
ii. 610
•..l'T°
ii. IG
I. 174, 287
>. Wation
It. 429
». White
IT. 459
I. Willianu
ill. OS
r. WIlUmaDtic Unen Co
ii. 260
p. WUtoti IL Og, 101,
64; Ul. 226:
Ir. 27S, 419, 461
». Xulho, Tha
Ui. 207, 217
r. T. & H. R Co.
it. 660
mwm't AppMd
ii. 430
WiboD'i C>*«
iT. 176
WUmq S. U. Co. r. Hoi«DO
iiL76
Wilt e.. Franklin
iLS32
>. Welah
11.241
WUtoD .. HiU
ii.226
>. Taiwell
It. 870
Wilt! CanmlB. Swindon W. Co. iiL 440
Taitbemrs. CottnU
ti. 843
■muhln v. Blnu
ii.e22
>.Wi1uliin
iL86
Wimbledon, ftc >. Dbon
ill. 410
W>n..M,.6>oner
It. 487
Wmch V. Thamn Conwrralon IL 340
Wlnchell D. National EzpT«M Co. Ii. 612
Winchelsea v. GarretEv ii. 484
i>. NordiSe il. 280
Winctielteft PoUct Triuts, Inn Mi. 248;
It. 806
WinchendoQ v. HatBeld iL 262
WiacbMterfBithopoOo.BeaTor 11.246;
iT.ise
V. Paine ir. 186
Winchett«r ft L. Toiopike Softd Co.
V. Vimont ii. 281
Wind V. Her ii. 408
Windham v. CbetwTnd It. 610
Windham Bank v. Norton iiL 107
Windhill Local Board <-. Tint U. 487
Windle v. Andrawi iii. 94
Windior v. McVeigh i. 262
Windior'i Caie i. 37
Windior S. Bank e. HcHahoD iiL 76
Wineitead, The iii. 232
Winfleld V. Henning it. 480
Wing u. AngraTa it. 4S6
D. A7er ir. 46
p. Cooper iv. 148
iL14d
a438
1L466
1L16
i. 287
Ui. 314
. r
D. Hurlbnrt
e. Merchant
V. Mill
B. Wiug
Wiugard v. United StatM
Win gats V. Foiter
Winget f. Quinoy B. AM'n
Wingfleldti. Rhea a 430
Winkler v. GibMn iv. 109
Winnard e. Foiter ill. 483
Wioney v. Sandwich HsDuf. Co. il. 286
Winnipfaeogee Co. d. Tonng ill. 446
Winona Bank v. Averr i. 802
Winpennj v. Philadelphik ii. 822
Winahip v. Buzzard ii. 604
V. U. S. Bank ^ til. 81, 41
Winalow b. CbiCfeUe iii. 80
V. Henrr IiL 4B1
D. Merchant!' Ina. Co. ii. 348
V. State H. lUS
r. Ta'rboz IIL 134
Wlnsmore v. OrMnbank II. 179
Winsor v. Hcaellan Hi. 132
V. Maddock 111. 164
V. Pratt It. 681
Winitanley v. GleTre iii. 24
Winatead r. Winitead It. 41
Winiton V. Ewing Hi. 6&
Winter v. Anion Ir. 153, 164
V. Bold iv. 149
V. BnKkwell ill. 452
B. Coit 11. 649, 688, 689
B. Delaware Hut. Safetr In*. Co.
iii. 317
V. Oorauch it. 488
0. Pajne lii. 461
V. Pipher iii. 24
Wlnterbottom u. Lord Derbj iiL 461
Wlntermute v. CUrk 11. 690
;abyG00<^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
{XlH margliBl pa(
WinterniDte v. Bedlngton ii. 866
Winterport G. & B. Co. v. JMper,
The ii. 477
WiDten V. Eul It. 136
WiDthrop V. FepooD iii. 95
WintoD u. Comuh iiL 401, MS
Wintringtum c Havel Ii 661, 6S7
Wirebeck t>. Flnt HM. Brnnk iii. 79
Wirtz V. E«el« Bottling Co. il. 366
Wiscart v. Daudiy i. S24
Wiiconiin, Tlie Ul. 248
WlacoMin «. Dnlutb i. 221, 439
0. Felicu Im. Co. L 86, 200, 297,
823
WiicoiiBiQ C. R. Co. V. Fonythe ii. 386
WiscoDiin Water Co. u. Winoiii iL S40
Wiecot'i Cue I*. 858
Wi«e t>. Foote iv. 508
p. Wilcox il. 469
Wiseman v. Cbiappalla iii. 96
u. LucktiDger ir. 451
D. Vandeputt ii. 542
Wlieman'B Case It. 49S
Wiier D. Lockwood Ii. 76
Wiiwall V. SUwan
Wiiwell V. DoTle ii. 196
Witberbee r. Para iii. 181
Wither* D. Bocklej i. 407
r. Qreene ii. 479
s. Jenkini
». -Lju il. 46B, 496. 646
V. PiDchard ii. 168
e. ForcliaaB Iii. 427
Witbenpoon v. Anderton iv. 476
V. DuImm ii. 144
WltliinBlon n. Corey
Wlthneli D. Oarthtm
Wlthrow D. SmltlMon IL 451
Withy V. CotUe ii 487
V. Mamford iv. 471, 472
Witman v. Lex iv. 608
Witt n. Amis
Witte V. yincemtt
Witten, In rs H. 198
Witter e. Kchardi 111. 65
Witten r. Soirlea U. 160
Wittkowiki V. Haraii it. 460
Witiraan v. Oppeahrim U. 878
Witzler o. Coil&iB lU. 207
Woddropo. Ward
Wodeli V. CogmhaU IL 194
Woehler v. EDdtor - W. 166
I. Knlgbt
WolcoU V. Eaile In*. Co. Iti. 240. 260.
273,276
D, Hamilton Ii. 860
V. Pattenon U. 146
e. People 1. 439
B. Van Santwood iti. 97
Wolf f. JohnioD iv. 118
V. Weatern U. T. Co. II. 611
D. WoU U. 128, 494
Wolfe V. Troat ill. 452
« UB Tafflmd to.]
Wolfe V. Hartford Life Ini. Co. L 349
D. Howe* ii. 468
D. Lnyiter ii. 689
Wolfer V. Hemmer iv. 685
Wolff D. Conn. Life Ini. Co. iii. 369
V. Eoppei it. 625
V. Madden iiL 68
V. Uxholm i. 38. 64
V. Wolff 11. 101
Woiffe t>. Wolff tT. 118
Wolford p. Herrington iv, 807
Wolfakehl V. W. tf. Tel. Co. IL 611
Wollenaak v. Sargeot Ii. 866
Wolleaweber v. Ketterliona iiL 109
Wotlitoncraft, Matter ot iL IM, 206
Wtrimenbauaen c. WolmeTBbanien ii. S66
Woliten holme. In rt iv. 131
Walt«mate'l Appeal iv. 414
Wotnack v. HcQuarry iii. 468
B. W. U. Tel. Co. ii. 611
Womble v. Battle iv. 162
Womeriley v. Church iii. 440
Womraack v. Wliitmore iv. 270
Wonion D. Woiuoa iii. 427
Wood,£xnirU 1.881
lU L 801 ; iL 146, 170
V. A*h U. 361
V. Baxter it 478
r. Boyd iii. 410
■>. Bradditft iU. fiO
V. Brady i. 413
r. Buniiiam iv. 219
e. Callaghan ill. B4
V. Chetwood H. 179
D. Colvin iv. 48Z
r. Corl iii. 101
V. Creditora of W^ ill. 169
V. CuUen Hi. 31
(1. Dixie iv. 480
V. DowDM iv. 449
p. DamnMr ii. 907
0. FenwiiA ii. 242
D. Fowler iU. 427
■>. QravM U. 461
■>. OritBlb iv. 449
V. Quaisntee Co. Ii. 281
0. Hammond iL 287
D. Hartford Flifl Int. Co. L 846 1
iii. 288
... Haye.
ii
681
0. Hnk
til
461
B.Hynea
iiL 79
t-.lVi.
1
244
r. Eeiao
iii
116
r. Lake
ill
46H
V. Leadbitter
ill
463
v. L. & K. IiM. Co.
IiL
8S4
825
329
r. HcGavock
iv
484
c. Malln
ii
4«2
V. Manley
ill
452
463
V. HaoD
iv
192
B. Merchanti'
S.L4T.CO.
ii. 96
V. Mich. S. & N. bd
K
R.
ii
S80
V. Mitdiaro
687
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CASES.
ttbt nughiil pagM uB nfnred lo.]
Wood *. H^ItoD
iii. 72
ii.402
>.0^«Ua7
iU. SI
.-.Findlay
iv. 278
>.P»iDe
iv. 608
K. Met. DiBt Hj. Co.
ii. 260
il.63-2
Woodllile V. Drofy
iv. 298
«: FerUn*
i».S06
Wood 01 in V. CbBpiii»D
it. 14&
r. PlHtQix Ins. Co. iii
234.240
V. CharehUl
iii. TO
r. PieraoQ
ii.!m
i:. Hubbard ii
241,687
I. Prletmer
iii. 123
B. Innet
ii. 467
..Pngh
iiLBT
V. KilboDTD Man. Co.
i. 439
>.RMd
iii. 440
Co.
■•.ROMh
u. 542
i».461
>. RobinHm
ir. 309
Woodmanw & H. M. Co. n. Williami
I. S»iuidera
iii. 419
ii. 366
(.Scold
iii. 37
Woodmcton o. Walker ii
165, 170
1. Sheldon
■ iiL88
Woodring 0. Forki Townihip
Woodrolf «. Wiokworth
iii. 433
I. Smith
iii. 176
iv. 408
V-^B^Tpm
iT.326
Woodrop-Sims lil 230, 28 1
1.860
Woodruff D. Brown
It. 60
0. VkUette
iiL26
V. Commercial M. In.. Ca
ill 260.
r. VuaniUe
ii.624
802
..VeJ
iii. 461
>>. Hill
Ui.fl6
f. WaUon
iiLlia
».Heal
iii. 432
j.W«rf
iiL440
V. One Corered Seow
1.370
^WU»x
iii. 472
V. Painter 11. 661
587,590
..Wo«d
iii. 53
V. Parham i
420. 4.W
r. Wood i. 280, 419; ii. 100
164,220.
V. Semi-Tropic Lapd Co.
ir. 451
38S.414
V. Trapnall
1.419
•>. rimmer
ii.36»
Woodruff ft Beach Iron Works v.
Wood-. Appeal
ii. 498
Adam.
ii. 343
Wood P»p« PMmt, Th«
ii.36e
Wood., Caae of Alton 1
460.468
Wood Riw Buk c. Finl N«t. Buk
Wood., /n rt
1.330
Iii. 84
V. Clule
iv. 64
WoodiU p. KeUj
ii. 441
V. Dean
iii. 109
Wood»rf K. DowriDg
U. 16
p. Farmm
iv. 170
^ Mich. S. ft H. lad R. Co.
a 416
V. Hall
ii. 539
WoodWdg* V. Wilkin.
iy.66
V. LindTall
ii. 259
r. Wright
11,462
V. M'Geo
ii. 400
Co.
a, Naumkeag Steam Cotlon Co.
li.ft
ill. 452
Iii. 76
It. 145
113. 637
Woodbnrj t.. Panhley
r. Boberta
V. Swan
r.Woodbniy 11.438; ... .
Woodbuiy SavlDBa Bank b. Charter
Oak Fire In.. Co. ill. 281, 369, 376
Woodcock B. Parker ii. 360, 369, S71
Wooden D. ShotweU iv. 465
Woodend b. FauUpurj il. 430
Woodennan b. Baldock U. 620
WoodM r. Dennett ii. 630
WoodflU V. Patton iv. 6S2
Woodflo B. Hooper 1. 419
Woodford V. Cfaamley ii. 4S8
E. Dorwin iii. 63
Woodgate p. Unirin iv. 358
■" ■■ B. Duncan iii. 206
r. 311
Wwdhnll B. Oiborae
D. RoMnthal
D. Wagner
Woodluid, The
Woodland b. Femr
«. KewhaU
Woodleiffe V. Cortlee
It. 102
.Neeld
ill. 105
.North
iii. 78
a. Pickett
Ui. 166
... Ridley
iii. 72
V. Ru..^
ii.604
Hi. 76
V. WalUce
iy.46
D. Wilder
ill. 62
^Wood.
il.82
V. Wyman ii. 22
WoodMQ V. Owens iii. 81
Woodiide V. Globe M. In.. Co. ill. 331
Wood.on v. Fleet 1. 303
Wood.tock Bank v. Downer til. 123
Wood.tock Iron Co. b. Richmond ft
D. E. Co. Ii. 467
Woodstock Union v. Sliipton-on.Stoar
Union Ii. 261
Woodward b. Boone it. 402
B. Brown i». 114
V. Dowse iv. 63
D. Frnltvale S. District iii. 454
D. Halsey iv. 881
B. Jewell iv. 307
V. Lander U. 22
;abyG00<^lc
CCIXXXTIU TABLE OF CASES.
[Tk..
«lta.tpH~>n»l«iT«IM.]
Wood<*mrd V. Luu
it. 36G
Worley v. De Blattoi
1L617
ir.4M
v. HiUer
Woraley o. Second Municipality of
V. Fickett
lii. 122
NO.
1.48!)
v.B^ly
iii. 462
B. Wood
u. 28fi, 378. 878
f. ifoodward ii. 101, IM
ii. 164
Worth V. Mumfbrd
iii!
188. 196
180,430
E. Northam
i.S63
iii.3»
D. Sieamboat Uoaeu
ii . 187
Woodwonh p. Bank of Americ.
Ui. 9T
Worlhen. In rt
i.4S9
V. Dovner
iiL63
iL87S
V. Sherniin
iLSST
p.Biawe
ilL87«
V. Spring
iL226
B. Charier Oak IJfe Idi. Co.
111.266
Woodycftr >^ Hftdden
iii.4&l
».Collini
erCooke
i.S36
Wookey c Pole
iii. 7&
1L167
ii.470
Woolard v. N'OaUongh
Wooldridge d. Boyddl
iii. 461
B. Gimaoo
iii. 419
ill. 81T
D. HiM
It. 370
V. Sum
iL610
u. Jerome
i. 42S
WoolBTer p. Knapp
iv. S69
D. Scribner
U. 2S
Wooley >>. ConiUnt
Ui90
iT. 868
Woolf «. Brijt Oder
ill. 18S
B. Ware
Ii. S69
WooUey v. Judd
Ii. sei
T. Wood*
iT. 118
Woolman o. Capiul Nat Buk
iii. 87
». Toung
ii. 167
Woolmer'i Estate
It. 641
1.826
Woolsey B. Crawford
iii. lie
ii. 366
WoolitoD'l Appeal
ii. 441
Wotlon p. Uele
ii.
133. 167
Woolwich B. Forreit
11.202
p. Shirt
iii. 4T0
■WooBiocket IlMt. S«T. B.
Am.
WragK V. Comptroller General
iT. 154
Wortted Co.
ir. 148
e. Denham
iT. 167
Wootter p. Cooper
ir.23S
V. Penn. Towiuhip
1.466
t..Tarr
iii. 228
Wray e. Milettone
iii. 37
Wooten V. BelUngw
It. 162
V. Steele
iir. 806
o.Keed
11.609
Wren, The
i. 151
Wootten r. Hal*
U. 494
Wren v. Pearce
til. 122
Wope o. Hemenwar
lU. 186
V. Weild
ii. 16
Worceiter e. State of Georgia
ill. 882,
Wrexliun e. Hiiddleiton
i 57, 68
888
Wright, fl«
1.401
: ii. 170
». W. R. Co.
ii. 322
=. Andrewa
ill. 109
V. Atkyn.
iv
306.637
ton Buk
iii. 70
E. Bariow
It. 830
r. Well.
il.460
D. Batea
i»
141, 148
Woroeater T. Corp. v. WiUwd
ii. 312
E. Bell
■ U.48T
Word»ll «. Smith
ii. 618
E.Bird
11.891
Worfen V. I>od|6
Wordsworth d. WUIao
iii. 76
e. Boynton
i.282
ii.601
«. Campbell
il.64»
Work V. Corrington
U. S2
0. Cump»ty
iU. S7
e. Jaeobi
iL400
>>. Davidton
iii. 26
V. Leather.
iii. 206
I.. Deacon
i. 404
Workingmen'a B. Co. c. Bldl
iiLlOO
tp. Dean
ii. 198
Workman u. Cnrrui
m.440
r. Denn
ir.6S7
E. Guthrie
It. 869
D. Dewe.
. iii. 477
11. Wright
Worki V. Junction E. Co.
ii. 616
r. Eavo*
iT. 194
i.4S0
V. EllUon
i.842
World's Columbian Gipoiltio
V. ETerett
iii. 464
United Statei
iv. B08
V. Felix, The
iii. 248
World Pnb, Co. v. MnUen
Ii. 16
B. Freeman
iii. 448
Worley v. Columbia
H.274
B. Germain
iL2&e
V. TobMoo Co.
ii.86a
B. Hart
ii. 470
Wormley, Re
iL438
ii. 269
V. Lowry
iii. 81
B. Herrick
iii. 31
V. Womley It
179,438
V. Herron
iT. 82
Womock B. Loar
ii,236
B. Hick*
U. SIS
Worrall ». Gheen
U.82,86
E. Howard iU 428. 484, 430, 443
». Jscob
U. 176
E. Rughei
ii.300
p. Mono m.*8!lT.460
E. Hunter
iii
164. lUi
Worrell'. Appeal
iL220
E. Irwin
iii. 76
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OF CABES.
Wfi^tt.3u!k»ea
U.461
Wyeth V. Richardion
aso
..JeimiDgi
ir. 66
f. Stone
a. 860;. 371
..lAWN
iL646
Wyld r. Pickford
iL164
rLxmud
U. 241
11.607
iii. 109
Wyide, IU
ii:182
.. London, te. By.
Co. U. 260
WytJe D. ChftTlton
il. 488, 446
■. Lothrop
ii. 22
B. Speyor
ill. S6
<. UeConnick
a620
WymftD V. Adami
iii. 106
i.l[iiditone,Lord
iU. 116
D. Bibcock
iT. 181
■.Hirwood
lit 240
Halitead
U.429
«.HMlwwi
iii. 472
Hnribiut
1.867! U. 867
«.lieek
It. 449
New Tork
m.4S3
iiL37
Phcsnix M. L. bi. Co. iii. 870
v^HiUi
L 297 ; ii. 22
Pro«er
ill. 876
>,UoDr
U. 464
Srmniet
ffinilow
iT.608
c,lliiri«7
li 188 ; W. 807
ii.60e
>.Mcm
Iii. 68
Wymore v. bUhaikft County u. 196
t. S. Y. C. E. Co.
ii.260
Wyna v. Alden
m.l06
^Plge
U. 10
». Hid>y
a. 474
iT. 211, 220, 221
V. WilUun.
It. 89
>.Petrie
U. 807, 448
Wynna v. Aliton
It. 152
■.PockM
iT. 461
0. Jukaon
ii.469
>.PallMm
Iii. 67
cIUikM
iii. 86
•.Rom
tT.186
V. Thotnu
U.646
>.Siddl«r
ii.lS2:lT. 882
B. Wriglit
i.48fl
>,S>Tm>uU
U.486
Wy>1uuD V. BoMeu
m.m
v.m
[.410
Wy SMng, In re
WyA V. Blacknun
U.62
>.3iidl
ii.SS8
iT. 41B
rSprinBfleld,«c.B.Ci>. iL281
Wytlio *. Thnrliton
iT.346
K State
ii.12,206
iSlKde
il.2Se
». Storrt
iii. 112
Xutos V. Poi
U!. 802. 340
>. Tdlnadge
iT.826
■>. WiclchtUD
iii. 257, 260
..T^cej^
It. 118
«. Tmteen of Heth. EpU. Ch. li.280.
27B, 282, 287,
28ff, 420 J iv. 607.
Yacht Clttii, The
lit. 281
687
Talo B. Br»M
Ui. 440
». Vwmont L. IM. Co. i[l. 373
V. Dederar
ii. 164
<-. W.kefort
It. 380
r.Seely
iT, 461
t. Wneoi
ii. 269, 200
Tale CoiloKe v. Sange
i. 287
F.Willi»nii
iii. 483
Tale Qai Store Co." .
Wlloos Ii. 281
r. Woodcock
iiL427
T«llop.£;r part,
TftDcey p. Brown
iii. 147, 148, 150
^Wri^t iil07.
170, 216, 281, 447,
iii. 123
451; iiL4S8
; iT. 233, 261, 262
fl.Keld
11448
rToengyDg
ii.366
Hi. 61
Wrishfi Tni.ti, In n
ii. 209
Tan Tom, The
iiL248
WrinklBF. Tyler
II. 472
Tarborough ». Bank of Englud ii. 284.
WrittBT r. H«r*oy
iU. 433
289
ffriioD B. Cotter
iT. 148
Tarbroagh, Ex parU
Tard D. Ford
i831
Wmrferio B."^^^^
L 891 : ii. 340
iU.46a
It. 412
Tnrd'a Appeal
It. 288
Wnru ». HwBlmiid
ii. 340
Tardtey <>. DIckion
Taniall, PritciUa B.'t
i.302
WjiDdotto 0. DreniiMl
E. 419
WiU iT. 617
Wj.lt. /» re
U1.6S
iii. 68
r-BiTMrd
1L881
Yarrow v. Twrow
U.126
iU. 437
Tatet, Caae of
i.468
-.Hwibo
1.262
V. Boen
ii.461
r. Wbeekr A ^VHmxi H. Co. i. 449
e. Brovn
iii 176
VyekoD, Lenee of e
V. Clark
iY.8S5
iT.466
V. Compton
It. 820
Tr<loir K. Bc«gi
li.Bl
f. Coaihu
iii. 46
B-frommer
Iii. 464
B. Cnrtia
ii.400
■.Tlciry
iL6S0
V. DonatdKin
UI. 78. 66
WrooffB.ForneU
Iii. 87
B. Duff
m.206
TOt-I. — 1
sObyGoOl^lc
TA.BLE OF CASES.
TiMi V. Han
iu. 186
Yonng V. Knhn
il. 16
t>.JftCk
Ui.448
c. Lamont
U. 461
0. JDdd
if]. 461
'..Sfa„
11.661
V. LMwing
ii.80
ii. 622
V. MilWMlkM
ill. 418, 461
i>.MacrM
i>. 16
f . H«6h
iu. Te
V. MahouiDg Co. Com'n
Ui. 461 :
V. ffi^venitj CoUege
iii. 360
iT.468
iT. ISO
V. Matthews
ii. 492
Ye»kBl D. MoAtee
ii. 438
». MUe«
ii. 366, 690
Ye»kle V. N«ce
iii. 448
0. Miller
It. 194
Te*p Che*h Neo r. Ong Cheng Neo
B. Moeller
iiL228
ii. 286
U.N. Y. Central R. Co.
ii.2fl0
ii. 164
V. Orphew. The
V. Pofack
i.S69
D. Woods
iii. SB
It. S70
Teaton s. B. & L. R. R. Co.
il. 260
V. Pollak
it 430
t-.Fry i
160 ; ii. 121
iT. 641
V. United Statet
i. 406
TelTenon v Conuit
U. 123
V. Shdner
iii. 91
V. Longworth
ii. 87
V. Stevens
u. 451
V. TelrertoD
IL 117, 430
r. Turing
iu. 273. S.'iS
Terger, Ex parte
L SOI, gl4
D. Union Ins. Co.
iii. 271. 296
V. B«n
il. 630
0. United States
L 66, 81. 91
Yeningtoa v. Ore«ne
it. 468
V. W. U. TbL Co.
ii. 611
Tertore v. Wi»w»U
ii. 41S
V. Wheeler
iii. 37
Teeler b. HochitetUer
ii. 160
B, VouDg il
488; iv. 336
V. WMhington H. L. Com'r. i. 248
Yotmg's C»e
ii. 164, 338
TewenH v. Noafaei
i. 486
Young, 4e. Mfg. Co. b. Wakefield ii. 482
Tounghlood p. Birminghain Trust Co.
Tick Wo 0. CroHley
V. HopkiDI i
Toe V. McCord
i. 328
342 ; ii. 840
iv.aos
e. Lowry
iii. 473. 477
Yohe u. B>met
U. 142
V. Vsstine
iv. 469
York D. Clement
ULsg
Younger v. Yonnger
ii. 189
.'. GrindBtone
ii. 634
Yonngs o. Lee
iiL 106
York Bnildingi Co. n. Mackenxie it. 488
B. Wilson
i». 176
York Co. V. Central R. Co.
ii.606
B. Yonnga
U. 08, 101
York & N. Midland E. Co. b
HudKin
Yonnt V. Morriaoii
IT. 190
ii.280
Ynba, The
iii. 172
York Park B. Au'n v. BaniM ii. 281
Ynba County ». Roneer G.
M.Co. i. 302
York Union Banking Co. v
Artiey
Yuengling v. Schile
ii.373
iv. 186
ii, 681
Yorke V. OrecDaogh
ii.6S4
Ynng Sing Hee, In re
iL62
Yorkshire Coantv Council
[>, Holm-
Yrisarri v. Clement
i. 26
flrth U. S. Authority
iiL440
Yorkshire R. W. Co. v. Haclare ii. !i91
Yonmani u. Wagener
IT. 46
Zabsiibik ... Central Vt B. Co. ii. 479
Yonng, Ex parte
iU. 66, 161
V. CleveUBd, Colnmbus.i C, E. R.
TetMomi
iT. 468
ii.300
V. Adama ii
.86; It. 370
V. HackenMM* & N. Y. R. Co. ii. 300
c. Am tie
ii, 479
Zacharie v. Nash
fi.630
i.396
B. Orleans Ins. Co.
iii. 308
V. Axtell
iii. 32
ZsguiT V. Fumell
Z. C. Miles Co. c. Gordon
ii. 4D6
0. BankierD.Co.
iii. 440
iii. 33
V. Bninder
iii. 186
Zane v. Brig Prwident
Zapp B. Millar
iii. ITO
D. Brewster
iii. 82
iv. 370
». Bryan i. S02.S60: iii. M
ZftTalla, The
i. 104. 168
c. Burton
ii, 487
Zebach. Lessee of v. Smith
iv. 326
V. DePntroD
It. 319
Zeigler b. Danbnry & N. R.
Co. it. 259
!>. E-gle F. IM. Ca
Ml. 376
"«. Day
ii.aeo
r. Edward.
It. 389
Zell V. Ream
iT. 118
D. Grote
11L82.85
Zaller v. Jordan
ii. 488
V. Herman
ii. 182
V. Southern Tacbt CInb
■ii. 427
V. Ranter
iii. 36
Zcllner, Ex parte
i. 297. 828
V. Jackson
li.866
iii. 217
V. Keighl7
ui.66
Zephyrus, The
iii. 248
sObyGoOl^lc
TABLE OP CASES.
Za^>.Fappe iii.207, 223
iL616
Z.I?Thi i.360
ii. 407
HtmitM, Ex partt 11390
ZMm B. Smllh Iv. 4^1
Z. L. Adams, The
ZoUicoffer d. Zollicofibr
ill. 2oe
iv. 282
Zicnmik >. Kemper ii. 122
ZoIlTereU], Tbe
iii. 231
Zonitlein v. Bram
U. 132
ZinuDac.N.T. Ceat&H.R Co. ii. 008
Zottmftn D. fiftD Fnnclico
li.80O
Samenun, In n i. 341
Zoncb 0. Fanoiu IL 284, 286, 230, 2ST
V. Anden ii. 288
Zucber u. Kupetei
iL490
V. Andenon ill. TS
ZwUcheulNut B. Bendenon
iii. 228
V. Bote UL 76
ZwiDgla 0. WilkJiiioD
iv. 162
t. UnioD Cmiud Co. 111427,180
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
COMMENTARIES
AMERICAN LAW.
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
PART I.
OF THE LAW OF NATIONS.
LECTURE L
OF THE FODHDATION AHD HISTOBT OF THE lAW OP NATtOMS.
When the United States ceaaed to be a part of the British em-
pire, and assnmed the character of an independent nation, the^
became aabject to that system of rules which reason, morality,
and costom had established among the civilized nations of Europe,
as their poblic law. During the war of the American revolution.
Congress claimed cognizance of all matters arising upon the law
of nations, and they professed obedience to that law, " according
to the general usages of Europe." (a) By this law we are to un-
derstand that code of public instruction which defines the rights
and prescribes the duties of nations, in their intercourse with each
other.' The faitMuI observance of this law is essential to national
(a) Ovdiauice of the 1th Deoembn, 17S1, rslstivg to moritiine captmret. Jour-
Mb <d CSongrcB, vU. 13S. Th« Engliih jadgas have freqaeotly declared that the
Inr of natioiu waa put of the conunon kw of Eaglmid. Triqnet t>. Bath, S Burr.
1(7S ; HcatMdd a. ChfltMi, 4 ib. 2016 ; and it is well tettltd that the common law
«f Englaad, lo far aa it may be conaiatent with the coutitatiolia of this coontrj, aod
nmaina onalterwl bj itatate, is an eanntial part of American jniiiprudeDce. Vide
tm/ra, M9, 473, 473.
1 For other deflnhiona, Me Wheat pt. was " a collection of nile« and prinoiplea,
1, c 1, Dana'a note, 9 ; Aoat. Jnr. lect determined by ohMnration to be oommon
€, 9d ed. 2S1. to the liutitutioiiB which prarailed among
Intenwtional Law ia probably the bet- the varioiu Italian tribea." " The/M not-
ttrtitla^ Wheat. Daiu'a note, 7 : Woolaay. vnife, or Law of Nature, ie dmplythejui
Intiod. § 9 ; Abdy"! Kent, i ; Twiaa, Law gaUiitvi, . . . aeen in the light of a pcoaliar
cfKat. pt 1, 1 86; cf. Amt. Jar. lect. E, theory. . , , The confiuion between Ju*
H «d. 177 ; po^, 61, D. (I>). Thajut jrm- Oentinm, or law common to all nations,
<>MN oT the Boman lawyera ia now nnder- and iriUniatiimal lain ia entirely modam."
•tood tohav« meant Bomething very differ- Maine, Ano. Law, c. 3, Am. ed. pp. 4S, fiO.
Mt fram the modern ioterotiional law. It See Anat. Jar. lect. SI ; Oaii. Inst. 1, { 1,
VOI.I.— 1 ni
;abyGoO<^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
COMMENTARIES
AMERICAN LAW.
sObyGoOl^lc
*6 OP THE LAW or HATI0H8. [PABT I.
buryiDg their own dead, and to grant the reqaUite truce for tliat
purpose. Some of these states had public ministers resident at
the courts of others, (a) and there were some distinguished in-
stances of great humanity shown to prisoners of war. During
a cessation of arms in the course of the Peloponnesian war,
Athens and Sparta agreed to an exchange or mutual surrender
of prisoners, {b) The sound judgment and profound reflections
of Aristotle naturally raised his sense of right above the atro-
cious maxims and practices -of his age, and he perceived the
injustice of that doctrine of Grecian policy, that, by the laws of
war, the vanquished became the absolute property of the victor.
"Wise men," he observed, "entertained different opinions upoQ-
that subject Some considered superiority as a proof of virtne,
because it is its natural effect, and they asserted it to be just that
the victors should be masters of the vanquished ; whilst others
denied the force of the argument, and maintained that nothing
could be truly just which was inconsistent with humanity." (<;)
He then proceeded to weaken by argument the false foundations
on which the law of slavery, by means of capture in war, was
established ; and though be does not write on the subject very
distinctly or forcibly, it seems to be quite apparent that his con-
victions were against the law.
The Romans exhibited much stronger proofs than the Greeks
of the influence of regular law, and there was a marked
* 6 difference between those nations in their intercourse * with
foreign powers. It was a principle of the Soman govern-
ment, that none but a sworn soldier could lawfully fight the
enemy; and in many instances the Romans showed that they
excelled the Greeks, by the observance of better principles in
their relations with other nations. The institution of a college
of heralds or priests, charged with the fecial law relating to
declarations of war and treaties of peace, was evidence of a peo-
ple considerably advanced in the cultivation of the law of nations
as a science ; {a) ^ and yet with what little attention they were
(a) Hitford's Hiitaiy, r. S78, 879. (i) Thucrd. 1, 6, c IS.
(«) OaiiM' AriftotU's Politiia, iL 8C, SS.
(o) LiT7, b. 1, c. 83 ; ib. b. 9, c & ; ib. S9, 0. S ; Cic«ro d« Off. 1, II. Tlia «eU>.
' Hr. Abdj, in hia «dttioD of thu rol- iMiiig thkt tha propw fornM wen tth-
mna, thinki that tha funcUou of the fiti- tarred in dadiring ww. f. 17.
alt* wa* 011I7 miniiteiial, and ooniirted in
[6]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. l] of the law OP NATIOKS. • 7
accQstomed to listen to the voice of justice and humanity, appears
but too ptainl; in their haughty triumphs, their cunning inter*
pretation of treaties, their continual violation of justice, their
cruel mlea of var, and the whole series of their wonderful sue-
cesees, in the steady progress of the conquest of the world. The
penual of Livy's magniScent history of the rise and p^gress of
the Roman power excites our constant admiration of the vigor,
tiie skill, the valor, and the fortitude of the Roman people ; yet,
notwithstaoding the splendor of the story, and the attractive
Bimplicity of the writer, do reader of taste and principle can well
avoid feeling a thorough detestation of the fierce spirit of con-
qaeet which it displays, and of the barbarous international law
and cnstoms of the ancients.
A purer system of public morals was cultivated, and insensibly
gained ground, in the Roman state. The cruelties of Harius in
ihe Jugurthan war, when he put part of the inhabitants of a
Nomidian town to the sword, and sold the rest for slaves, were
declared by Sallust (2) to be a proceeding contra jua belli. At the
lenith of t^e Roman power, the enlarged and philosophical mind
of Cicero was struck with extreme disgust, at the ezoesseB in
which his countrymen indulged their military spirit. He justly
discerned that mankind were not intended, by the law and con-
stitution of their nature, as rational and social beings, to live
in eternal enmity with each other; and he recommends, in one ol
the most beautiful and perfect ethical codes to be met with
'among the remains of the ancients, the virtues of humanity, * 7
liberality, and justice towards other people, as being founded
in the universal law of nature. Their ancestors, he observed,
^plied the term " enemy " to that man whom they regarded merely
as a foreigner ; but to deny to strangers the use and protection
of the city, would be inhuman. To overturn justice by plunder-
ing others, tended to destroy civil society, as well as violate the
law of nature, and the institutions of heaven ; and by some of
the most happy illustrations and pathetic examples, Cicero vindi-
cated the truth, and inculcated the value of the precept, that
notiiing was truly useful which was not honest (a) In the lat-
fnm fitittliian wu intdUitad, aoiMinlii^ to Isgandary 11017, ■* '^1 ** ^* t^Wi of
Bnma PompOiiu, and the •flbMo; of tbkt inctitntion on tb« righti of war !■ dtdared
l7(SG(nk — b«Ui aqnitH Mmatinuiw fttiali popali Romani jura pnwnipta Mt
9) Sal. Jug. fc SL
(«) Ofl. 11. 1, aac IS ; b. 8, MO. G, 0, 7, 11 ; De Legibat, b. 1.
m
;abyGoO<^lc
* 8 OF the: law of NATtONa. [past I.
ter ^ea of the Roman Empire, when their municipal lav became
highly cultivated, and adorned by philoaophj and science, the
law of nations was recognized as part of the natural reason of
mankind. ^ Quod vero naturalia ratio inter omnes homines con-
stituit, id apud omnes [gentee] ^ perseque custcditur, vocaturque
jus gentium, quaai quo jure omnes gentes utuntur. (b) The
Roman law was destined to obtain the honorable distinction of
becoming a national guide to future ages, and to be appealed to
by modem tribunals and writers, in cases in which usage and
positive law are silent, as one authoritative evidence of the
decisions of the law of nations.
It must be admitted, however, that the sages from whose
works the Pandects were compiled speak very indistinctly and
imperfectly on the subject of national law. They must be read
with much discrimiuation, as Grotius observed, (c) for they often
call that the law of nations which prevailed, and perhaps by
casual consent, among some nations only; and many things
which belonged to the law of nations they treated indiscrimi-
nately with matters of mere municipal law. The Roman juris-
prudence, in its m<wt cultivated state, was a very imperfect
* 8 transcript of the precepts of natural * justice on the subject
of national duty. It retained strong traces of ancient rude-
ness, from the want of the Christian system of morals, and the
civilizing restraints of commerce. We 6nd the barbarous doc-
trine still asserted, that prisoners of war became slaves yure^en-
tium, (a) and even in respect to foreign nations with whom the
Romans were at peace, but had no particular alliance, it is laid
down in the digests, that whoever passed from one country to
the other became immediately a slava Nam si cum gente
aliqua neque amicitiam, neque bospitium, neque foedus amicitise
causa factum habemus : hi hostes quidem non sunt : quod aut«m
ex nostro ad eos pervenit, illorum fit : et liber homo noster ab
eis captus, servus fit et eorum. Idemque est, si ab illis ad noe
aliquid perTeniat,(() It is impossible to conceive of a rule of
national law more directly calculated to destroy all commercial
intercourse, and to maintain eternal enmity between nations.
(») Dig. 1. 1. 9 ; Init 1. 2. 1. e) Froli^. mc. B8.
(a) iDit. 1. S. 4 ; Dig. Ub. 1, tiL C, | C, ud Ub. 19, til. IS, c. 12, £ 1.
(») Dig. 49. 16. G. 2.
> AnU, 1, n. 1. ■ Fofuiot in tlw original pui^^ Owi I&at 1. 1.
[8]
sObyGoOl^lc
LHX L] of the law of NATIONS. * 9
The irruption of the northern tribes of Scythia and Germany
orerturned all that was gained by the Roman law, annihilated
every restraint, and all sense of obligation; and civil society
reUpsed into the violence and confusion of the barbarous ages.
Uankind seemed to be doomed to live once more in constant
diatrnst or hostility, and to regard a stranger and an enemy as
almoet the same. Piracy, rapine, and ferocious warfare deformed
tjie aonals of Europe. The manners of nations were barbarous,
and tbcJr maxims of war cruel. Slavery was considered as a
lawful consequence of captivity. Mr. Barrington (e) has, in-
deed, cited the laws of the Visigoths, Saxons, Sicilians, and
BsTarians, as restraining, by the severest penalties, the plunder
of ahipwrecked goods and the abuse of shipwrecked seamen,
and aa extending the rights of hospitality to strangers.
But notwithstanding* a few efforts of this kind to intro- * 9
duce order and justice, and though municipal law had nn-
dei^e great improvement, the law of nations remained in a
rude and uncultivated state, down to the period of the 16th cen-
tury. In many instances, shipwrecked strangers were made
prigoners, and sold as slaves, without exciting any complaint, or
ofiending any public sense of justice. Numerous cases occurred
of acta of the greatest perfidy and cruelty towards strangers
and enemies. Prisoners were put to death for their gallantry
and brave defence in war. There was no reliance upon the
word and honor of men in power. Reprisals and private war
were in constant activity. Instances were frequent of the vio-
lation of embassies, of the murder of hostages, the imprison-
ment of guests, and the killing of heralds. The victor in war
lisd his option in dealing with his prisoners, either to put them
to death, or reduce them to slavery, or exact an exorbitant
rtmom for tiieir deliverapce. So late as the time of Car-
dinal Richelieu, it was held to be the right of all nations to
arrest strangers who came into the country without a safe-
wnduct (a)
The Emperor Charlemagne made distinguished efforts to im-
piOTe the condition of Europe by the introduction of order and
tlie propagation of Christianity ; and we have cheering examples,
during the darkness of Che middle ages, of some recognition of
(e) Obwmtioni on tbe Statutes, chUSr the more anciBat, 22.
(a) Ward's Histoij of the Iaw of NatitHu, c 7, 8, &.
[9]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 10 OF THE LAV OF NATIOMB. [PABT L
pablio lav bj means of alliances, and the submiaaion of disputes
to the arbitrament of a neatral power. Mr. Ward enumerates
fire institutions, existing about the period of the 11th century,
which made a deep impression upon Europe, and contributed, in
a very esaential degree, to improve the law of nations. (6) These
institutions were the feudal system, the concurrence of Eu-
rope in one form of religious worship and government,
* 10 the * establishment of chivalry, the negotiatiouB and trea-
ties forming the conventional law of Europe, and the settle-
ment of a scale of political rank and precedency.
Of all these causes of reformation, the moat weight is to be
attributed to the intimate alliance of the great powers as one
Christian community. The influence of ChriBtianity was very
efficient towards the introduction of a better and more enlight-
ened senBe of right and justice among the governments of
Europe. It taught the duty of benevolence to strangers, of
humanity to the vanquished, of the obligation of good faith, and
of the Bin of murder, revenge, and rapacity. The history of Eu-
rope, during the early periods of modern history, abounds with
interesting and strong cases, to show the authority of the church
over turbulent princes and fierce warriors, and the effect of that
authority in meliorating manners, checking violence, and intro-
ducing a system of morals, which inculcated peace, moderation,
and justice. The church had its councils or convocations of the
clei^y, which formed the nations professing Christianity into a
connection resembling a federal alliance, and those councils some-
times settled the titles and claims of princes, and regulated the
temporal affairs of the Christian powers. The confederacy of
the Christian nations was bound together by a sense of common
duty and interest in respect to the rest of mankind. It became
a general principle of belief and action, that it was not only a
right, but a duty, to reduce to obedience, for the sake of conver-
sion, every people who professed a religious faith different from
their own. To make war upon infidels was, for many ages, a
conspicuous part of European public law ; but this gross perver-
sion of the doctrines and spirit of Christianity had at least one
propitious effect upon the Christian powers, inasmuch as it led
to the cultivation of peace and union between them, and to a
more free and civilized intercourse. The notion that it was
(^ Wftrd'a Hiitorr of the Law of Nitiona, L, S23-92S.
[10]
sObyGoOl^lc
Un: I.] OP THE UV OF NAtlONB. * 11
lawfnl to invade and subdue Mahometan and Pagan countries
continued very long to sway the minds of men ; and it was
not till after the age of Grotius and Bacon that 'this error * 11
wu entirely eradicated. Lord Coke (a) held that an alli-
•nce for mutual defence was unlawful between Christians and
TnikB; and OrotiuB was very cautious as to the admission of
the lawfulness of alliances with inQdels, and be had no doubt
that all Christian nations were bound to assist <me another
•gainst the attacks of infidels, {b) Even Lord Bacon (c) thought
it a matter of so much doubt as to propound it seriously as a
qoestion, whether a war with infidels was not first in order of
digni^, and to be preferred to all other just temporal quarrels ;
and whether a war with infidels might not be undertaken merely
for the propagation of the Christian faith, without other cause
of hostility.
The influence of chivalry was beneficial upon the laws of war.^
It introduced declarations of war by heralds ; and to attack an
enemy by surprise was deemed cowardly and dishonorable. It
dictated humane treatment to the vanquished, courtesy to ene>
mies, and the virtues of fidelity, honor, and magnanimity in
erery species of warfare.
The introduction and study of the civil law must also have
eoDtribnted largely to more correct and liberal views of the
rights and duties of nations. It wsa impossible that such a
(a) i but IBS.
\i) GioUiu, b. 2, e. 16, wc. 11, 12, The nnivenity of SiIuiudcb, u early u ISGO,
dedded In tnar of I^i C*m* npoD tha thMU nuinUined by S«pul*BdB, and nfuted
V Ui Cuu, that it VM a right and datj to make war npou Pagans and Heretica, in
■dtT to propapta the trae faith. Bat the mindt of men in Catholic coQUtriea n-
nintd long nnaettled on thia point, and the doctrine of StpolToda an said to hare
Imi Moctioned within the period of the laat fifty yeara, bj the Boyal Aoidwij ot
Wriorj at Madrid. (Diet. Hiit. art. Sepnlreda. Verplanck'e Diaconrw before thn
Htw Tork Hi*torical Society, 1818.) Even m late ai 171S, the Emperor Charlee TI.
auniMioDed two iMpe of war to cralae " through any ten, far and wide, to follow
ni ponoe any tach m» are the enemiea of onr august honae, but ehi^y He etiemU*
tflii CKrutian name." The cofotnlHion wae dated at Vienna, July 18, 1718. But
•Aovarda the eanmiaBion wa* mtrioted by an additional inatraction, dated at Rma.
»b, Mth Beptamber, 1718, to war " againat the Spaniard!, but not againit any other
fo*B, Mou^ «BDn memitt (« (At Chrittian name." See the oomminion at large in
(Ulendar'a Yajigm, ilL 447, 4B0.
|c) Bacon'i Wmka, iiL 473, 483.
* Kaina, Aac law, o. i, explains the infliutiea of fendaUam on intaraational law.
[Bm «1m Ana*, Lect on Int I«w, p. 21.]
[11]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 12 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PABT I.
refined and wiae syatem of monicipal and ethical jurieprodence
as the Roman lav could have been taught in UDiversitieB aod
schools, and illustrated by a succession of eminent civilians, who
were worthy of being asBOciated with the Roman sages, without
at the same time producing a great effect upon the public mind.
This grand monument of the embodied wisdom of the ancients,
when once known and examined, must have reflected a broad
stream of light upon tiie feudal institutions and the public coun-
cils of the European nations. We accordingly find that the rules
of the civil law were applied to the government of national
* 12 rights, and they have * contributed very materially to the
erection of the modem intematioual law of Europe. From
the ISth to the 16tfa century all controversies between nations
were adjudged by the rules of the civil law.
Treaties, conventions, and commercial associations had a still
more direct and visible influence in the formation of the great
modem code of public taw. They gave a new character to the
law of nations, and rendered it more and more of a positive or
instituted code. Oommercial ordinances and conventions can-
tributed greatly to improve and refine public law and the inter-
counie of nations, by protecting the persons and property of
merchants in cases of shipwreck, and against piracy, and against
seizure and arrest upon the breaking out of war. Auxiliary
treaties were tolerated, by which one nation was allowed to be
an enemy to a certain extent only. Thus, if in time of peace
a defensive treaty had been made between one of the parties to a
subsequent war and a third power, by which a certain number
of troops were to be furnished in case of war, a compliance with
this engagement implicated the auxiliary as a party to the war,
otUi/ to far as her contingent was concerned. The nations of
Europe bad advanced to this extent in diplomatic science as
early as the beginning of the 18th century, and such a refine-
ment was totally unknown to the ancients, (a) Treaties of
subsidy showed also the pn^^ss of the law of nations. Tlic
troops of one nation, to a definite extent, could be hired for the
(a) Under Henry III., in 1240, the Fleminp obtained leave to txny on tbeir trade
as luna), wtien England and France were at war, eo long a* they took no other pan in
the war than what their earl, under hu fendal relation to the crown of France, was
called npoD by reaton of hi* homage to perform. Sontb^t Early Naval Hiitoiy of
Engkud, i ISO.
[12]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCI. I.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONB. * 18
serrice of one of the beltigerentg, without affording ground for
hoBtility with the community which supplied the specific aid.
The rights of commerce began to be regarded as under the pro-
tection ctf the law of nations, and Queen Elizabeth complained of
tlie Spaniards, that they had prohibited commerce in the Indian
seas, contrary to that law.
The efforts that were made, upon the reviral of commerce,
to suppress piracy and protect shipwrecked property ahow a
letnming sense of the value and of the obligations of national
jostice. The case of shipwrecks may be cited, and dwelt
apoo for a moment, as a particular aud strong instance * of * 18
the feeble beginninga, the slow and interrupted progress,
ind final and triumphant success of the principles of public
right Yalin (a) imputes the barbarous custom of plundering
ihipwrecked property, not merely to the ordinary cupidity for
gain, but to a more particular and peculiar cause. The earliest
oarigators were almost all pirates, and the inhabitants of the
coasts were constantly armed against their depredations, and
vhenever they had the misfortune to be shipwrecked, they were
pnraned with a yindictive spirit, and deemed just objects of pun-
ighment. The practice of plundering shipwrecks has been
traced to the Bhodians, and from them it passed to the Romans ;
and the efforts to restrain it were very feeble and gradual, and
miied witj) much positive injustice. The goods cast ashore first
belonged to the fortunate occupant, and then they were con-
sidered as belonging to the state. This change from private
to public appropriation of the property rendered a returning sense
of right and duty more natural and easy. The Emperors Ha-
drian and Antoninus had the honor of having first renounced the
claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the rightful owner, (i)
But the inhuman customs on this subject were too deeply rooted
to bo eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance of the Roman law-
givera. The laws in favor of the unfortunate were disregarded
by sQcceeding emperors, and when the empire itself was over-
turned by the northern barbarians, the laws of humanity were
swept away in the tempest ; and the continual depredations of
the Saxons and Normans induced the inhabitants of the western
coasts of Europe to treat all navigators, who were thrown by the
{a) Com. nr Old. U. S7»-9S7.
(!) Tinniiu is Inst lib. 2, tit. I, art. 17, note G ; Yalin, tUri rupra.
[13]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 14 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PAET I.
perils of the aea upon their shoree, as pirates, and to punish
them as such, without inquiry or discriminatiou.
The Emperor Andronicus Gomnenus, who reigned at CoiutaD-
tinople in 1183, made great efforts to repress this inhuman
* 14 practice. His edict was worthy of the highest * praise,
but it ceased to be put in execution after his death. Pil-
lage had become an inveterate moral pestilence. It required
aometliing more effectual than papal bulls and the excommuni-
cation of the church to stop the evil. The revival of commerce,
and with it a sense of the value of order, commercial ordinances,
particular conventions and treaties between Bovereigns, contrib-
uted gradually to suppress this criminal practice, by rendering
the regulations on that subject a branch of the public law of
nations. Valin says, it was reserved for the ordinances of Louis
XIV. to put the finishing stroke to this species of piracy, hj
declaring that shipwrecked persons and property were placed
under the special protection and safeguard of the crown; and
the punishment of death, without hope of pardon, was pro-
nounced against tbe guilty, (a) ^
The progress of moderation and humanity in the treatment of
prisoners is to be imputed to the influence of Christianity, and of
conventional law, establishing a general exchange of prisoners,
rank for rank, and giving protection to cartel ships for that pur-
pose It is a practice of no very ancient introduction among the
states of Europe, and it was not of very familiar use in the age of
Grotius, and it succeeded tbe elder practice of ransom. From the
(a) Tbe Bense of Jnatice, in respect to iliipwreckB and pitacy, hu made ita waj
into the kingdoni of SUm, in Ewtern India ; and bj a treaty with the Unit«d States,
in April, ISSO, perBoni and property in Ameiicaii remela, eathnng ehipwreck in tha
Siamese dominlone, or taken by pirates and bronght therein, an to b« carefnlly pro-
tected, prewrved, and restored. By the treaty of commerce and navipition between
tbe United Btatea and HanoTsr, Hay 80. 1840, art 8, assiitaiice is to be given to the
shipwrecked and stntnded vessels, and no more than tbe ordinaiy sUirage or datiei^
on unlading the cargo for repairs in such cases, shall be demanded. The treaty like-
vise specially declares, " that the ancient and barbaroos right to wrecks of the aea
shsll be entirely abolished, with respect to ths proptrty of the snljects or citizens
of the contracting parties." Snch s slipnlation between two cifilized and Christiau
uatiODs, near the middle of the 19th centoiy, soands oddly, and might as well have
been spared.
> See I^wrence'* Wheaton, App. 2 ; Chsw, ib. 1101 ; and with J^an, 11 id.
Treaties of the United States with Bonieo, 697, art. 8.
10 U. S. 8t at L. B09, art 8 ; with tew-
[14]
„Gooi^lc
tlCt. I.] ' OF THE LIW OF NATIOKB. * 15
extracts which Dr. Bobinson (h) gives from Bellua, who wee a
judge or asseasor in the armies of Charles V. and Philip II., he
concludes that no practice so general, and so favorable to the
conduct of prisoners, as a pnblic exchange in time of war, -was
known in the 16th century, {e) The private interest of the
captor in bis prisoner, and bis right to claim ransom money, con-
tinued through that period ; and the practice of ransom, founded
on the right of property claimed by the captor, succeeded to the
Greek and Roman practice of killing prisoners, or selling them
u Blaves.
The cuBtom of admitting resident ministers at each sovereign's
eonrt vas another important improvement in the security
and facility of national intercourse ; (d) and this led • to * 16
tlie settlement of a great question, which was very fre- -
qaentlj discussed in the 15tb and IQth centuries, concerning the
innolability of ambassadors. It became at last a definitive prin-
ciple of public law, that ambassadors were exempted from all
local jurisdiction, civil and criminal ; tfaou^ Lord Coke consid-
ered the law in his day to be, that if an ambassador committed
any crime which was not merely malum prohibitum, be lost his
privilege and dignity as an ambassador, and might be punished
as any other private alien, and that he was even bound to answer
civilly for his contracts that were good, jure gentium, (a)'
Thus stood the law of nations at the age of Grotius. It had
9) I Bob. Adm, Appeodiz A.
(4 Wben Sir Bichaid HkwkiDS, in hii umed ship Dainty, wu optared in the
SmUi Sn, after > desperate eugagBmant, in 1G91, the Bpaniah ooinmander, Don
Beltnn, aa oflleer of great gallantry, conrteey, and hmnanity, claimed, nsTcrtheleaa,
■ pnpert; in hia prisoner, and the right to a ranaam. Calleuder'* Voyages, ii 126,
IM. The diatom of enalariDg priaoneis of war ms continned in Enrope down to
Ihe llth eentory, and una then eztingniihed, though aaaarted oven by Grotina, De
Jnn Belli, lib. 3, c 7, to be confonnable to the law of nations. It was disoonlinaed
■adir the inHoence of Christianity, though the right to tha nuuoni of prisoners as
Dm tatrjects of property was continued to a much Uter period.
(d) yerdinand the Catholio is said to have introduced the practice of resident
Glisten. Preecx)tt;s Hiat. of Ferdinand and lubelU, i. SS2. The right of sending
pbtic niiDisten to the confederate states and to foreign states, is preserred to sll
the {(inoa and stSites compoaiDg the pment Germanic Confederation (]S11), and so
il it in tlMt ai the Swiss Oantons ; but the privilege is wisely taken awsy fn>m the
Nnnl datM by the Conitltutiou of the United St«tee al America.
(a) t InaL 1G3.
Stetun NaT. Co. v. Hutin, 3 BL * BL B4 ; Taylor s. Best, UC. &>
[15]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 16 op THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAET I.
been rescued, to a rery considerable extent, from the cruel
usages and practices of the barbarians. It had been restored to
some degree of science and civility by the influence of Chris-
tianity, the study of the Roman lav, and the spirit of commerce.
It had grown in value and efficacy, from the intimate connection
and constant intercourse of the modem nations of Europe, who
were derived from a common origin, and were govejned by
similar institutions, manners, laws, and religion. But it was
still in a state of extreme disorder, and its principles were little
known, and less observed. It consisted of a series of undigested
precedents, without order or authority, Grotius has, therefore,
been justly considered as the father of the law of nations. He
arose like a splendid luminary, dispelling darkness and confusion,
and imparting light and security to the intercourse of nations. It
is said by Barbeyrac, (b) that Lord Bacon's works first su^ested
to Grotius the idea of reducing the law of nations to the certainty
and precision of a regular science. Grotius has himself fully ex-
plained the reasons which led him to undertake his necessary, and
most useful and immortal work, (e) He found the sentiment
universally prevalent, not only among the vulgar, but
* 16 among men of reputed wisdom and learning, that war * was
a stranger to all justice, and that no commonwealth could
be governed without injustice. The saying of Euphemus in
Thucydidee, he perceived to be in almost every one's mouth, that
nothing which was useful was unjust. Many persons, who were
friends to justice in private life, made no account of it in a
whole nation, and did not consider it as applicable to rulers. He
perceived a horrible licentiousness and cruelty in war, through-
out the Christian world, of which barbarians might be ashamed.
When men took up arms, there was no longer any reverence foi*
law, either human or divine; and it seemed as if some malig-
nant fury was sent forth into the world, with a general license
for the commission of all manner of wickedness and crime, (a)
The object of Grotius was to correct these false theories and
pernicious maxims, by showing a community of sentiment among
the wise and learned of all nations and ages, in favor of the
natural law of morality. He likewise undertook to show that
justice was of perpetual obligation, and essential to the well-being
(b) Puff. lec 29. («) Frol<«. De Jdt. B«L
(a) Pralfg. MR. S and 28.
[16]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. I.] OP THE LAWOP NATIONB. 'IT
of erery society, aud that the great commonwealth of nations
itood in need of law, and the observance of faith, and the prac-
tice of justice. His object was, to digest in one systematic code
the principles of public right, and to supply authorities for
aimoBt; every case in the conduct of nations ; and he had the
hoDor of reducing the law of nations to a system, and of prodac-
ing a work which has been resorted to as the standard of author-
ity in every succeeding age. The more it is studied, the more
will our admiration be excited at the consummate execution of
the plan, and the genius and erudition of the author. Tbei'e
was no system of the kind extant that had been produced by
the ancient philosophers of Greece, or by the primitive Ghris-
tianB. The work of Aristotle on the rights of war, and the
vridngs of the Romans on their fecial law, had not aurrived the
neck of ancient literature ; and the essays of some learned
moderns on public law were* most imperfect, ajid exceed- "17
ingly defective in illustrations from history, and in omit-
ting to place their decisions upon the true foundations of equity
and justice, (a) Grotius, therefore, went purposely into the
details of history and the usages of nations, and he resorted to
the works of philosophers, historians, orators, poets, civilians,
and divines for the materials out of which the science of public
morality should be formed; proceeding on the principle, that
when many men, at different times and places, unanimously
affirmed the same thing for truth, it ought to be ascribed to
some universal cause. (&) His unsparing citation of authorities,
in support of what the present age may consider very plain and
midispnted truths, has been censured by many persons as detract-
ing from the value of the work. On the other hand, the support
that he gave to those truths, by the concurrent testimony of all
nations and ages, has been justly supposed to contribute to that
reverence for the principles of international justice which has
since distinguished the European nations.
Amoi^; the disciples of Grotius, Puffendorf has always held
the first rank. His work went more at large into the principles
of natural law, and combined the science of ethics with what
may be more strictly called the law of nations. It is copious in
(a) Froleg. of Orot mc. 38, S7, S8.
(t) Onuii antem in ra conaaiuui omninTn gentinm lex natur* patinda e»t. Cic.
Tmc Ditp. lib. 1, 0, 18.
VOL. i._2 [17]
;abyG00<^lc
* 18 OP THB LAW OP NlTIOm. [PABT I.
detail, bat of very little practical value in teaching ob what the
law of nations ie at this da;. It is rather a treatise on moral
philoflophj than on international law; and the same thing may
be said of the works of Wolfius, Buriamaqui, and Rutherforth.
The summary of tiie law of nations, by Professor Martens, is a
treatise of greater practical utility, but it is only a very partial
view of the system, being confined to the customary and conven-
tional law of the modern nations of Europe, {e) Bynkershoek's
treatise on the laws of war has been received as of great author-
ity on that particular branch of the science of the law of
• 18 nations, and the subject is by him ably and copiously • dia-
cossed. The work is replete with practical illustration,
though too exclusive in its references to the ordinances of his
own country to render his authority very unquestionable. The
most popular and the most elegant writer on the law of nations
is Tattel, whose method has been greatly admired. He pro-
fessed to have followed the voluminous work of Wolff on the
Law of Nature and Nations, and to be enlightened and guided
by his learning, with much improvement upon the doctrine and
arrangement of his great master. He has been cited, for the
last half -century, more freely than any one of the public juriste;
but he is very deficient in philosophical precision. His topics
are loosely and often tediously and diffusively discussed, and
he is not sufficiently supported by the authority of precedents,
which constitute the foundation of the positive law of nations.
There is no work which combines, in just proportions and with
entire satisfaction, an accurate and comprehensive view of the
necessary and of the instituted law of nalaons, and in which
.principles are sufficiently supported by argument, authority, and
example, (y) Since the age of Grotius, the code of war has been
(c) WhMton, Id his HiBtorr of the Law of NatioDa, edit. K. Y. ISiS, nfa that th«
treatiw of Harteni, of which a third edition in French appeared in 18S1, Fricia dn
Droit dee Oens Hodemea de t'Enrope toadi rar lea Traits et I'Uaag^ hat beoome a
jnitly esteemed mannal of the idetice.
(y) [The inoet coneiderable addition! to the literatnre of International law einca
1878 an the work of Hall, already cited, the diMonions of Taiiotu qnectiona of Intor-
uatdonal law found in the BeviiB de Droit International, and tlie report! of tbe
nwetinga of the Inititnt dg Droit iDtemaUonal, which are giren in tbe Bavne de Droit
International. While it cannot be eajd that the modification! and ameliorationa of in-
ternational law advocated in theae writiDgi hare become a part of the bw, jet there
can be no doubt that inch writing! uid diicoMioii! wlU proTe a ccooidMabla infloBDo*
[18]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKI. I.] OP THE LAW OP KATI0S8. • 19
rastlj enlarged and improved, and its rights better defined, and
its seTeritiea greatly mitigated. The rights of maritime capture,
tiie principles of the law of prize, and the duties and privileges
of neutrals, have grown into very important titles in the system
of national lav. We now appeal to more accurate, more au-
thentic, more precise, and more commanding evidence of the
rules of pnblic law, by a reference to the decisions of those tri-
bunals to whom, in every country, the administration of that
branch of jurisprudence is specially intrusted. We likewise
appeal to the official documents and ordinances of particular
ttates, which have professed to reduce into a systematic code, for
the direction of their own tribunals, and for the information of
foreign powers, the Iaw of nations on those points which relate
particularly to the rights of commerce and the duties of neu-
trality, {x) But in the absence of higher and more authoritative
sanctions, the ordinances of foreign states, the opinions of emi-
nent statesmen, and the writings of distinguished jurists are
regarded as of great consideration on questions not settled by
conventional law. In cases where the principal jurists agree,
the presumption will be very great in favor of the solidity
of tbeir 'maxims; and no civilized nation that does not "19
arrogantly set all ordinary law and justice at defiance will
venture to disregard the uniform sense of the established writers
on international law, England and the United States have been
equally disposed to acknowledge the authority of the works of
jurists writing professedly on public law and the binding force
of the general usage and practice of nations, and the still greater
respect due to judicial decisions recognizing and enforcing the
law of nations.' In all our foreign negotiations and domestic
discussions of questions of national law we have paid the most
implicit respect to the practice of Europe and the opinions of
her most distinguished civilians. In England, the report made
in 1753, to the king, in answer to the Prussian memorial, is very
satisfactory evidence of the obedience shown to the great stand-
in tliapiDg tb» derclopmetit of the l&w, when circamitMiixs uin which foraci natioii*
to a eanddention and datermination of the pointi involved. — B.]
1 Wheaton, Dana'i note 11.
{^) In ucerbuainK f«cte within tha of State, when thej relate to inteniatioMl
Judicial notice of the caarta, the judges afiiun. Jonee r. United Stat«a, 187 V. 8.
mj i«operij inqoin of the Departmaot 202.
[19]
50byGoO>^lc
* 19 OF THE LA.W OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
iDg authorities on the law of nataoiis, to which I haTe alluded.
And in a case which came before Lord Uansfield, in 1764, in the
K. B., (a) be referred to a decision of Lord Talbot, who had
declared that the law of nations was to be collected from the
practice of different uations and the authority of writers ; and
who had argued from such authorities as G-rotius, Barbeyrac,
Byukershoek, Wicquefort, £c., in a case where British authority
was silent The most celebrated collections aud codes of mari-
time law, such as the Contolato del Mare, the laws of Oleron,
the laws of the Hanseatic league, and, above all, the marine
ordinances of Louis XIV., are alsc referred to as containing-
the most authentic evidence of the immemorial and customary
law of Europe, (y)
(«) Triqaet e. BaUi, 8 Burr, 1478.
(y) AmoB, in hia Lectarea on Intonia- ing jurist^ then, in the light of witaene*,
tioDal Law, gives the foUowing at the it is their competency nther than their
toQTces of international law; I. Emi- ability which moat eoncarni lu." And
uent writera. II. Ancient laws. 111. Cockbarn, C. J. (p. 202) said: "Writera
TreatiRB. IV. Diplomalia documents on iaternaUoual law, howcTer Tmlnable
V. Deciaiona of tribtinala. their labon maj be in elacidaling and aa-
In Reg. V. EejQ, 2 Ex. D. S3, Brett, eertaiiuDg the principles and rule* of law,
J. A. said (p. 132): "In my opinion, the cannot make the law. To be binding, the
long list of great aathoritiet to which I law moat have received the aaaent of the
have referred and the constant practice of nationa who are to be bonttd by it. Thii
the Engliah Intematiooal Coart, nay, I aaaent may be eipreaa, ai b; treaty or the
think, of all English Courta, show that acknowledged concurrence of gorernnienta,
it is considered that all countries have or may be implied from establisbod oaage,
i¥COgnized that the consent of them all, as — an instance of which is to be fband in
sovereigns, may and shonld be inferred in the bet that ineichant veeeels on the high
favor of a reasonable proposition from a a««s are held to be sulqect only to the law
common consent to it of all, or of such a of the nation under whose flag they sul,
considerable number as to amdnnt sab- while in the ports of a foreign state thcj
stantially to alt, recognUed writers on are sul^ect to the local law as well aa to
internationiil Uw, although there be no that of their own country. Intheahaenoe
other evidence of their aovereign assent" of proof of assent, as dsrived from one or
Lord Coleridge (p. 164) said: "Treaties other ot these sources, no (uanitnity on
and acts of state are but evidence of the the part of theoretical writets would war-
agreement of nations, and do not in this rant the judicial application of the law on
country at least per se bind the tribunals, the sole authority of their views or state.
Neither, certsioly, doee a consenaug of menta. Nor, in my opinion, would the
jurists ; but it is evidence of the agree- clearest proof of unanimous assent on the
ment of tiatioos on international points ; part of other nationa be sufficient to an-
and on such points, when they arise, the tborize the tribunals of this oonntl^ to
Englbh Courta give effect, ss part of the apply, without an Act of Parliament, what
English law, to such agieement. Begard- would practically amount to a new law.
[20]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKOr, I.] OP THE LAW OP MATIONB. * 19
The dignity and importance of this branch of jurisprudence
cannot fail to recommend it to ttie deep attention of the student;
ud a thorough knowledge of its principles is necessary to law-
In w doing we alionld be nnjnitifiKblj peodentl; of ethical coasideratioiu irumg
UDipiug the piOTinee of the legisktnre. " oat of diitiactioDB vhich the conscience
In the ugamenta before the Behriug Set of the world makes between what is mor-
Triboiud of Arbitration, at Paris, in 1893, ally right and what is motall; wrong, or
Han. James C. Carter, as counsel, derived between what ii supported hj sonnd reason
Intinutiooal Law mainly from the " Law and jusUce and what is not so supported.
o( Nature," while Sir Cbarlea Rnnell da- "Of course, if there be any settled,
fined it as follows : " International Law, recognized rules of the law of uatjous
pnperl; ao called, is only bo much of the goTeming the particular question under
ptindplrs of morality and justice as the coDaidaration, they most control our de-
lations have agreed sliall be part of those ddon whateret may be our view of their
mlcs of conduct which shall govern their joatioe. The two nations interested are
lelatioDs one to another ; " and elsewhere bound by inch rules, and the Tribnnal
mU that it "has long passed the stage at may not disregard them, or reftue to give
*Lich an appeal to any vague, general effect to them. But if the precise case
prineiplta can afford any safe, certain rest- before it is not covered by some positive
iog-place, or guide at all. It is now, and rule, decision or precedent, founded on
it his long been, a body of derivative the conventions or establisbed oaages of
principles and ooncrste rules, formed by the civilized oatioDS of the earth, and
' ibe ution and reaction upon each other of expreaal; set forth in the writingi of pub-
eoitoui, moral feeling, and convenience." lie joiitts, we an not, for that retflon, to
Hr. Justice Harlan as otie of tbe arbi- hold that it is not provided for by the
tnton of this tribunal said (Opinions of law of nationa. As a conit sitting under
Hr. Justice Harlan, p. 133): — "The municipal authority would be bound. In
eoonsel tc» the United States contended, the absence of precedent, to give jadgment
iu srgnment, that in determining what according to the prindptee of right de-
ri^ts are recognized by the law of na- rived from ths whole body of the law to
tioM, the Tribnnal is not to ignore, but which it may pixiperiy refer, so this Tri-
moit pve effect to, those printuples of bunal, constituted for the detennination
ri^t reason, jnstiee, bumani^, and of queatio&B depending upon the law of
moiaUty which have their foundation in nations, may, and if it fulfils the objecls
the law of nature as applied to the insti- for which it was constituted, must, look
tntion of property. This view was ear- into the recognized souroes of that law
ncstly combated by the counsel of Great and seek in the domain of general jnris-
Britain, and it was, in effect, eaid that ths prudence for the rale of dedsion in the
teacbinp and precepts of the law of na- case before it 0ns of the recognized
tuie were of no importance in the prtaent sources of the law of nations are the prin-
inquiry ; tiMt the rights of these two dples of natural naaon and jnatice appli-
■ation eonld not be made to depend, in cable to the relations and intercourse of
sny degree, upon abstract piinoiples independent political sodetiea. Thorn
founded only on rsaaon, justice, human- principles may be said to have theirorigin
ity, or morality, but must be determined in the I*w of Natare, or In what is »ome-
Bpon grmrnds of positive law, resting in times called the Natural Law of Eqni^,
the alBrmative asMnt of the nations, inde- because approved by the moral sense of
[21]
50byGoO>^lc
• 19 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
jen and atatesmeu, and highly omament&l to every scholar
-who wishes to be adorned with the accomplishments of various
learning. Many questions arise in the course of commercial
laankiiid. No earthl; tribunal, ulminiB- gf JQgtioe uid eqait;. . . . Where there
tering juitica between lodiTiduals, or b«- arena treaty rights >nd no [nwedenta, dia-
tween nition«, if unfettered by atatnte, or pntea between nationa are often arbitrated
by binding precedent, may righlfnlly dia- ^y appeal to the prineiplea of national
regard the mlea of reaton, morality, hn- equity." Prof. J. G. Hlbb«n in Interna-
manity, and jiutioe derived from that tional Joanul of Ethica tor Jan. 18B4,
law. Thoae nilea are not the lesa bind- p, 156, quoted in part in i» Alb. L. J. 18.
ing becaoM not formulated in some book, •• International Iaw waa not declared by
ordinance, or ttwty. Certainly, thia Tri- ^ legislature, and it atill taStn from want
bunal of Arbitration muat regard the of,, rt^olar legislature to improve and to
ruleaof iuternationalmomlityandjaatice, deTelop it It ia still developed by tlie
applicable to the mt^ect, and fairly to ba antiquated meUiod of writer oommentiiig
deduced from the right* and datiea of on writer, no aecnrity being nowadaya
States and from the natntc of moral oUi- taken for the competenoe or aathority or
gations, as an integral part of the law of the writer except vague opinion. . . . In-
nationsby which the matten submitted to temational Iaw auffsra also fronn the
it are t« be detemined. The institution absence oT any method of anthoritatively
of property ia ordained by society for its declaring its tenor ou some of its bmnebea,
improvement and preservation. And there ^id above all from the absence of any
ate certain rules, arising out of the very method of enforcing its rales abort of war
necessities of that institution, which are or feat of war." Maine's Int. Liw, 6S.
common t« the juriapnideuce of all civil- "Wefindtbat theaonrceaof Intenational
ized nations. While these rules may be Law are wveral and distinct One writer
more frequently fonnd recogniied in mu- dedaoes it hmii the will of God, a swoad
nicipal law, they are so gronnded in the from tlie Roman Law, a third from the
well b^ng of man, and so thoronghly sup- Canon Law, a fourth from the I«w of
ported byright reaaon, and nstnraljnstics, Natnie, a fifth from a inppoeed common-
aa to have become nnivenally reeogniied, wealth ot socJety of natione exirtiug as
and. thereTote, must be regarded as part moral beings, a sixth from principles of
of the common law of civilized coantriea. utility, a seventh from trsaties and prac-
Nationa, no more than individuals, may ticea, and others from an amalgamatiiHi
disTPgtrd thoae rules, for upon their ob- of some or all of these particular aonrce*. "
servSDce depends the existence of organized OriiGQi on Int Law, p. 2S.
society and the security of government The necessity of a codification of tlw
among civilized peoples." As totbefiebr- rales of Internationa] Iaw, and of an In-
ing Sea arbitration, see 21 Journal du ternational Court of Justioe, is generally
Droit Int SS ; 2S Bevue de Droit Int. recognized. See 21 BeTue de Droit Inter-
iir; 28id. 888; i>\fra, p. 80, n. (i). national, 621; 26 id. SSI, 621, 600; 28 id.
Other writers speak as follows: "The 346, BlI; SO L. J. 226; 24 Am. t. Rev.
point of view of international law present* 114. Upon International arbittation, see
law withont any sanction whatever. The 34 An, L. Rev. 8S7; 8 Harvard L. Rev.
parties are all sovereign. There ia no 107. Upon the early history of Intema-
anperior, and, therefore, no poaitiTe law tiona] Law, aee 20 Kevue de Droit Int
ia possible. The appeal in all contreversy 264, 481.
mnst be to generally rec<^nized principles
[22]
„Gooi^lc
LKT. I.] OF THB LAW OF NATIONS. * 20
triBBactiong which require for * their solution an accurate * 20
aoqnaintance Tith the conTentional lav of Europe and the
general doctrines of the prize tribunals. Though we may
remain in peace, there is always war raging in some part of the
globe, and we have at the present moment (a) neutral rights
to exact, and neutral duties to perform, in the course of our Medi-
terranean trade, and in the trade to the Brazils, and along the
shores of the Pacific. A. comprehensive and scientific knowU
edge of international law is highly necessary, not only to law-
yers practising in our commercial ports, but to every gentleman
who is animated by liberal views and a generous ambition to
assume stations of high public trust It would be exceedingly
to the discredit of any person who should be called to take a
share in the councils of the nation, if he should be found defi-
cient in the great leading principles of this law ; and I think I
cannot be mistaken in considering the elementary learning of
the law of nations, as not only an essential part of the education
of an American lawyer, but as proper to be academically taught.
My object, therefore, in some succeeding lectures will be to dis*
COBB all the leading points arising upon the rights and duties
of nations in the several relations of peace, of war, and of
■eatnli^.
(a) NoronlMr, 1824.
CM]
sObyGoOl^lc
OS THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PABT I.
•21 •LEOTUKE It
OF THE RIOHTB AND DUTIES OF NATIONS IN A STATE OP PEACE.
A VIEW of the rights and duties of nations in peace will lead
us to examine the grounds of national independence, the extent
of territorial jurisdiction, the rights of embassy and of commer-
cial intercourse.
1. Right of Intorferano* with otb«r Bt«tM. — Nations are eqnal
in respect to each other, and entitled to claim equal considera-
tion for their rights, whatever may be their relative dimensions
or strength, or however greatly they may differ in government,
religion, or manners. This perfect equality, and entire inde-
pendence of all distinct states, is a fundamental principle of
public law. It is a necessary consequence of this equality that
each nation has a right to govern itself as it may think proper,
and no one nation is entitled to dictate a form of government
or religion, or a course of internal policy, to another. No state
is entitled to take cognizance or notice of the domestic adminis-
tration of another state, qr of what passes within it as between
the government and its own snbjecta. (a) The Spaniards, as
(a) Qrotiiu, de Jure BelU et Pacia, b. 1, c 3, uc 8 ; Tattel, Droit dea a«ns, b 2,
c t, nc. S4 ; Batharforth's Imt b. 2, e. S. The pnnciple of non-interferBiioe with
the intara*! policjr md govemnieiit of other «t&tea wu emphatioallf declired b;
Elngland &nd France in the antumn of 1830, uid new etreogth and solidity were
thereby given to natioiud freedom and indepeDdenee. But the right of intervantioii
ezieta when impending danger requires it, m» when it is neccesary to prevent aggre*-
■ion by preventiDg the dangerom accnmnlation of the meani of attack. Au mUt-
ferenca to preserve the balance of power among neighboring nations is anotJber
case of the atatoet moment and difficult;, and reqaina the moet gnre and compn*
heneive consideration. Such intervention haa, within the Uit two centuries, been
ver; frequent, and led to extenalva and destructive wan. But it was ueceMar; and
JQBt in some of the instances, and pre-eminently so with England in 1SD8, and with
AoRtiia in 1S13, under the dangerons preponderance and inveterate a^reaaioiia of
France. " No governments," said General Washington (Sparki's Writings of
Washington, xi. 382), "oaght to interfere with the internal concerns of another,
[24]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCI. n.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONB. " 28
Ttttel (^>BerveB, violated all mles of right, vbea they set up a
tribunal of their own to jndge the Idcb of Peru according to
tbeir laws. If he had broken the law of nations * in respect * 22
to them, they would have had a right to punish him ; but
when they undertook to judge of the merits of his own interior
idministration, and to try and punish him for acts committed in
the conrse of it, they were guilty of the grossest injustice. No
nation had a contention within itself, but the ancient Romans,
with their usual insolence, immediately interfered, and with pro-
found duplicity pretended to take part with the oppressed for
the sake of justice, though in reality for the purpose of dominiou.
It was by a violation of the right of national independence that
the; artfully dissolved the Achsan league, and decreed that each
member of the confederacy should be governed by its own laws,
independent of the general authority, (a) But so Burpriaingly
looBe and inaccurate were the theories of the ancients on the
nibject of national independence, that the Greeks seem never to
have questioned the right of one state to interfere in the internal
concerns of another, (b) We have several instances within time
of memory, of unwarrantable aud flagrant violations of the inde-
pendence of nations. The interference of Russia, Prussia, and
Anitria in the internal government of Poland, and first dis-
membering it of large portions of its territory, and then finally
orertuming ita constitution, and destroying its existence as an
independent power, was an aggravated abuse of national right
There were several cases which preceded or which arose durii^
the violence of the French Revolution which were unjustiJiable
invasions of the rights of independent nations to prescribe their
own forms of government, and to deal in their discretion with
their own domestic concerns. Among other instances, we may
refer to the invasion of Holland by the Prussian arms in 1787,
and of France by the Prussian arms in 1792, and of wars
fomented or declared against all monarchical forms of
)^Temment by the French rulers during * the early and * 23
«»7( far tlu teurity ef uAof u diu (0 Oienuelaet." War may be engagad in behalf
ft am noghbon, if it tie very certain that we m<ut etiffer by thdr nun. Tuft
M igitnr, pariea qimm proximiu ardet. Heiqecc Elem. Jni. Kat. et Oeat. b. 9,
*. », tee. lOT,
(a) IdTj, b. 88, c 80 ; Flonu, b. 2, c. 7 ; Houtesq. Comid. nir lee Ckimi da la
Gtud. dee Bom. c S.
(i) Hitfad'e Hiat. of Oneot, t. 137.
[263
;abyGoO<^lc
•23 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. ' [PABT I.
more intemperate stages of their revolution. We may cite also
the invasion of Naples by Austria in 1821, and the invasion
of Spain by France in 1828, under the pretext of putting down a
dangerous spirit of internal revolution and reform, as instances
of the same violation of the absolute equality and independence
of nations, (a)^ (z)
(a) The BritJah goTsnmieiit declined being * putj to the pTDmnlgated doetnne*
and pMoeedings of the oongieiiB of the great poifen of cantinental Esrope et Trop-
pau and Laybach in 1821, and at Terona in 1S3S, and which gare eanction to the
invaeioti of Naples and 9pain. It wal not eappoeed by Great Britain that then
exiated in either of thoae ioitanoea a case of anch diieot and imminent danger to
the aifetj of other atatea, u to warrant, upon ptindplei of international law, a for-
cible interrerence. The allied wTereigna who aaaembled at Laybach and Verona
■lo not appear to hare differed eeeentially wit^ Great Britain aa to the fpneml pria-
ciplea which ongbt to regnlate the interfereoM of other ttates in the internal affain
of Naplea and Spain, bnt tbsy differed in the application of thoee prindplea to the
Caere befor* them. They jnatiBed their interference on the gronnd that it wu
" neeeeeary for protecting Italy from a general inanrrection, and the neighboring
■tate* from the moet imminent dangere;" "that there existed a vaat eoniBpincT
^ainit all eetabUtbed power, and againat all thoer rigbia coneeciated by that eocial
order under which Europe had enjoyed ao many oenturies of glory and happineae."
"That, in reapecting the rights and independenoe of all l^tinate power, they
Kj^Med as diaarowed by the [oinciplee which oonstitnte the pnblic right of Europe,
all pretended reform operated by r«Tolt and open hoetUity." Their object waa to
I The Dii^ of the doctrine of equality Abdy'a Kent, c. a, pp. 4S-8S ; Whtat
will be found clearly explained in Maine, pt 2, a. 1, Lawrenoe'i note &S, and
Anc Law, c. 4. For a biatorical sketoh addenda, p. SfiO ; Wheat. Dana'a noto
brought down to the preaent time, eee il.
(z) Treatiea of Protection are treatiea Int. SSO, MS ; 86 id. 691 ; 3t id. 19,
in the nature of Unequal Alliance, from SSG ; 21 Journal du Droit Int. TSl.
which they are principally diitingnished When aproteotorate i» eetaWiihed by one
by the keeping of a garrinm within tlie nation orer another, the eesential rigbU
Protected State. Swiee' Righto of Nation* of eovereignty, if retained, muat be re-
In Time of Peace (2d ed,), j 247. Thus tained (it /idb ae well aa dejvn; otlier-
tbe teyea ialanda which form the Ionian wise it will be regarded as a mere depend-
group, being constituted a aort of com- ence of the govaniing Power. See 1 Hal-
monwealth by the Treat; of Vienna in leek's Int. Law (BakeT"! Bd ed.), 69. A*
181S, were consigned to the protectorate to the Protectorate orer the Moeqnito Ter-
of Great Britain, which had the right of ritory, eee Cobbett'a Int. Law Caaea (2d
maintaining garrisons in them, and which ed.), SC8. Aa to the French Protectorate
80 held them until 1862, when they were over Madagascar, see 10 Law Quarterly
delivered over to the kingdom of Greece. Rer. SS4; 99 Am. L. Bev. Md. Aa to the
See The Ionian Shipe, Spinka' Priie Caaea, Hawaian ialands, see IS Law Hag. and
I0S; 1 Phillimore'a Int. Law, 101 ; 60 Rer. (4th SerieaJ, 148 ; IB id. 172. SIS.
Albany L J. Sii; 2i Berue de Droit A* to interrentioii. eee SO id. 2SB; 23
Berue de Droit Int. 416.
[26]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. n.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 28
Every nation has an undoubted right to provide for its own
safety, and to take due precaution against distant as well as
impending danger. The right of self-preservation is paramount
to all other consideratious. (b) A rational fear of an imminent
danger is said to be a justifiabte canse of war. Posse vicinum
impediri, ne in suo solo, sine alia causa suaque evident! utilitate,
munimentum nobis propinquum eztruat, aut aliud quid faciat,
node justa formido periculi oriatur, (c) The danger must be
great, distinct, and imminent, and not rest on vague and uncer-
tain suspicion. The British government officially declared to
the allied powers in 1821, (tf) that no government was more pre-
pared than their own "to uphold the right of any state or states
to interfere, where their own security or essential interests were
seriously endangered by the internal transactions of another
state; that the assumption of the right was only to be justified
by the strongest necessity, and to be limited and regulated
thereby ; that it could not receive a general and indiscriminate
application to all revolutionary movements, without reference to
their immediate bearing upon some particular state or states;
ptoteet the peace of Earope "■gsinet those di««8trons itteinpts vhich would *pte«d
tb* honor of nuiTenal ui&rchy over the ciTilued vnrld;" "tgKitist a fanatiGiiiD
(tr innoTitioD, which would Moa hare tendered tb« eikteoce of anj public order
whUerer fvoblematicaL'' "That they were tar from wiihiog to prolong thii in-
tetbnnce beyond tba Umita of itrict neceasity, and wonld ever prescribe to Cbem-
trin* the praasrration of the indepeadeace and of the righte of each etsle." Cir-
eabr Despatch and DeclsTation of the SoTsreigns of Austria, Buisia, and Pntnio,
Urbach, Hay, I8S1 ; Annoal B^ter for 1S21, p. Ga9. The quadruple alliance in
ISM, between France, Spain, Great Britain, and Portogal, was made for the purpose
rf patting an end to a war in regard to the Buccession to the crown of Portugal,
*a|i[ed between the Emperor Don Pedro, contending for the rights of the Queen of
Bittiigal, Donna Uari* II., and the Infante Dotu Miguel, who had usurped the
thnue, and also for the purpose of ezpsUing from the Peninsula Che Infante Don
Cutos, who disputed with Queen Isabella II. the succession to the crown of Spain,
end U another instanoe of interference with the internal concerns of nations. The
otject of the interference and qoadraple alliance was effected by the expnlsion of
Uu two Inlantes. 80 far, the armed interfennoe in this case went on the momeu-
tool questions of dynasty and sncceeston, and on tha pretence of putting an end to a
deUmctiTe and intenninable civil war.
9) Tattal, b. 1, c 4, see. IB, GO i KInUr, Droit das Oens, 0. 1, p. 7fi j Qrotins,
h-tcl,
(c) Hnber de Jnn Ciritatis, Ub. 8, 0. 7, ssa. 4.
{ii Lord Csstleres^'s (^nnilsr Deapateb of January 19, 18S1, and of Hay, 1S23.
AUBsI Rt^istar, Ixr. Pnblio Documents. See also Mr. Secretary Cauning's
Conunonieatiani in Jannat? and Uaicb, I82S. Annnsl Begister, IxtL Pablio Doo-
"""■ [27]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 24 OF THE LAW OF KATIONS. [PAKT I.
that its exercise was an exception to general principles of the
greatest value and importance, and aa one that only properly
grows out of the circumstances of the special case, — and excep-
tions of this deecrlptioQ could oever, without the utmost danger,
be BO far reduced to rale as to be incorporated into the ordinary
diplomacy of st-ates, or into the institutes of the law of
*24 nations." 'The limitation to the right of interference
with the internal concerns of other etat«s was defined in
this instance with uncommon precision; and no form of civil
government which a nation may think proper to prescribe for
itself can be admitted to create a case of necessity justifying an
interference by force ; for a nation under any form of civil policy
which it may choose to adopt is competent to preserve its faith,
and to maintain the relations of peace and amity with other
powers.
It is sometimes a very grave question when and bow far one
nation has a right to assist the subjects of another, who have
revolted, and implored that assistance. It is said (a) that as-
sistance may be afforded, consistently with the law of nations, in
extreme cases, as when rulers have violated the principles of the
social compact, and given just cause to their subjects to consider
themselves discharged from their allegiance. Vattel mentions
the case of the Prince of Orange as a justifiable interference,
because the tyranny of James II. had compelled the English
nation to rise in their defence, and call for his assistance. The
right of interposition must depend upon the special circumstances
of the case. It is not susceptible of precise limitations, and is
extremely delicate in the application. It must be submitted to
the guidance of eminent discretion, and controlled by the princi-
ples of justice and sound policy. It would clearly be a violation
(a) Tkttel. b. 3, c i, Mc. H 1 Batherfbrth, b. 2, c. S. a« klso Grotiua, lib. S, c
25, aec. 8 ; Poff. b. S, c. 6, sec. 14. The American Svcratat; o^ ^^'b (H'- Webator),
in hii letter to Lord Ashbarton, of April 21, 1841, declared, that it was "a nuoifett
uid groaa impropriety for indiTiduale to engage in the dril conflicts of otbar stato,
and thns to be at war, while their ^remmeiit is at peace ; " and that " the salntaij
doctrine of non-int«iTetitiOQ b? one uation with tbe aflain of others is liable to be m-
sentially impaiKd, if, while the goTenunent Tefraine &om interference, int«rfereiice ix
Btill allowed toita Bulgects, indiTidnally or in muses;" and that "the United Statca
have been the first among civilized nations to enforce the obaemuica oF the jnst mle of
neotmlity and peace, bj special and adequate legal enactments against allowing indi-
Tiduali to mske war on their own anthoritj, or to mingle themaelTes iu tba belligcrmt
operations of other nations."
[28]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. II.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONB. • 25
of the lav of nations to invite aubjects to reTolt who were
under actual obedience, however just their complaints; or U>
endeavor to produce discontents, violence, and rebellion in
neighboring states, and, under color of a generous assistance,
to consummate projects of ambition and dominion. The most
unexceptionable precedents are those in which the interference
did not take place until the new states had actually been eatab-
Itshed, and sufficient means and spirit had been displayed
to excite a confidence * in their stability, (a) ' The assist- * 25
ance that England gave to the United Netherlands when they
were struggling against Spain, and the assistance that France
(a) Tbo Comm. Pioh«iro-Farreir», in hie Conn de Droit Pablio, iL 6, 7, rery do-
(iledl; JDitiBce tha neognitioD, whsn the rerolted people h&ra acquired snch
Mibifi^.
' Sm, m to iutarre&tlon, th« elkbonte Ab to neognitioii of baUIgeraDcy,
dinukian in LawmiM'a Commeatun Wheat, pt. 1, e. 2, Dana's note 16, and
etc de H. Wheaton, t S, pt. 2, c. 1, Ilf. anth. cit. ; Hansard (cited Abdj, IM),
a NT-; {Hall, Int. Uw, pt 2, c 7 J olzIL 16«6.
Hdlok, Int. Law, c S, { 20 ; Martens, The princiide of the cases at the end
Koarelles Caosea CJUbres, i. 370 tt mq. of note («), infra, is Colloired in Kenneth
Hltforicas, in fait Letter* on International ■. Chembera, 14 Uoir. S8 ( Jones v. Qurcis
In, ssp that it is a question of policy del Rio, Tnm. ft Rnss. SS7.
qmt« ontside the law. "Its essence is [Hall, lot Law, 2S, aaja, thatrecof;-
iUtRili^, and its jastiGotion is sac- nitioti of beUigeranay ihonld be granted
CM." p, a, [3ee, howsTsr, Hall, Int. only when it is moetiarj as a matter of
I«w, n^ni.] See Halleck, Int. Law, self-proteotion to the granting state.
e- 1. H l-IO. The conceadon of belligerent rights
BsMgnition of the independence of a by the United Ststes to the Confederate
tanJted slate ia only Iswfol whan such Ststes did not give them the ststos of sn
isjepaulence is dt fadio estsbliahed. independent nation, (z) and did not give
Hiitoiieas, I. p. 9; mfra, n. (s) ; [Amos, them — the rebellion haring proved onsuc-
1<M. on Int Iaw, 41, 46.] Bnt the strag' oessfnl — the right to confiscate debts due
gle needs not to hare been fonnally abon- to loyal citizens of the United Statn.
doMd. VhesL pt 1, c 2, Dana's note Williams t>. BrafFy, Se tJ. S. ITS. S«e
I< ; HiiUeek, c S, g{ 21, 29 ; Hansard generally, as to the raUtions between
(cited Abdy, 100), clxr. 31 ; cIziL 1171 ; the United States snd the lUtas in reWI-
dnii «61. The dnctrine is inddeutally lion, Ford «. Sargot, 97 U. S. 691 ;
etidsined in Anstin's sixth lectnn on Coleman v. Tennessee, ib. 609. — b.]
^uisi>nidence, 3d ed. 2SS e( se?.
(i) In the language of Ifr. Jnstiee war of the United States sgsinst unlawful
Ustthewi in Poindezter b. Qreenhow, 114 snd usurping goTcmments, representing
D. S. 370, 290, the civil war of 1861 " wss not the Ststes, but a rebellion against the
Mt a wsr between the States, nor a war United States." See Johnson b. Atlantic,
of the United States sgainst Ststes, bnt s &c., Co., 166 U. S. eiS.
[29]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 25 ' OP TH£ LAW OF NATIONS. [PABT L
gave to this country during the var of our Berolution, were
justifiable acts, founded in wiedom and policy. And equally
justifiable was the interference of the European powers of France,
Great Britain, and Russia, in favor of the Greeks, i^^nst the
Ottoman Porte, by the treaty for the pacification of Greece, con-
cluded by those three Christian powers in 1827, and by means
of which a ferocious and destructive war was terminated by the
independence of the Greek state as a new kingdom, and a recog-
nition of that independence by the Ottoman Porte, in 1882. So,
also, there was a successful interference, in 1840, of four of the
great European powers, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and
Bussia, in the civil war between the Ottoman Porte and Mehemet
All, the Pacha of Egypt These, as well as other acts and pa-
cifications, have eSectually placed Turkey within the pale of the
public law of Europe. And, lastly, there was a memorable inter-
ference of the five great European powers in the Belgic reroln-
tion of 1830, which ended in the separation of Belgium from
Holland, and the establishment of the former as an independent
state. The several cases have given recent and practical illustra-
tion of the principle of international law, in its application to the
preservation of the public peace and security of nations, against
internal as well as external violence and oppression. It has been
well observed {b) that non-interference is the general rule, and
cases of justifiable interference form exceptions limited by the
necessity of the case. It was stated, on the part of the British
ministry, in Parliament, by Lord Palmerston, in 1847, as a rule
laid down by writers on the law of nations, that when civil war
is regularly established in a country, and when the nation is
divided into conflicting armies and opposing camps, the two
parties in such war may be dealt with by other powers as if they
were separate communities, and that such other powers may take
part with one side or the other, according to their sympathies
and interests, just as they might in a war between separate and
independent nations. Such interference, however justifiable and
safe, will be rare, and requires the exercise of eminent discretion.
It is not to be doubted that the government of the United States
had a perfect right, in the year 1822, to consider, as it then did,
the Spanish Provinces in South America as legitimate powers,
which had attained sufficient solidity and strengtii to be en-
ib) Wlwaton't Elemanta, p. 120.
[80]
sObyGoOl^lc
UCr. II.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 25
titled to the rights and pririleges belonging to independent
sUtes. (e)
Prior to the recognition of the independence of any of the
Spanish colonies in America, and during the existence of the
civil war botveen Spain and her colonies, it was the declared
policy of the government of the United States, in recognizing the
independence of the Spanish American republics, to remain neu-
tral, and to allow to each of the belligerent parties the same
rights of asjlum and hospitality, and to consider them, in respect
to the neutral relation and duties of the United States, as equally
entitled to the sorereign rights of war as against each other, (d)
This was also the judicial doctrine of the Supreme Court, derived
from the policy of the government, and seems to have been re-
garded as a principle of international law. (e)
NatioDB are at liberty to use their own resources in such man-
ner, and to apply them to such purposes as they may deem- best,
provided they do not violate the perfect rights of other nations,
nor endanger their safety, nor infringe the indispensable duties
of humanity. They may contract alliances with particular na-
tions, and grant or withhold particular privileges, in their discre-
(c) Pnmdent'a Mamagt to Congnu of Bth of Uircli, 1823, and aot of CoDgraaa of
4tk(/H*T, 1823, c. 62.
ii) Praident'i Manga to Cangma in 182S.
it) United Statet ■. Palmer, 8 Whaaton, 610, 834; The Santunma Trinidad, 7
TbcatoD, 2SS, 3S7. 3«a alao Walley b. Schoonar Liberty, la Louliiana, B8. "The
laifomi policj and practice of tlu United Statea, as declared by Preaident Jackfoa, in
Ui iUmige to CoDgTMl of the 21«t December, 1830, ia to avoid all interference in dis-
]nln which innely relate to the internal government of other natlona, and eventoally
to reugniie the aaUiont; of the prevaiting party, withont referenoe to the aerita of
tbt original conttDvraay. All ijuestiona relative to the government of foreign nation*,
■rfotlHr of the old or new world, have been treeted b; the United Statea ■* qaeationa
^fiKl onlj, and they have eantionaly abatained froni dscidlDg upon them, nntil the
d<amt evidence waa in thair poewaaion to eiuible them to dedde eonectlj." It waa
tinthn obaarved, by the American Secretary of State (Mr. Voraytb), In 1887, in
bti iBtirer to the Teian Envoy, that in determining niih reapect to the Indepeu-
■tmee ef other canntriea, the United State* have never taken the quettion of right be
twen the contending partiea into conoideiBtiou. They have deemed it a dictate of
dn^and policy to decide npon the qnettion as one of fact merely. It belonga to the
l>gtdittve or ezecntive power aoccrding to the character of the government) to reoog-
■iie the independenoe of a people in revolt fnmx their foreign sovereign ; and nntil
nch acknowtedgiDeat be made, conrta of jnetice are bon&d to oonaider the ancient
•tate of thinp aa remaining nnaltered. City of Berne v. Bank of England, B Teaey,
M; The lUnilla, I Edw. Adm. 1 ; Triaarri v. Clement, S Bing. iSS ; Thompaon o.
Pxrlea, ! Sim. itt; Ttjiot v. Barclay, ib. 218 ; Boas v. Himely, i Cranch, 241 ;
Hoyt V. OelatoD, 18 Johna. 189, lU ; Unitwl Statea s. Palmer, 8 Wheaton, 810.
[31]
„Gooi^lc
• 25 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. ^PABT L
tion. By poBitive eng^emenU of this kind, a new ctass of rights
and duties ie created, which forms the conventional law of nations,
and constitntea the most diffusive, and, generally, the most im-
portant, branch of public jurisprudence. And it ia well to be
understood, at a period when alterations in the constitutions of
goTernments, and revolutions in states, are familiar, that it is a
clear position of the law of nations, that treaties are not affected,
nor positive obligations of any kind with other powers or with
creditors weakened, by any such mutations. A state neither
loses any of ita righto, nor is dischai^d from any of its duties,
by a change in the form of its civil government, (x) The body
(2) Bj right of militBr; occapation, ment, jet the right to alienate the pnhlic
the conqneror may euforce the collection domain cu only be exerciaed by ita
of debts ftctnally due to the displaced gar- authority. Hare r. Stainbach, 127 U. B.
emment against debtors in the tetritoiy 70. A goveniment which eierciaea polit-
either of the conquered or conqneiing ical jorisdictian ds fitelc orar toritory
goTemmeat But the conqueror cBunot which doea not lightfally belong t« it,
ao enforce paymeat in a oentral State. 2 cannot make a ralid gnmt thereof m
Halleck'a Int Law (BaWa 3d ed.), p. against tbe goTemment to which it right-
461 ; see infra, p. 74, note (x). If a folly belongs. Coffee s. Groorer, 13S
reTolationary or de faeta goremment is C. S. 1. Prirate titlet to land are not
orerthrown by the previoosly existing affected by couqaest or cestdon of terri-
gOTemmeot, the latter is entitled to all tory. United States d, Moreno, 1 WalL
pablic property belonging to the goTem- 400. Individual rights acquired by for-
ment at tbetimeoftheoutbresk. United eignera under a fonner goTemment are,
SUtea V. HcRse, L B. S Eq. 60. Bat it Beema, to be respected even in case of
after the recognition of tbe revolutionary oonqoest by another government. 1
government by a foreign State, the rastored Wharton'a Digest, 16.
govnmmeDt cannot repudiate contracts The overthrow of a government by
made by it with a subject of such foreign revdatian snd tbe diesolntion of ita army
State, bnt in litigation thereon merely do not affect the question wbethw an
takes the rights of tbe recognized govern- offence is within the jurisdiction of the
ment. RepnbliG of Pern v. Dreyfns, 88 military tribunals, A n Ezeta, 62 Fed.
Ch. D. 848. See Hepnblic of Pern d. Rep. 971 The occupation of a deparU
Peruvian Guano Co., 86 Ch. D. 489 ; ment of France by German troops after
Republic of Chili r. London & River Plate tbeii victory in 1871, did not suspend or
Bank, 10 Times L. R. 658. Probably affect ths civil, criminal or customs laws
also if there has been no international of France, and gave to Gennany only the
recognition, property acquired under snob use and tbe revenues of the public domain,
contracts cannot be recovered abroad in SeeDalloz, 1872, II., 1S5, andnotes, 229.
violation of such contracts. Ibid.; The Questions as to the boundaries of nations
Beatrice, 86 L. J. Adm. 9. See fnfro, p. as well as what foreign goventment exiBta,
297, notea. are political rather than judicial in their
Although the non-political laws of « nature. Republic of Peru •, DreyfiiH. S8
conquered or ceded coontiy cMitinue in Ch. D. 348 ; /» r« Cooper, 1*8 0. S. 472.
foiM until changed by the new govern* When a nation's citizens take posseaaion
[82]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. IL] of the LAW OF NATIONS. * 26
politic is still the same, though it may have a different organ of
commanication. (/) So, if a state should be dlTided in reepect
to territoiT', ita rights and obligations are not impaled ; and
if they have * not been apportioned by special agreement, * 26
Hume rights are to be enjoyed, and those obligations ful-
filled, by all the parts in common, (a)
X JulMUoUon ov«r Adjoining Bom. — The extent of jurisdiction
OTer the adjoining seas is often a question of difBculty and of du-
bious right As far as a nation can conveniently occupy, and that
occupancy is acquired by prior possession or treaty, the jurisdic-
tion IB exclusive. Mavigable rivers which flow through a terri-
tory and the sea-coast adjoining it, and the navigable waters
included in bays and between headlands and arms of the sea,
belong to the sovereign of the adjoining territory, aa being neces-
s&iy to the safety of the nation and to the undisturbed use of the
nei^boring shores, (fi) {x} The open sea is not capable of being
I/} Orotiiu ds Jtuc, lib. 2, & 9, MC 8 ; Puff. Droit d« U Natnra et dw Gens, par
Bubajnc, ii. lir. 8, c IS, leo. 2, S; BurUmaqoi, N&t- and PoL L>», iL pb 4, c. ),
Mc IS; Ratlwrforth's InstitatM, b. 2, c 10 ; Ttttsl, b. 3, sec. 8G ; Protoool of the
in gTMt fiCFwen of Auitria, Oraat Britain, Fruce, ProMia, and Bosd*, b? thair
plniipotaDtiariM at London, December, ISSO, ttated in Wheaton'a Hiitory of the Law
itSiikmM, Naw Toik, 1S4G, pp. GSS-(>46.,
(a) Botherfortb, b. 2, e. 10; [Halleck, c S, SS !?. !S.]
(t) Grotiiia, bL^ii.a,Hcl2;c.3, Bec7; Paff. b. S, c 8, no. 4 ; b. 4, c. 5, mc.
tudS; V>ttel.b. I.e. 23, 33.
rf sew teRitoi7, like a gnsno iiland, in When annexation or colonization is
iti name and by its anthority, or with ita effactad through commirciol companiea,
■■flit, it may ezardae nich anthortty and aa waa done by England in India, and aa
far (och time ai it deama beat, over each ia now being done in Africa, ths chartered
EoTitmy. Territorial aovereignty is a company is tnnted by the English courts
potitica], not • judicial qneation, and the aa the dalsgale of the British goTemment
worti take judicial notice of the extent ao (ar as regardii acta of Stat«, but not aa
of territory clmimed by their gorernment, to commeKial contracta. See 10 Law
H ^own by ita pnblic acts. Jonea v. Quarterly Bev. S68.
Cuttd Statea, 187 U. S. 202.
(i) The qoMtion whether arms of the treated aa a man daumTn. So the Gulf
M in ■ put of the sea or belong to the of Mexico ia a part of the Atlantic Ocean.
tUxBu; territwy is not dstsrmlaed by Baker t.. Merchants' Mut. Ins, Co., i
lla width of the eudoeed waters or by Woods, 2GB ; IB Fed. Rep. 615 ; Mer-
Maaaring three miles tima eadi enelodng ehaata' Ins. Co. v. Allen, ISl U. 8. 67.
^•sdland to the other, but hy their dimen- On the other hand, baya baring an en-
■»* and oonfignntion In ntatlon to the tnsee of ten miles in width, and Mine-
°Mst and adjacant territory. Thus the what greater, have been fi^ueutly treated
HoiiterTaneaD Sea ocmld not properly be aa dosed waters. Thus, Brintol Channel,
;abyG00<^lc
* 26 OP THE LAW OP KAnONB. [fabt I.
possessed as private property. The free use of the ocean for
navigation and fishing is common to all mankind, and the public
jurists generally and explicitly deny that the main ocean can ever
be appropriated. The subjects of all nations meet there, in time
of peace, on a footing of entire equality and independence. No
nation has any right or jurisdiction at sea, except it be over the
persons of its own subjects, in its own public and private veeeeU;
and so far territorial jurisdiction may be coasidered or preserved,
for the vessels of a nation are, in many respects, considered as
portions of its territory, and persons on board are protected and
governed by the lav of the country to which the vessel belongs.
They may be punished for offences against the municipal laws
of the state, committed on board of its public and private vessels
at sea, and on board of its public Teasels in foreign ports.(e)
This jurisdiction ia con&ned to the ship; and no one ship has a
right to prohibit the approach of another at sea, or to draw round
her a line of territorial jurisdiction, within which no other is at
(c) Grotiiu, b. 3, c. S, «ec. 10 and 13; Rnthcrfortli, b. S, c 0 ; Vattel, b. 1, e. IB,
■ee. 21S ; Forbes d. CoctuvDe, 2 Bam. k Crem. 448 ; Wbeaton'i Element! of hita-
utumBl Ia«, 3d ed. 1G7 ; Edinburgh Beview for Jaljr, 1841, pp. 294, 3S6.
where it ie more than tan milsa wide, ii of water u the Znyivt Zee and Hvdaon
claimed aa part of the territory of England Bay, being wholly iQiroanded br the teni-
acd of its county of Glamorgan. Regitia tory of s single nation and approached bj
*. Cunningham, Bell C. C. 86 ; aee 31 & narrow entrances, may, it seema, be claimed
32 Tiet C.4E; Manning'* Law of Nations, m inbject to the territoiial right-, while
120; 1 PhiUimore, Int. Imvt, i 200; such arms of the «ea aa the Bay of FoBdy
Manchester v. Hauachueetto, 180 U. 8. and the Ba; of Chalenr, having open
240 ; IfiS Mass. 230. entrsncea, remain public, except ai to
So Cbeaapeake Bay and Delaware Bay encloeed waten formed within them bj the
are not high seas. Stetson v. United indentations of the eoMt. See Halt'i InU
States, S2 Albany L. J. 484 ; 1 Wharton's Jmw 2d ed. , p. 141 ; 3 Wharton's Int.
lut Law, g 28; The Grange, 1 A. G. Op. 82. Law, 5S 28, 304, SOfio.
AndNanaguisett Bayisclaimed tobe, by By the Convention of 1818, the Dnitfd
usage, within the jorisdirtion of the Hhode States, making certain exceptions, forever
Island courts. Chase v. American Steam- renounced the right of taking drying, or
boat Co. B K. I. 419 ; 16 Wall. 522. curing Eeb " within three marine miles rf
Bo of Conception Bay, in Newfound- any of the coasts, hay*, creeks, or harbon
land, which bae been declared British of His Britannic M^esty's dominions in
territory by act of Parliament, although America." Upon this clause, as oonmd-
it is more than twenty miles wide at ite ered before the Canadi«i Fieberies Com-
mouth, and nearly fifty miles long. Di- miasion, see their published Proceeding*:
lect U. S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-American alao 21 Am. L. Bev. S6&, 396, 431 ; 21
TeL Co., 2 App. Cas.394. So inch bodies Revae de Dtoit Int. 222.
i:s4i
sObyGoOl^lc
UCT. n.] OF THE LAW OP NATIOSa • 28
liberty to intrude. Every vessel, Id time of peace, haa a
right to consult its own safety and convenience, * and to * 27
puraae ite own course and business, without being disturbed,
when it does not violate the rights of others, (a) As to narrow
acas and waters approaching the land, there have been many and
sharp controversies among the European nations coDcerning the
claim for exclusive dominion. The questions arising on this
claim are not very clearly defined and settled, and extravagant
pretensions are occasionally put forward. The subject abounds
in curious and interesting discussions, and, fortunately for the
peace of mankind, they are, at the present day, matters rather of
speculative curiosity than of use.
GrotiuB published his Uare Liberum against the Portuguese
claim to an exclusive trade to the Indies, through the South
Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and he shows that the sea was not
capable of private dominion. He vindicates the free navigation
of the ocean and the right of commerce between nations, and
justly exposes the folly qnd absurdity of the Portuguese claim.
Selden's Mare Olausum was intended to be an answer to the
doctrine of Grotius, and he undertook to prove, by the laws,
usages, and opinions of all nations, ancient and modem, that the
sea was, iu point of fact, capable of private dominion; and he
poured a flood of learning over the subject. He fell far short
of his great rival in the force and beauty of his argument, but
he entirely surpassed him in the extent and variety of his cita-
tions and researches. Having established the fact that most
nations had conceded that the eea was capable of private domin-
ion, he showed, by numerous documents and records, that the
English nation had always asserted and enjoyed a supremacy
over the surrounding or narrow seas, and that this claim had
been recognized by all the neighboring nations. Sir Matthew
Hale considered the title of the king to the narrow seas adjoin-
ing the coast of England to have been abundantly proved
by the treatise of Selden; and Butler speaks of it *a9 "28
a work of profound erudition, (a) Bynkershoek has also
written a treatise on the same contested subject, in which he
concedes to Selden much of his argument, and admits that the
sea was susceptible of dominion, though he denies the title of
(a) The MuunD* Flors, 11 WbeatoD, 88.
(a) Hsrg. Law Tncta, 10; Co. Litt.iiL u. SOE.
[35]
;abyG00<^lc
* 29 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAET I,
the English, on the ground of a want of nniDterrupted posees-
. sion. He said there was no instance, at tliat time, in which the
sea was subject to any particular sovereign, where the surround-
ing territory did not belong to him. (A)
The claim of dominion to close or narrow seas ie still the theme
of discussion and controversy. Puffendorf (<;) admits that, in a
narrow sea, the dominion of it, and the right of fishing therein,
may belong to the sovereigns of the adjoining shores. Vattel
also {d) lays down the position, that the various uses to which
the sea contiguous to the coast may be applied render it justly
the subject of property. People fish there, and draw from it
shells, pearls, amber, &c. ; and who can doubt, he observes, but
that the pearl fisheries of Bahram and Ceylon may be lawfully
enjoyed as property? Chitty, in his work on commercial law, («)
has entered into an elaborate vindication of the British title to
the four seas surrounding the British Islanda, and known by the
name of the British Seas, and, consequently, to the exclusive
right of fishing and of controlling the navigation of foreigners
therein. On the other hand, Sir William Scott, in the case of
the Taee Q-ehroeden, if) did not treat the claim of territory to
contiguous portions of the sea with much indulgence. He said
the general inclination of the law was against it; for in the sea,
out of the reach of cannon-shot, universal use was presomed,
in like manner as a common use in rivers flowing throuf^ con*
tenninous states was presumed; and yet, in both cases,
* 29 * there might, by legal possibility, exist a peculiar property,
excluding the universal or the common use. The claim
of Russia to sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean north of the
51st degree of latitude as a close sea was considered by our
government in 1822 to be against the rights of other nations, (a)
It is difficult to draw any precise or determinate conclusion,
amidst the variety of opinions, as to the distance to which a
state may lawfully extend its exclusive dominion over the sea
adjoining its territories, and beyond those portions of the sea
which are embraced by harbors, gulfs, bays, and estnarieB, and
(i) Disatrtatio de Domlnio Marls ; Bjiik. Opera, iL 12<.
(e) Dnrit de 1« Nat et dm 0«n», liv. i, c. 6, sec. 6-10.
id) B. 1, c. 2J. (e) ToL L 88-102.
(0 S Rob. Adm. 386.
(a) Ur. Adami'a Latta to tlw Baniao UiniiUr, March SO, 1833.
[86]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. 11.] or THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 29
over which its jurisdiction unqueetionably extends. (&) All that
can reasonablj be asserted is, that the dominion of the sovereign
of the shore over the contiguous aea extends as far as is requi-
lite for his safet;, and for some lawful end. (x) A more extended
dominion mast rest entirely upon force and maritime supremacy.
According to the current of modem authoritj, the general ter-
ritorial jurisdiction extends into the sea as far as cannon-
^ot will reach, and no farther; and this is generally calculated
to be a marine le^ue ; and the Congress of the United States have
recognized this limitation, by anthorizing the district courts to
take cognizance of all captures made within a marine league of
the American shores. (<;) The executive authority of this coun-
try, in 1798, considered the whole of Delaware Bay to be within
oor territorial jurisdiction ; and it rested its claims upon those
aatharities which admit that gulfs, channels, and arms of the
sea belong to the people with whose lands they are encom-
passed. It was intimated that the law of nations would justify
(i) Azani on the Haritims Imw of Earopa, toI. i. p. 20fl.
(e) Bynk. Q, Pnb. J. c. 8 ; Yftttel, b. 1, c S3, lac. S89 ; Act of Congress, Jnne C,
1794, c 60 ; The King v. Forty-nina Cuki of Bimndj, 8 H>gg. Adm. 267. By th«
cOBTCDtian at London of the ISth Jnly, 1841, between Great Britain, Francs, Anatri*,
Ptwrii, and W"*"'. and the Ottoman Porte, it vai declared and agreed to be an eetab-
Gihed ptinetple of public law, that no ship* of war of foreigti powers ehonid enter into
the Stnib ot the Daidanellee and of the Boaphorut, thereby placing the territorial
jmudiction of the Snltan orer Ihe interior waten of his empire under the protection of
^e written poblic l»w of Eniope. WhiatOD'a Hiitery of the Law of Nationa, New
Toifc, 1845, Pl SSI.
(i) The dirtaoce of a marine l»Rgae i» penalty of forfeiture, daring NapolMo'e
■id to hare been fixed at a time when no detention at St. Helena, domestic and for-
gaa could force a belt (krther. Hogg v, tign Teiaela fiom loitering or hoTering
Beemiait, 41 Ohio St. 81, W. See 2 Ste- within eight iMgoee of that idand, thongh
phen^ Hinory of the Criniiul Iaw, 3S tt placing no impedlmeDt in the way of vea-
"I. ; Walker'a Science irf Int I*w, ITS ; lels pursuing a direct and lawful voyage
Haine'* InL I^w, 88. For Mlf-proteo- in such waten.
tian in time of war, for the pitrenlion of According to some writen a nation may
frandl upon ita rvranoe, etc., a nation ezt«nd ita jurisdiction seaward as the
m«y eiereiaa anthoiity bvyond this limit imnge of ita fannon increasea. Hall, Int.
HoDcheAer «. HaMBchnaetta, ISS TF. S. Iaw, 127 ; 1 Fiar<>, Int Uvr,37S ; Slant-
»40; 8. Cwm. Commonwealth b. Man- achli, g 303. It is important that the
choter, 153 Vbm. SSO ; The Hnngaria, rale should be certain and the aame for all
41 Fed. Bep. 109 ; M Beme de Droit ciTilized nationa thoogh all may not in
Int. 8M. nw let of Parliament of 1 S14 tiuie of peace he (applied with the newest
(50 Oro. in. cSS), 1 4, p^>bibit«l, nnder weapon*.
[37]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 80 OF THE LIV OP KATIOHB. [PABT I.
the United States in attaching to their coasts an extent into the
sea beyond the reach of cannon-shot, (d)
* SO * Considering the great extent of the line of the Ameri-
can coasts, ve have a right to claim, for fiscal and defen-
sive regulations, a liberal extension of maritime jarisdiction :
and it would not be unreasonable, as I apprehend, to assume, foi
domestic purposes connected vith our safety and welfare, the con-
trol of the waters on our coasts, though included within lines
stretching from quite distant headlands, as, for instance, from
Gape Ann to Cape Cod, and from Nantucket to Montauk Point,
and from that point to the capes of the Delaware, and from the
south cape of Florida to the MissisBippi. (x) It is certain thatour
(d) Opinioii of tfa« AtlMluij-OeDBnl coDoeniiDg the acizars of the ihip OimgB,
dat«d 14th of May, 17B8, and ths Letter of the Secretary of Stats to the French Hii-
bter, of IGth of M&y, 170S.
{x) As «uggMted by Captain Hahan in milea trom tbn ihore, a State itatata,
his "Inflaenc« of Sea Power npon Hi*- which maksi death by another'i WTongfnl
tory " (p. 33), these qaeetiona ma; become Mt a caoae of action, appUaa to a eanw
of practical impwtuice, aapecially in the of action ariung on the high sou within
Sonth, shonld the conatrnction of a Cm- anch limit from the ahore. In re Ham-
tral-Americau cuul convert the Caribbnn boldt Lumber Han'ra' AuodatioD, M
Sea into agteathighwayforthecommerce Fed- Rep. 4S8.
of the world. It cannot at yet be said The result of the Behring Sea arbitra-
tlmt the United State* hat an ezclnsive tion was that the United State* coald not
light in theae large, open areu by pra- protect aeaU in the ocean beyond tbrea
■oriptiDn, the conMnroi of civiliied no- miles from the shore. See Award, Point
Uona, or by antbority. In England, the V. ; 37 Cent L. J. 2i9 ; IS Law Hag. k
dcciuon in Be^na v. Eeyn, 2 Ei. D. flS, Rev. (1th Series), 231, S18, 70S ; 1> id.
limits the territory of England uid its 31; 6 Jorid. Bev. SI ; 27 Chic L. Newt,
criminti jarisdiction to low-watei mark IGS; 37 Am. L. Ber. 084; 29 An. I-
on the eiteni&l oout, in the abeenee of Beg. SSS. If the United States throu^ -
exprsM legislation. See also Hanis b. the President and Congress see fit to a»
The Franoonia, 2 C. P. D. 17S ; Direct some joiladiction and soTcreignty orer
n. S. Csble Co. e. Anglo-Amerloui Tel. soch waters as the Behring Sea beyond
Co., S App. Cas. 394. In this conntry, the three-mile limit, the courts and the
State legislation extending the tenitoiisl people are bound by inch actJon. Utiilal
limits of the State three miles seaward SUUs s. The James Q. Swmn, 60 Fed. Bep.
&om the shore is vtlid. Dnnham n lOS. In Beg. s. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. Xft%
Lampbere, 3 Gray, 208; Hanebester v. Lord Coleridge said: "It is fnAj ad-
MsMw^bosetts, 13a U. S. 240; 1G2 Han. mitted to be within the competency of
230 ; United States v. Smiley, fi 3«wyer, Parliunent to extend the realm how br
340 ; State v. Murray, 84 Maine, 135. M>ever !t nay please." S«e also Unitrd
So under the California Constitution, Art. States v. Eessler, Baldw. 34. See the
21, S I, and ita Political Code, { 3S, ex- articles in 7 Law Hag. k, Bev. (4tb Series)
tending the State line wectwards thne S68; S id. 8C> i IS Irish L. T. 020, dis-
[88]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. II.] OF THB LAW OF NATIONS. * SO
goremmeDt vonld be disposed to view with some uneasineBs and
aenaibility, in the case of war between other maritime powers, the
aidag Um qneatioii whsthei it ia com- iuterat ot the people In the luivigatioQ of
patent tar Franch dtizen* to build a sab- the waters and in commerce over tbun
muine lailmy to England by parehating maj be improTcd in many inetanceit by
• portian of the forealiore at Dover owned the erection of wharres, docks, and piers
bf prirate individoali, the disability of therein, for which pnrpaee the State may
alieni loliold land in Eogland having been gnnt parcels of the eabtoerged lands;
aholiilwd by the NatonlizatioD Act of and, so long as their diepodtion is made
1B70. The deciaioa in Tteg. n. Keyn is for each purpose, no valid otyections can
Uoding Qpon all the English coartit. be made to the grants. . . . Tbe trust
Harris v. The Franconia, 2 C. P. D. 173. devolving upon the State for the public,
Afin that decision. The Territorial Waters and which can only be discharged by the
JvNdietioa Act of 1ST8 (41 & 42 Tic. c management and control of property in
71) extended the jnrisdictioii seaward to which it has an interest, cannot be re-
ooc maiine leagne from low-water mark, linqnislied by a transfer of tbe property.
" fer the purpose of any offence declared The control of the 3late for tbe piirpoeee
hy this «et to be within the jnrisdiction of tbe tnist can never be lost, except as to
ef Um idminL" This statnte hu been snch parcels as are used in promoting the
«ricieind as contrary to International interests of the public therein, or can be
Imi. See e.g. Perels' Das intemationale disposed of without any anbstatitial im-
bfftntUche Seerecbt der Q^enwart, 3 13. painnent of the pabllc interest in the lands
Die government's title to the soil of and waters remaining. It is only by o1>-
uini of the aea is often said to be a pro- serving the distinction between a grant of
pietary right, and not a mere trust for snoh parcels for the improvement of the
public uses, ta in Lord Advocate v. Clyde public interest, or which when nccupied
Xav. Trostaca, 10 Ct. of Ses. (4th Series), do not snbstantially impair the public
174. interest in the lands and waters remain-
Id this country the States bordering ing, and a grant of the whole property in
Bpon the Great I^ea hold the title to'the which the public is interested, that the
luids auder theee navigable waters and language of the adjudged cases can be
their inlets in the same manner that the reconciled." Field, J., in lUinols Central
Stam npon the sea-coast hold title to R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 V. 3. S87, 452.
the soil noder tide water by the common Titles to sat>mei;ged lands in the Teni-
Isw. " ^lat title iiiiiimiiiiilji carries with tories, derived from the general govern-
It cmtro] over the waten aboTe them, ment, were settled by the important case
whsiMvar the lands are subjected to nsa. of Shfvely r. Bowlby, 152 T. 3. 1, decld-
Bat it ii ■ title different in character from ing that the United States, upon acquiring
tliat which the State holds in lands In- a Territory, by cession from a State, or by
tended for sale. It is different from the treaty with a foreign country, or by dis-
tidc which the TTnited States hold in the covery and eettlement, take the title and
psUie lands which are open to pre.emp. dominion of its tide lands below high-
tion and sale. It is s title held in tnist water mark for the benefit of the whole
fn tbe people of the Slate, that they may people and in trust for the fhtuie State,
eajoy the navigation of tbe waters, carry on and, while so holding them, have all the
comnerce over them, and have liberty of powere both of national and mnnicipal
UiiDg therein freed frma the ohstmction government, and may grant titlee thereto
<r intotermce of private partiea. The for appropriate parposes.
[39]
D.qilizMbyG00>^le
* 81 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
use of the waters of our coaste, far beyond the reach of cannon-
shot, as cruising gronnd for belligerent purpoHCB. In 1793, our
government thought they were entitled, in reaeon, to as broad a
margin of protected naTigation as any nation whatever, though at
that time they did not positively insist beyond the distance of a
marine league from the sea-Bhores; (i) and, in 1806, our gov-
ernment thought it would not be unreasonable, considering the
extent of the United States, the sboalnesB of their coast and the
natural indication furnisbed by the well-defined path of the Gutf
Stream, to expect an immunity from belligerent warfare, for the
space between that limit and the American shore. It ought, at
least, to be insiBtfid that the extent of the neutral immunity
should correspond with the claims maintained by Great Britain
around her own territory, and that no belligerent right should be
exercised within "the chambers formed by headlands, or any-
where at sea within the distance of four leagues, or from a
• 81 right line from one headland to another." (i) In " the case
of the Little Belt, which was cruising many miles from
the shore between Cape Henry and Cape Hatteras, our govern-
ment laid stress on the circumstance that she was ''hovering on
oar coasts ; " and it was contended on the part of the United
States that they had a right to know the national character of
armed ships in such a situation, and that it was a right immedi-
ately connected with our tranquillity and peace. It was further
observed, that all nations exercise the right, and none with more
rigor or at a greater distance from the coast than Great Britain,
and none on more justifiable ground than the United States, (a)
There can be but little doubt that, as the United States advance
in commerce and naval strength, our government will be dis-
posed more and more to feel and acknowledge the justice and
policy of the British claim to supremacy over the narrow seas
adjacent to the British isles, because we shall stand in need of
similar accommodation and means of security, (i)
(a) Hr. JeffersoD'a Letter to H. Oenet, November 8, 17B3.
{h) Hr. Uadison's I.ettar to Hessn. Honroe and Piockney, dated Uay 17, I&OS.
(a) Hr. Uonnw's Letter to Mr. Foster, October 11, 1811, and Praudent's Hrasigc,
November S, 1811.
[h) In placing the comToerce and □arigntion of etataa, by trwtiea of OMtunerce, on
the baaia of ei]ua1ity, it la sometimea deemed adviiable to except In Bxpren tenna tbe
eoatling trade or eoiatiDiit naoigMum, of the reapective partiea, and to reaerve tlir
regulation of that trade to tbe separate lana of each nation. See the convention of
[40]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. II.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 32
It was declared in the case of Le LouU, (c) that maritime
states claim, upon a principle just in itself and temperately
applied, a right of risitation and inquiry vithin those parts of the
ocean adjoining to their shores. They were to be considered as
parts of the territory for various domestic purposes, and the
right was admitted by the courtesy of nations. The English
hovering laws were founded upon that right. The statute
9 Geo. IL c. 35, prohibited foreign goods to be transshipped
within four leagues of the coaat without payment of duties; and
the act of Congress of March 2, 1799, c. 128, sec. 25, 26, 27,
99, coutatned the same prohibition; and the exercise of juris-
diction, to that distance, for the safety and protection of the
revenue laws, was declared by the Supreme Court, in Church
V. Subbart, (d) to be conformable to the laws and usages of
nations. *
3. Rii^ta of Commoroe. — As the end of the law of na-
tions is ibe happiness and perfection * of the general society * 32
Mumerce uid niivigation lMtiT«eii the United SutM and the Pera-Bolirian Ciniredatm-
tion, Msj SS, 183fl, and bettveen them Mid tba Kingdom of Qraece, Angiut, 1883, and
betwMn thou Mid Portngal, April, 1841, nnd betw««n them and th« fiepnbUo of
EcDuloT, June IS, 1SS&.
(f) 2 Dod. Adm. 215. (4) S Cianch, 187.
I Bnt «e« Wheat pt. S, c. i, Dana's jority of the court held, however, that,
note 108 ; Twiaa, pt I, { 181. (Begina in tbe abaence of itatate, the jnrisdietiaii
■- Egyn, 2 Ex. Div. flS, wu an indict- over these watara waa oal; to tbe extent
meiit for manalangliter. Defendant was neceaaary for tbe defence and aecaritf
a foreigner, commanding a foreign ahfp, of tbe utate, that tho ordinary oriminal
and while aailing within three miles of jarisdictdon did not extend over them,
the Englieh coaat, ao negligently and and hence that the law of the Sag wan
mukilfally niledhia vessel that a colUcion the law to govern the case, and that the
neulted with an English ship, and by the country of tbe flag had JDriadiotion.
Btllision a passenger on board the latter Two Jndgea held that even an act of
venel wu killed. Defendant was con- Parliament conld not give snch jnrisdic-
neted in tbe Central Criminal Court, and tion. The minori^ wen of opinion that
tbe eaie came on appeftl to tbe Criminal the sea to the extent of three miles wm
Coort of Appeal, tbe question being a p«rt of tbe territory of England, and
whether the lower court bad jnriadiction eabject to her criminal jarisdiction, and
of the case. It was held by seven jndges that at most tbe country of the flag had
to ill that the conrt did not have juris- jurisdiction only in case of crimes com-
dietion. It was genenily admitted that mitted wholly on board the foreign ship,
wbatevei jurisdiction a nation has over the See also Bar. Int. Law, 869, note (be).
«ftn aea adjacent to its coasls, extends The Brigg Ann, 1 0«11. 62 ; United States
to three milps, or, at most, to tbe range v. New Bedford Bridge Co., 1 W. & U.
rfesnnon-ahot from the shore. Tbe ma- 401, 487. —B.]
[41]
sObyGoOl^lc
• S8 OP THE LAW OP HATI0N8. [PABT I.
of mankiod, it enjoins upon every nation the punctoal obserr-
ance of benevolence and good-will as well as of justice, towards
its neighbors, (a) This is equally the policy and the duty of
nations. They ought to cultivate a free intercourse for com-
mercial purposes, in order to supply each other's wants and
promote each other's prosperity. The variety of climates and
productions on the surface of the globe, and the facility of com-
munication, by meauB of rivers, lakes, and the ocean, invite to a
liberal commerce, as agreeable to the lav of nature, and ex-
tremely conducive to national amity, industry, and happiness, (h)
The numerous wants of civilized life can only be supplied by
mutual exchange between nations of the peculiar productions of
each ; and who that is familiar with the English classics has not
dwelt with delight on the description of the extent and blessings
of English commerce, which Addison has given with such grace-
ful simplicity and such enchanting elegance in one of the Spec-
tator's visits to the Itoyal Exchange? (c) But as every nation
has the right, and is disposed to exercise it, of judging for itself
in respect to the policy" and extent of ita commercial arrange*
ments, the general freedom of trade, however reasonably and
strongly it may be inculcated in the modern school of political
economy, is hut an imperfect right, and necessarily subject to
such regulations and restrictions as each nation may think
proper to prescribe for itself. Every state may monopolize
as much as it pleases of its own internal and colonial trade,
or grant to other nations, with whom it deals, such distinctions
and particular privileges as it may deem conducive to its
■ *SS interests, (d) The celebrated English •navigation act of
Charles U. contained nothing, said Martens, contrary to
the law of nations, notwithstanding it was very embarrassing
to other countries. When the United States pot an entire
stop to their commerce with the world, in December, 1807,
by laying a general embar^ on their trade, without distinction
(a) Vattel's Prelim, aec 12, IS, b. 2, c 1, MC S; 8.
lb) Tattel, b. 2, e. 2. aee. 21.
(e) Spectator, i. No. fl».
(d) Puff. b. 4, c. 5, sec. 10 ; Tattel, b. 1 , o. S, ase. 03, 97 ; Hirteni, Law of Na-
tion*, 14S, 148 ; 1 Chitt? on Conunereial Law, TS-81 ; Ur. Canning'i Letten to Hr.
Gallatin, of 9ept«mber 11 and KoTember 18, 1826 ; Hr. OallatiD to Hr. Cauiiin^
Saptember 22 and Decatuber 28, 1828, and Hr. Clay to Hr. Oallatin, November
11, 1828.
[42]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. I[.] OF THB LkW OF NATIONS. * S4
u to nation, or limit as to time, no other pover complained
of it; and the foreign goTemment most affected hj it, and
against whose interests it vas more immediately directed, de-
clared to our govemment, (a) that, as a municipal regulation,
foreign states had no concern with it, and that the British gor-
emment did not conceive that they had the right, or the pre-
tension, to make any complaint of it, and that they had made
none.'
No oatioa has a right, in time of peace, to interfere with, or
interrapt, any commerce which is lawful by the law of nations,
and carried on between other independent powers, or between
different members of the same state. The claim of the Portn-
gaese, in the height of their maritime power in India, to esclude
all European people from commerce with Asia, was contrary to
national law, and a just cause of war. 7attel called it a pre-
tension no less iniquitous than chimerical, [b) The attempt of
Russia to appropriate to herself an exclusive trade in the North
Pacific met with a prompt resistance on the part of this coun-
try; and the government of the United States claimed for its
citizens the right to carry on trade with the aboriginal natives,
on the northwest coast of America, without the territorial juris-
diction of other nations, even in arms and munitions of war. (c)
Treaties of commerce, defining and establishing the rights and
extent of commercial intercourse, have been found to be of great
utility ; and they occupy a very important title in the code
of national law. They were considered, *even two centu- *34
ries ago, to be so conducive to the public welfare as to
overcome the bigotry of the times ; and Lord Coke (a) admitted
them to he one of the four kinds of national compacts that might
lawfully be made with infidels. Tbej have multiplied exceed-
ingly wiUiin the last century, for it has been found by experience
that the general liberty of trade, resting solely on principles of
conunon right, benevolence, and sound policy, was too vague and
precarious to be consistent with the safety of the extended in-
tercourse and complicated interests of great commercial states.
Every nation may enter into such commercial treaties, and grant
(a) Mr. Cuming'* letter to Mr. Pincknajr, Septembei SS, ISOS.
(ft) B. S, c 2, sac. 24.
(«) Mr. Adama'B Letter to the Rnssun Hiniater, Haich SO, 1S22. See bIeo Ur.
Fonjtb'i Letter to the Anurican Miaisnr mt St. Peterabn^h, NoTsmber 3, 18K7.
(a) 4 IiuL IBS.
[43]
„Gooi^lc
• 35 OP THE LAW OF HATIOSB. [PAHT I.
such speoisl privileges, as tliej think proper; and no nation to
whom the like privileges are not conceded has s right to take
offence, provided those treaties do not aSect their perfect rigfata.
A state may enter into a treaty, by which it grants exclusive
privileges to one nation, and deprives itself of the liberty to
grant similar privileges to any other. Thus, Portugal, in 1703,
by her treaty with England, gave her the monopoly of her wine
trade; and the Dutch, formerly, by a treaty with Ceylon, en-
grossed the cinnamon trade, and, latterly, they have monopolized
the trade with Japan, (b) ' These are matters of strict legal
right; but it is, nevertheless, in a moral sense, the duty of every
nation to deal kindly, liberally, and impartially towards all man-
kind, and not to bind itself by treaty with one nation, in contra-
vention of those general duties which the law of nature dictates
to be due to the rest of the world, (c)
4, Bight of PoMftga over land. — Every nation is bound, in time
of peace, to grant a passage for lawful purposes over their lands,
rivers, and seas to the people of other states, whenever it can be
permitted without inconvenience; and burdensome conditions
ought not to be annexed to the transit of persons and property.
If, however, any government deems the introduction of
*35 'foreigners or their merchandise injurious to the interests
of their own people, they are at liberty to withhold the
indulgence. The entry of foreigners and their effects is not an
absolute right, but only one of imperfect obligation, and it is
subject to the discretion of the government which tolerates it. (a)
ib) diittj, Comm. Iaw, 40, II, 42.
(e) It hai bMn the polic; of the United StatM to auconnge, in it» dipbinatic intst-
conru with other iii.tioDB, the moit perfeet freedom and eqiulity in relation to th»
right KDd intareata of navigaticit. This ia the principle contuned in the oomnMnilal
treaty between the Dnited States and the federation of Central America, of ths 6th
December, 1S2S. Bf that treat;, whatever can be imported into, or exported fnm,
the porta of the one coaatr;, in ita own veeaela, may, in like mannar, and upon tba
same terma and conditions, be,imported or exported in the veaeels of the other coantiy.
The aame mle ia contained in the treatiei of the United Statea with Drnmark, Sweden,
and the Haneeatic cities.
{a) Poff. b. 8, lec. 6, «, 7 ; Butherforth, b. 2, c 9 i Vattel, b. a, c. 7, sec 94 ; c. 8,
sec. 100 ; c 9, sec ISS, ISO j c. 10, aac 1S2 ; 1 Chittj, 84-89 ; M. Pinheiro-Femin
' Thie monopoly hss been pnt an end liott, 10 How. 14S. See farther the tr«a-
to by tnaUe* with varions conntries. tiea with Peru, 10 U. S. 9t. at L. 926 ;
Ai to the hiatory of the policy men. and with the Argentine Confederation,
tionedinnote(c),in/Va,Bae01dfieldii.Uu- ib. 1006.
[44]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. II.J OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. " 35
The state ma^ even lev; a tax or toll upon the personB and
property of straugers in transiti^ provided the aame be a reasona-
ble charge, hj way of recompense for the expense irhich the ac-
commodation creates. (6) These things are now generally settled
in commercial treaties, by which it is usually stipulated that
there shall be free navigation and commerce between the nations,
and a free entry to persons and property, subject to the ordinary
revenue and police laws of the country, and the special terms
and conditions prescribed by treaty, (x)
s. Bight of Ravigabls Rlvwa. — A nation possessiag only the
upper parts of a navigable river is entitled to descend to the sea
wiUiout being embarrassed by useless and oppressive duties or
regulations. It is doubtless a right of imperfect obligation, but
one that cannot be justly withheld without good cause. When
Spain, in the year 1792, owned the mouth and both banks of the
lower Mississippi, and the United States the left bank of the upper
portion of the same, it was strongly contended on the part of the
(Conrt da Droit Pablic, ii. IB, SO) oompl&iiu Tehamently of the cbwka crMt«d by
puaporti uid the preTBQtive police of the contiiiaDtal goremmenta of Europe npon
ranigntion and the tnuuit and wjoani of foragnera. He calli it legs! ^rmm;, and
Gontrut' nich policy with that of Uis United States, "the cluaic laud of civil lib-
eity." Bat 1 «m of opanion, notwithatandinA that every goveminaiit hai the right,
and ii boDDd in duty, to jadge for itself, how far the nnlimited power of emigntion,
■nd of the idnisiicill and reaidence of strangers and emigranta, may he coniistent with
its own local intemta, iustitatioiu, and safety.
(»| BntlieriiHth, b. % c 0; Tattal, b. 2, c. 10, see 124 ; 1 Chltty, lOS-lOS.
(c) Neabalization of territot;, al- United States guaranteed the nmtnUtjr
tbmgh not often ncognized bj anoient of the propoeed canal at Panama, eiempt-
nstions, ha* been at times illustrated in ing Tassels ttmn capture or blockade, and
iMdem history, aa in the case of Belgiam . aaaerted the right of free passage therein.
ID the Franco-Qennan war, &c. See 13 See 20 Be*ae de Droit International, 529 ;
Law Uag. & Rev. <lth Series), 1 ; SId.lB, 27 id. 112, 328; se L. T. 42S; 9 Law
117 ; 8 id. 123. Hag. ft Ber. <4th Series), 117 ; 18 Am.
With respect to such artifidia water- I'w Rev. 76; 4S Albany L, J. 293; in/ra,
waye •• the Saei Canal, the propoeed p.iafl;n. (z).
iateT.aceaDJc caoal at Panama or in Nica- A> to the iadkmas of Panama, " the
tigaa, the Baltic Canal at Kiel, and the policy of this coontry is a canal onder
Corinth Canal in Greece, the ConventiDn American control. The United States
of Constantinopla of ISSS exdnded tiie cannot consent to the surrender of this
Snec Canal from the apenttions of war, control to any European power, or to any
leaving intact the territorial right of the comtunation of European powets." Presi-
ripaiian Power ; and, by the Bolwer^Hay- dent Hayes's Heastge of Har. S, 1S80,
too Treaty of 1S60, Gn>>t Britain and the 8e« 8 Wharton, Int. Lew, ch. 12.
[45]
sObyGoOl^lc
" S6 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PART L
United States, that, by the law of nature and nations, we were
entitled to the navigation of that river to the sea, subject only to
such modifications as Spain might reasonably deem necessary for
her safety and fiscal accommodation. It was further contended
that the right to the end carried with it, as an incident, the right
to the means requisite to attain the end ; such, for instance,
*36 as the right *to moor vessels to the shore, and to land in
cases of necessity. The same clear right of the United
States to the free navigation of the MlBBissippi through the terri-
tories of Spain to the ocean was asserted by the Congress under
the confederation, (a) The claim in that case, with the qualiG-
catioQB annexed to it, was well grounded on the principles and
authorities of the law of nations, {b) The like claim, and founded
on the same principles of natural law, and on the authority of
jurists and the conventional law of nations, has been made on
behalf of the people of the United States to navigate the St.
(a) Instmctioos given to Mr. Ja; in ]?S0, uid igidn in 17SG ; Renlation of Con-
gram of September, 1788 ; 'Haport of the Secretary of State to the PmOdeat, Uuek
18, 17B2.
(b) Orotini, Ub. 3, c. 2, «ec 11. IS, IB, IS : c. S, kc. 12 ; Paff. Ub. 3, a. Z, »e<s. i,
fl, 8 ; VfttCel, b. 1, KC. 2B2 ; b. 3, tec. 127, 12S, 132. Bj the treaty of peace at Paii^
in ISIE, it was itipntated that the nan^tion of tbe Bhine and the Scheldt shonld he
free ; and at tbe Congrees of Vienna, in 181G, the allied eovem|{DS agreed to the fn*
iWTtgation of tbe fptal wivigabUriBert of Otntuaty and ancient Poland, to their moathi,
in ftroT of all irho ehonld confona to tbe regulationi nnder which the aiTrancliiienient
waa t« he granted. The detailed conTentioae conaeqaenl on tbe act of the Confireei of
Vienna have applied the principles adopted b? the CoDgreaa, fonnded on the Memoir
of Baron Von Humboldt, to regnlate the oavigatioil of tbe Rhine, the Scheldt, the
' Henee, the HomIU, the Elbe, the Oder, the Weeer, the Vistula, the Danube, and the
Fo, irith their confluent riven. The English govemment, >D late as ISSO, conlinaed
to aaMTt a right, nnder the treaty of Vienna, or federal act of 1816, to tbe free naviga-
tion of the Rhine, and to hold that it was accessible to the veeeeli of all natioDS, t*
tbe extent of its navigation, eabjeet to modente datiee, for the preaervation of the
paths on the aides of the river and for the maintenance of the proper police. And bj
the convention concladed at Mayence, March 31, 1831, between all the riparian states
of the Rhine, the navigation of thit river wh declared free, from tbe piunt where it
becomea navigable into the sea, including its two principal ontlete or months in the
kingdom of tbe Netherlands, the Leek nnd the IFaal, passing by Rotterdam and
BricI, through the firat-named oatlet, and by Dotdrecht and Hellevoetslnis, tbrongh
the lattPT, with tbe nse of the artificial canal of Voom and Helleroetsltlia. The con-
vention provides regulations of police and toll duties on veaaela and merchandise pass-
ing t(t and from the sea, tbrongh tbe Netherlands, and bj the dtfTeRnt ports of tbe
npper states on tbe Bhine. Whmton's Elements of International I^w, 3d ad.
S43-247 ; his History of the Law of Nations in Enropa and America, New YoA,
1846, 498-606.
[46]
;abyG00<^lc
LKT. n.] OF THE LAW OF KA.TIONB. * 36
Lawrence to and from the Bca, and it hae been diacussed at lai^
between the American and British govemmentB. (c) ' (y)
6. SoTTMidar of FagltivM. — When foreigners are admitted into
a state upon free and liberal terms, the public -faith becomes
pledged for their protection. The courts of justice ought to be
freelf open to them as a resort for the redress of their grievances.
But strangers are equally bound with natives to obedience to
the laws of the country during the time the; sojourn in it, and
tfaey are equally amenable for infractions of the law. It has
sometimes been made a question how far one government was
bound by the law of nations, and independent of treaty, to sur-
render, upon demand, fugitives from justice, who, having com-
(4 Mt. Wfaeaton in hit EleuMits of Intcrnktiand I^w, Sd ed. 246-267, and in his
Eirtoty of tbs IiBir of Nations, 604, 617, hae given th« mbatuice of the ugomcutB,
pro and am, taken fiam coDgressioDal docoments of the sesaionB of 1S27 and 1828. It
m* insisted on the part of Great Britain that this right of passage was not an abeotnte
nitaral ri|^t, bat an imperfect right, rwtrictad to ibe right oF truisit for purposes of
innocent utility, to he ezclnsiTelj determiiied bj ths local sovereign. The commia-
aoaen and diplomatistB of the United Btates, in 180G and afterwards, stated, as a
prioeiple of international lav, that when any European nation took possession of any
extent of sea-coast, lliat poaseaaion extended into the interior country to the soonea of
ths rivers emptying into that coast and to theii months, with t^ bays and entrance*
formed by their jnnctioD with the sea, and to all the tribatary atreams or bnnches,
and the eonntry they corered. The antbority of Tattel, b. 1, p. 260, is in support of
that principls in a qualified decree, and is to be confined to the riven to fair at lAeg
foe intAm A» ttrritory. Mr. Wheaton, in his Elements of International Law, Sd ed. -
1S42, very justly confines sneh a claim of dominion of the state to the seas and riven
ntirdf titelottd inl&vt itt limilt.
1 The right to navigate great riven is treaties of the United Statei with Ai^
frequently made the subject of treaty, gentine Coofedention, ib. lOOB ; Mexico,
See the Reciprocity Treaty, now termi- ib. 1081 ; Bolivia, 12 U. 8. St. at L. 1008,
nated, 10 U. 3. St. at L. 1089, 10B1, art. <, art 27 ! Paraguay, ib. lOBI, art. 2, *c.
ai to the St. I^wtence ; and, generally, Also Halleck, Int Law, c. S, { 28 «1 iq.
(y) Where a nation owns both hanks of manently obstructed by any one of the
a ravigable river it donbtlees may, *s a sovereigns by whom their banks are con-
matter of stnet legal right, exclude other trolled. This was the position taken by
nations at will, thoogh enlightened policy the United States in tta controversy with
nuj dictate a different course. 8ee Hall, Denmark as to the sound, and saoh is
Int-I^w, JS9. " Navigable waterconrsea now the vinw of the leading European
which Inverse the dominions of two or powen as to all great thoroughfares of
Bon aovereigna and on ths freedom of trade not inclosed entire within the realm
which ths commerce of the world in part of one particnlar sovereign." Wharton,
dependa, cannot, withont a wrong to the lot. Law, f{ 40, 147, 150 e, 2B7.
commercial world aa a whole, be per-
[41]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 86 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
mitted crimeB in one country, flee to another for shelter. It is
declared by some of the most distinguished public jurists, (d)
Id] Qrotiiu, b. 3, e. 21, lec. S, i, 6, and Heineooiiu, Com. h. t Burbmaqai, ii.
pt. 4, c 3, «ee. 2S-2e ; Rutheifortb, b. 2, & 9, iL 4BS ; Tkttcl, b. 9, c fi, gee. 79, 77.
See QocatiDiia de Droit, tit. Btraager, par Meriin, for diacnsnoiu on tUa labjeet
in FranM. P. Voet, de Statntif, p. 297, aajs tbat du autreuder of eriminala ia
denied aocording to the oaage of almoet all Chziatian nationi, except in ewes of
IiumaDity (nui tx humimiiaU), and Hartena is of the game opinion. Hftitena, Law
of NatimiB, b. S, c S, mc 23. The EngUah dedmoni in anpport of the right and
piactice of enrrander of fogitives charged with atrodoDa crimea an, Bex «. Hutcbin-
8on, S EehU, 7S6 ; Caae of Lund;, 2 Tent 814 ; Bex •. Eimbeilr, Str. 848 ; s. o.
1 Barnard. K. B. 22C ; Fitigib. Ill ; Eaat India Co. v. Campbell, 1 Vea. 246;
Heath, J., in Mure v. Kaj, 4 Tannt. 81 ; Eonomns, Dialog. 3, MC 87 ; Serjeant
Hill's opinion (and his authority and leiming as a lawyer were pre-emineut), given
to government in 1702. See Edin. Beriew, No. SS, pp. 129, 136, 141. Lord Coke,
bowBTer, held that the sorereign was not bound to sanender np fugidTe eriminala
from other countriea. S Inst. 180. The American deciaions on the question tin.
In the Matter of Waahhnm, 4 Johns. Ch. 106 ; Commonwealth s. Detuson, 10 Serg.
& Bawle, 12G ; Bex «. BaU, decided by Cb. J. Beid, at Montreal, and reported in
Amer. Jdt. 297 ; Case of JosS Ferreire dos Santoa, 2 Brock. 498. Two of those,
viz., that in 4th Johnaon and before Ch. J. Beid, are for the dnty of inrrender, and
the other two against it, nntees specially provided for by treaty. Mr. Justice Story
dtes the inflicting uithoritiea, both foreign and domestic, on this interesting qiM«.
tioD, bat intimates no opinion. 8 Comni. an the Constitution, pp. fl7E, 679 ; Comm.
Conflict of Iaws, pp. S20-G22. But afterwards, in the United States v. Davia,
2 Sonui«r, 486, Judge Stoiy expressed great doobts whether, upon principles of inter-
nationsl Uw, and independent of statute or tree^, any court of justice is authorized
to surrender a fugitive from justice. In the spring of ISSS, George Ho1me«, being
charged with the crime of murder, comnuttad in Lower Canada, fled into the State
of Vermont, and his eatrender was demanded by the Ooveraor-Oeneral of Canada.
Application waa made by authority in Vermont, to the President of the TTnited
States, who declined to act tbroof^ an alleged wsnt of power, and the case came
back to the Governor of Vermont. After hearing counsel and giving the snbject
' great consideration. Governor Jennisoo decided that it waa his duty to sDrrender
the fugitive. The case was afterwards, and before any actual snmnder, carried np
before the Supreme Couri of that state upon habeas eorpoM, and elaborately ai^ed
in July, 1839, and the dedsion of the governor afilimed. The cue waa afterwards
carried up to the Sapieme Court of the United States, in the winter of 1840, and
the court declared that they hsd no jurisdiction in the case. Holmes f. Jennison,
14 Peten, S40. Holmes waa therenpon brought up before the Supreme Contt ol
Vermont by Aniou crtrjna, in April, 1840, snd the question solemnlj argued, and
the decision wns, that the state bad no authority to surrender the prisoner, and he
was accordingly discharged from custody. Case Ex parU Holmes, 12 Vermont, 8S1.
It msy be bete properly observed that, according to the official opinion of the Attor>
ney-Genersl of Che Uuited States, 17S7, it was the duty of the United States to
deliver up, on due demand, heinous oEfeudere, being fogitives from the dominions of
Spain, snd that, as the existing laws of the Union had not made any spedfic provi-
sion for the case, the dRfpct ought to be supplied. Opinions of the Attomey»Ofn-
eral, i. 46. But afterwards, in' 1821, the then Attomey-Qenera] of the United Statea.
[48]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. n.] OF THE LAW OP KATI0K8. • 87
that ever; * state is bound to den; an asylum to criminals, * 37
and, npoQ applicatioQ and due examination of Uie case, to
snrrender the fugitive to the foreign state vhere the crime vas
in ■& cltbonte apimoD giTan to the PnaidBat, dwknd that tlte modem nsige ud
pnetica of natioiia }ud 'been contraTy to the dootrinei of the early juriats, u>d that
it WM not now the law and. OMge of natiDiu to deliTer np fugitive* from jmtice,
•hitfW may tw the nature or atrocity of the dime, nnleee it be in pumiance of
a tnaty itipuIatioD. Opinion*. Ic. i. SS1-SE)2. If there ha no treaty, ha waa of
optBiw] that the government of the United Statea could not act on the antfject, with-
ant luthorit; coatemd by an act of Congress, and which it would be expedient to
pant, at the law ia imperfect at it atuida. Ibid. ii. 882, 902. Wben it i* deolaind
H the fettled rule that the United Btat«a are not jnatified in the inrrender of fugt-
line from justices except in pnrsuauee of « treaty atipulation, the United Statea are
thu in eBect declared, by national and state authoiitiea, to be > Mfe wylnm for all
lorti of criminala, fram all gOTemtnenta and tenitoriea, near or distant. So, alao,
all the high law authoritiea in Weatminatar Hall, in the caae of The Creole, gave
thtir opinions, in the British Honaa of Lorda, in Febmary, 1842, that the English
law and international law did not authorize the surrender of fugitive criminals of
any degree, and that the right to demand and luirender must be founded on treaty,
or it does not eziit. (_x)
{z} Thia case, which is diacnased in whether against the State, its aubjecta, or
N Hansard, 27-SO, 317 tt teq.; t Law foreigners. See Cobbett's Int Law Cases
Quarterly Rev. 3S, eatablislied the princi- (Id ed.), 31. An sggriaved state appeals
pla in GogUod that an alien friend will to have the right to demand the fulSlment
betipelled only nnder atatutory author- ofanintenurtiDnaldntyBuchaspreveDting
ity. The Creole, laden with tobacco and foreign mbjects from disturbing its in-
llsm, left one port of the United Statea temal peace, but it baa no right to ask
in IBil for another, a voyage then laviAil for an alteration of the monicipal law, and
by American and International Law. must leave it to the sovereign State to
Upon the high aeas, the alavev seized the adopt its own means for the fulfilment of
Aip, killing one paasenger, and forced the its intematioDsl duties. See 10 L J. 43B.
■ste and crew to navigate the ship to Territorial legislation oaoDot give jnris-
Ksasra. The United States demanded diction recognizable by any foreign court
tbt auirender of the slaves For murder and against absent foreigners owing no alle-
piney, mi'iitB'"'"g also that the ship had giance or obedience to the legislating State,
touched at Naasaa only nnder stress of Sirdar Ourdyat Singh v. Bajsh of Farid-
This demand wis tally leote, [189*] A. C. 670.
l in the Hooae of Loids and at Crime is nsoally said to be local to the
IT Hall, and was refnsed. ootintry where it is committed ; and one
The United Statea and Great Britain country does not execute another's penal
hold criminal jnrisdiction to be strictly laws. Hacleod e. Att-Oen. [1801] A. C.
tanitorial; bat other nations, anch as 46G; 17 Law Uag. Je Rev. (1th Series),
Buda, Hofway, Fortngal, and Germany, 3S0; 80 Cent L. J. 201. So penalties
eltim a criminal Jniiadiction over all can be recovered only in the jurisdiction
fltinHS committed by their own intgecta where tbey are created. Witconstn c.
aoywhere, even in foreign conntries. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. 8. 2S5. where Jlr.
VOL. I.— 4 r4ti";
;abyG00<^lc
• 87 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT L
committed. The lan^f^e of those authorities ia clear and ex-
plicit, and the law and usage of nations, as declared by them, rest
on the plainest principles of justice. It is the duty of the govern-
ment to surrender up fugitives upon demand, after the civil mag<
istrate shall have ascertained the existence of reasonable grounds
for the charge, and sufficient to put the accused upon his trial.
Jostica Oray lajs: The rale ftppliu >1m Borna «. Qnnd Bapids & I. R. Co., 113
" to all auits in favor of a State for thi IniL 169 ; see DavU n. New York t Naw
reoovery of ptcaniary peualtiea for auy ED^anilE-Co. 14S Haas. SOI ; tSAm.Btp.
violatiDii of atatntea for ths protectioa of ISS, and Dots ; Nelaon v, Cbeaapeake h.
ita nveDDe, or other mmiicipal lawa, and O. R. Co., 88 Ta. B71. Cmlm, aa to ths
to all JDdgmenta for »nch penaltiea." qualifying clanae. Caber «. Wcat Jeraej
But the questioQ whethw a atatQt« of R. Co., 1S6 Penn. St. 206. A at»tat«
one State, which ia penal in some aapecta, which alloira damagea for eaneiiig a per-
is al«o penal in thia intematianal smsa, aon'* death giv«a no right of action for an
which dependi upon its porpoee, either injur; inflicted in uiothereoantay, thon^
to punish an offence Bgainat its pnblic death taliea place within the jnriadietiM).
justice, or to afford a private remedy to a De Ham s. Ueiican N. R. Ca , 86 Texaa,
person iqjored hy a wrougful act, is to he 68.
determined hy the court called upon to Bigatay and poljguny, being crimiiMl
enforce it, »nd in deciding this question nnder the laws of all civilized and Chris-
that court must carefally observe ths re- tian countries, are not protectsd hy the
quirement that full faith, credit and effect First Amendment of the C. 8. Conatitn-
are to be given to the jndgmenta of other tion, which prahibita laws rapectiDg tb«
States. Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. 8. establishmeut of religion. Davis v. Bea-
ts? ; 70 Md. 191 ; see 80 Cent L. J. eon, 133 D. 3. SSS.
S62 ; 7 Times L. R. 841. Under the U. 3. In Cutting's case, a newapaper article.
Constitution, it ia an offence against the libelloua by the lawa of Hextco, wia pnb-
" Law of Nation! " to counterfeit foreign lished in that eouatiy by an American
secnritiea, whether national or corporate, citixen who, being there arrested therefor,
and Congress may legialate against anch signed a "reconciliation," or withdrawal
counterfeiting though the notes are iaeued of the charge. Aftetwanla, when in Texas,
by a foreign corporation sttd not by a in » newspaper there pnblished.snd known
foreign nation ; and a State luu power to to be circulated in Hexioo, Cutting re-
so l^islate concurrent];. United Statea peated hia statement in a mora oSenaiva
v. Aijona, 120 U. 8. 47S ; United Statea form, for which he was sgain arrestrd and
v. White, 27 Fed. Rep. 300. So a statute prosMmted in Mexico. Upon a demand
which enables personal representatives to for his release from onr State Department
sue for negligence canaing death, being on the ground tbst the offence waa com-
psnsl in ita natare, is not enforceable ont mitted in this country, the prosecntion
of the jurisdiction where the statute was waa discontinaed. The legal qneatioDs
en«eted, though it has been held that eucb thus raised ate diacnssed in 20 Am. L.
a right ia siuble when the State, in which Rev. 918 ; 28 id. 329 ; 20 Reme de Droit
the snit ia bronght, has also a statute aub- Int 569 ; 22 id. S84 ; Snow's Int. I«w,
stantiall; nmilar. O'Beill; tr. New Tork 172.
& ^ew EngUnd R. Co., 16 R 1. 388 ;
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. n.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 87
The goilty party cannot be tried and pnaiabed by any other juris-
diction than the one whose laws have been violated, and, there-
fore, the duty of surrendering him applies as well to the case, of
the subjects of the state surrendering, as to the case of subjects
of the power demanding the fngittve. The only difficulty, in the
absence of positive agreement, consists in drawing the line be-
treen the class of offences to which the nsage of nations does,
and to which it does not apply, inasmuch as it is understood, in
pncCice, to apply only to crimes of great atrocity, or deeply
affecting the public safety, (y) The act of the legislature of New
(y) IntmuLtioDal extcaditioii csDnot be (Ala.), 10 So. Rep. ISO, ISC ; Ham «,
gnntnl I7 ths wTeral SutM. Holmei v. State, 4 Tez. App. S4S.
Jnmiaon, 14 Peten, MO ; TstUe'i Case, In Ex parte Foes, IDS Cnl. S17, the
U Will. 397 ; Si parte Horgan, 20 Fad. State Suimme Court held tliat the ezist-
B*p. as ; People d. Cnrtu, GO S. Y. 831. ence of a treatj with a foreign nation
ItMlprinl^eof tbeforaigngoTemment, which specifie« cerUin eztraditabls oT-
ud Dot the right of individuala. & Fer- fences, does not limit the right of the na-
nDe, !4 Blatch. 15G. tion, to which application is made, to
fiecent dectsioiu of tbe TJ. S. Supreme giant or deny an isylum to the fugitive
ConitcttabliBh that upon extradition of a within ita jurisdiction. A person extra-
ligitive from jnatice to a foreign amatrj, dited to this country fur an offence named
indtri traitj which ipecifiee the offsncei in a foreign treaty cannot be convicted
nlgect to the extradition, be cannot be here for a minor offence included therein
tried for an; other oflence tlian that bat not iuclnded in the terms of tbe
Bamed in the extradition pioceedinga trea^. People e. Stout, SO N. Y. Sap.
apinst bim: Doited States v. Raiucher, ses ; People d. Hannan, id. 3T0.
119 U. 8. 407; bat, npon tbe surrender by Though the prsctic« differs in different
eaa Stats to another of a petson ac«n<ied of nations, yet in the United States foreign
crime, he may, by tbe weight of authority, extradition wilt be made only under a
be tried for ofleiices not named in the re- treaty and in snch cases and upon Bnnh
qnifitien. lUd. ; I^soellee 0. Georgia, 14B terms as are fbeveio speciHed. See 9
C. S. SS7 ; Stat« 0. Olorer, 112 N. C. S&S ; A. U. Op. S6, 4S1 ; 14 id. 288 ; Holmes'
State u, Patterson, US Uo. GOS ; In re Case, 14 Peters 683 ; Fnited Statm v.
CUDOD, 47 Hich. 481 ; Slate v. Halt, 40 Watts, 8 Sawyer, 870. See Bx part*
tMau, 338 ; 8G Cent. L. J. 301 ; 40 id. McCabe, 48 Fed. Rep. 363 ; In re Reioits,
148, and note. See /h nt Soym, 17 Alb. 39 id. 204 ; Ker ». Illinois, 119 TJ. 8. 443 ;
L J. 407 : SS Am. L. Her. G8S ; Be Ker e. People, 110 111. 627.
raru UcEnight, 48 Ohio 81. G88 ; Pooley The constitutional rules against bills of
t. Whetbam, IG Ch. D. 48G ; Common- atlalndar and ex post fado laws appear to
■«alth V. Haves, 13 Bosh, 6S7 i Sute v. have no bearing on extradition treaties,
Slevar^ flO Wig. 687 ; People v. Cross, which may, therefore, o]iemte retrospec-
lU K. T. S36 ; Beid v. Ham, G4 Uinn. tirely, so as to apply to crimes committed
105 1 Commonwealth «. Wright, 1S8 Haas, before they went into effect. Sre Bnirour's
O; It-L. R. A. 208, and note ; WilUama Case, as discussed in 49 Albany U J.
r. Wehisr, 1 Tol. App. ISl ; Carr v. State 187-139, 164 ; GO id. 283 : 11 Law Qnart
[51]
MbyGoOl^lc
•37 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PAET I.
York of the 5th April, 1822, o. 148, gave facility to the surrender
of fugitives, by authorizing the governor, in his discretion, on
requisition from a foreign government, to surrender up fugitives
charged with murder, forgery, larceny, or other crimes, which,
by the laws of this state, were punishable with death or impris-
onment in the state prison ; provided the evidence of criminality .
was sufficient, by our laws, to detain the party for trial on a like
charge, (a) Such a legislative provision wag requisite, for the ju-
dicial power can do no more than cause the fugitive to be arrested
and detained, until sufficient means and opportunity have been
(a) The N. Y. BaTisod SUtato, L 164, lec. S, 6, 10, 11, hars mdoptcd uid con-
tinued the Mme proviaioa.
Bev, 378 ; see Re De Giacomo, 1 2 Blstch. the alleged offencea are extraditable, it ia
SSI; S4 Revne de Droit Internationa], CSS, imnuiterial that others are not. A« Bellen-
GS3. In Beg. v. ABhforth.SS Sol. Joam. coutre, [1891] 2 Q. B. 122. When theae-
234, the Engliah DiTisional Conrt refused cuied ia held for foreign extradition on a
to extradite a prisoner for new eitndi- charge of theft, the atolen property can-
tioQ offencee, under the treaty of 189Q not, it seem*, be held Tor the pcrpoeee of
with this conntry, which *eie Dot clearly the ttial abroad. The Queen v. Lnthing-
ahowD to bare been committed after the ton, [IBSl] 1 Q. B. 420. Delay for aer-
time when that treaty came into force. eral yeara to prosecute abroad an ofTeader
Under U. SI Rot. Stata. g G270, the reformed meaDwhile in England is tbrre
•ridence before the examining magistrate regarded with susiucion. Fiancicia'a Cmc^
need not be such u «onld be required at SO L. J. 190.
the trial of the accnaed, but should amount Whether the offence is " of ft politieal
to probable cauie for believing him guilty; character," within the '™*'""''g of a treaty
tuider that statata, and oar treaty with is a mixed question of law and fact ; a
Salvador, the jurisdiction to hold rngitivea "jiolitiaal ciime" ia a crime " inddeotal
from that oonntry, whose surrender ia to and forming a part of political disturb-
demanded, ia not affected by the manner ances." /» r« Castioni, [1891] IQ. B. 14>,
in which they entered this conntry ; and 1G7, 18S.
the evidence of their criminality is to be Complicity in the Anarchist nae of ei-
jndged by the lawa both of the United ploaives in Paria has recently been held not
Statee and of the State in which they are to be a politieal offence giving an a^lnm
arrested. In re Ezeta, OS Fed. Rep. 9S4, in England; the court of first instance
672 ; see 28 Am. L. Eev. 7B4, 87S, regarding it as aimed at all goreniments,
In foreign extradition, the accuied may and the Queen's Bench Division regarding
be arrested, without b requisition from the the outrages as directed primarily at citi-
foreign government, upon* warrant issued sens, and as not an attempt to impose
by » U.S. commissioner, on complaint of government by a party. See /n re Men-
a ccmsul of such government. Benson nier, [1894] 2 Q. B. 41fi ; [1894] W. N.
«, McMahon, 127 U. S. 467 ; /a re Lnia 118 ; 10 Iaw Quart. Rer. 208. A* to
Ot'iza, 130 U. S. 330 ; /n » Herma, 33 politieal offences, see also 24 Bcnw de
Fe.!. Bep. 105 ; In re Adntt, G5 id. 370 ; Droit Int., IT ; 11 id. 47S ; 14 id. 40S ;
In rt Mineau. 46 id. 188. If certain of 1 Moore on Extradition, ch. S.
[521
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT, n.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONB. • 37
ifForded for the discharge of this duty to the proper oi^;an of
commnnication with the power that makes the demand, (b) >
(i) The ConMitntion of the United StatM hu prorided for the nirrendei of fngi-
tim from jutice u betwttn the levertU ttaitt, iu cue* " of treuon, telonj, or other
oimi' ;" bnt it hu not deaignatcd the spedfic crimi* for which » auireuder U to be
> Wluit. PL 2, c. 2, Dona's note 78. BngUnd u cotutitntiiig the specified
A judicial triboiul has not aathority, in- crims. It hu been held that they do not
AtpmAtatlj of Etatnts or tre&ty, to make apply to an offence made forgery by a
a^iaditiaii of a criminaL It waa done in «tate law Mily. 'Windsor'* Gate, 6 Beat
ih* ci*a of Argnellea, 1861, by Mr. Sew- k Sm. eS2. Other ciuea on forgerr are
aid, 11 an eiecntiTe act, bnt the right MDllar'aCaas, fi Phila. 28B ; b. c. Op. Att.-
of the eiecutiTa power to do w U per- Gen. x. GOl ; United Statoi c . Warr, 3 N. Y.
hape *ti11 open to question. In re Kaine, Leg. Ob«. 346 ; Hatter of Heiibronn, 13
14 How.lOS, US. It would seem clear id. 65; /»r(Farel,7 Blatchf. 84fi (onder
tilat a stat* ia onder no obligation to sm. the treaty with Switzerland). On the
rendar a oiiminal, unleM it ha* agreed to other hand, the treaty haa beeo held not
do 10 by treaty. See fnrther HaUeck, to eorer piracy juts genftum, beoaoee that
t. 7, 1 38 ; Twiatv pt. 1, { ^1- ia >" oOeoce punishable by all natious ;
Aa to the enrrendet of fngitirea as be- but only acts made piracy by the muniui-
tw«en the wreral etatea, aee Hatter of pal Iftw of the nation making the demand.
Voodcea, 3 Tnram (S2 N. 3.), HI; Ken- In re Tivnan, 6 Beet & 8m. 0*S. [Se«
tacky >. Denniwm, ii How. 66 ; Hatter Att-Oen. v. Kwok.a-8ing, L. B. 5 P. C.
ofClark,9WBnd. 813; ;>o«, ii 3S, tu 1. 17B.] Pmonen charged with a piracy
The United States have now extradi- created by act of Parliament may be given
tion Inatiea with nearly all ciiilized na- np without a statute carrying out the
lions. Dana'i Wheaton, note 78 ; Law- treaty, and before indictment. The Brit-
nnce'sWheaton, note 78. Some interest- ish Prleoneis, I W. & H. 66. See Matter
lag qncetions hare arisen onder them In of Metzger, 8 H. Y. L^. Oba. 8S (s. c. 8
the eonrte of this conntry and of England. How. 176] ; Hnller's Case, 6 Phila. 289 ;
Is Andsnon's case, a alare killed a man b. o. Op. AtL-Oen. x. GOl. See generally
ID Hiasonri, and escaped to Canada, where Wheat Dana's notes 74, 76 ; LawreDoe'a
he waa demanded aa a person charged with note 78; Hatter of Ealnst 10 N. 7. Leg.
■rarder. The act did not auoont to mur- Oba. 3S7 ; s. c. 14 How. 103. As to the
dar by the common lawor law of England, condact of proceeding!. In re Henrich, 6
and after the prorinctal eonrt of Queen's Btatehf. 414. As to state extradition, see
Bench had ordered his surrender (20 People v. Caitit, GO V. T. S21. [The
U.C.Q.BL 124),itiSB«id that the Canada Freaident's mandate is not neceasaiy to
Conunon Pleaa dischaiged the prisoner, the b^nuing of eitraditian prooeediugA.
Dana's Wheaton, note 7B ; Abdy's Esnt, In n Hermann Thomas, IS Blatobf. 370 ;
138, dting II Cuiada, C. P. 1 ; [see alao In re Eelley, 2 Low. S39. A person may
SOLJ. H.s. Q. B. 13«;flB. &S. G2G0 be extradited nnder a traaty, though the
and also referring to Holler's Case, Timea^ ' orima was oommitted and thongh the
Sept 0 and 18, 1801. criminal had reached the extraditing
Probably in gmeral the terms of the country berore the treaty was made, un-
treaty with England are to be onstrued less the treaty protidea otherwise, /n r«
aa applying to those acts which are reoog. Angelo De Giacomo, 13 BUtohf. 891.— b.]
nited throughout the United States and
[68]
sObyGoOl^lc
* S7 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PASI L
The European nations, in early periods of modem histoiy,
made provision by treaty for the mutual surrender of criminals
made, uid this hu ted to difficoltiei at between the ita1«s. That, for initanc*, in
1889, the GoTernor oT Tirgiaia mule application to the OoTernor of New YoA for
the tamiider of three meo, charged bf affidavit u being fugitiTee from justice in
filaaioialy dialing and taJdng avjayfri/tn one CoUey, in Virfuua, a iiegre tlaae, Inac,
0\t proptrty </ ColUg. The appUcatioD wsa made under the act of Congress of Feb-
rutty 12, 1799, c. 7, aec 1, tonnded on the CoostitutioD of the United States, att. 4,
sac 3,aa beinga<:Meof "treason, felony, or oUur eriete," within the Constitntion and
the law, and certified as the atatute dincted. Tlie OoTemor of New York refoMd
to annender the suppoeed fugitives, on the groand that slavery and property la
Blares did not exist in New York, and that the offence was not a crime known te Che
laws of New York, and eoneeqoently not a crime within the meaning of the Consti'
tation and slatuta of the United Statea. Bnt the legialatnre of New York, bj cod-
current reaolntions of the 11th of April, 1842, declared their opinion to be, that
■telling ■ slave within the jurisdiction and against the laws of Virginia was a
crime within the meaning of the 2d sectiDn of the 1th article of the Coiiatitation of
the United Statee. The eiecolive and legislative anthoritiea of Virginia alHO con-
sidered the cose to be within the ptovision of the Constitution and the law, and that
the refusal was a denial of righL It was contended, that the Conetitntion of the
United States recognizee the lawful existence of slaves as property, for it apportions
the representation among the states on the basis of distinction between free peraoos
and other persons ; and it provides, in art. 4, mc S, for their surrender, when escap-
ing ^m one state to another r — that elaves were resided by law as property in
nearly all the states, and protected aa snch, and particularly in New York, n-hen tbe
couetitution was made ; that the repeal of those iaws, and renunciation, of that
species of property, in one atate, does not affect the validity of the laws, and of that
species of property in another slate ; and tiiat the refnaal to aurrender felons who
aUal that property iQ Virginia, and fles with it or without it to New York, on tiia
ground that blacks are no longer regarded as property in New York, is s vioUtioa
of the fpileivl compact, and of the act of Congress founded thereon. This case and
that of Holmes, mentioned in a preceding note, involve very grave consideiations.
I have read and conaidared every authority, document, and aigument on the sutgect
that were within my command, and in my humble view of the questiona, I cannot
but be of opinion that the claim of the Canadian aathoritiee in the one case, end of
the Oovemor of Virginia in the other case, were equally well founded, and entitled
to be recogqized and enforced. In the case from Canada, the jurisdiction of it
belonged exclasively to the authorities of Vermont. The United States hare no
jurisdiction in such cases, except under a treaty provision. The duty of surrender-
ing on due demand from the foreign government, and on due preliminary proof of
the crime charged, is part of the common law of the land, founded on the law of
nationa as part of that law ; and the slate exeeutiTe ia to cause that law to be exe-
-cuted, and to be assisted by jndicial proceaa, if necessary. The statute of New Yodc
ia decisive evidence of the sense of that atate, and it waa in every respect an expe-
-dient, just, and wise provision, in no way repugnant to the Constitntion or law of
-the United States, for it was " no agmement or compact vith a foreign power."
The whole subject is a proper matter of state concern, nnder the guidance of ma-
vieipal law (stipulations in national treaties always excepted), and if there be no
■express statute provision, tbe exercise of the power must rest in aonnd legal die-
[54]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. IL] of the LA.W OP NATIONB. * 38
seeking refage from justice. Treaties <A this kind were made
between England and Scotland in 1174, * and England and * 38
Fraoce in 1308, and France and Savoy in 1378; and the
last treaty made special provision for the surrender of crimingla,
though they should happen to be subjects of the state to which
they had fled. Mr. Ward (a) considers these treaties as evidence
of the advancement of society in regularity and order, {b)
aiboa, H to the natnie of the eriniB and u to ths taSiaeaej of th« proof. The Imw
ef Ditioiu ii Qot mffidentlj pracue to dispense with the ezaroue of that ducretioD.
But piinta natrder, u in the Vermont caM, U fne at lU diffleulty, and it would be
dMllDg nujiutly with the aa^red foidgn goremineat, and be eminently di^rane.
fill to the eluuacter of the aUte and to>onr constitutional anthoiitiea, to give an
H^DDi to fogitiTN load«d with enoh ttrod^. If there he no authority in this ooan.
tiy, state or national, to smrender ennb a fogitire, then it is idle to talk about the
authority of the law of nations as part of the common law. Then " pabUe law, the
penoniEcation, aa it were, of natntal justice, becomes a mars nonentity, the heanti.
fill figmant of philoaopben, and dsetitata of all real infloeoce on the fortnuM of
Mankind."
H History of the Law of Hations, iL 318-320.
{i ) By the Inaty of amity, comnenw, and navifption between Great Britain and
ths United States, in November, 1796, it was by the 27th article agreed, that persons
i^rgsd with nnirder of foigeiy, ssaking an asylnm in the dominions of either party,
should be dctiTored up on due requisition, provided the evidence of cnmioality be
■lOeient to jnetify sppreheusion and commitment for trial, if the offsuce bad been
CMunittcd in the jurisdiction where the requisition is made. But this treaty, on this
and other points, expired by its own limitation after the eipiration of twelve jeara.
The i»ovisian waa happily renewed by the treaty between the United Statee and the
United Kingdom «f Great Britsin and IreUud, signed at Washington, Angnst 0,
1S4% snd afterwards duly ratiOed. This treaty terminates the question, m> far as
the two countries are ooaoemed, which bad long emherrasaad the councilB and courts
in this Boantry. By the 10th article of the treaty it is declared, that the two powers
isspectiTelj, upon requisitions by the due suthoritiea, should deliver up to justice
all persons who, being charged with the crime of murder, or piracy, or arsoo, or rob-
bery, or forgery, or the uttenmce of forged papers, committed within the jnrisdiction
•t dther, should seek an ssylum, or should be found within the territories of the
other ; provided, that this should only be done upon snoh evidenoe of criminsUty as,
according to the law* of the place where the fugitive or petson so charged should be
(Mind, would justify his apprehensioi) and commitment for trial, if the crime or
oSenee had there been committed. A simiUr convention was made between the United
States and Fruic«, and ratiHed at Washington, April 12, 184* ; but the provision
WIS extended to the crime of an attempt to commit murder, and to rape, and em-
laatement by public officers, when the same is punishable with infamous punish-
■ent. The treaty provisions tronld seem to require statute provisions of the sevsral
governments to carry the treatjea for surranderiog fugitives more promptly into
effect. The act of 8 ft S Vict c. 120, ha« such a provision in respect to the treaty
of Wsshington in 1842 ; without any special provision on the subject, ths power and
daty of duly carrying into eftct treaties of that kind would belong, exclusive of the
Mate authotitim, to the courts and magistrates of federal jurisdiction. Ths legisla-
[66]
sObyGoOl^lc
OF THE LAW OF NATIOMB. [pAST I.
— Ambasaadors form an exception to the gen*
eral case of foreigners resident in the country, and they are ex-
empted absolutely from all allegiance, and from all responsibility
to the laws of t^e country to which they are deputed, (x) As
they are representatives of their sovereigns, and requisite for
negotiations and friendly intercourse, their persons, by the con-
sent of all nations, have been deemed inviolable, and the instanceB
are rare in which popular passions or perfidious policy have
violated this immunity. Some very honorable examples of re-
tnre of tba Kingdom of Belgiam, by a law of the Ist of October, 1S3S, anthoriisd
ttie turrcmdOT of fugitiTea tmra forei^ conntriM upon the charge of mnider, npr,
arson, coonterfeiting the onrrent coin or forging puUic bank paper, peijmy, robljei7,
theft, peenlatioa 1^ paUic tnut«e» and fraudulent bankrupts ; but with the prorin
that the taw of the foreign oonntrj be reciprocal in the case, and that the judgment
or jodieUl acciuation be dnlf antheoticftted, and the demand be made within the
time of limitatdon prescribed by the Belgic law. H. Pinheiro-Ferrein KTcrely con-
demns this law, and contends for protection to the fuf^tire, and that the tribunils
of the country to which he Tssorta should take cognizance of criminal cases rqnillj
a* of matters of conttMt 1 See Cours de Droit Public, per Le Comm, B. Pinbeiro-
Ferreira, Peris, 1S30, iL 24-34 ; Berue £tr«ng^re de Ugislation, et d'^uomie PoU-
tiqne, "So. 2, Paris, December, 1B83. Some other foreign jurists, of more established
reputation, maintain the Bame doctrine, and hold that crime* committed in one stale
nay, if the criminal be found in another state, be, upon demand, punished there.
Hortins, de CoUis. Leg. P. Toet, de Statnt. dted in Story's Comm. on the C«nfliet of
Laws, Gl»-&20 ; Martens, Law of Nations, b. 3, c S, see. 22, 23 ; Grotius de Jun,
B. & P. b. S, c. 21, *ec. 4. The latter says, that every goTemment is boaud to pan-
i«h the fugitive criminal on denumd, or deliTer him ap. But the better opinion now
is, both on principle and authority, that the proaecntion and pnniahment of erima
are left ezclnaively to the tribnnals of the oonntry where they an oommittfd.
Eames, Prindp- of Eqni^, ii. S28 ; Merlin, B^pertoEre, Souveninet^ sea. E, n. 7,
pp. 7G7, 7GS; Pardeseos, Droit Comm. t. art. 14ST. If, indeed, the fngitiTe is to ba
tried and punished for a crime committed oat of the territory, the punishment must
be according to the law of the place where the offence was committed. Delicla
pnninntni juita mores loci commissi delicti, et non loci ubi de crimine cognaedtnr.
Bartholoe, cited in Henry on Foreign Law, 47. It is, however, a decided, and arttled
principle in the English and American la«r, th«t the penal laws of a arantry do not
reach, in their disabilities or penal effecte, beyond the jariediction where they an
established. Folliott v. Ogden, 1 H. Black. 1S3, 186 ; Lord Ellenborongfa, Wolff b.
Oiholm, 3 H. & 3. 9B ; Commonwealth of Hossachusett* r. Qreen, 17 Mass. G14,
SS0-S4S; Scoville i>. Canfield, 14 Johns. 388, 440.
{x) By the act of Har. 1,1893, cb. the European monarchies that an ambasss-
182, (27 St L. 497) our diplomatic repre- dor'santhorityexpireeon the death, deposi-
•entative in a foreign country may be tion, or abdication of the reigning pria»,
designated of the same grade as is given does not apply as between the American
1)y that cooDtry to its reprssentativo republics, in which the executive pomr is
here: permanent and uninterrupted. 7 A. G.
ntemleofpnbliclaw prevailing among Op. 6S2.
[66]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. U.] OP THE LAW OF NiTIONS. * 89
Bpect for the rights of ambasBadorg, even when their pririleges
Toald seem in justice to have been forfeited on account of the
gross abase of them, are to be met with in the ancient Roman
umals, notwithstanding the extreme arrogance of their preten-
sions and the intemperance of their military spirit, {e) If, how-
ever, ambassadors should be so regardless of their duty, and of
the object of their privilege, as to insult or openl; attack the
laws or government of the nation to whom they are sent, their
fonctions may be suspended by a refusal to treat with them, or
application can be made to their own sovereign for their recall ;
or they may be dismissed and required to depart within a reason-
able time. ((J) We have had instances, within our own times, of
all these modes of dealing with ministers who had given offence ;
and it is not to be denied that every governmenb has a perfect
ri^t to judge for itself whether the language or conduct of a
foreign minister be admissible. The writers on public law go
■till further, and allow force to be applied to confine or send
away • an ambassador when the safety of the state, which is • 39
Buperior to all other considerations, absolutely requires it,
arising either from the violence of his conduct, or the inflnenoe
and danger of his machinations. This is all that can he done,
for ambassadora cannot, in any case, be made amenable to the
civil or criminal jurisdiction of the country ; and this has been
the settled role of public law, ever since the attempt made in the
reign of Elizabeth to subject the Scotch and Spanish ambassadors
to criminal jnrisdiction, and the learned discussions which that
case excited, (a) ^ By fiction of law, an ambassador is considered
fr) Livy, b. a, c 4; b. 80, c. 26.
(i) Id 1797, it wm coniidered by tlie Attoraey-Genenl of ths United SUtss, in
Id* letter to the Becretaij of St«t«, to be & contempt of the goTeninieiit, for a foreign
miniiter, while a nddeat minister in the United States, to eommiuiiceite hi* eenti-
isaiti to the people of the United State* throagh the pras*. Hi* intarconne and
Mfioipandence of that kind ia to be with the executiTe department of t^e govam-
nent exelneively. Opinion* of the AttornefB-Generel, i. 43.
(a) Qrotins, bL 3, e. 13, aec. t, Bjnk. de Foro Legatornm, e. 8, 17, 18 ; Yattel,
b. 4, c 7, *ec. 9S-10S, Ward'* History, u. iSO-662 ; Hanhall, Cb. J., in the case of
dte Schooner Exchange v. H'Faddon, 7 Cranch, 1S8; Mr. Wheaton, in hi* HietoiT
at the I^wof Nation* in Europe and America, New Tork, ISIS, pp. 23S-Sfll, has
' The general priTilage of a minister touched, and although the liabilil? arisea
btTing no real estate in the foreign ronn- out of business engaged in there. Mag-
tiy is to be aiempt fnan salt there, al- dslena Steam NaT. Co. n. Hartin, 2 El. ft
tiwiigh neither hia panan nor good* are El. Vi. See Valarinoo. Thompson, 3 Seld.
[57]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 89 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAET I.
as if he were out of the territory of the foreign power; and it is
ao implied agreement among natious, that the ambaasador, while
he resideB within the foreign state, shall be considered as a
member of his own country, retaining his original domicile, and
the goTemment he represents has exclnsive cognizance of his con-
duct and control of his person, (b) An ambassador is also deemed
under the protection of the law of nations in his passage through
the territories of a- third and friendly power, while npon his
public mission in going to and returning from the government to
which he is deputed. To arrest him under such circumstances
would be a breach of his privileges as a public minister, (e) (x)
^Ten an uiiljni or ■ommu; of Bjnlcenhock't tre&ti«« Da Foro Lcgatoram, lod
which is jnitlj n^arded u an excellent vork and of high aothority. It it con-
tained in the 2d Tolume of Bjnkenhoek'i worki, published in 2 TOlamea, folic^ at
Leyden, 1767.
{t) Qrotiiu, b. 2, e. IS, wc 1-4; Wicqnefort, da rAmbutadenr, lir. 1, eec 27i
Tattel, b. 4, c. 7, BTC. Sl-186 ; Bynk. de Foro I^cgat. c. 8. If an ambanador be con-
oerned in trade, hia proper^ iu that trade is liable to aaizare, m in the case of anj
individuaL Bpik. de Foro Legat e. 14 ; Vattel, b. 1, c. 8.
(«) Vanel, b. 4, c. 7, lec. 63, 84 ; Holbrook n. Henderson, i Sandf. SIS. In this
case. Hendenon, the minister &om the Bcpnblic of Texas to Fiance, was arrested in
New York for debt, while on his retnm from France to Texas, by the way of New
York, and tba coort discliargsd him from the amst. It was held that an entry inte
the coantry in time of peace did not require, for the protection of the person, a pass-
port, though the law aasames that paaaparta may tie granted by the goTemment of the
United Statoa. Act of Congreea, April 80, 17S0, sec. 27- Passports, though named
in oar law, are nnknown in practice. The protection is implied by natnral and mnni-
eipal law, and it is the daty of the conrta of justice, when cases arise before tbem, to
enforce the Isw of nations on this ■object, as part of the law of the land. The doctrine
of international law, as laid dawn by Tattel, is founded in good sense and pnblio pol-
icy, and nutained by the interests and conrttsy of nations. Grotios says, ,b, 2, c IS,
see. G, that the obligation to protect ambasaadors extends only to the power to iriiom
Uie embassy is sent, and does not extend to the power through whose territories the
Mnbasssdor presumes to pass without a passport. But that haiih and narrow mle is
now JDStly exploded.
(7 H. Y.) 676 i Halleck, c S, Jj 14, 10 a Seld. G76. He cannot waive hia immn-
teq. It has been held otherwise, if he nity from arrest. United States ■. Ben-
volnntarily attome to the jorisdictioD in ner, 1 Baldn. 234, poM, 183, n. (b). See
•ach a case. Taylor v. Best, 14 C. B. Wheat. Dana's note 129 ; Halleck, e. »,
487. But see Talarino a. Thompson, S iiietteg; [Hall, Int Law, pt. 2, c ».]
(x) A foreign ministet is Biecdpt ^tn not ceaee upon his recall and the appoioE-
MTvice of process in a civil action when ment of his successor, but continaca for
pMsing tbrongh this country to his poet a reasonable time to enable him to wind
in another. Wilson p. Blanco, 4 N. Y. up his official business and prepare for bit
6. 714. His immunity horn process does return home. Hnsurus Bey c. Gadbu,
[58]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. II.] OF THE LAW OF HA.TIONB. * 39
The attendants of the ambassador attached to bis person, and the
effects in his use, and the house in which he resides, and his
domestic servants, are under his protection and privilege, and
[1894] 1 Q. B. GS3 ; 2 id. 8(2 ; q. v. also Aa to the proof of aach relatioD to a for-
■a to the effect of the Statate of Limita- eign embaaj aa will eieinpt from luit, see
tiMu npon hia righta. In England, an aUo In re Baix, 136 tl. ij. 408 ; HoUauder
■alaiudar'a privileges appear to be vider v. Baiz, 41 Fed. Bep, 732 ; Ex parti Hita,
Ihao tbcM of hia eovereign, inaamuch aa, 111 U. S. 76S.
under the statute of Anne, aervice of a A foreign miniater ia aiempt from a
writ upon him appears to be void, and mecbaiiic'a lien law onl; as to bia peraoual
rinea tw ctnnDt waive hia privilege, as his tesidence. Byrne v. Eenvu, 1 Dal;, S44.
aoTsragn may, be csd be held apon a Be ia also exempt from diatreaa for rent :
csontBT'claim, when he anee as plaintiff, Wheaton's Case, Wheaton'a Int. I^w (3d
obIj to the extent that it ia strictly a de- ed. ] 22C ; and from process to compel hia
IcBca to the anit. See 10 Law Qnarterly attendance and testimony as a wituesa
lev. 295. before the courta. Dubois's Case, Sen.
The immunity is not personal, hut ia Ex. Doc. No. 21, S4th Congreea, 3d Ses-
Ihe privilege of his government ; henoe sion; Dillon's Case, 1 Wharton's Digest,
liii assent to any infringement of that 465 ; aee Ibid. 669.
pririktie ia immateriaL United Stateav. A foreign minister and those strictly
Benner, Baldw. 234. The privile^ ex- belonging to the embassy are in general
tndi to the domestic servants and the exempt from the criminal jarisdictJDD of
MTstsry and attach^ of the ambaasador the country to which they go. See N itch -
■ho perform bona fide and aabstantial ser- encofl's Caee, 10 Sol. J. G6 ; Reepnblica c.
rices fbf bim. Hopkins v. De Bobeck, 3 De Longcbampe, 1 Dallas, 111 ; United
T. E. 7S ; FsrkiuBon c Potter, IS Q. H. States v. Uddle, 2 Wash. C. C. 205; United
D. IS!; BxparU Cabt«n, 1 Wasb. 282 ; States v. Ortega, 4 id. GSl ; 11 Wheat.
Dnit«d Statee o. I^ontune, 4 Cranch, 167. But an ambassador may be arrested
C. C. 178 ; United States v. Jeffen, id. and imprisoned if he engages in acts dan-
7IM ; Bespnblick t. De Longchampo, 1 geroua to the safety of the State to which
DsUas, 111 ; Barr'a Int. Lav, 493 n. In he ia accredited ; and if he iiiterm»ddl»
St Cloets, «S L. T. 102 i 7 T. L. R. 666, in the local affairs of such State, u by sug-
■ Britiab sut^ect, who wis appointed hon- gesting how the elective franchise should
only attach^ of the Persian embassy in there be exercised, his recall ma; properly
loodon, was held not entitled to use aiich be reqnested. See Cobbett's Int. Law
■ppointmeut to shield him from a petition Cases (2d ed.). 100, and Lord SackviUe's
in bankruptcy, or other eiril procoss re- Case (1888), there oiled. Where faatt is
Ittiog to business carried on in London, justly found with the conduct of a foreign
But in general a British solgect, so ac- ambassador, the uaage of nations is to ad-
cnditedbyaforeign government, iseiempt dress a note to tbe Government of the
fiDm the local jurisdiction in the absence offender, intimating that his contiDued
af an express condition that sach jnrisdio- presence in his official capacity would be
tioD is retained. Macartney n. Qarbntt, unacceptable, and reqneating that he may
S4<j. B. D. 3S8. An attache to a foreiicn berecalled. Butin cases of great nigency,
ambssaadar in England is not liable for lutamary eipuUion may be resorted to, aa
nit BsaeaMd on hia private residence, where tbe ambassador's conduct amounts
^kinaon «. Potter, 16 Q, B. D. 162. to actnal conspiracy against, or causes
[69]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 39 OF THE LAW OP NATTONB. [PABT t
equally exempt from the forefgn jurisdiction, though there are
strong ioBtances in which their inviolability has been denied and
invaded, {d) The dietinction between ambaaaadora, miniBt^rs
plenipotentiary, envoys extraordinary, and resident ministerg
relates to diplomatic precedence and etiquette, and not to their
essential powers and privileges, (e)
(iQ Buthorforth, b. 2, c 9 ; Ward's Hiitoiy, ii. SE2, 6GS ; Yattcl, b. 4, & 8, t«e.
lis ; United SUteB v. Huid, 2 Wuh. 486 ; Opinioiu of the Attome^Oeneral of tLi
United States, Wuhington, 1841, L 80-01. The icamiinitiea of a public miuiiter ■!«
considered aa uot extending to debton, as to debts iucnrred prior to their entering into
the minister's serrice, nor to fugitive slavei, nor to persons irho were under prerioui
duties, as eoldien, sailora, apprauticea, mioon, a wife, &c., nor doea the privilege of
immoni^ protect a laborer engaged to nork in the garden attached to the minister's
resideuce. lb. The duties and privileges of a public minister are detailed at large by
Mr. Wheatoa, in bia Element! of International Law, 3d edition, 2S4-3S7, and after-
wards in his larger work on the Uistoi7 of the Law of Nations in Europe and America,
New York, 1846, 236-201 ; and from bis long residence at two of the European conrta
in a diplomatic character, his autboritj on the suttJect acquiiea additional force.
(ej Uartens, 201-207 ; Tattel, b. 4, c S. Cbais^ d'affaires is a diplomatio repre-
sentative or minister of the fonrth grade ; and a resident minister aeems not to ba
equal to a minister plenipotentiary. Nor is a minister plenipotentiary of cqnal rank
and dignity with an amhasaador, who represents tbe person of bis sovereign. The
great powers, at tbe Congt«s* of Vienna in 181S and of Aix la Cbapelle in 1818, by an
arrangement, divided diplomatic agents il.to fonr classes : 1. Ambassadors, papal
l^^tea, or nuncioa. 2. Envoya, ministers, and other agents aoeredited to tile sover-
eigns. 3. Miniatera resident, sccredited to sovereigns. 4. Charg& d'affaires, accred-
ited to tbe department of foreign relationa. A miniatar extTsordioary has not by that
title any snperioritj of rank. • Tbe Comm. PinheiTO-Ferreir*, the Portnguete pablicis^
■eiiouB danger to, tbe government ; and, A contract to bribe or Momptly infin-
in very eilzeme csaes, the imperilled gov- ance officers <^ a fortdgn government will
ernment may even be jnstiSed in seizing not be enforced in the courts of this coun-
the minister's penon and papers. See 14 ny ; and where the consnl-general of a
Lsw Hag. & Bev. (4th Series), 118 ; Les- foreign nation, reaiding here, oonttseted,
lie's Case, S Ward's Law of Nations, 4M ; for commissioiia, to nae his inflnence, in
Mendoia's Case, id. G2S ; Da Sa'e Caae, ftvor of a mauofaetoier of flre-arma, for
id. 637 ; Oyllenborg's Caae, id. C48 ; their parebase by the examining agent of
Prince Cellamare's Casa, 1 Marten's Canaes his government, the contract was held
Calibres, 149 ; Sackvllle's Case, ntfmt. void as against pnblic policy, and altboDgh
The English courts have jnriadictlon to only the general issue was jJeaded to his
try a crime committed in a foreign embassy suit, the conrt of its own motion directMi
by a peraon not belonging to it, and they a verdict against the claimant Oacanyan
have exclusive jurisdiction if tbe offender v. Arms Co., 108 U. S. 201 ; Lee i^. John-
is a British subject. Tbis is also mun- son, 116 U. B. 48, 63; Eiggins v. HcCiea,
tained by both France and Oennany, and id. 671, «8G.
is now a principle of International Law.
Bee 80 Law Msg. & Bev. (4th Seriea), 40.
[60]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. II.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 40
•A gOTenuuent may, in its discretion, lawfully refuse to "40
receive an ambassador, and without affording any just cause
for war, though the act would, probably, excite unfriendly dis-
position, unless accompanied with conciliatory explanations.^
Tbe refusal may be upon the ground of the ambassador's bad
character, or former offensive conduct, or because the special
subject of the embassy is not proper, or not convenient for discus-
Biou. (a) A state may also be divided and distracted by civil
wan, so as to render it inexpedient to acknowledge the supremacy
of either party. Bynkershoek says, (b) that this right of sending
ambssBadors belongs to the ruling p&rty, in whom sUt rei agendi
poUttat. This is placing the right where all foreign governments
nd hinuell k tDinirtre A'itat, in his Conn de Droit Pnbllo uluseg tagothar chsrg^
d'iAin«, iiuiiiaUra remdent, or timply miniaten or resideiit*, m diplomatic igents of
tt« tbiid clu& The United 3t>tei ue awudlf rapnaantad tt the courts of the great
pemii of tbe fint cbM by miniften plenipotenttary, and «t thoM of an inferior clus
tif 1 «birgi d'affeiiee ; and tbe; have never Beat a peraon of the lauk of ambMsador in
the diplomatic aenae. The Prince of Orange once eipraswd to Ur. Adams bia surpriae
that the United States had not put thenuelrei, in that reaped, on a level with the
cnvned heads. Diplomatic Coireapondence, edited bj Mr. Sparka, vu. 108. The
qneatioDi concerning precedence amang the meaibere of the diplomatic corpe at fareigii
CMirtB -wen all happily eettled by the Congresa of Vienna, in 1S16, and ligoed by tbe
npnaentallTea of tbe eight principal European powera. It wu agreed that diplomatic
igcBti of the tespectiTe claaaea take nnk according to the date of the official notice of
theiT irriTBl, and that the order of dgnatura of miolitera to acts or treaties between
iantal powen that albw of the altemat, ahonld be detennined by lot. Recneil de«
Piioa Offioiallea, Tiii. No. 17 ; Wheatou'a Elementa of International I^w, 286 ; hia
Hiitory of the Law of Nations in Europe and America, New Tork, 184G, 196.
(a) Kotbeiforth, b. 2, c g ; Bynk. de Foro Legatomm, e. IS, aeo. 7.
H) Qnvt J. Pnb. Ub. 3, e. S.
' Ihiia'B WheatoD, note 187 ; Annual that tbegOTemment of the United Statra
B^ialer, 18*8, p. 160 ; 1856, p. 277, &c. hold* no official interconrse, or unoffliial
The goTaniment of a ravolted state or priTateinterviewa, with agents of partiM
wUi^ has not yet been recognited, aome- in any country which atand in an attitude
tune* lenda ont diplomatic agenta, who, of rerolntion antagonistic to the aoTereign
although not invested with the reprraenta. autboritj in the same country with wliii-h
tiTe ehaiacter, nor entitled to diplomatic the United States are on tsima of friendly
hoDora, may be clothed with the powpis interoouise. Memoranda of Uarcb IS and
■nd enjoy the imrannitiea of miniaten. July 17, 1866 ; Ex. Doc 20, S9th Cong.
Deapateh of Earl Buaaell to Lord Lyons, 1st Seas., cited Dana's Wbeatou, note 41 ;
In. a, 18SS; North Am. Pap. Nor. «, Despatch of Mr. Sewatd to Mr. Bigelow,
1S<^ p. W4, cited Abdy-B Kent, IS5 ; March IS, 1866 ; Dip. Corr. 1885, pt. 8,
cited Dana's Wheat, note 121, aa Pari. 378.
hp, N. A. No. 6. Bat Mr. Sewaid haa See, as to recognitioD, ante, 2B, n. 1.
atsted, in tbe caw of the Mexican Em^nre,
[81]
D.qilizMbyG001^IC
* 41 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [fa» I.
place it, in the gOTenunent defacto^ which is in the actual exer-
cise of power; but the goTemment to whom the ambasaador is
sent may exercise its discretion in receiviDg or refusing to
receive him.
It sometimes becomes a grave question, in natioDal discussions,
how far the sovereign is bound b; the act of his minister. This
will depend upon the nature and terms of his authority, (c) It
ie now the usual case for every government to reserve to itself
the right to ratify or dissent from the treaty agreed to by its am-
bassador. A general letter of credence is the ordinary letter of
attorney, or credential of the minister; and it is not under-
*41 stood to confer a power *upon the minister to bind bis
sovereign conclusively. To do so important an act would
require, at least, a distinct and special power, containing an
express authority to bind the principal definitively, without the
right of review, or the necessity of ratification on his part (a)
This is not the ordinary or prudent course of business. Ministers
always act under instructions which are confidential, and which
it is admitted they are not bound to disclose ; (i) and it is a well-
grounded custom, as Vattel observes, {c) that any engagemeat
which the minister shall enter into is of no force among sover-
eigns, unless ratified by his principal. This is now the usage,
although the treaty may have been signed by plenipotentia*
ries. {d)
a Coiuiila. — Consuls are commercial agents, appointed to re-
side in the seaports of foreign conntries, with a conmiissiou to
watch over the commercial rights and privileges of the nation
(c] Th« discretion uid reaeire with which a public minuter oogbt to act in reUtion
to the country in which he resides ie itioDftly szempMed in the cue of The Sillj
Ann, Stewsit'i Vica-Adm. R. S0T. It wu held, liaX • lioense gnntsd by the Britith
minister at New Yoik, after the commenoenieiit of the war of ISIS, to an American
<utixeD, to export praviiionB to a British ialsnd, was Inconiiitent with his diplomatic
character and iatj, and void ; and the dedrion wat declued to be comet and proper,
t^ the Lords CotnmissioQars on appeaL
(a) BTsk. Q. Jar. Pnb. tib. 2, c r.
(h) Wicquerort'e L'Amb. i. sec H ; Martens, 217.
(e) B. 4. e. fl, eec. 77.
(d) BynlL. \Mtvpra; Tattel, b. 2, c 12, sec. 156; Hartens, b. 2, c 1, kc S ;
The Eliza Ann, 1 Dodson, 244. Both Tnttel and Eliiber agree that a tnat? oon-
eluded under a foil power onnot, in honor, be rejected witboat Terj sufficient reasoiu,
u by Tiolation of inetmotione, matosl error, a moral or pbyricil impoesibility, Ac
WbMttOD's Element^ Sd ed. SOS-SOO. See in Wheaton's Elements, Sd ed. SSti, a ref-
•lenoe to the most respectable writers on diplotnatb history.
[62]
sObyGoOl^lc
UCt. n.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 42
deputii^ them. The establishment of consuls is one of the most
uaefnl of modern commercial institutions. They were appointed
tbout the 12th century, in the opulent states of Italy, such as Pisa,
Lucca, Genoa, and Venice, and their origin has been ascribed to
the necessity for extraordinary assistance in those branches of
commerce formerly carried od with barbarous and imcivilized
nations, (e) The utility of such a mercantile officer has been
perceived and felt by all trading nations, and the Mediterranean
trade in particular stands highly in need of such accredited
^nts. (f) Consuls hare been multiplied and extended to every
part of the world where navigation and commerce can successf nlly
penetrate, and their duties and privileges are now generally
limited and defined in treaties of commerce, or by the * statute * 42
replations of the country which they repreBent.(x) In some
places they have been invested with judicial powers over dig-
pntes between their own merchants in foreign ports ; but is the
conunercial treaties made by Great Britain there is rarely any
fltipulatioQ for clothing them with judicial authority, except in
treaties with the Barbary powers ; and in England it has been
held that a consul is not strictly a judicial officer, and they have
there no judicial power, (a) It has been urged by some writers,
as a matter highly expedient, to establish rules requiring mer-
chants abroad to submit their disputes to the judicial authority
of their own consuls, particularly with reference to shipping con-
cerns. But no government can invest its consuls wi^ judicial
power over their own subjects in a foreign country, without the
consent of the government of the foreign country, founded on
treaty; and there is no instance in any nation in Europe of the
(() 1 Chitt7 Connn. Uw, 48, 40.
if) Jtckaoa on the Commerce of the Heditamneui, p. 80, c: 4. Contob «ere not
ukDOWU to the ulcimt Atheitiuis, uid they hid them Id the commercUl porta in
wbich they tnded, to protect the intereati and property of Atheoitn merchuits. St.
Jobn'* Hisbnj of the Hannen and ClutomB of Ancient Oreece, iii. 282.
(a) Manafleld, Ch. J., in WkldnHi b. Coombs, S Tannt lfi2 } I Chitty, GO, GI.
(z) A eoiuiil may acqnin a domicile in {on, L. S. 1 P. & D. 611 ; Udny e. Udnj,
the ooontiT where he u stationed, if he L. B. 1 H. L. Sc 441 ; Weatlake'a Private
iitisdi to do BO, bat appaintment to a Int Lev (Sd ed.) J 367 ; Ik n Patieace,
mnmUr olBca in cme'a own country, or 29 Ch. D. 67< ; Abd-nl-Uenih e. Fam,
randance abroMd a* anch an officer, doea IS A. C. 4S1.
■at change the domicile. Sharp* b. Cri*.
[68]
sObyGoOl^lc
*42 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT L
admission of critniDal jurisdiction ID foreign coobhIb. (&)'(jf) The
laws of the United States, on the subject of consuls and vice-
(bl PkidewuB^ CoKm de Droit Comm. t. tea. 1460, 14E1, Sth ed. ; Opinioiu of tha
AttornejB-G«Denl of tha United States, i. 786.
> The act of JoDi 22, I860, 12 U. S. St, Bat coiuula of ChrutUn itates ia coiin-
at L. 72, in poraoaDce of treaties, gives trie* not Cbriatlau have beeo thoagM to
judicial powen to United States codsuIs be generml admiuintratiTe and judicial
in Chics, Japan, Siam, Tnrlcey, Persia, agents of their natioQ as towanU thnr
Tripoti, Tunis, Morocco, and Muscat, countrTmeo. Ur. Att-0«D. Ciuhiiig in
■nil also in othfr aneivilized countiiee. 7 AtL-Oen, Op. 842; ride lb. IS, 495,
ThdE jorisdiotion, both dvil and crimi- 666-8 Att-Gen. Op. S80 ; 1 Vattel, Pr»-
nal, ii to be in accordance with the laws diar Foddre, 625 ; Wheat Lawrence'i
<rf the United States and the common notes 73, 74. So, as to Bridah conanU
law, inclnding eqaitj and admiralty, and la Turkey. The lAooniB, 1 Br. A Ik 117 ;
they are to supply defects by decrees. In b. c. 2 Hoore, P. C. N. & 161. See Barbo'
Bone tasea Uk appeal is given to the v. Lamb, 8 C. B. s. B. 95.
minister. See Lawi-enee'a Whettton, The consul of a decedent's eonnti? can
note 74. [As to the extant of such jnrisdic- ioterrene of right, apart from tieaty, only
tion, see Dainese a. Hale, SI U. 8. 13 ; by way of suraeitlaM«, and without jn-
Dainese a. United SUtes, IG Ct. of lisdiction. S Op. Att-Oen. 08. Se*
CI. 64. See, generally, Consalar Con- act of Aug. IS, IS&S, S 2S ; 11 St. at L.
ventlon between Austra-HaDgary and 62, 6S.
United Statsi of Jul; 11, 1870 ; Hall, Int. The conanlar certificates mentioned in
Law, Appen. T. ; Revue de Droit Inter- the text are not evidence, except so far
Dationa], 10, 286, and 11, 46, "^tndesur as made to t^ statute. Ijevy a. Bnrler,
la Jurisdiction Consalaire. " — B.] 2 Snmn. SS6; Brown v. The Indepen-
Apatt Inm statute or treaty, it seema dence, Crabbe, 64 ; Johnson v. The Corio-
thst an ambasssdor bos not now civil or lanaa, Crtbbe, 23S ; Catlett a. Pacific In*,
criminal jurisdiction, eirtuit ejfieii, even Co., 1 Paine, 604.
among hi* snite. Wheat. Dana's note 128i
Twi*», pt. 1, S 202.
{y) "Neither under interaationsl law, all Britithsubjects within the joriadiction,
nor under the statute law of the United although such court is not expressly made
States, has a oonsulur aScer of a foreign a conri: of reoord, is not liable in damages
government a right to sit as jndge or ar- for dismiseing jndicially, but without
tntimtor within our territory, and render proof, an action which he holda to be
decrees or orders affecting personal lib- Texations. Haggard r. Pelicier Frferes,
ertf , which orden or decrees the conrta of [1SS2] A. C. 61. Jurisdiction confemd
the United States are authorized or re- upon consuls orconaular courts by treaties,
quired to enforce, nnlesa the consent of in the absence of a government by British
tha United States to such jurisdiction hss suthority existing in tha locality (such as
been given, either by express statute or exists in India) does not give jiae to a
tiMt; BtipnUtioii." Pardee, J. in JU change of domicile when British atilgects
AnhrcT, 26 Fed. Hep. 848, 851. permanently abide therv under British
A jndge of a Consular Court, vested by protection. In re Tootal's Troats, !S Ch.
treaty with plenary dvil jurisdiction over D. 632 ; Abd-nl-Manih v. Farra, 13 A. C
[64]
sObyGoOl^lc
Ua. n.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 42
coubqIb, (c) specially authorize them to receiTe the proteats of
masters and others relating to American commerce, and they
declare that consular certificates, under seal, shall receive faith
and credit in the courts of the United States. It is likewise '
made their duty, where the taws of the country permit, to ad-
minister OD the personal estates of American citizens, dying
within their consulates, and having no legal representative, and
to take charge of and secure the effects of stranded American
vessels, in the absence of the master, owner, or consignee ; and
they are bound to provide for destitute seamen within their con-
solstes, and to send them, at the public expense, to the United
States. It is made the duty of American consuls and commer-
cial agents to reclaim deserters and discountenance insubordi-
nation, and to lend their aid to the local authorities for that
porpose, and to discharge the seamen cruelly treated, (d) It is
also made the daty of masters of American vessels, on arrival at
a foreign port, to deposit their registers, sea-letters, and pass-
porte with the consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent, if any,
it) Acta ofCongnMofl 4th April, 1793, c. 24, and of Febmai? 28, 180S, c. 62.
(i) Act 0. a. 20th July, 1S40, c. 28, «ec. ]1, 17. See in/ru, iii. 199, the treaty
tewMD the United Ststea and Hihotbt, to the some effect.
411; &piirfaLiinBhoiueBoatd<ifWaTks, S07- Bnch ■ tribunal has jurisdiction to
M Ch. D. 177. The judgment of t, con- try, for an offence committed on an Ameri-
Mkr coort ia, like other foreign jndg. can veaael, vhsn within its jnrisdiction,
nenli, only «xaitiiiiaUe by other conns the subject oF a foreign nation who hs«
far bud or lack of jurisdictioD. Henina enlisted in its crew. Ibid. ; Boss v. Hf-
I. Petiococchino, L. R. 4 P. C. 144. See Intyre, 140 V. S. 463. But, where there
altOh as to consular conrta, Pi)^tt on is no treaty provision, a geaman commit-
Extntenitoriality, 6& ; S Jorid. Rev. 2G6 ; ted in the United at«tes by a foreign con-
IS Berne de Droit Int. 79, 318, 388 ; 23 sol may be discharged by the couHs. Jtt
id. S, 17S; 27 id. 318. Auhey, 23 Fed. Rep. 848 ; see Ellis v.
The goremment of the United States Hitchell.Snow'Blnt.Law, 188; The Marie,
W power t« nuke treaties with foreign 49 Fed. Bep. 286 ; The T. F. Oakes, 86
povers proTiding tribunsls for the exercise id. 442 ; Willisma v. Th» Welharen, 6S id.
of jodidal authority by ita officials Ksid- SO. A vice-consul's unrevoked aEsjuntar
ing in their ooonbriM ; hat, as the Federal entitle* bim to recognition by the oourta,
CoDititntion is not opentive beyond onr althongh the government which sent him
tirritory, ita gnaiantees of presentment by haa been overthrown by a revolution.
a grand jury and trial by jury do not United Stat«B v. Trumbull, 48 Fed. Rep.
otend to these courts. In re Bom, 140 04. As to the right of a consul of a for-
U. S. 45S ; 44 Fed. Rap. 18E ; see People eign government to intervene and claim a
*. Seraan ( Japan), 22 Am. L. Rev. 120 ; vessel as its property, see The Conserva,
ne Phig On ■. Kethen, 11 Fed. B^ 88 Fed. Sep. 481.
VOL. I.-B [65]
;abyG00<^lc
" 48 0? THB LAW OF HATI0M8. [PABT I.
at the port ; though this injunction only applies when the vessel
shall have come to an entry, or transacted busineaa at the port (e)
These particular powers and doties are similar to those pre-
scribed by British consuls, and to consuls under the coa-
*43 sular •convention between the United States and France,
in 1788; and they are in accordance frith the usages of
nations, and are not to be construed to the exclusion of others,
resulting from the nature of the consular appointment (a) * The
consular convention between France and this country, in 1778,
allowed consuls to exercise police over all vessels of their re-
spective nation, "within the interior of the vessels," and to
exercise a species of civil jurisdiction, by determining disputes
concerning wages, and between the masters and crews of vessels
belonging to their own country. The jurisdiction claimed under
Uie consular convention with France was merely voluntary, and
altogether exclusive of any coercive authority ; (h) and we have
no treaty at present which concedes even such consular fuDC-
(<) ToUr r. WUte, Wit, 277 ; M«tthew« v. Offley, S amoDer, 116. Ameticmo
eoiMoU, having do jndieul powsr, ctumot t«ka cogDinnoe of the offanon of ■■iiwiii
in foreign ports, nor exempt ths miatar from hii own reBponnbility. The Wm.
Harru, Ware, 867. Bnt when hi AmerioHi Teaael pate into a port of neoeBsitjr for
rapiir^ a inrrey to aaoBrtain the damage may, it aeema, Moording to luage, be
directed by the American connil, as part of his offldal duty. Pottar *. Tb« Oceaii
Ins. Co., S Bomner, 27. The Engliah PrerogatiTe Coart, before 81r Herbert Jenner,
in 1SS9, in the case of Aapinwall n. The Qneen'* Praotor, a Cnrteia, 241, held that
an AtDerioBii coiwnl waa not, in that capacity, permittad by the law of En^and to
adminiater npon the peno&al eatate of a domiciled dtiten of the United Statea dying
In En^and. The Crawo takea charge of the property in tniat, for payment of debts
and diatnbation, aocotding to the law of the owner'a domicile.
(a) Beawea's L. H. L tit. Coninla, 29S, 208.
(ft) Hr. Pickering to Mr, Pinckney, January 16, 1797.
1 See act of Congren of Angnst 18, p. 131. A Uit of mch tieatiea will be
ISSd, 11 V. S. St. at L. S2 «t Mf. c. 127. found in Uwrenca't Wbeatoo, uoU 7S.
Ab to the duties of Britiiih cansula, lee As to the eoDaul'i interrention on be-
Abdy'a Kent, 14S tt teq. half of individnala of his nation, see Hie
The act of CoDgreas of Jane 11, 1B64, Adolph, 1 Curt. 87 ; Robaon e.The Hnnt-
nakee provisions for canying out the ex- reu, 2 Wall. Jr. SB ; Tfaa Elinbeth,
clusiTe jurisdiction of foreign conanis and fiUtcbf. Pr. 250. As to hi) proteat agaiuat
like officials over conDoTeraies between the admiralty court's taking jnriadictioD
officers and any of the crew, or between in certain cases, p«d, in. ; Becberdaas Am-
any of the crew, of Teeaels of their nation, '»■''**■. 1 Lowell, 669, 6 Am. Imw Ber.
where Each jurisdiction has been provided It ; The Nina, L. R. 2 P. C. 86. («}
for by treaty. 18 U. S. St at L. c 116,
(>) The Leon XIII, 8 P. D. 121
[66]
;abyGoO<^lc
LBCT. U.] OP THE LAW OP KATIONR * 44
tioQS. (c) The doctrine of onr courts is, ((2) that a foreign con-
8ul, dnly recognized by our government, may assert and defend,
as a competent party, the rights of proi>ert7 of the individuals of
his nation, in the courts of the United States, and may institote
gnits for that purpose, withoat any special authority from the
party for Those ben'ofit he acts. But the court, in that case,
said that they could not go so far as to recognize a right in a
rice-consul to receive actual restitution of the property, or its
proceeds, without shoving some specific pover for the purpose,
from the party in interest
No nation is bound to receive a foreign consul, unless it has
agreed to do so by treaty, and the refusal is no Tiolation of the
peace and amity between the nations. Consuls are to be ap-
proved and admitted in the usual form; and if any consul be
^Ity of illegal or improper conduct, he is liable to have his
txtiptatar, or written recognition of his character, revoked, and
to be punished according to the laws of the country in which he
ii consul ; or he may be sent back to bis own country, at
the discretion of the government 'which he has offended. *44
The French consuls are forbidden to be concerned in com-
merce, and, by the act of Congress of February 28, 1803, Ameri-
can consuls residing on the Barbary coast are forbidden also;
but British and American consuls are generally at liberty to be
concerned in trade ; and in such cases the character of consul
does not give any protection to that of merchant, when these
characterH are united in the same person, (a)^ Though the
(c) Bj the tnatia of ctimiUBrce imd Darigitioii between the United States uid
iha Kingdom of HanoTer, Vmj 90, 1840, srticla 6, and between the Uuited Statra
ud FiRtDgal, at 28d April, ISII, it wag provided that coneule, vice-conaDla, and
(ommeniil agenta ahoold have the right, as such, to sit as jndgee and arbitraton in
dibnnca between the maeten and craws of the TesselB belongin){ to the nation
*baae interest* were committed to thnr charge, witboat the inteiferenoe of the local
aotboritiea, nnlesi tbe condact of the craws or of the captain should dietuib the
tnnqnillitj of the conntry, or the conaahi should reqnira such assistance, to canse
dieir decisions to be carried into effect or supported. By the same treaties, foreign
CDDsoli may apply for the arreat and lorrender of seamen deaerting from their
piblie and priTste riinnals In port. Bee also treaties to the like effect with Sweden,
Pnmia, and Rnssia.
(J) The Bello Cormnai. fl Wheaton, 188.
(a) Beawea'a L. M. L tit. Consuls. 291 ; 1 Chitty, S7, SS ; The Indian CtM,
I Bok Adm. 27 ; Vattel, b. 4, sec 114 ; Aniold and Ramsay v. V. Ins. Co., ] Johoa.
> Coppell V. Hall, 7 WalL 642 ; Tbe Moore, P. C. 141; Tbe Aina, 1 Spinka,
noseei, Blatchf. Pr. 866 ; TheBaltica,ll Be. t Ad. S18,2S£.L.AEq.0Oa Bytlia
[6T]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 44 OP THE LAW OP NATIOHS. [pABT I.
functions of a conaiil would seem to require that he should not
be a subject of the state in which he resides, yet the practice of
the maritime powers ifl quite lax on this point, and it is usual,
and thought moat convenient, to appoint subjects of the foreign
country to be consuls at its ports.
A consul is not such a public minister as to be entitled to the
privileges appertaining to that character, nor is he under the
special protection of the law of nations. He is entitled to privi-
leges to a certain extent, such as for safe-conduct, but he is not
entitled to the jut gentium. Yattel thinks (b) that his functions
require that he should be independent of the ordinary eriminal
jurisdiction of the country, and that he ought not to be molested,
unless he violates the law of nations by some enormous crime;
and that, if guilty of any crime, he ought to be sent home to be
punished, (c) But no such immunities have been conferred on
consuls by the modem practice of nations; and it may be con-
Cai. 363. The treaties of commerce and navigation between the United States ml
Hanover, May 20, ISIO, art. 6, and between the United State* and PortDfcal, of !3d
of April, 1841, art 10, afford a wmple of the stipnlation oinal in coEnnMreial trMtia
on this subject : " If any of the said oonanls shall cairy on trade, they shall be int-
jected to the same law« and mages to which private individuals of their natiaii ait
subjected in the aame place." American consuls abroad have no salaries, and an
paid by fees of ofGce, except the consul at London, who hat a aalar; of {2,000. A
suggestioii was made in Congress in March, 1840, that it would be adviaaUe to
change out consular system in that reapect, by confiiiing consnla to their budncs*
of consnls, and to allow them salaiiea. The Secretary of State of the United Ststca,
in his report to CoU|tres« of the 12th Decenibw, 184Q, strongly reomunended i
revision and amendment of the consular system of the United States ; and that thg
number, tppointment, and compensation of consuls be n^lated, and their dntjri
and fees' defined. He recommended the establishment of- consala-general, eapedslly
in respect to the Btrhary atatea and some of the ports in the Lerant ; and he
soogested a provisioD for 74 consuls and GG vice-consnls, and also Ibr conGolar
agents ; and that those in the more important ports bs paid by salaries oat of the
pnblic treasury, snd with a prohibition to engage in mercantile parsnfts. American
consalslhips] were generally held by commission merchants residing ahrosd; and
foreign commerce ought not to be t«xed with CDnsalar tees, except for limited pur-
poses ; and the fees ought to be regulated by the tonnage of the TesseL A consokr
code onght to deSne the powers snd duties of consols.
(») B, 2, c. 2, sec 84.
(e) De Steok, Bssal snr les CodsoIs, sea 7, p. 02, Beriin, 1790, di»ws the sama
conclosion from Qw commercial treaties in Bnrope ^ce 16S4.
•ct of CongK«s of Aug. IS, ISGfl, 11 U. B. ths modern English policy. Abdy"* Kent,
St. at L. e. 127, pp. G3, 55, f G, Ameriom 142, note S, dting Beport, July 27, 1S68,
contuls In a lai^ namber of places are H. of C. No. 46SL
forbidden to trade, and such seems to be
[68]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. n.] OP THE LAW OF NATIOlffl. • 45
sidered as settled lav, that consals do not enjoj the protection of
the law of nations, any more than other persons who enter the
country under a aafe>conduct. In ciril and criminal cases they
are equally subject to the lavs of the country in which they
reside, {d) The same doctrine, declared by the public
'jurists, has been frequently laid down in English and *45
American courts of justice, (a) It seems, however, from
gome decisions in France, mentioned by Mr. Warden, (6) that
foreign consuls cannot be prosecuted before a French tribunal,
for acts done by them in France, by order of their government,
and with the authorization of the French government, and that,
iD general, a consul cannot be prosecuted without the previous
coDBent of his government Consular privileges are much less
eiteneive in Christian than in Mahometan countries. In the
latter they cannot be imprisoned for any cause whatever, except
by demanding justice against them of the Porte, (c) and they par-
take very considerably of the character and importance of resident
mioisters. They are diplomatic agents under the name of con-
suls, and enjoy the rights and privileges vhich the Ottoman Porte
recognizes in relation to the foreign ministers resident at Con-
itsntinople. (d) By treaty, an entire immunity is usually given
id) VioqiuTorfa L'Aroh K I, e. S ; Bynk. de Foro Lc^t e. 10 ; Harteiu'i
Smom. b. 4, c. S. aec^ 8; Bmwm, L. H. i. tit Conaali ; Buboit's Cua, Tklbot's
Cua, SSI : Valin's Ord. i. Ut. 1, tit 9, de CoDBula ) PardeMOi, Droit Comm. W.
lis, 183 ; Opniona of the Attanie7B-G«DaMl of the XTnited SUtei, t 46, S02,
VuhingtoD, 1841.
(a) ViT«Mh >. Becker, 8 Hule ft Salw. 284 ; Clarke v. Cretioo, 1 Tannt. IM ;
Csited Statei v. Banra, 3 Dalbi, 297 ; Tbe Commonwealth n. Codoff, S Setg. ft
Rivie, MS ; De U Foret'a C*m, 2 Nott ft M'Cord, 217.
(b) Od Coiuiili, 10S-11A.
(f) 1 cutty. 71.
id] Calliera, de la Haniire d« Nfgoder avec lee SoQTenuni, pt i. 94, Loodon
td. 1750. The whole Tnak quarter of SmTina it at thi* day andet the jnriediction
ef Eniopean coninls, and all swtten touching the righia of foreign reiidenti fall
mdn the einludTe cagniance of the reepectire conanla. So the conaulj of Baroe-
lou, m the middle age*, were clothed with many of the fanctioni of modem raaf-
dtDl mini«teTa. In the negotiationa of the American minister, Mr. Gushing, with
Um Chiueee govemment, in 1S44, the ronuer ohaerred that, in the intenonrse'he-
tvrni ChmtiiD and Uahometan itetee the Christian foieigner waa eiemiited frMn
tlw jnritdictioD of tlie local anthorities, and subjected to the jniiMlietion of the
ninisifr, conml, or other anthoiitJea of his own goremment. It was obeerred, in
Itie Bf|i0Tt of the 9ecntary of State, In 1840, already referred to, that by trratiea
<f Ibe United Statea with Tnrkey and China, offences committed by American citf.
■ns in thon eaantrie* wei* to he tried and punished by the consnls ; and the gov-
sObyGoOl^lc
•46 OP THE LAW OP MATIOM. [P4BT I.
to the persduB, domeatica, and effecta of the resident consuls, and
no consuls reside with the Barbarj states but under the protection
of treaties, (e)
Considering the importanoe of the consular functions, and the
activity which is required of them in all great maritime ports,
and the approach which consuls make to the efficacy and dignity
of diplomatic characters, it was a wise provision in the Con-
stitution of the United States which gave to the Supreme Court
original jurisdiction in all cases affecting consuls, as well as
ambassadors and other public ministers ; and the federal juris-
diction is understood to be exclusive of the state courts, {jy (x)
enmwnta of the conntriei, when roqaired, wet« to afford aid to snforoi c
dedsionl. [Ante, 42, n. 1.]
(«) Shaler's SlcetchM of Algiera, 39, S07. By the treaty of amity aod o
botween ths Uaited iitatea and tbs Sultan of Muscat, in Arabia, ntified on the 30th
of June, 1831, American consul* may be appointed to redde in the porta of the Sal-
tan, where the principal commerce is carried on (and which, of couiae, may include
ports on the AMcan coast, aod in the island of Zanzibar, within the domains of the
Saltan). Such coniula are to be eiclusiTa judges of all dispntas in anita wherein
American citiiena shall be engaged with each other, and to receire the property of
Amerieaa cttizens dying within his domiaioua ; and the persons <uid property of the
conaula and of their households are to be inTiolate. The coonilar asl&blishmeBt
of the United States is very imperfect, and eapecially in relation to the countries io
the East ludian r^iioiu. The claims of commerce, m well as the chatscter of the
I7niled States, would seem to require that the functions of consnls, and the proriooo
lor thrir support, shonld be better regulated, and that they onght not to be left to
the nacesaity of making their oouaulsr duties subsidiary to their buainesa as dki-
ehanta and factors. See a valuable plan in relation to consular establiabmenti in
the countries east of the Cape of Good Hope, in a patupUet entitled " Outline of a
Gonaol&r Establishment for the United States of America in Eastern Asia," and
which is noticed in the North American Review for October, 1S38, followed by soma
judicious reflections on the aubjecc.
Consuls residing in the live frte ports of Chins, established by the tteaty of peaco
between Oreat Britain and China in 1S42, have, by the subsequent commerdsl
treaty in 184B, between those powers, enlarged consular functions, including thoss
whioh ate in some respects judicial and executive.
{/i Commonwoaltfa d. Eosloff, G 8e^. & Bawie, G4£ ; Hall v. Young, 3 Hck. SO ;
Davis e. Packard, 7 Peten, 27S ; Sarton >. Hamilton, 1 Orsen (N. J.), 107. See also,
if^ra, 298, 804.
> A foreign consul cannot waive his S70 ; Griffin o. Domingnet, 3 Doer, tM ;
exemption from suit in a state court, such conrts have no jurisdiction, although
Valarino v. Thompson, 3 Seld. (T N. Y.) thA« are other defendants, Naylor v.
(z) The U. S. Rev. Stats,, JSOS; ol. and vic«<xmsnla (except for certain of>
17, conferring upon the District Courts feucea) is constitutionally valid. Biin •■
jurildictJan of all suits against consuls Preston, 111 U. S. 263 ; £s Bail, ISS IT.
[70]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. tl.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 45
EdbuQ, S3 How. pT. 610. Bat thsj 0 Blatelif. S16. Tfana 4 onml tnay ba
knjDriMlietion o( anite brooght by con- sued in the United States District Conrt
■il^ Sigoiy p. Wi— Tnmtij 2 Benedict, 240 ; b; on* of hie own nation to racover feea
•ai the TJnit«l 8tat«e oonrt* hare jnrU- impToperl; aiactad. LoTwaj v. Lod-
dictioQ of soils sgsiuft Huaa, Qittinge v, mds, 1 Lowell, 77 ; 1 Am. L«« Sev.
CnwfoTd, iKsej.l ; 8b Lake's Hospital S2. [9ee Whest. Lawrence's note US,
T.'.tnUaj, 8 Blstchf. SEG9 ; Graham «. as to the priTileges of coneuls in varions
Stiekmi, t Blatohf. CO ; Bizby v. Januen, cooDtries.
S. MS. Fonnerlr the IT. 8. Cnnrtt had cat^" and for saeh exoeptionsl nutters
u dclasiTS jurisdiction of each salts aa are not corered by the acts oC Congress
mder that section and S711, cL S, but or the consnlar, regnlations, belong to the
the repeal of the latter sUtute by the act consnl. United States ». Musb;, 133
nllSJS, ch. 80, resnlt* in a concumnt U. S. S7S ; United StKtesc BsdMO, 81
juialietion in the State conits. Biirs v. Fed. Bep. 6S7. So of Cees which he re>
Ptttton, 111 U. 3. SSI ; Froment n. ceives for acting under the authority of a
Doclos, 10 Fed. Sep. 38G ; Uiller v. Qekt State government, and which are inde-
U CiL S41 ; De Give v. Grand Bapads pendent of his relation to the general
P. Co., M Oa. 006. A foreign consul is goTemmeut. Uniteil States v. Badeau,
not presumed to be an alien. Bors o. 33 Fed. Bep. 672. The gorenunent is en-
Fratos, 111 D. 3. 26S. titled to the interest on "public moneys"
A foreign oonsnl has, as incident to his deposited by a oonsnl in bank. United
eOce, power to receive, far heirs residing States d. Hosby, 1S8 U. 8. 27S. By the
klmad in his country, their shares of the Acts of Jan. 27, 1379 and Jnne 18, 1S8S
obte of s person who died in this conn- (SO St st L. 267 ; 36 id. 186) cousnlar
t)j. /■ re Tsrtaglio's estate, SS N. Y. officers are to report market prices, duties,
8. 11X1. and port cbsiges, rates of wages, ic. By
Amhssssdofs, oonsul-gsuerals, consuls, the Qnarsntine Aot of Feb. 16. 1898 {'£7
ud eanmerdal agents are not entitled to St. at L. 460) consnlar bills of health are
tlwir rulsiie^ or to be sent to their post, teqoired for Teasels sailing to this country
util tEiey have qualified by taking oath from foreiga ports, and reports are to he
•sd pring bond. Williams v. United made by consuls of the sanitary condition
Stitts, SS CL CL 46. Commissions le- of foreign ports and places from which
Mnd by a consul for ssttling a private contagiona or infectious dissasea are or
Mtat^ fees tm "cattle-disease certifi- may be imported into the United Btat«s.
[71]
„Gooi^lc
OP THE LAW OF NATIOKS. [PAKF I.
LECTURE ni.
OP THE DECLABATION, AND OTHER EABLT HEASUBEB OF A STATE
OF WAB.
In the laat Lecture we considered the principal rights and
duties of nations in a state of peace ; and if those duties were
generally and dulj fulfilled, a new order of things woiUd arise,
and shed a brighter light over the history of human a&irs.
Peace is eud to be the natural state of man, and war is under-
taken for the sake of peace, which is its only lawful end and
purpose, (a) War, to use the language of Lord Bacon, (i) is
one of the highest trials of right ; for, as princes and states ac-
knowledge no saperior upon earth, they put themselves upon the
justice of God by an appeal to amis. The history of mankind is
an almost uninterrupted narration of a state of war, and gives
color to the extrav^ant theory of Hobbes, (tf) who maintains
that the natural state of man is a state of war of all i^ainst all ;
and it adds plausibility to the conclusions of those other writers,
who, having known and studied the Indian character, insist that
continual war is the natural instinct and appetite of man in a
savage state. It is doubtless true that a sincere disposition for
peace, and a just appreciation of its blessings, are the natural and
necessary result of science and civilization.
•48 • The right of pelf-defence is part of the law of our nature,
and it is the indispensable duty of civil society to protect
its members in the enjoyment of their rights, both of person and
property. This is the fundamental principle of the social com-
pact. An injury, either done or threatened, to the perfect rights
of the nation, or of any of its members, and susceptible of no
other redress, is a just cause of war. The injury may coosist,
(d) etc. de 00. 1, 11 Md 2S; OroUiu, b. 1, d ; BdtIuiuuiiiI, pt 4, c 1, kg. 4;
VMtel, b. i, c. 1.
(6) BacoD'* Works, iii. 40, (c) I«Tiiitb«ii, pt 1, C la
[-2]
I
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. III.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 49
noC only in the direct violation of personal or political rights,
but in wrongfully withholding what is due, or in tha refusal of
a reasonable reparation for injuries committed, or of adequate
explanation or security in respect to manifest and impending dan-
ger (a) Glrotius condemns the doctrine that war may be under-
tdken to weaken the power of a neighbor, under the apprehension
that its further increase may render him dangerous. This would
be contrary to justice, unless we were monilly ceitaiu, not only
oCa capacity, but of an actual intention, to injure us. We ought
rather to meet the anticipated danger by a diligent cultivation
tnd prudent management of our own resources. We ought to
conciliate the respect and good will of other nations, and secure
their assistance, in case of need, by the benevolence and justice
of our conduct. War is not to be resorted to without absolute
necessity, nor unless peace would be more dangerous and more
miserable than war itself. An injury to an individual member
of a state is a just cause of war, if redress be refused ; but a
nation is not bound to go to war on so slight a foundation ; for
it may of itself grant indemnity to the injured party, and if this
cannot be done, yet the good of the whole is to be preferred to
the welfare of a part, (i) Every milder method of redress is to
be tried, before the nation makes an appeal to arms ; and this ia
the sage and moral precept of the writers on natural law.
• If the question of right between two powers be in any • 49
il^ree dubious, they ought to forbear proceeding to ex-
tremities; and a nation would be condemned by the impartial
voice of mankind, if it voluntarily went to war upon a claim of
which it doubted the legality. But on political subjects we can-
Dot expect, and are not to look for, the same rigorous demonstra-
tion as in the physical sciences. Policy is a science of calculations
and combinations, arising out of times, places, and circumstances,
and it cannot be reduced to absolute simplicity and certainty.
We must act according to the dictates of a well-informed judg-
ment, resting upon a diligent and careful examination of facts ;
•ind every pacific mode of redress is to be tried faithfully and
perseveringly, before the nation resorts to arms.
1. AHiatuia« to Alllsa In Wu. — If one nation be bound by
treaty to afford assistance, in case of war between its ally and a
(t| Grotiu, b. 2, c. 1 ■ni122; Rutherforth, b. 2, c. 9; Vkttel, b. S, c. 8, lec 2d.
It) Gro-Jui, b. 2, c. 22-2G ; Rutherforth, b. 2, c. 9.
[73J
;abyG00<^lc
• 50 OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PART I.
third power, the asaistaDce is to be given whenever the cana
faderia occuib ; hut a question will sometimes arise, whether
the government which is to afford the aid is to judge for itself
of the justice of the- war on the part of the ally, and to make
the right to assistance depend upon its own judgment;. Gro-
tius is of opinion (a) that treaties of that kind do not oblige us
to participate in a war which appears to be manifestly tmjust
on the part of the ally ; and it is said to be a tacit coudiUon
annexed to every treaty made in time of peace, and stipulating
to afford succors in time of war, that the stipulation is only to
apply to a just war. To give assistance in an unjust war on the
ground of the treaty would be contracting an obligation to do
injustice, and no such contract la valid, (i) But to set up a pre-
text of this kind to avoid a positive engagement is extremely
.hazardous, and it cannot be done, except in a very clear case,
without exposing the nation to the imputation of a breach of
public £uth. In doubtful cases, the presumption ought rather
to be in favor of our ally, and of the justice of the war.
* 50 * The doctrine that one nation is not bound to assist an-
other, under any circumstances, in a war dearly unjust, is
similar to the principle in the feudal law, to be met with in the
Book of Feuds, compiled from the usages of the Lombards, and
forming part of the common law of Europe during the prevalence
of the feudal system. A vassal refusing to assist his liege lord Id
a just war, forfeited his feud. If the justice of the war was even
doubtful, or not known affirmatively to be unjust, the vassal was
bound to assist ; but if the war appeared to him to be manifestly
unjust, he was under no obUgation to help his lord to carry it on
offensively, (a)
A nation which has agreed to render assistance to another is
flot obliged to furnish it when the case is hopeless, or when giving
the -sQccors would expose the state itself to imminent danger.
Such extreme cases are tacit exceptions to the obligation of the
treaty ; but the danger must not be slight, remote, nor contin-
gent, for this would be to seek a frivolous case to violate a solemn
engagement. (&) In the case of a defensive alliance, the conditioix
(a) B. 2, c. 25.
{b] Vattel. b. 2, c. 12. lec. 168 ; b. 3, c 9, tec 8S, 87.
(a) Feud. Ub. 2. tit. 28. tec. 1.
lb) Vktiel, b. 3, c. 6, aec 98.
[74]
;abyG00<^lc
LBCr. m.] , OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 51
of the cootrsct does not call for the assistance, aoleaa the ally be
engaged in a defensive war ; for in a defensive alliance the nation
engages only to defend its ally, in case he be attacked, and evea
then we are to inquire whether he be not justly attacked, (c) The
defensive alliance applies only to the case of a war first com-
menced, in point of &ct, against the ally ; and the power that
first declares or actually begins the war makes what is deemed,
in the conventional law of nations, ao offen^ve v>ar. (d) The
treaty of alliance between France and the United States, in
1778, was declared, by the second article, * to be a defen- • 51
sive alliance, and that declaration gave a character to the
whole instrument ; and, consequently, the guaranty, on the part
of the United States, of the French possession in America, could
only apply to future defensive wars on the part of France. Upon
that ground, the government of this country, in 179S, did not
oonsider themselves bound to depart from their neutrality, and
to take part with France in the war in which she was then en-
gaged, (a) The war of 1793 was first actually declared and
commenced by France, gainst all the allied powers of Europe,
and the nature of the guaranty required us to look only to that
£aot.(&)
X DsolBiatloii of Wv. — In the ancient republics of Greece and
Italy, the right of declaring war resided with the people, who
(c) YaUel, b. B, c. 6, wc 70, B3, 90.
(rf) A war may be dtjm*ive In lu prlndplei, though offentiut in its operation* ; •■
wbeie attack !■ the best mode to repel a nuDaced inTuioD, and the eatut Jiaierii of n
Afimtivt alUance will spplf. He who fint reoden the appUcadon of force necewary
ia the aggremoT, though he may not be the one who flnt actoallj applies it Vattel,
b. 8, c. S, wc 91, 100 ; Edin. Bevjew, No. 89, pp. 244, 24G.
{a) See Pacifloua, written in 1798, by Mr. Hamilton, then Secretary of the
Treainry; and aee the InstructionB from the Secretary of State to the American
minuten to France, July 15, 17^.
(b) Several Initancea are mentioned in Wheaton's Elements of International Law,
Sd ed. 32fi-384, of the occnirence of the cam* fadtrit in the case of a defenifre aili-
aiic«. A diitinction is made, in the later writers on public law, between the low of
tmtwn and intenuOumal laa, originating, it is said, with Jeremy Bentham. Thoi Mr.
Wfa««ton calls one of hii works the History of the Law of Nations, and the other,
Elementa of International Law. Chancellor d'Agnessean long ago noticed the dis-
dnctioD between Jvt inter Gentti and Jut Gtatium inter Cicitala. Iratmatimal liiw
■aemi to relate loore particniarly to rights and duties arising from social, cotnniei^
id*l, and pacific intercoiirse between dillerent nations, and may be subdivided into
pabllc and private International law.^
' Antt, 1, note 1.
[75]
sObyGoOl^lc
•52 OP THE LAW 0? NATIONS. [PABT I.
retuued, in tlieir coUectiTe cq>acity, the exercise of a large por-
tion of the sovere^p) power. Among the ancient CrermanB it
belonged also to the popular assemblies, (c) and the power was
afterwards continued in the same channel, and actually resided
in the Saxon Wittenagemote. (d) But in the monarchies of
Europe, which arose upon the ruins of the feudal system, this
important prerogative was generally assumed by the king, as
appertaining to the duties of the executive department of govern-
ment. Many publicists (e) consider the power as a part of the
sovereign aathority of the state, of which the legislative de-
partment is an essentif^ branch. There are, however, several
exceptions to the generality of this position ; for in the limited
monarchies of England, France, and Holland, the king alone
declares war, and yet the power, to apply an observation of Vattel
to the case, is but a slender prerogative of the crown, if the par-
liaments or l^islative bodies of those kingdoms will act inde-
pendently, since the king cannot raise the money requisite
• 62 to cany on • the war without their consent. The wild and
destructive wars of Charles XII. led the states of Sweden
to reserve to themselves the right of declaring war ; and in the
form of government adopted in Sweden, in 1772, (a) the right to
make war was continued in the same legislative body. This was
the provision in those ephemeral constitutions which appeared in
Poland and France the latter part of the last century ; and as
evidence of the force of public opinion on thb subject, it may be
observed, that in the constitution proposed by Bonaparte, on his
reasoension of the throne of France, in 1815, the right to levy
men and money for war was to rest entirely upon a law to be
proposed to the House of Representatives of the people, and
assented to by them. In this country, the power of declaring
war, as well as of raising the supplies, is wisely confided to the
(c) Tadt de M. 0. c. 11.
(d) Millar*! View of the Eagliih GoTernment, b, 1, c. 7. In the capituladon or
great charter signed by Chriitopher 11., King of Denmark, on hi« election to the
throne in 1319, hj the diet or auembly of the nobles, it was, among other thbg*,
declared that be (honldnot make war without the advice and conwnt of the prelalei
and beat meo of the kingdom. Bishop Uuller'i Ancient Hiitory and Constitution
of Dtmrnark, reviewed in the Foreign Qaarterlf Review, No. 21.
(<) Puff. b. 8, c. 6. sec. 10 ; Vattel, b. 8, c. 1. aec. 4.
(a) Art 46. Bnt thii free constitution of Sweden was oTertamed before the end
of the year 1772, and « aimpie despotism established in its stead.
[-8]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr, III.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 53
legitilature of the Union ; and the presumption is, that nothing
short of a strong case deeply affecting our essential rights, and
which cannot receive a pacific adjustment, after all reasonable
efforts shall have been ezhaasted, will ever prevail upon Con-
giesB to declare war.
It has been usual to precede hostilities by a public declaration
comiDiioicated to the enemy. It was the custom of the ancient
Greeks and Romans to publish a declaration of the injuries they
had received, and to send a herald to the enemy's borders to
demand satisfaction, before they actually engaged in war ; and
invasions without notice were not looked upon as lawful. (5)
War was declared with religious preparation and solemnity.
According to Ulpian, (e) they " alone were reputed ene- ■ 58
mies against whom the Roman people had publicly de-
clared war. During the middle ages, a previous declaration of
war was held to be requisite by the laws of honor, chivalry, and
religion. Louis IX. refused to attack the Sultan of E^pt until
be made a previous declaration to him by a herald at arms ; and
one of his successors sent a herald, with great formality, to the
governor of the Low Countries, when he declared war against
Spain, in 1635. (a) But, in modern times, the practice of a
solemn declaration made to the enemy has fallen into disuse,
and the nation contents itself with making a public declaration
of war within its own territory, and to its own people. The
jurists are, however, divided in opinion in respect to the neces-
sity or justice of some previous declaration to the enemy in the
case of offensive war. Grotius (6) considers a previous demand
of satisfaction and a declaration as requisite to a solemn and
lawful war ; and Puffendorf (c) holds acts of hostility, which
have not been preceded by a formal declaration of war, to be no
better than aoU of piracy and robbery. Emerson (d) is of the
same opinion ; and he considered tiie hostilities exercised by
England, in the year 116^, prior to any declaration of war, to
have been in contempt of the law of nations, and condemned by
(6) Potter's AntiqaitiM of Greece, b. S. c. 7 ; LiTy. b. 1, c. 32 ; Cic. de Off. b. 1,
ell; D« Repab. lib. S.
(e) Dig. 49. 16. 24. CScero mj( that under the Roman kiiifti it wu institated
Uw thutbe WM was nnjnst and impious, unlen declared and proclaimpd by the
tnaUi onder leligUnu aanctioa. De Bepub. lib 2, IT
{a] EDwrigon, Traits def Au. i. 601. (b) B, I, c. 3. lec. 4.
(c) B. 8, c. 8, lec. 8, (rf) Traite' dei Am i. 668.
[77]
;abyG00<^lc
• 54 OF THE LAW OP NATIONB. [PART I.
all Europe. Vattel strongly recommends («) a previous declara-
tion of war, an being required by justice and humanity ; and lie
says that the fecial law of the Romans gave such moderation
and religious solemnity to a preparation of wai-, and bore sucli
marks of wisdom and justice, that it laid the solid foundation of
their future greatuess.
Bynkershoek has devoted an entire chapter to this ques-
*54 tion, (/) *ftnd he maintains that a declaration of war k
not requisite by the law of nations, and that though it may
very properly be made, it cannot be required as a matter of right
The practice rests entirely on manners and magnanimity, and
it was borrowed from the ancient Romans. All that he contends
for is, that a demand of what we conceive to be due should be
previously made. We are not bound to accompany that demand
with threats of hostility, or to follow it with a public declaration
of war; and he cites many instances to show that within the
last two centuries wars have been frequently commenced without
a previous declaration. Since the time of Bynkershoek, it has
become settled by the practice of Europe that war may lawfully
exist by a deolaratiou which ia unilateral only, or without a
declaration on either side. It may begin with mutual hostili-
ties. (<t) After the peace of Versailles, in 1763, formal declara-
tions of war of any kind seem to have been discontinued, and all
the necessary and legitimate consequences of war flow at once
from a state of public hostilities, duly recognized and explicitly
announced by a domestic manifesto or state paper. In the war
between England and France, in 1778, the first public act on
the part of the English government was recalling its minister;
and that single act was considered by France as a breach of the
peace between the two countries. There was no other declara-
tion of war, though each government afterwards published a
manifesto in vindication of its claims and conduct. The same
thing may he said of the war which broke out in 1798, and again
in 1808 ; and, indeed, in the war of 1756, though a solemn and
formal declaration of war, in the ancient style, was made in June.
1756, vigorous hostilities had been carried on between England
and France for a year preceding. In the war declared by the
United States against England, in 1812, hostilities were imme-
{() B. 3, c. 4, MC. 61. (/) QMMt. J. Pnb.b. 1. c. S.
(a) ffir Wm. Scott, 1 Dodton, 247.
[78]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. m.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 55
diateljr commenced on onr part 'as soon as the act of Con- *66
greas was passed, without waiting to communicate to the
English government any notice of our intentions, {x)
But though a solemn declaration, or previous notice to the
enemy, be now laid aside, it is essential that some formal pnblio
act, proceeding directly from the competent source, should an-
nounce to tbe people at home their new relations and duties
growing ont of a state of war, and which should equally apprise
neutral nations of the fact, to enable them to conform their con-
duct to the rights belonging to the new state of things. War,
says Vattel, (b) is at present published and declared by manifes-
toes. Such an official act operates from its date to legalise all
hostile acts, in like manner as a treaty of peace operates from
its date to annul them. As war cannot lawfully be commenced
on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such
an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and
equivalent to the most solemn declaration.'
(p) B. 8, 0. 4, aec 01.
> But dwing ths late rabiUion It wu The ffiamtha, Bl«tehf. Pr. 1. 8m on
Ud dan that when ths regalar oouna of the mtgect genertUj, Twiea, L. of If.
iutica had beeo istenmpted, to that ths War, } 36 «( mj. Ai ts the Crimean war,
BKUti of ths United States oould not be see Annual Resutar, ISEi, SM tt ttq., and
kept open, a oidl war aiiated, without State Papen, BSl ; Annoal Begitter, 1SG0,
ttt neeeMity of a fonnal dedaTation or of 216 tl nq. For thd b^inning of the war
kgUatiTG iBoetion. Nelson, J., in hii with Denmark, in 1S64, ass Ann. Beg.
fiaenting opinion, dted the above pa»- IS41, 2IS \ for that of the war hetween
i^e. Prin Caiea, 2 Blaok, SSG; a. a. Fnuna and Aiuttia, Ann. Beg. 1808, SIB ;
ne Amj Warwick, 3 Sprague, 133, and between FVance and Prasua, Aun. Bq[.
(z) The tmdeno; ia to regard a deeUra- tie conduct of nentrali is entitled to the
tioa of war as dninble and nscsssaiy. most taTorable conitruction. 1 Hallsck's
8m 38 Am. L. B«t. 754. In The Ten- Int. Law (Baker** Sd ed., 1898), p. S42.
toiia, L. B. S Adm. fc Ece. 894, 409 (af- An Indian war depend* simply upon
fimed L. B. 4 P. C. 171). Sir Robert Phil- the eiietence of hostilities, no fomisl de-
fimors ttiA : " I think that thCT« can he olantion of war by Congreis, or prodam-
M doubt that war may exist dt /ado to aa ation by the Pnddsnt, being neceosaiy.
to affect at least ths subjects of thebellig- Mariies. United States, SB Ct CI. 147.
<nnt statfl,Bither without a declaration on Belligerency may be rsoogniied ez-
(itlier side, or before a dsclsxation, or with prassly, ■« by proclamation, orimpliedly by
a Dnilateral declantion only." With re- acts of war, such ss a blockade, or tacitly,
ipect to third parties, notice of the war by aoqniesoing in the eieroise ot belligerent
iboQld be giTra,0T be apparent ^m noto- rights. The Ambrose Light, 25 Fed. Rep.
riety. in otder to throw npou them the 408. Wardates from action by Congr«H^
ditiei ot nentnlity ; and until snch notioa Thayer's Const. Law Cams, 2852.
[79]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 56 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PART I.
When war is duly declared, it is not merely a war between
this and the adverse government in their political characters.
Every man is, in judgment of law, a party to the acts of his own
government, and a war between the governments of two nations
is a war between all the individuals of the one and alt the indi-
viduals of which the other nation ia composed. Government is
the representative of the will of all the people, and acts for the
whole society. This is the theory in all governments; and the
best writers on the law of nations concur in the doctrine, that
when the sovereign of a state declares war against another sover-
eign, it implies that the whole nation declares war, and that all
the subjects of the one are enemies to all the subjects of the
other, (c) Very important consequences concerning the obliga-
tions of subjects are deducible from this principle.
* 56 3. ProtoottoB to Bnvmy'a Property. — * When hostilities
have commenced, the first objects that naturally present
themselves for detention and capture are the persons and prop-
erty of the enemy found within the territory on the breaking
out of the war. According to strict autliority, a state has a
right to deal as an enemy with persons and property so found
within its power, and to confiscate the property, and detain the
persons as prisoners of war. (a) No one, says Byukershoek,
ever required that notice should be given to the subjects of the
enemy to withdraw their property, or it would be forfeited. The
practice of nations is to appropriate it at once, without notice,
if tliere be no special convention to the contrary. But though
Ijynkershoek lays down this, as well as other rules of war, vith
great harshness and severity, he mentions several instances, aria-
(c) Qrotiiu, b. S, c 4, sec. 9 ; c 4, MC, 8 ; BnrUtraqni, pt. 4, c. 4, ser. 20 ; Vattel,
b. 3, c S, aec 70 ; [Smaira Adm. v. Lnmpkina'i Exec., 28 Ontt. 8S2.] [3«c Halt,
Int. Iaw, pb 1, c. S, S 18, where the opioiona o( oontiDeutal juriats, holding that oolj
the Btatea u auch, and not the iDdividuals or sach, heeome enemies, are reTiewed b>]
[a) Qrotias, b. S, c 9, wc 4 ; c SI, wc. 9 ; BtlIc. Qnteat. J. Pnb. c. 2 and 7 ; Mar-
tens, b. 8, c. 2, BM. 5.
1870, 94. JThe RebeUion did not ao*. Tentonia, L. B. 4 P. C. 171, 178, 179.
peod coniDieKial interconne, and hence For the beginning of the war botwsen
did not diasolve a partnerthip, Sach in- Rnnia and Turkey, aee Ann. Rag. 1877.
tercoarse waa not iuB]>;Dded until the pro- 248. As to the time when the ciTil war
clamatioD of Angnat 16, 1861. Matthews ended, see Nelson v. Manning, S3 Ala.
tr. M<!5tea, 91 U. 8. 7. See, generally, 649 ; Bsteeville Institute n.
H»l), Int. Law, pi. 8, c. 1, J 123 ; The WsiL 151. —B.1
[POl
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. m.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. '57
ingin the Beventeenth, and oDe as earl; as the fifteenth ceotuiy,
o[ etipnlatioDS in treaties, allowing foreign subjects a reason-
able time aft«r the war breaks out to recover and dispose of
their effects, or to withdraw them. Such stipulations hare now
become an establiBhed formula in commercial treaties. (() Etue-
rigon {c) considers such treaties as an affirmance of common
right, or the public law of Europe, and the general rule laid
down by some of the latter publicists is in conformity with that
provision, (li) The sovereign who declares war, says Vattel,
can neither detain those subjects of the enemy who are in his do-
miaioDs at the time of the declaration of war, nor their effects.
They came into the country under the sanction of public faith.
By permitting them to enter his territories, and continue
'there, the sovereign tacitly promised them protection and *57
wcurity for their return. He is, therefore, to allow them a
reasonable time to retire with their efFects, and if they stay be-
yond the time, he has a right to treat them as disarmed enemies,
unless detained by sickness or other insurmountable necessity,
and then they are to be allowed a further time. It has been
frequently provided by treaty that foreign subjects should be
permitted to remain, and continue their business, notwithstand-
ing a rapture between the governments, so long as they con-
dncted innocently ; and when there was no such treaty, such a
liberal permission has been often announced in the very declara-
tion of war. (a) ^ Sir Michael Foster (&) mentions several in-
(i) A liberal prorlalon of this kiad u iuMrtcd in the treatj of amit? and commerce
ktKMD the Cmted Statea and the Republic of Colombia, which wu ratified >t Wash-
ngteo, Uay 37, IS25, and between the Uiiited Statea and the BepubUc of Venezaeli,
llf the tnaty of {tiendsbip and commerce in Hay, 1SS6.
[c) [Tniti daa Au. L SSe], 667.
((^ VatteD, h. 8, c. 4, «ac. 63 ; A«nni, pt. 2, c 1, art. 2, eeo. 7 ; Le Droit Public de
FKorape, par Hablf (Eavres, vi. 3S4 ; Burlamaqni, pt. 4, c 7, «ec. S.
(a) Vattel, b. 3, c. 4, eec. SS. See the treatj ot commerce between the United
Statei and the Bepqhtic of Chili, May, 1882, art 23, which affords that permanent
ftcptection.
(>) Diaooune of High Treason, ISC, 186.
' Sea treatiei of the United States with government, at the beginning of the war
flnalemala, 10 U. 3, St. at L. 878, art. with Euaaia, Rnarian merchant vessels is
U; Coeta Biea, ih. 916, art 11; Pern, Britieb ports were allowed six weeks to
>b. ne, art. 82 ; A^entine Confedetatlon, load their cargoes and depart. March 20,
a. 1005. art 12. 1864. It was farther oiJered tbat any
By otdan in oonncil of the British Bunian merchant veesel which, prior to
vol. I.-6 [81]
;abyG00<^lc
• 57 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
stances of such declarations hj the King of Great Britain, and
he says that aliens were thereby enabled to acqaire personal
chattels, and to maintain actions for the recovery of their per-
sonal rights, in as full a manner as alien friends, (x)
Besides those stipulations in treaties, which hare softened the
rigors of war by the civilizing spirit of commerce, many goT-
emments hare made special provision, in their own laws and
ordinances, for the security of the persons and property of
enemy's subjects, found in the country at the commencement of
war, (e)
It was provided by Magna Oharta (d) that, upon the breaking
(e) By thi Spuilali decree of Febraai;, 132B, nuking Cadiz ■ free pott, it wm
declared tlikt, in the event of war, foicignerB who had wtkbliidiAd themselrea there
for the porpoeeB of commerca, and becomiog alien enemiei by meana of the ww, ware
to be allowed a proper time to withdraw, and theii property waa to be aacrad bom all
•aqneatration or repriaaL
(d) Cb. 80.
certain dates, ahonld have uUed from anj 1SG4. Thne and other orden Me given
foreign port for any port in her Uajeaty'a in 1 Spinka, Ec. & Ad. B. app. ; Cong,
dominions, might enter anch port, dis- Doc S3 Cong., 1 Seea. H. B. No. 108, p.
charge her cargo, and depart wlthont mo- 6. See Clemontaon o. Bletug, 11 Exeh.
iMtation. Mantb 39, IS&4, April 15, 1S6 ; [Hall, Int. Law, pt 8, c 1, } 12S.]
(z) War soapsnds the right to sue, but ite military operationa in war, lo prirate
does not work a forfeiture of property or owners cannot be charged for works tiat-
obligationa. lAioar v. Hioon, 112 tJ. Sl atmcted on their property by the gorein-
4G2, 1S4. In time of war, the President ment to facilitate sneb operation*. United
may submit to a court what amount of State* v. Padlic B. Ca, 120 U. S. SS7.
damages shonld be allowed for a capture. In time of peace, army offican are liable,
without the anthority of an act of Con- like private citizens, for the nae of private
gresR. The Neostra Senora De Regia, 108 lauds of which they take pOMCseion.
U. 8. 93. Property Uksn and used by Stanley t. Schwalby, SG Texas, S48.
the government may, when equitable end Acts dons in their own ooontiy by the
just, be treated as taken under an implied civil or military agenta of a foreign t«TO-
oontract of payment, but when the taking latioaary government under its directiona
or nae amounts to its seimre or deatrnc- cannot be made the aul^ject of a salt here,
tioQ for the public good and aafety, or thon^ such government ia afterward* es-
aa inddent to the ravagea of war, the tabliabed and ia recogniied by the United
owner beat* the loss, but, on the other State*. Underidll n. Hemandes, 6S Ped.
hand, be ia not liable for any military Rep. G77.
works improving his property. United In this ooantiy it ia the pioviDee of
State* ■>. Pacific R. Co., 120 U. 8. 227 ; the President, by proclamation, and of
United States o. Atlantic & Pacific R. Co., Congreaa, bnt not of the jndidaiy, to de-
id. 241 J Heflebower «, United Sutes, 21 olsrewhatishoalaleteiTitory.
Ct a. 228. Hence, as the government la e. United States, 31 Ct CL tS8-
not reaponaible for property destroyed by
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. in.J OP TBE LAW OF NATIONS. " 69
ottt of war, foreign merohanta fonnd in England, and belonging
to the country of the enemy, should be attached, "without harm
of bod; or goods," until it should be known how English
merchants were treated by the enemy; "and if our *mer< *58
cbanto," said the charter, "be safe and well treated there,
theirs shall be likewise with us. " It has been deemed extraordi-
nary that such a liberal provision should have found a place in
a treaty between a feudal king and his barons; and Hontes- '
quiea (a) was struck with admiration at the fact that a protec-
tion of that kind should have been made one of the articles of
English liberty. But this provision was confined to the effects
ef alien merchants who were within the realm at the commence-
ment of the war, and it was understood to be confined to the
case of merchants domiciled there, (b) It was accompanied,
also, with one very ominous qualification; and it was at least
equalled, if not greatly excelled, by an ordinance of Charles V.
of France a century afterwards, which declared that foreign
merchants who should be in Franco at the time of the declara-
tion of war should have nothing to fear, for they should have
liberty to depart freely with their effects, (c) The spirit of the
provision in Magna Charta was sustained by a resolution of the
judges, in the time of Henry Till., when they resolved, that if
a Frenchman came to England before the war, neither his person
nor goods should be seized, (d) The statute of staples, of 27
Edw. III. c 17, made a still more liberal and precise enactment
in favor of foreign merchants residing in England, when war
eonunenced between their prince and the King of England. They
were to have convenient warning of forty days, by proclamation,
to depart the realm with their goods ; and if they could not do
it within that time, by reason of accident, they were to have
forty days more to pass with tlieir merehandise, and with liberty,
iu the meantime, to sell the same. The act of Congress of the
6th of July, 1798, c. 73, was dictated by the same humane
and enlightened policy. It authorized the President, in * case * 59
of war, to direct the conduct to be observed towards sub-
jects of the hostile nation, being aliens, and within the United
States, and in what cases, and upon what security, their resi<
la) Eoprit dM Lou, 90, It. (b) I Hale's P. C. 03.
(c) Hpiianlfs Abng. Chroo. i. SSS.
{^> Bro. at Propaity, pL 98; Jenk. Cent 201, owe 22.
[88]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 60 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAET I.
denc« should be permitted; aud it declared, in retereoce totliose
who were to depart, that they should be allowed such reasonable
time as might be consistent with the public safety, and according
to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality, "for the
recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, aud
for their departure." ^
4. CoDflMaUoD of Proporty. — But however strong the current
of authority in favor of the modem and milder construction of
the rule of national law on this subject, the point seems to be no
longer open for discussion in this country; and it has become
definitively settled, in favor of the ancient and sterner rule, by
the Supreme Court of the United States, (a) The effect of war
upon British property found in the United States, on land, at
the commencement of the war, was learnedly discussed and
thoroughly considered in the case of Brown; and the Circuit
Court of the United States at Boston decided, (b) as upon a
settled rule of the law of nations, that the goods of the
enemy found in the country, and all the vessels and cargoes
found afloat in our ports, at l^e commencement of hostilities,
were liable to seizure and confiscation ; and the exercise of the
right rested in the discretion of the sovereign of the nation.
When the case was brought up, on appeal, before the Supreme
Court of the United States, the broad principle was assumed
that war gave to the sovereign full right to take the persons and
confiscate the property of the enemy wherever found ; and that
tlic mitigations of this rigid rule, which the wise and humane
policy of modem times had introduced into practice, might, more
or less, affect the exercise of the right, but could not Impair the
right itself. Commercial nations have always considerable
"60 property in "the possession of their neighbors; and, when
war breaks out, the question, what shall be done with
enemy's property found in the country, is one rather of policy
than of law, and is one properly addressed to the consideration
of the legislature, and not to the courts of law. The strict right
of confiscation nf that species of property existed in Congress,
and without a legislative act authorizing its confiscation it conld
(a) Brown n. The United SUtu, S Cruich, 110. Sea tlaa ibid. 228, 229.
(h\ The Cargo of the Ship Emulous, 1 Q&lliMD, COS.
[84]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. ni.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. " 61
not be jadicially condemned ; and the act of Congress of 1812,
declaring war against Great Britain, vas not Buch an act. Until
some statute directly applying to the subject be passed, the
property would continue under the protection of the law, and
might be claimed by the British owner at the restoration of
peace,*
Though this decision established the right, contrary to much
of modem authority and practice, yet a great point was gained
over the rigor and violence of the ancient doctrine, by making
the exercise of the right to depend upon a special act of Congress.
The practice, so common in modern Europe, of imposing em-
bargoes at the breaking out of hostilities has, apparently, the
effect of destroying that protection to property which the rule
of faith and justice gives to it, when brought into the country in
the coarse of trade and in the confidence of peace. Sir William
Scott, in the case of the Boedei Lu»t, (a) explains this species
of embargo to be an act of a hostile nature, and amounting to an
implied declaration of war, though liable to be explained away
and annulled by a subsequent accommodation between the na-
tions. The seizure is an act at first equivocal, as to the effect,
though hostile iu the mere execution, and if the matter in dis-
pute terminates in reconciliation, the seizure becomes a mere
civil embargo; but if it terminates otherwise, the subsequent
hostilities have a retroactive effect, and render the embargo a
hostile measure, ah initio. The property detained is deemed
enemy's property, and liable to condemnation. This * species ' 61
of reprisal for some previous injury is laid down in the
books as a lawful measure, according to the usage of nations ;
but it is often reprobated; and it cannot well be distinguished
from the practice of seizing property found within the territory
upon the declaration of war. It does not differ in substance
from the conduct of the Syracusana, in the time of Dionysius the
elder (and which Mitford considered to be a gross violation of
the law of nations), for they voted a declaration of war against
Carthage, and immediately seized the effects of Carthaginian
traders in their warehouses, and Carthaginian richly laden vessels
(a) S C. Bob. 23S.
> Tbe Jnuita, Nawharry, SS2 ; United SUta* v. 1768 ShuM of Capital Stock,
£ Blatchf. 231, 237 ; foat, 91, d. 1.
[86]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 61 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAET I.
in their harbor, and sent a herald to Carthage to negotiate, (a)
Bnt this act of the Syracusane, near four hundred years before
the Christian era, was no more than what is the ordinary prac-
tice iu England, according to the observation of Lord Mansfield,
in Linda t. Rodney, (b) " Upon the declaration of war, or hos-
' tilities, all the ships of the enemy," he says, "are detained iu
our ports, to be confiscated as the property of the enemy, if no
reciprocal agreement is made."
Beprisals by commission, or letters of marque and reprisal,
, granted to one or more injured subjects, in the name and by the
anthority of a sovereign, is another mode of redress for some
specific injury, which is considered to be compatible witii a state
of peace, and permitted by the law of nations. The case arises
when one nation has committed acme direct and palpable injury
to another, as by withholding a just debt, or by violence to per-
son or property, and has refused to give any satisfaction. The
reprisals may be made in support of the rights of a subject as
well as those of the sovereign, and for the acts of the subject as
well as for those of the sovereign. The commission is not to be
issued except in a case clearly just — in re minime duhia ; and
it authorizes the seizure of the property of the subjects as well
as of the sovereign of the offending nation, and to bring it in to
be detained as a pledge, or disposed of under judicial sanction,
in like manner as if it were a process of distress under national
authority for some debt or duty withheld, (c) These letters
(a) Hitr. Hist, ofarsace, *. 402-Mi. (A) Dong. 418.
(c) Bynk. Q. J. Pub. c 21 ; Vattel, b. 2, c 18, mc. 8*2, 84*. 8*7, 868 i Puff. Droit
d«s Gens, par Bsrb«yiw^ b. 8, & fl, «»c. 18, □. 1 ; Valiii, Comm. li tit. da Lettna de
Hanine, 41*, *16 ; Tralti des Piiaea, 381 ; EmerigoD, Traits dM An. i. ESS ; Heaaiga
of the PrMidmt of the United States to Cousrwa, Decetober 1, 1834. The right of
goTemment to euforcs ths juat claimi of iti Bubjects igunst > forrign goTerDineDt,
for debts duly contracted and iinjiutty withheld, ii not to be questioned. It ia ad-
mittsd by Btatoamen Mid jnriati, and «>i so stated by Lord Palmantoa in the British
Fwiiament, in July, 1847, that government* had a right to enfoice by leprisala the
eUima of tbeir aubjecta for debts against the sntijetits of other goTemments, if r«Uef
be denied by the uon-ezecution or the improper administration of the laws fn the
foreign courts. Protection is dan itom. govenuneut to it* sul^ects in thsir peraona
and property ; bnt the iuterference on the part of goremment to enforce that doty
mcut alwaya be a question of eipediency. The gavemment of the United Stataa
eipnssly acknowledged, and in one or more inatances acted upon, that prindple.
President Jackson, in IS3*, inggested such a measuiv against France ; and iu 1847,
one grouDd of the war between the United States and Mexico was the non-payment
by Mexico of debts dne to American ritizsns.
[86]
sObyGoOl^lc
LIOT. m.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 62
of reprisal, as being applicable to a state of peace, have been
jFrequently recognized and regulated by treaty, (d) The French
oniinance of the marina of 1681 (e) regulates minutely this
remedial process, and the judicial sanction requisite to the pro-
ceedings under letters of reprisal, and which Yalin considers to
be sage precautioos, proper to temper the rigor of this perilous
mode of redress. (/) General reprisals upon the persons and
property of the subjects of another power are equivalent to open
war; bat these special letters of marque and reprisal,, limited to
a specific object, are spoken of generally, and even in the arti-
cles of confederation of the United States, in 1781, {g) as issuing
" in times of peace. " They are, however, regarded by Barbeyrac,
Emerigon, and other publicists as a species of hostility, an imper-
fect war, and usually a prelude to open hostilities. The favor-
able or adverse issue of the hazardous experiment will depend, in
some degree, upon the matter in demand, and, in a much greater
degree, upon the relative situation, character, strength, and spirit
of the nations concerned. (A)
5. ConiisoBtion of Dabts. — * The claim of a right to confis- * 62
eate debts, contracted by individuals in time of peace, and
which remain due to subjects of the enemy at the declaration of
war, rests very much upon the same principles as that concern-
ing enemy's tangible property, found in the country at the open-
{i\ Sei, for this purpose, the treatj of Humter, between Spain and Hotland, in
1C48; the traatiei between EngUnd and Holknd, in 1054 end 1667 ; the traety of
iTmriek, ait. 0 ; the treaty of Utrecht, art. 16 ; treaty between the United SUtei
ud the Republic of Colombia, in 1825.
{t) lir. S, tit. 10, dee BipriaoiUn.
(/) In the time of Edward IL, and for some sacceeding reigns, the power of grant-
i>g letter* of nkatqne and Teprisali againat the inbjecta of a foreign atato that refosed
to render jiutleo to the anbjecta of the crown of England wae veated in the Contt of
QMOcery. It was in the nature of a judicial process and of a prirate remedy. The
tqitnre via in the nature of a eecority to obtain juatioe. Lord Campbell, Lirea of the
Lord Chanoellon, L 20S.
(?) Art ».
(it) War doea not exiat merely on the anapennon of the nanol relationa of peace.
COnuMrce may be aoipcnded or interdicted between the anbjects of diflerent atat«s
■ithoat pradacing a state of war. Bepriaala and embargoes are forcible rneasores of
redren, but do not per m conetitnte war, nor doe« the fnniiBhing of ipeciSc asaiatance
to one of the partiea at war, accordlDg to a previona stipnlation. Vide infra, 110.
Mr. Hinning, in hie Commentariea on the Iat <rf' HetioDs, p. SS, alter abowing the
impeifeet definitiona given by pnblidats, definee an open and aoUmn war to be " the
itHe of nationa among whom there is an interraptian of all pacific relationa, and k
gnenl contention by force, authariusi by the sovereign."
[87]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 68 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT 1.
ing of the war; thoufch I think the objection to the right of
confiscation, in this latter case, is macfa stronger. In former
times, the right to confiscate debts was admitted as a doctrine of
national law, and Grotius, PufFendorf, and Bjnkerahoek pro-
nounced in favor of it. (a) It had the countenance of the civil
law ; {b) and even Cicero, in his Offices, (c) when stating the
cases in which promises are not .to be kept, mentiods that of
the creditor becoming the enemy of the country of the debtor.
Down to the year 1737, the general opinion of jurists was in
favor of the right; bat Yattel says that a relaxation of the rigor
of the rule has since taken place among the sovereigns of Europe,
and that, as the custom has been generally received, he who
should act contrary to it would injure the public faith ; for stran-
gers trusted his subjects only from a firm persuasion that the
general custom would be observed, (d) -There has frequently
been a stipulation in modem treaties that debts or moiieyB in
the public funds should not be confiscated in the event of war;
and these conventional provisions are evidence of the sense of the
governments which are parties to them, and that the right of
confiscation of debts and things in action is against good
*68 policy, and ought "to be discontinued. The treaties be-
tween the United States and Colombia in 1825, and Chili
in 1832, and Venezuela in-1836, and the Peru-Bolivian Confeder-
ation in 1838, and Ecuador in 1839, contain such a provision; but
the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, in 1795,
went further, and contained the explicit declaration, that it was
"unjust and impolitic " that the debts of individuals should be
impaired by national differences. A very able discussion of this
assumed right to conGscate debts was made by Mr. Hamilton,
in the numbers of Gamillus, published in 1795. He examined the
claim to confiscate private debts, or private property in banks or
in public funds, on the ground of reason and principle, on those
of policy and expediency, on the opinion of jurists, on usage, and
on conventional law ; and his argument against the justice and
policy of the claim was exceedingly powerful. He contended it
to be against good faith for a government to lay its hands on
(a) Grotina, b. I, c. 1, sac 4 j b. 3, c S, sec. 4 ; Puff. Ub. 8, c 6, 19, 20 ; BtdIe. lib.
1, c 7. Lnrd Hole >1k> laid it down to be tbe law of England. 1 Hate's P. C. 9&
{b) Dig. 41. 1 and 40. IS.
<e) Ub. S, c. 2S. (d) Vattel, b. 3, c. 6, ase. 77.
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. III.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 64
private propert;, acquired by the permiBHioD or upon the invita-
don of the goyemment, and under a necesBarilj implied promise
of protection and security. Vattel says, that everywhere, in ca»e
of a •wa.T, funds credited to the public are exempt from confisca-
tion and seizure. Emerigon (a) and Martens {b) make the same
declaration. The practice would have a very injurious influence
upon the general sense of the inviolability and sanctity of private
contracts; and with debtors who had a nice and accurate sense
of justice and honor, the requisition of government would not be
cheerfully or readily obeyed. Voltaire has given (c) a striking
instance of the impracticability of coniiscating property deposited
in trust with a debtor, and of the firmness of Spanish faith.
When war was declared between France and Spain, in 1684, the
King of Spain endeavored to seize the property of the
French in Spain, but * not a single Spanish factor would * 64
betray his French correspondent, (a)
Notwithstanding the weight of modem authority, and of argu-
ment, against this claim of right on the part of the sovereign, to
confiscate the debts and funds of the subjects of his enemy
daring war, the judicial langut^ in this country is decidedly in
support of the right In the case of Brown v. The Unittd
^Ut, (A) already mentioned. Judge Story, in the Circuit Court
in Massachusetts, laid down the right to confiscate debts and
enemy's property found in the country, according to the rigorous
doctrine of the elder jurists ; and he said the opinion wag fully
confirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ware v.
Sj/Uon, (e) where the doctrine was explicitly asserted by some
of the jodges, reluctantly admitted by others, and denied by
(a) Dm Am. i. H7. (b) 8, c. 2, kk. C.
{t) Bnu mu let Uoun et I'Eaprit des Nations.
(a) TIm Bngluh Conrt of E. B, decUtwl, in the cs«e of Wolff e. Oiholm, S M«iile
A Mir. 92, thtt an ordiuanca of DeoTDuk, iu 1807. pending hostHities with Eng-
lud, which leqaeatcnd dehta dne from Duiiah to Ecgliah mlgecta, and caused
than to be paid oTer to the Duiish gOTerament, was not a derence to a Euit in
Gn^uid for the debt, and that the ordinince wai not confonnable to the usags of
nationi, and waa void. It ma observed b; the court that the right of conliscatiDg
debt*, contended for on the anthority of Tattel, b. 2, c. 18, aec. 3U ; b. 3, & G, lec 77,
n.1 not racognized by Qrotina (ne Orot. lib. 8, c. 7, sec. 4, and c. 8, sec 4), and was
irapogned by Poffondorf (b. S, c S, sec. 22) and othen ; and that no instance had
Dccnrnd of the eierciae of the right, except the ordinance in quettion, for apwarda
tf a centnty.
(M 8 CnDeb, 110. (c) » DalLia, ISe.
rsff]
;abyG00<^lc
'65 OP THE LAW OP NATIOSS. [pABT I.
none. Chief Jaetice Marshall, iu delivering the opinion of the
Supreme Court, in the case of Brotcn, observed, that betveeu
debto contracted under the faith of laws, and property acquired
in the course of trade on the faith of the same laws, reason drew
no distinction, and the right of the sovereign to confiscate debts
was preciseljr the same with the right to confiscate other
* 65 property found in the country. This right, * therefore,
was admitted to exist as a settled and decided right, atricto
Jure, jihough, at the same time, it was conceded to be the uni-
jersal practice to forbear to seize and to confiscate debts and
credits. We may, therefore, lay it down as a principle of public
law, BO far aa the same is understood and declared by the high-
est judicial aathorities in this country, that it rests in the dis-
cretion of the legislature of the Union, by a Bpecial law for that
purpose, to confiscate debts contracted by our citizens, and due
to the enemy; but, as it is asserted by the same authority, this
right is contrary to universal practice, and it may, therefore,
well be considered as a naked and impolitic right, condemned
by the enlightened conscience and judgment of modem times.^
If property should have been wrongfully taken by the state
before the war, and be in the country at the opening of the war,
such property cannot be seized, but must be restored; because
to confiscate that species of enemy's property would be for the
government to take advantage of its own wrong. The cele-
brated Report of the English law officers of the crown, 1753, in
answer to the Prussian Memorial, stated, that French ships
taken before the war of 1741 were, during the heat of the war
' with France, as well as afterwards, restored by sentences of the
admiralty courts to the French owners, (a) Ko sudi property
(a) Ths cue of the 8iIesiB[n] loan cootains, in the diKiuiioiii between the Pnis-
laui tlld Britisb coarts, in 1762, > memorsble ezpositian ot the law of nations on the
aul^ect of belligarent rifthts and dj)ti«a. The report ot the high and distingaiahed
klT ofQcen of the crown, in aoiwer to the Pmssian Memorial, made in 1753, was
declared b^ such eminent writers as Tattel and Montesquieu, to be an ezcellent and
onansnerable tract on iJis law of nations. See the Ruhetsnce of the discoadon in
Wheaton's Histoiy of the Law of Hations, ed. N. Y. 1846, 306-217, and the Beport,
at large Collectanea Juridica, i. 9S. The case is worthy of epecial notice, not only
for the anthorit; of th« work, but for the recognition of the sanctity of prirate debtn
and contracts, in oppoeition to the pretensions of the rights of war and oonqneit.
> Std vide poal, Bl, n. 1. An inter- 3. C. C. 17S2, Martin's B. (N. C.) pt. 3,
eating old caw is HMnUton d. Eaton, U. p. 1.
{.90]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. m.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 66
vas ever attempted to be confiscated; for had it not been for
the wrong dose, the property would not have been within the
king's dominionsi And yet even such property is considered to
be subject to the rule of vindictive retaliation ; and Sir William
Scott observed, in the case of the iSanta Cruz, (b) that it was
the constant practice of England to condemn property seized
before the war, if the enemy condemns, and to restore if the
enemy restores, (x)
6. iDtardloUon of Commerce. — *One of the immediate *66
tnd important consequences of the declaration of war is
In Uut lan, a loan of moiiej wu toade b; Britiih crediton to the Emperor of Qer-
muy, is 1735, nod Tor the bettor aecnrity of the [Mfment of the loan, with intarast,
bt mortgaged hie lerenueB of the Dachies of Sileaia ; and when 8ilaai& was con-
qnncd by PniaaU, the EmprcM Qn«en, who had auc«eeded to the aovereignty of the
(aDntij, befOTS ita conqnsst, ceded the Dnchiea to the King of Praasia, upon con.
ditioD that the king should be leepoiuible for the debt ; and he aaaomed the payment
«r it. The king afterwards seized the rerennea, by way of rapriaal and indemnity
•gshnt lM«e» by British cruisera, under lawfnl capture and condemnation by the lawa
of wu. The Beport showed, unanawerably, ai Honteaqoieii admitted, that the
King of Pnuaia ooold not lawfully aeiie the mortgaged rcTennes or debt, by way
of nprual, and that he waa bound by the law of nntione, and every principle of
jiRice, to [«y the British crediton. The King of Frassia, by treaty in 1 7G6, agreed
la take off the s«queatration laid on the SilesiBn debt, and pay the capital and inter-
cat dna to the Britiih crediton.
(t) 1 a Beb. eO.
(z) CsMt eonatning the conflication eat«d property. Aregno v. Schmidt, 119
acta pueed during tha cItII war, are U. S. 293. Under that act, upon the
Kiik V. Iiynd, 106 JJ. S. 815 ; French v. owner's death, his heirs, though not
Vada, 102 U. 8. 182 ; Yonng e. United named in the statute, took the confiscated
States B7 C. S. 39 ; Conr»l r. Waples, property by descent from him and not by
H U. 8. !7e ; Bisley e. Pheniz Bank, 83 gift or grant ftom the Government. Ibid.;
ir.T.SlB. TheCouGeeatfonActofAag. Shieldav. Schiff, 124 U.a 351 ; Illinois
«, IMl ns directed at the conAecation of Central R. Co. r. Bosworth, 133 U. S. 93.
tjiviit pro^«rty naed with the owner's See further upon the Confiscation Acta,
aaxnt to aid the inanrr«ction ; it had no Jenkina v. Collard, 14G U. S. MA ; Brigga
irinenee to the owner'a gnilt and applied e. United States, 113 U. S. 34e ; 2E Ct
only to risible, tangible property which CI. Sfil. Qeneral language in the gavem-
hiid been so naed. Phienix Bank o. Bis- tnent'a deed to a purchaser at a sate nnder
W, 111 U. 3. 1S5. Being a prooeediog that set did not opeiate as a warranty
■'■ rm, them waa no necesdty for • jnry that the offender had any estate in the
trial, or of personal aervice of notice of property at the time it wae SMzed.
prena npon a non-reddent. Paataur o. Waplee v. United Statee, 110 D. 8. flSa
Urii, 89 l^ Ann. 6. The acta of 1S61 and ISSS did not aathor-
A decree conAacating real estate nnder in the confisotion of corporate property.
tlw Confiacation Act of 1802did not affect ffllia c Phenii Bank, 12 Dal; (N. T.),
tbe intereat of a mortgagee in the coufis- 177.
[91]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 66 OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PART 1.
the absolute interruption and Interdictioa of all commercial cor-
reBpondence, intercourse, and dealing between the subjects of
the two countries. The idea that any commercial intercourse
or pacific dealing can lawfully subsist between the people of the
powers at war, except under the clear and express sanction of
the goTernment, and without a special license, is utterly incon-
sistent with the new class of duties growing out of a state of
war. (a) The interdiction flows necessarily from the principle
already stated, that a state of war puts all the members of the
two nations respectively in hostility to each other; and to suffer
individuals to carry on a friendly or commercial intercourse,
while the two goTemments were at war, would be placing tlie
act of government and the acts of individuals in contradiction
to each other. It would counteract the operations of war, and
throw obstacles in the way of the public efforts, and lead to
disorder, imbecility, and treason. Trading supposes the exist-
ence of civil contracts and relations, and a reference to courts
of justice ; and it is, therefore, necessarily contradictory tc a
state of war. It affords aid to the enemy in an effectual
manner, by enabling the merchants of the enemy's country to
support their government, and it facilitates the means of con-
veying intelligence, and carrying on a traitorous correspondence
with the enemy. These considerations apply with peculiar force
to maritime states, where the principal object is to destroy the
marine and commerce of the enemy, in order to force them to
(a) Th« dDctrine gate to tli« extent of holding it unUwfol, kfter tbs commeDiw-
nwnt of war, except aniet the special licenae of the goTsniment, to send ■ mvl
to the utamy'a coontry tu bring home, with their penoitdoti, ons'* own property,
which wu there when the war broke out. It woatd he liable to leizare, in trniuilii,
H enemy's property. The Bapid, 8 Cranch, IGG ; Potts t>. Bell, 8 T. R. 648. In tht
case of The Juffrow CaUuiina, C C. Bob. 141, and of The Hoop, 1 C. Bob. IH, Sir
Willism Scott inculcated very strictly the dnty of applying in dl cases for the pro-
tectiou of a license, where property is to be withdrawn from the country of tk
enemy, as being the only gale conrse. Mr. Dun-, in his Treatise on Insnranil^
i. S61-G6S, ably and successfuUj contends that, when a subject findt himself in u
enemy's coantry on the breaking out of war, he may return diligently to his countn,
mlh flit property, without rendering it justly liable to confiscation by the prize conili
of his own coantry ; though the language of Mr. Justice Story, in the case of TIk
Rapid in 1 OaHison, SOS, snd The Mary, [ib.J 321, goes to the extent of the ttrtrt
denial of that right under any circumstances. If the adverse belligerent allow inch
a rif^ht, as see rupra, S9, lOTely his own country oaght to exercise the same lenitj-
Such was the decision of the Sopreaie Court of New York in Kmorj v. HcGregn,
15 Johns. 24.
[92]
;abyG6o<^lc
LECT. III.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 67
peace, (b) It is a well settled doctrine in the Englisli courts,
and with the Elngliah jurists, that there cannot exist, at the
same time, a war for arms and a peace for commerce. The
Tar puts an end at once to all dealing and all communication
with each other, and places eveiy individual of the respect-
ive gorernments as * well as the governments themselves, * 67
in a state of hostility, (a) This is equally the doctrine of
i,]\ the authoritative writers on the law of nations, and of the
mftritime ordinances of all the great powers of Europe. It is
equally the received law of this country, and was so decided
frequently by the Congress of the United States during the
Berolutionary war, and again by the Supreme Court of the
Cnited States during the course of the last war; and it is diffi-
cult to conceive of a point of doctrine more deeply or extensively
rooted in the general maritime law of Europe, and in the univer-
aal and immemorial usage of the whole community of the civil-
ized world.
It follows as a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the
illegality of all intercourse or traffic, without express permission,
that all contracts with the enemy, made during war, are utterly
Toid.' The insurance of enemy's property is an illegal contract,
(t) 1 Chitty Comra. Uw, 878.
(a) PotU c. Ball, 8 T. R. S18 ; Willuon v. PatteMD, 7 Taunt 439 ; Stotj, J., in
Tba Jtoeph, 1 OalL 64S, Sift; in TliB Julia, ib. fl01-S03 ; Jongs Pietar, 4 C. Bob. 7B ;
The Hoop, 1 C. Bob. IBS, 217 ; The Bapid, 1 Gall. SOS.
' TUi langnage haa been thonght too iog hia protectioti ; aa well aa any act or
bnad in at least one important decUion. contract which tends to incmaa his
During the Ute rebellion, a citizen and reaonrces; and ereij kind of trading,
nsdmt of Uisdnippi made a lease of a or commetical dealing or interconrte,
ration plantation there to a citizen of whether by trumnioioti of money or
Haiaachiiaetta, who was then in Hissij- goods, or orders for the delivery of either,
rippL The leasee took poseeasian and between the two countrias, directly or in-
pu'd rrnt nnder the lease, bnt was after- dirertly, or tbrongh the interrantion of
wardi driven ofT 1^ rebel eoldiera. In an third persona or partnenbipa, or by cnn*
tdJOD for the rent in arrear, the Snpreme tneta in any form looking to or inrolring
Coatt of Maaaachnaetts held the lease anch ttansmiasioii, or by insnrsncea upon
Talid. The eonrt say, " that the law of trade with or by the enemy. Beyond
nationa, as judicially declared, prohibits the principle of these cases the prohibi-
all intsTcoarse between citisens of the two tion has not been carried by judicial de-
belligetrats which is iuconsistent with cition." Kertbaw v. Eeliey, 100 Miaa.
the state of war between their coantriee; Sfil, 673. In this case all the autboritie*
•nd that thie ioclnde* any act of Tolnn- are reTiewed. Inttr alia the remarks in
taiy snbmiMion to the enemy, or receiv- Jecker v. Montgomerr, 13 How. 110, and
[93]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 67 OP THE LAW -OP NATIONS. [PABT t.
because it is a species of trade and intercourse irith the enemy.
The drawing of a bill of exchange by an alien enemy, on a Bub-
ject of the adverse country, is an illegal and void contract, be-
Hangar «. Ab1x>tt^ 0 WalL 633, are Baid do not conUtapittt my trading acnMi tlw
to b« abiUr dicta, and the Ooachita Cot- linea. Conrad v. Waploa, 0S U. B. ST) ;
ton, e Wall. SSI, ia azpUlned aa a cms of IfiUhall v. United States, tapra ; Brown
a tal« of meichandiac which <ral strictly v. Ganlner, 4 Lea, 145. Tbit wai hold in
an act of aommBrcial interconne. Per- Gonnd b. Waples, mpra, thon^ tba
hapa aimilar explanatioil* would anffice proper^ aold waa within Om anamj'*
for Coppell V. Hall, 7 WalL 64S ; United linca. Bat aao diaoenting opiniiKt c^
3t«t«SD. Oroaamayer, 9 WalL 72 (appoint- Clifibld, J., in Bnrbank n. Connd, M
ment of an agent during the war) ; Hen- U. S. S91, 293. Eitlwr cooatiy may
nan v. Oilman, 20 1a Aa. 241 ; Graham licanie trading with the other under aoiii
(7. Merrill, 5 Coldw. 622. Among the nettictiooi aa it may deem beat Hanil-
itrongest c«w» agalnat the doctrine of ton *. Dillin, 21 Wall. 7S ; Sn«ll >.
Eenhaw v. Kslaey are Hyatt d. Jamea, Dwight, ISO HaM. 9. CoDtnela hating
S Bnah (Ey.), 4SS ; PhilUpa v. Hatch, 1 for their object to aid the enemy an of
DiUon, G71 ; Filor'a Cats, 8 Ct of CL 2G; eonne nxd. Brickell v. Halifax Coon^
iiL 2G6, n. 1. [Eerahaw v. Kelaey la cited Commiaiionera, 81 S. C. 340. Aa to th>
with appareot approral in Hontgomery n. diaaolutiDn of partnenhipa of which part
United States, 15 WalL 365, which also of the partnei* were domidled inansmy'i
holds that the line of dirision hetwaen connti?, see Matthews v. MoStea, 91 U. 9^
friendly and horiile cotmtry is that of 7 ; Taylor n. Hntcfaiaaon, 26 Orstb 53(l
actual military control, and not that of In general, «■ to the position haU l^ the
statea which may he Mendly or boatila. states in rebellion, see Hian d. Lockhart,
See also United 8Ut«s v. lupine, 17 Wall. 17 Wall. 670 ; Coleman v. Tennessee, 97
Ml. It has been held that the question U. S. 609 ; Barry e. Bellow^ 30 Aik. 198 ;
of legally is to be determined by the legal Shattnck e. Daniel, 63 Hisa. 884 ; Pannj-
domidle of the pertiea. Hence where a wit c. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 000. — b.]
person went from the Union into the Rebel The distinction as to eontncts mads
lines, andtradedthere,bnt did not change before the war seems to be that anggested
hit domicile, and afterwards retamed to by the text; that thoae oontracta an dis-
the Union lines, held, snch trading was solved which cannot be performed except
illegal and Toid. Mitchell v. United in the way of commercial intereonna
SUtes, 21 WalL 860 ; Demurs b. United The William Bagaley, 6 WolL 377, 407 ;
States, es U. S. 006 ; Qoi^ny v. United and eases infill ; 1 Dner Ins. Lect 4, note
SUtes, 13 Ct of a. 807. This, it > to be 2 (uf ;(». p. 478 ; Da Wahl o. Bniuw, 1
noted, is a ditTer^t test fh>m that stated Hurlst k N. 178, 182. Thus the reUtton
in Kershaw v. Kelaey, and it seems that of principal and agent betwesn one ia
both tests ara to be applied before a con- the North and another in the South «aa
tract is held valid. If the latter were the not suspended or dissoWed during ths re-
«nty test, two persons retaining their dom- hellion. Monsseaux v. Urquhart, IS La.
idles in the same coontry might trade An. 482. See Robinson v. Inteinaticotl
across the lines. Either country will rec- Life Asa. Co., 42 V. Y. 64 ; United StatM
ognixa a* valid contracts entered into •. Orasimayer, 9 Wall. 73, 76. Nor wen
wholly between parties domiciled and oontracts of insaianoe. Manhattan Life
i«sident in one of the eonntrisa, and which Ina. Co. o. Warwick, 30 Qratt. Sl^ 034 :
[94]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. m.] OF THE LAW OP MAHONB. * 67
cauBe it is a commanioation and contract. The purchase of
bills on the enemy's country, or the remission and deposit of
funds there, is a dangerous and illegal act, because it may be
cherishing the resources and relieving the wants of the enemy.
The remissioD of funds in money or bills to subjects of the
BewToAIiffllsK-Cap. CloptOD, 7 Bush, gnemr tone (x) are Aldnons o. Nigren,
17>. On the other hand, & chaiter-putj 4 El. ft BL 217 ; Whelan v. Cook, 29
hj which an Italian ahip (nentnl prop- Ud. 1 ; De Wahl d. Bnoue 1, H. * N.
utj in the nihaeqQBnt war) waa to pro- 178 ; United StatM v. J75t Shares of
CMd bom England to Odena, and there Stock, 6 Blitchf. 331. The la»t caae laji
be [niiiiihed with a oaigo b; a British it down that be ma; appear u olaicpant
talycct, wai held to b« disiolvod bj tbe in a prize caae, and contest the all^ations
lawking ont of war between England of the libel, a doctrine aince sustained
and Bosna, as it prima fade, at least, in- b; tlie Supreme Court in a confiscation
Tolred tiading with the enemy. Espo- caae. McVeigh s. TTnittd States, 11
Mb *. Bowden, 7 EL 4 BL 768; Bamck WalL 2G9. Contra, The Frotja, Spinki,
«, Bsha, 3 C. B. H. 8. US ». Beid >. Hot- Pr. Ca. 87. It is dear that he nia; be
kins, ATei7 ■■ Bowden, S EL 4 BL ftU. ined. . Doise; s. Kjle, tO Md. (12 ; ib.
Set farther, iU. 2G6, n. 1. S22 ; MizcT k. Siblej, CS IlL SI ; Lndlow
Other esMB on the inability of an alien v. Banuey, 11 Wall. GSl.
(x) Upon the oanunancament nf a war, A merchant who at the commsncernent
pnoeedings then pending in the coaits of the civil war departed fmm his nai-
■hould be ooDtiDoed, and not dismissed, dence in Georgia to lojal tenitory, when
St pertt BoossmaksT, 18 Ves. 71 ; Elgae he nmained nntil the dose of the war,
*. Lorell, 1 Woolw. 102 ; Levine e. Taj- bnt who left an agent behind who col-
lar, IS Hats. 8 ; Bishop v. Jonee, 28 lected money for him and therewith pal-
Ten^ 2&i ; ceitira, Howes n. Cheater, E3 chased cotton for him, afterwards cap-
Oa. SB. An alien enemy may b« sued, tnred and sold by the United Btatea, waa
and is entitled to all the nanal mMns of held entitltd to reeorer therefor in the
defence. Haatetaon v. Howard, 18 Wall. Conrt of Claims, as he did not tnde with
W ; HcNsir p. Toler, 31 Hinn. 17G- He the enemy across the lines. United Btatea
n^ be bonitd, like other non-residents, v. Qoigley, lOS U. S. S95. A mortgage
l? notios by pablication. Univenity e. made in Confederate territory to a loyal
nach, IS WalL 106 ; Lee *. Bogers, 3 citizen ia not ipte fada such unlawful
Sawyer, U9 ; Seymour c. Bailey, S6 IIL intercoorss as avoids it without further
188 ; Selden >. Prerixm, 11 Boeh, 191. proof of violation of the non-intercoone
Be oumot defend, on the ground that he aot and the President's proclamation there-
is so alien enemy. Dorsey e. Kyle, 39 nnder. Carson v. Dnnbam, 121 U. 8. 421 ;
Md. SI2 ; see Herbert «. Bowles, id. 271. see Hsifs'Csse, Ifl Ct CL 4C9.
WlKTe a psrscm volnntarily left bis home War does not terminate or suspend the
to enpige in rebellion , it waa held that obligation of a belligerent State to pay in-
Dcither be nor his hairs could complain terest on its debts, even to alien enemies,
thathiaatieeocedaprivedhiniaf noticeand Bee Cobbett's Inb Law Cases (2d ed.),
power to dcGmd judicial proceedings re- 180. Bat war supersedes treaties and
soltiiig in the sale of hUland- Jenkins v. makes the subjects of the hostile States
^Mred. Bep.8{>7. enamiesinUw. Valk'sCaw, 39Ct. 01.62.
[96]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 68 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
enemy is unlawfuL The inbibitiou reaches to every communi-
cation, direct or circuitous. All endeavors at trade vith the
enemy, by the intervention of third persons, or by partDersbips,
have equally failed, and no artifice has succeeded to legalize the
trade, without the express permission of the government (()
Every relaxation of the rule tends to corrupt the allegiance
*68 of the subject, and prevents *the war from fullilling its
end. The only exception to this strict and rigorous rule
of international jurisprudence is the case of ransom bills, and
they are contracts of necessity, founded on a state of war, and
engendered by its violence, (a) It is also a further consequence
of the inability of the subjects of the two states to commune or
carry on any correspondence or business together, that all com-
mercial partnerahips existing between the subjects of the two
parties prior to the war are dissolved by the mere force and act
of the war itself ; though other contracts existing prior to the
war are not extinguished, but the remedy is only suspended, and
this from the inability of an alien enemy to sue or to sus-
tain, in the language of the civilians, a pertona itandi in judieio.
The whole of this doctrine, respecting the illegality of any
commercial intercourse between the inhabitants of two nations
at wkr was extensively reviewed, and the principal authori-
ties, ancient and modem, foreign and domestic, were accurately
examined, and the positions which have been laid down estab-
lished, in the case of (jhritwold v. Waddington, {b) decided in the
Supreme Court of New York, and afterwards affirmed on error.
This strict rule has been carried so far in the British admiralty
as to prohibit a remittance of supplies even to a British colony
during its temporary subjection to the enemy, and when the
colony was under the necessity of supplies and was only very
partially and imperfectly supplied by the enemy, {c) The same
(h) WillisoD t. Patteson, viii mjira ; The Indian Chief; S C. Rob. 2S ; The Jonge
Fi«ter, t C. Eob. 79 ; The Franklin, 6 C. Kob. 127.
(a) Thare is Miotber eioeption U> the general rule, in the cue of a wer coQtiaet
ariainit ant of a pnblic neceasity, created by tbe war itself. Thia a tb« case of a bill
of exchange dmvn open England by a Bhtiah prisonn in France, for hi* own BahdM-
ence, and indorsed to an alien enemy, and irhicb the latter, on tlia ntnm of peaeei
fas nllowed to enforce. Antaine v. Uorahead, S Taunt. 287.
(i) 16 Johns. 67 ; 16 Johna. 13S, b. c. ; ScholeBeld e. Eichelberger, 7 Ppten,
B8«. a. P.
(r) CnKaofTheBellaGDidit«,iDl7SS, citedin the can of The Hoop, 1 C. RoK 307.
[96]
;q.l7.jrb,G00l^lC
LECT. ra.J OP THE LAW OF KATI0N8. • 70
interdictioQ of trade applies to shipa of trace, or cartel ships,
whicli are a species of aaTigation, intended for the recovery of
the liberty of prisoners of war. Such a special and limited inter-
course is dictated by policy and humanity, and it is indispensable
that it be conducted with the most exact and exclusive atten-
tion to the original purpose, as being the only condition
upon which the intercourse * can be tolerated. All trade, * 69
therefore, by means of such vessels is unlawful, without
the express consent of both the governments concerned, (a) It
is equally illegal for an ally of one of the belligerents, and who
carri^ on the war conjointly, to have any commerce with the
enemy. A single belligerent may grant licenses to trade with
the enemy, and dilute and weaken bis own rights at pleaaare,
bat it is otherwise when allied nations are pursuing a common
canse. The community of interests and object and action creates
a mutual duty not to prejudice that joint interest; and it is a
declared principle of the law of nations, founded on very clear
and just grounds, that one of the belligerents may seize and
inflict the penalty of forfeiture on the property of a subject of a
G04lly, engaged in a trade with the common enemy, and thereby
affording him aid and comfort whilst the other ally was carrying .
on a severe and vigorous warfare. It would be contrary to the
implied contract in every such warlike confederacy, that neither
of the belligerents, without the other's consent, shall do any-
thing to defeat the common object (b)
In the investigation of the rules of the modem law of nations,
psrticnlarly with regard to the extensive field of maritime cap-
ture, reference is generally and freely made to the decisions of
the English courts. They are in the habit of taking accurate
and comprehensive views of general jurisprudence, and they
have been deservedly followed by the courts of the United
States on all the leading points of national law. We have a
series of judicial decisions in England and in this country, in
which the usages and the duties of nations are explained and
declared with that depth of research, and that liberal and en-
larged inquiry, which strengthen and embellish the conclusions
of reason. They contain more intrinsic argument, more
full and precise details, * more accurate illustrations, and * 70
(a) The Vcqiu. 4 C. Bob. 356 ; The CaroliDa, 8 C. Rob. 330.
(i) The N■]PBd^ 4 C. Bab. Ul ; The Neptnmu, S C. Bob. «03.
VOL. I. -7 • [97]
;abyG00<^lc
• 71 OP THE LAW OP NAnONS. [PABT L
are of more authority than the loose dicta of elementary writflFS.
When thoBe courts in thia country which are charged with the
adminiatration of international law have differed from the
EngliBh adjudications, we must take the law from domestic
sources; but euch an alternative is rarely to be met with; and
there is scarcely a decision in the English prize courts at West-
minster, on any general question of public right, that has not
received the express approbation and sanction of our national
courts. We have attained the rank of a great commercial
nation, and war, on our part, is carried on upon the same princi-
ples of maritime policy which have directed t^e forces and ani-
mated the councils of the naval powers of Europe. When the
United States fdrmed a component part of the British empire,
our prize law and theirs was the same ; and after the Bevolstion
it continued to be the same, as far as it was adapted to onr cir-
cumstances, and was not varied by the power which was capable
of changing it. The great value of a series of judicial decisions,
in prize cases, and on other questions depending on the law of
nations, is, that they render certain and stable the loose general
principles of that law, and show their application, and how they
are understood in the country where the tribunals are sitting.
They are, therefore, deservedly received with very great respect,
and are presumptive, though not conclusive, evidence of the lav
in the given case. This was the language of the Supreme Court
of the United States so late as 1816 ; (a) and the decisions^of
the English High Court of Admiralty, especially since the year
1798, have been consulted and uniformly respected by that
court, as 'enlightened commentaries on the law of nations, and
affording a vast variety of instructive precedents for the appli-
cations of the principles of that law. They have also this to rec-
ommend them, that they are pre-eminently distinguished
* 71 for sagacity, wisdom, and learning, as * well as for the
chaste and classical beauties of their composition.^
Many of the most important principles of public law have been
brought into use, and received a practical application, and been
reduced to legal precision, since the age of Grotiua and Pnffen-
dorf ; and we must resort to the judicial decisions of the priie
(a) 8 Cnnch, 19S.
> Hiatoiicna, Int. Law, G3, 84 (on M. HantefeniUe's work).
[98]
D.qilizMbyG001^lc
LECr. UI.] OP TBI LAW OP NATIOSS. 71
tribniiaU in Europe and in tfais country for information and aa-
thority on a great many points on which all the leading text- books
ha?e preserved a total silence, (x) The complexity of modern
commerce has swelled beyond all bounds ihe number and intri-
cacy of qaestiona upon national law, and particularly upon the
Tery comprehensive head of maritime caftture. The illegality
and penal consequences of trade with the enemy; the illegality
of carrying enemy's despatches, or of engaging in the coasting,
fishing, or other privileged trade of the enemy ; the illegality of
transfer of property in tratuitu between the neutral and bellige-
rent; the rules which impr£Bs upon neutral property a hostile
character, arising either from the domicile of the neutral owner,
or his territorial possessions, or hia connection with a house in
trade in tho enemy's country, — are all of them doctrines in the
modem international law, which are either not to be found at
all, or certainly not with any fulness of discussion and power of
argument, anywhere, but in the judicial investigations to which
I have referred, and which have given the highest authority and
splendor to this branch of learning.
(>) nM KoDroe doctrine, raceatlf in thg cau of Uie United States ehonld
rnncb diocneeed, althoogh not yet lecog- lie liberallj' extended by linet drawn' troia
Biud and defined in the L»w of Nttious, one diatint headland to another. - See 29
«ppeai^ apart from alliance with other Am. L. Kev. 419, 839, 887; 1 Wbarton'a
AmnicaD repoblics, to rest upon the right Digest, g G7 ; Tucker's Monroe Doctrine ;
of lelf-dcfenee and telf-protectioi), illiU' the recent debates in Congnsi, and Free.
tnt«d in the CMC of the three-mile tone Diaz's lecent meau^ and Ur. Phelp»' sd-
«sd arms of the sea aa enclosed waters, drese noticed in 02 Nation, 204, 280, &c
vhldi the snthor songsrt*, tupra, p. 80,
^cibyGoOl^lc
OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PART I.
LECTURE IT.
OF THB TABIODS KINDS OF PBOPGBTT LIABLE TO CAPTnBE.
It beoomes important, in & maritime war, to determine with
precision what relations and circumstances will impress a hostile
character upon persons and property; and the modern inter-
national law of the commercial world is replete with refined and
complicated distinctions on this subject. It is settled that there
may be a hostile character merely as to commercial purposes,
and hostility may attach only to the person as a temporary
enemy, or it may attach only to property of a particular descrip-
tion. This hostile character, in a commercial view, or one
limited to certain intents and purposes only, will attach in con-
sequence of having possessions in the territory of the enemy, or
by maintaining a commercial establishment there, or by s per-
sonal residence, or by particular modes of traffic, as by sailing
under the enemy's fl^ or passport. This hostile relation, grow-
ing out of particular circumstances, assumes as valid the distinc-
tion which has been taken between a permanent and a temporary
alien enemy. A man is said to be permanently an alien enemy
when he owes a permanent allegiance to the adverse belligerent,
and his hostility is commensurate in point of time with his coun-
try's quarrel. But he who does not owe a permanent allegiance
to the enemy is an enemy only during the existence and con-
tinuance of certain circumstances. A neutral, for instance, said
Ch. J. Eyre, (a) can be an alien enemy only with respect to his
acts done under a local or temporary allegiance to a power at
war, and when his temporary allegiance determines, his hostile
character determines also.
It was considered by Sir William Scott, in the case of the
Phcenix, (a) and again in the case of the Vrow Anna Catha-
(o) Spatrenbnrgh d. Bxnnatjne, 1 Bm. & PidL 103. (a] 5 C Rob. SO.
[1001
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. IT.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 74
rina, {b) to be a fixed principle of maritime law, that the posses-
Bion of the soil impressed upon the owner the character of the
country, bo far as the produce of the soil was concerned, wher-
erer the local residence of the owner might be. The produce of
t hostile soil bears a hostile character for the purpose of capture,
and is the subject of legitimate prize whea taken in a course of
transportation to any other country. The enemy's lands are sup-
posed to be a great source of his wealth, and perhaps the most
solid foundation of his power; and whoever owns or possesses
laud in the enemy's country, though be may in fact reside else-
where, and be in every other respect a neutral or friend, must be
taken to have incorporated himself with the nation, so far as he
is a holder of the soil ; and the produce of that soil is held to be
enemy's property, independent of the personal residence or occu-
pation of the owner, (x) The reasonableness of this principle
will be acceded to by all maritime nations ; and it was particularly
recognized as a valid doctrine by the Supreme Court of the
United States, in Bentzon v. Boyle, (e) '
1. Domicile In tha BtMrny's Conntt;. — If a person has a settle-
ment in a hostile country by the maintenance of a commercial
establishment there, he will be considered a hostile character,
and a subject of the enemy's country, in regard to his commer-
cial transactions connected with that establishment The posi-
tion is a clear one, that if a person goes into a foreign country,
{h) 6 C. Bob. 1S1. (c> 9 Cnncb, ISl.
1 The CKiuliaw, Blktehf. Pt. S, 27 ; The Muy ClintoD, ib. 6G6.
(z) All property piodne«d in Qm ene- orner." Halleck, Int. Lav (3d ed,),
IBj'i tcTiitoiy is ttampod with th« char- ch, 38, { 4, approred by Hunt, J. in New
MtarofttwtcoDiitry. Brigg's Ctse, 25 Ct Orleans b. Stcamahip Co., SO Wall, 3S7,
€L 120; 143 U. 8. 846. Of " immoTsble 897; see wupra, p. 36, note <z). A1-
pTDperty belonging to tbe conquered State, thougb, during th« ciTil war, the Goreni-
the eonqaeror haa, b; tlie right* of war, ment paid r«nt st Uempbii npou proof of
•cquind tbe nee eo long aa he holda them, the owner'e loyalty, such a contract can-
The fniitc, renti, and profita are, there- not be made or implied, witbont the ei-
lon, hie ; and he may lawfdlly elaim and presa sanction of tbe GoTemment with an
nenre than. Adj contiacti or agree- enemy for hie property in the teiritory of
mPBtii, bowerer, which he nay make with its enemiea. StovaU'e Cate, SB Ct. CI.
iDdiriduali fanning oat 'each property, ZSfl ; Oehome'e Casc^ 24 id. 4ie. Sea
will eootiane only so long as be retaine White's Case, 20 id. 264; Austin's Cas^
eontro] of them, and will cease on the 25 id. 437 ; 155 U. S. 417.
>r ncoTery by, their former
[101]
sObyGoOl^lc
•75 OP THE LAW or MATI0N8. [PABT I.
and engages in trade there, he is, by the law of nations, to be
considered a merchant of that conntry, and a snbject for all
* 75 civil purpose, * whether that country be hostile or nentral ;
and he cannot be permitted to retain the privileges of a
neutral character, during his residence and occupation in an
enemy's country, (a) * This general rule has been applied by
the EngUsh courts to the case of Englishmen residing in a neu-
tral country, and they are admitted, in respect to their bona fide
trade, to the privileges of the neutral character. (6) In the case
of the 2>anoiu, (e) the rule was laid down by the English House
of Lords, in 1802, in unrestricted terms ; and a British-bom sub-
ject, resident in Portugal, was allowed the benefit of the Portu-
guese character, so far as to render his trade with Holland, then
at war with England, not impeachable as an illegal trade. The
same rule was afterwards applied (d) to a natural-bom British
subject domiciled in tbe United States, and it was held that he
might lawfully trade to a country at war with England but at
peace with the United States, (x)
This same principle, that, for all commercial purposes, the
domicile of the party, without reference to the place of birth,
becomes the test of national character, has been repeatedly and
(a) WOaaa r. Hanyat, 8 T. B. 81 ; M'ConDflU «. Hector, 8 Boa. & TulL US ;
The loditD Chief, 8 C. Rob. IS ; The Anna Catharina, 4 C. Bob. 107 i The Pnsidwt,
e C. Kob. 377 ; Lord Stowsll [in The HatrUeaa,] 1 Hagg. Adm. lOS, 104.
(b) WConneU v. Hector, 8 Boa. ft Pali 118 ; The Eawnoel. 1 C Bob. 296.
<c) Cited iD 4 a Bob. 2SC, note.
(d) BeU >. Beid, 1 Uaule & Selw. 786.
- 1 Antt, 44, n. 1 ; The Abo, 1 Spinka, tory bj an enemy'a foroe doea not neeea-
Ad. ft Ec 847 ; The Aina, ib. 81S, S saiily give It a hoatile cbancter. Bat
Eng. Iaw ft Eq. BOO ; The 0«raiimo, 11 actual and firm poaaaaaioD bj ooe power
Hoore, F. C. 88 ; but eometimea, at in thi» or tbe other datenoinea the character of
caae, it ia * queation whether the place of the place for the time being. WheaL
residence is enemj'a ooautrj or not. A Dana't note 1 SO.
temporary oocnpation of nentral tetri- Aa to domicile, aee ii. 480, a. 1.
(x) Formerly a Britlah mtgect in the /» n Tootal'a Tnuta, 23 Ch. D. SS2. So
coveaanted aerrice of the Eaat India Com- a permanent reaidence, Qnder Britiah pio-
pany aeqnlred thaieby an Angio-Induui tection, at Cairo, which ie not a Britiah poa-
domicile the aame aa if be had contnuted aeadon gavemed by Engliah law, doea not
for terriea abroad ander a foreign OoTem- attract en Engliah or Anftlo-Eforptiandomi-
ment ; bat Britiah sabjecte resident in cile to one who ia a Tnrit by origin and a
Cbinaaa territory did not to like manneT member of the Chaldean Catholic einnmn-
aeqnire an Anglo-Chiueaa domicile. 3ee nity. Ahd-nl-Haatib*. FaiT«,18A.C.4IL
[102]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKT. IT.] OF THS LAW OP HATIOHS. » 76
explicitly admitted in the courts of the United States. If he
letideB in a belligerent conntry, his property is liable to capture
ts enemy's property, and if he resides in a neutral country, he
enjofB all the privileges, and is subject to all the inconTeniences,
of the neutral trade. He takes the advantages and dis-
adtantages, vhatever they * may be, of the country of his * 76
leaidence. (a) The doctrine is founded on the principles
of national law, and accords with the reason and practice of all
eiTiliied nations. J^ratujura atnittat ac privUegia et tmmunt-
tata domicilii priorii. {b) A person is not, however, permitted
to acquire a neutral domicile that will protect such a trade in
opposition to the belligerent claims of his native country, if he
emigrate from that country /o^rnnfe hello, (c) Vattel {d) denies
explicitly the right of emigration in a war in which his country
is involved. It would be a criminal act («) This doctrine is
considered as settled in the United States. (/}
The only limitation upon the principle of determining the
character from residence is, that the party must not be found in
hostility to his native country. Be must do nothing inconsistent
vitb his native allegiance; and this qualification is annexed to
file rule by Sir William Scott, in the case of the Emanuel, and
the same qualification exists in the French law, as well since
u before their revolution, {g) It has been questioned whether
the rule does not go too far, even with this restriction ; but it
qipears to be too well and solidly settled to be now shaken.
2. HMldanaa in th« Bnaai^a Cotmtr;. — It has been a question
admitting of much discussion and difficulty, arising from the com-
plicated character of commercial speculations, what state of facts
constitntes a residence so as to change or fix the commercial char-
acter of the party. The animvs manendi appears to have been the
point to be settled. The presumption, arising from actual resi-
(d) Cu« of the Sloop Cherter, 9 Dallu, 41 ( Hniny p. Schooner Betsey, 2 Cnudi,
14 ; lUlcf r. Sbattnck, S Cnnch, 48S ; UTiaprton v. Muyluid luninuioe Co., 7
Ctueh, NH ; The Venii^ 6 Cnneb, 3CS ; Tba Tnnoee, 8 Cnueb, SOS.
(1) Tort, Conun. «d PuuL i. 847.
(«) The Dob Hermuioi, 2 Wheaton, 79. (<0 B. I, e. IS, see. 230-228.
Ifi) See alto, to the aune eOiwt, Orotiiu, lib. 8, c. 6, no. 2^ Poffeudorf pu Bar-
hjiK, b. 8, c II, «MS. 8.
if) Dn» on Inmnnoa, i. 621.
ig) 1 a Bob. 2M ; Code Ntpoleon, Noe. 17, 21 ; Pothier'i Tralti da Droit de
horrUti, Ho. H.
[108]
;abyG00<^lc
* 78 OP THE LAW OF KATI0M8. [PABT I.
dence in aoy place, is, that the party is there animo manendi,
and it lies upon him to remove the preBumption, if it should be
requisite for his safety. (A) If the intention to establish
* 77 a permanent residence be ascertained, the recency * of the
establishment, though it may have been for a day only, is
immaterial. If there be no such intention, and the residence be
involuntary or constrained, then a residence, however long, does
not change the original character of the party, or give him a new
and hostile ona (a) But the circumstances requisite to establish
the domicile are flexible, and easily accommodated to the real
truth and equity of the case. Thus it requires fewer circum-
stances to constitute domicile in the case of a native subject,
who returns to reassume his original character, than it does to
impress the national character on a stranger. (&) The quo animo
is, in each case, the real subject of inquiry ; and when the resi-
dence exists freely, without force or restraint, it is usually held
to be complete, whether it be an actual or only an implied resi-
dence.
When the residence is once fixed, and has communicated a
national character to the party, it is not divested by a periodical
absence, or even by occasional visits to his native country, (c)
Nor is it invariably necessary that the residence be personal, in
order to impress a person with a national character. The general
rule undoubtedly is, that a neutral merchant may trade in the
ordinary manner to the country of a belligerent, by means of a
stationed agent there, and yet not contract the character of a
domiciled person. But if the principal be trading, not on the
' ordinary footing of a foreign merchant, but as a privileged trader
of the enemy, such a privileged trade puts him on the same
ground with their own subjects, and he would be considered as
sufficiently invested with the national character by the residence
of his agent Sir William Scott, in the case of the Anna
* 78 Catharina, (d) applied this distinction to the case of * a
neutral, invested with the privileges of a Spanish merchant,
and the full benefit of the Spanish character; and this case has
ih) The Beraon, 1 C. Bob. 102.
(a) The Diniu, Q C. Hob. 60 ; The Oceu, S C Bob. 90.
(t) I^ Viiginie, 6 C. Bob. 99.
(e) 1 Aoton, 116 ; 9 Cnnoh, 414 ; Hu«b»ll, Ch. J., The FiiendMhaft, S Wheftton,
14.
(4) < C. Bob. 107.
[104]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. IT.] OP THE LAW OF Hi.TIONB. • 78
beeo followed to its fullest extent in this couDtrj. fa) It affords
a sample of that piercing and unwearied investigation which the
courts of admiralty have displayed in unravelling the intricate
process by which an enemy's trade was attempted to be pro-
tected from hostile seizure, and in the application of sound priu-
ciplee of national law to new and complex cases. On the same
ground it has been decided (i) that an American consul-gen-
eral in Scotland, committing his whole duty to vice-consuls,
was deemed to have lost his neutral character by eng^ng in
trade in France ; and it is well settled that if a foreign consul
carries on trade as a merchant, in an enemy's country, bis con-
sular residence and character will not protect that trade from
interruption by seizure and condeomation as enemy's prop-
erty, (c)^
A national character, acquired by residence, may be thrown
off at pleasure by a return to the native country. It is an ad-
ventitious character, and ceases by non-residence, or when the
party puts himself in motion bona fide, to quit the country tine
ammo rtvertendi; and such an intention is essential, in order
to enable the party to reassume his native character, {d) * In the
(a) Thg &D Jdm Indiano, S aallison, 36S. In this cue, wja Mr. Doer, in hu
■ok on InraTuce, i. 627, the langiuga of Ht. Justice Stoiy raflects the ipirit and
MnnlalM the rtyle of the illDBtrioo> judge whow dactriuM he kdopte uid defends.
{f>) The Dree Oebroeders, i C. Rob. 2S2.
(c) Tattel, b. 4, e. 8, sec. 114 ; The Indiu Chief, S C. Bob. 23 ; Albretcbt v.
Hn^m.fB 3 y^ A BoL S23 ; Arnold v. V. I. Company, 1 Johns. Cas. 308.
(d) The Indisn Chief, S a Rob. 12 ; The Fneud«ch«l't, 8 WbnUin, 14.
> Cum cited, aitU, 44, n. 1. ib. 844 ; The John Oilpin, ik 681 ; The
* Cnitad States v. Qnillem , 11 How. Willi&m Bagale;> ^ ^■■1- 3?^ i ^e '^"l
47 ; The Amy Warwiok, S Sprsgue, 148 ; Jacket, ib. 842, 870 ; The Peterhoff, ib.
1. c 2 BUck, 636, 674. A foreigner re- 28, SO ; [Gates v. Goodloe, 101 C. 3. 612.]
riding in a coantry, if a irar bre»k> out The property of persona remaining vitbiu
betiTKu that conntty and another, is al- tha Soathem lines was treated aa enemy's
loved a msonable time for learing it and property, without legal4 to personal dis-
withdratring his bnsiness connections, position. See cases last cited, and the
lie Genaimo, 11 Hoore, P. C. 88 ; The Prize Cases, 2 BUck, 68C ; Mrs. Alezan-
Ariel, ib. 119, 127. And a like rule iraa der'a Cotton, 2 Wail. 484 ; Flying Send,
•ptaied in favor of dtizena of Northern 8 WaU. 283 ; MUler t>. United SUtea, 11
States temporarily residiiig or baring bos- Wall. 288, 806 ; Etgee v. Lovell, 1 Woolw.
inna leUtian* with the Botrtb at the be- 109 ; The Adeleo, 11 Op. Att.>Qen. 44G,
(inning of the lata war. The Saiah Starr, 4G1 ; cf. 15 U. S. St at L. 7S, 1 8 ; and
Blatch. Pr. 8S, 860 ; E3 Bales of Cotton, see El Telegrafo, Newb. 888.
[106]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 79 or THE LAV OP HATIOHS. [PABT I.
case of the Vemu, (e) the deciBions of the English conrts od
the subject of national character acquired by residence, and on
the consequeuoes of such acquired character, trere recognized as
being founded <m sound principles of public Jaw. It was de-
clared that the lav of nations distinguishes between a
* 79 temporary residence in a foreign * country for a special
purpose, and a residence, accompanied with an intention to
make it the party's domicile, or permanent place of abode; and
that the doctrine of the prize courts, and the common-law courts
of England, was the same on this subject with that of the public
jurists. As a consequence of the doctrine of domicile, the court
decided that if a citizen of the United States should establish
hia commercial domicile in a foreign country, and hostilities
should afterwards break out between that country and the
United States, his property, shipped before knowledge of the
war, and while that domicile continued, would be liable to cap-
ture, on the ground that his permanent residence had stamped
him with the national character of that country. The hostile
character was deemed to attach to the American citizen only
in respect to his property connected with his, residence in the
enemy's country; and the converse of the proposition was
also true, that the subject of a belligerent state, domiciled in
a neutral country, was to be considered a neutral by both the
belligerents, in reference to his trade. The doctrine of enemy's
property, arising from a domicile in an enemy's country,
is enforced strictly; and equitable qualifications of the rule are
generally disallowed, for the sake of preventing frauds on
belligerent rights, and to give the rule more precision and
certainty.
In the law of nations, as to Europe, the rule is, that men take
their national character from the general character of the conn*
try in which they reside; and this rule applies equally to
(e) 8 CroDch, 2S8. In tbu ewa, Ch. J. Uuihill dunnted Irom the deeuiaa at
the ooort, Mkd contended that ■ commanial domicile, wholly acquired in time of peace,
ceaaed at the oommenceiDant of hostilitiea, which rapetieded the motiTea that alone
Induced the foreign rendeuce ; that the pTsaiunptioD of an intention to tetnm to the
iMtiTe country at the flnt oppartnnit; wu to he entertained ; and that thii premnp-
tion ought to ahieM the property from oondemnation until delay or drminutuicea
■hould dettioy that prammption. Hr. Daer, in hit TreatiM on Inrarance, i. 4S1-G08,
OMkdden thla o^nion of the Ch. J. m exceedingly able, and he evidently eoncan in
t^t i^inioo. There it no donbt of ita superior tolidity and joatice.
[106]
sObyGoOl^lc
(JCT. lY.] OP THE LAW OP NATIOITS. • 80
Anerioa. Bat iu Asia and Africa an immiBcible character is
kept up, and Europeans, trading under the protection of a
factoiy, take their national character from the establishment
under which they liye and trade. This rule applies to those
parts of the world from obvious reaeous of policy, because for-
eigners are not admitted there, as in Europe "and the western
part of the world, " into the general body and mass of the societiy
of the nation, but they continue etrangera and sojourners,
Bot acquiring any national • character under the general * 80
sovereignty of the country, (a)
National character may be acquired in consideration of the
traffic in which the party is concerned. If a person connects
himself with a bouse of trade in the enemy's country, in time of
war, or continues during a war a connection formed in a time
of peace, he cannot protect himself by having his domicile in a
neutral country. Ha is considered as impressed with a hostile
diaracter in reference to so much of his commerce as may be
connected with that establishment.' The rule is the same,
whether he maintains that establishment as a partner or as a sole
trader, (h) The Supreme Court of the United States, referring
to the Ehiglieh prize cases on this subject, observed, that they
considered the rule to be inflexibly settled, and that they were
not at liberty to depart from it, whatever doubt might have been
entertained if the case was entirely new.
Bat though a belligerent has a right to consider as enemies all
persons who reside in a hostile country, or maintain commercial
eatablishmentt* there, whether they be by bii-th neutrals, or allies,
or fellow-sub jects, yet the rule is accompanied with thia equitable
qnalification, that they are enemies rub modo only, or in reference
to so much of t^eir property as is connected with that residence
or establishment. This nice and subtle distinction allows a mer<
chant te act in two characters, so as to protect his property con-
nected with his house in a neutral country, and to subject to
■eiznre and forfeiture his effects belonging to the establishment
(«) The Indiu Chfsf, S O. Rob. SS ; [anU, i2, a. 1.]
(A) The Tigilantu, 1 C. Bob. 1 ; The Portland,' 8 C. Rob. 41 ; The San Jote In-
dluw, S Gillisoii, 368 ; The Antonia Johaona, 1 W]i«aton, 1G& t Tha FriendKhaft, 4
WhcaloD, lOG.
1 Tha Vmiam Bagalif, S WaU. 877 ; Tha Oray Jacket, ib. S42 ; The Cheahire, 3
Till 2SI ; a. c. BlatchT. Pr. 151.
[107]
;abyG00<^lc
* 81 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAST 1.
in the belligerent countiy. So there may he a partnerahip be-
tween two persons, Qie one residing in a neutral, and the
* 81 other in a belligerent country, and the trade of one ■ of
them with the enemy will be held lawfal, and that of the
other unlawful, and consequently the share of one partner in the
joint traffic will be condemned, while that of the other will be
restored. This distinction has been frequently sustained, notr
withstanding the difficulties that may attend the discriminatioD
between the innocent and the noxious trade, and the rule has
been introduced into the maritime law of this country, (a)
3. Colonial Ttade. — The next mode in which a hostile charac-
ter may be impressed, according to the doctrine of the English
courts, is by dealing in those branches of commerce which were
confined, in time of peace, to the subjects of the enemy. There
can be no doubt that a special license, granted by a belligerent
to a neutral Tessel, to trade to her colony, with all the privileges
of a native vessel, in those branches of commerce which were
before confined to native subjects, would warrant the presump-
tion that such vessel was adopted and neutralized, or that such
permission was granted in fraud of the belligerent right of cap-
ture, and the property so covered may reasonably be regarded
as enemy's property. This was the doctrine in the case of Cerent
V. Ruoker, &g early as 1760. (h) But the English rule goes
further, and it annexes a hostile character, and the penal con-
sequences of confiscation, to the ship and cargo of a neutral
engaged in the colonial or coasting trade of the enemy, not open
to foreignere in time of peace, but confined to native subjects
by the fundamental regulations of the state. This prohibition
stands upon two grounds: 1st That if the coasting or colonial
trade, reserved by the permanent policy of a nation to its own
subjects and vessels, be open to neutrals during war, the act
(a) The Portland, S C. Bob. 11 ; TV HermBD, 4 C. Rob. S9S ; The Jonge Klu-
rinft, S C. Rob. 297 ; The Bui Jobs Indiano, 2 O&lluon, 3S8. [Hall, InL Law, pt. S,
c. 6, on "Enemj Charaotar." It U to be obeerved ttmt property may be liaUe to
capture eithsr beeuue it li an enemy's property, or becaoae it ia itoeir hoetilg in migin
oi in the pnrpoee t« which it vt intended to be put Thns cotton irithin the enemy'i
lines was liable to capture thoDgh belonging to a Biitiah snl^ect- ToanK r. Unitad
States, 97 U.S. 39. — s.]
(A) 1 Wm. BL 81S. See also tlie caae^of The Princeaaa, 3 C Bob. 62 ; 'Rts Anns
Cstharina, 4 C. Sob. 107 i Tbe BeDdsboig, 4 C. Rob. ISl ; The Trow AnDft Catharina,
C C. Bob. 16.
[108]
sObyGoOl^lc
UCT. 17.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. " 83
proceeds from the pressure of the naval force of the euemy, and
to obtain relief from that presflure. The neutral who inter-
poe» to relieve the belligerent, under such circumatances,
'rescues him from the condition to which the arms of his *82
enemy had reduced him, restores to him those resources
which have heen wrested from him by the arms of his adversary, .
and deprives that adversary of the advantages which successful
war had given him. This the opposing belligerent pronounces
a departure from neutrality, and an interference iu the war, to
his prejudice. 2d. If the trade be not opened by law, the neu-
tral employed in a trade reserved by the enemy to his own Tea-
sels identifies himself with that enemy, and assumes his character.
These principles first became a subject of interesting discussion
iu the war of 1756, and they are generally known in England
and in this country by the appellation of the rule of 1756 ; but
tbe rule is said to have been asserted before that period.
In the letter of Puffendorf to Groningius, published iu 1701, {a)
he says that the English and the Dutch were willing to leave to
neutrals the commerce they were accustomed to carry on in time
of peace, but were not willing to allow them to avail themselves
of the war to augment it, to the prejudice of the English and
the Datch. The French ordinances of 1704 and 1744 (J) have
been considered as founded upon the basis of the same rule, and
regulations are made to enforce it, and to preserve to neutrals
the same trade which they had been accustomed to enjoy in
peace, and to prohibit them from engaging in the colonial trade
of the enemy. There is some evidence, also, that in the reign of
Charles II. neutral vessels were considered, both by England
and Holland, to be liable to capture and condemnation for being
concerned in the coasting trade of the enemy. The Dutch, at
that day, contended for this neutral exclusion, on the authority
of general reasoning and the practice of nations; and the same
rule is said to have been asserted in the English courts, in the
war of 1741, and the exclusion of neutral vessels from the
coasting trade of the enemy was declared to stand upon * the * 83
law of nations, (a) But it was in the war of 1756 that the
mle awakened general and earnest attention. Hr. Jenkinson,
in his "Discourse on the conduct of Great Britain in respect to
fa) Pair. I>roit des Otae, par Barbejnc, ii. 658.
(i) Tdin, Comm. ii. 248, 2G0. {a) S C. Bob. 74, note, and 253, note.
[109]
sObyGoOl^lc
"84 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PABT L
neutral nations," vritten in 1757, considered it to be unjust and
illegal for neutrals to avail themselves of the pressure of war to
engage in a new species of traffic, not permitted in peace, aod
which the necessities of one belligerent obliged him to grant to
the detriment, or perhaps to the destruction, of the other, (b)
On the other band, Hiibner, who published his treatise (e) in
1759, is of opinion that neutrals may avail themselves of tliiB
advantage presented b; Uie war, though he admits the lawfuInesB
of the trade to be a question of some uncertaint;.-
Thus seemed to stand the authority of the rule of 1756, (d)
when it was revived and brought into operation by England, in
i^e war of 1793, and again upon the renewal of war in 180S.
The rule was enforced by her, under occasional relaxatioiu,
during the long course of the wars arising out of the French
Revolution; and it was frequently vindicated by Sir William
Scott, in the course of his judicial decisions, with his customary
ability and persuasive manner, as a rule founded in natural
justice and the established jurisprudence of nations, (e) On the
other hand, the government of the United States constantly and
earnestly protested against the legality of the rule, to the extent
claimed by Oreat Britain ; and they insisted, in their diplo-
* 84 matic intercourse, that the * rule was an attempt to estab-
lish " a new principle of the law of nations," and one which
subverted "many other principles of great importance which
have heretofore been held sacred among nations." They insisted
that neutrals were of right entitled "to trade, with the excep-
tion of blockades and contrabands, to and between all ports
of the enemy, and io all articles, although t^e trade should not
(b) In the BritUli HeuMTuO, addrawed to the Depntiee of the Stste* OciNnl of
Holland, DecMober 22, I7ES, the injnstice of neatnli in ■■mining tha anenij'i
carrying trade was urged, and if iraa declared th»t their hig\ mightmiiKt had iukt
tuffertd mcK a tradt, and that it had been oppoaed in all oonntriei in like drcom-
(«) De la Saisie de* BatJmena Nentru. Mr. WheatoD, in hie Historj oF tha Law
of Nationi in Europn and America, New Yorlc, 1S4G, 216-228, hat giTen a tminniarj
of the two email volamea of Hiibner on nenbsl rights ; and he atj» that the doc-
trines of Hiibner fonnd biit little famr with the public jorieti, hie oonlempiHariee.
It is a work of inferior weight and aathority.
{dj It stood npon loose gronnds, in point of oCBcial aathority, aeaordiiig to the able
examination of the docnmantar; evidence of the rale, giren in a notato tbefitstvolann
of Ur. Wbeaton'B Beporta, App. note 3.
(() The Immamiet 2 0. Sob. 189, and C. Rob. Bap. paimm.
[110]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKT. IT.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 86
h&Tebeen opened to them in time of peace." (a) It was con-
sidered to be the right of every independent power to treat, in
time of peace, with every other nation, for leave to trade with
its colonies, and to enter into any trade, whether new or old,
that was not of itself illegal and a violation of neutrality. One
state had nothing to do with the circumstances or motives which
induced anoUier nation to open her porta. The trade must have
a direct reference to the hostile efforts of the belligerents, like
dealing in contraband, in order to render it a breach of neutrality.
The rale of 1756, especially in respect to colonial trade, has also
been attacked and defended by writers in this country, with
ability and learning; and though the rule would seem to have
nceived the very general approbation of British lawyers and
statesmen, yet it was not exempt from severe criticism, even in
distinguished publications in that country. The principle of the
rale of 1756 may, therefore, very fairly be considered as one un-
settled and donbtful, and open to future and vexed discussion.
The Chief Justice of the United States, in the case of the Com-
aeroen, (i) alluded to the rule, but purposely avoided expressing
any opinion on the correctness of the principle. It is very pos-
sible that, if the United States should hereafter attain that eleva-
tion of maritime power and influence which their rapid
growth and great resources seem to indicate, * and which * 86
shall prove sufficient to render it expedient for her mari-
time enemy {if any such enemy shall ever exist) to open all his
domestic trade to enterprising nentrals, we might be induced to
feel more sensibly than we have hitherto done the weight of the
arguments of the foreign jurists in favor of the policy and equity
of the rule, (a) »
(a) Hr. Honnn'i Letter to Lord HnlglmTe, of Septombar 28, ISOG, and Ur. HmU-
MD'i I«tt«r to Memn. UonToe and Pinckney, dated Ha; 17, IBOS.
ib) 1 WhMfam, 3Se.
I (s) On th« nibject of nentnl trade between the colon; and tlia mother conntr;
r «( a bdligemit power, it wm a qnestion diacntHed in the Engliah admiialtj, in the caae
• af the Pdl; (ISno), wbetber the fact of a cargo, coneiatiiig of Spanish colonial
ptodnce, imported from the Havana in an American ehip to the IJnited States, and
afttr bdng landed aad dntiM paid, reexported in the came veeeel to Spain, wm
* On the anbject of Mmtinnitj of roj- mnda, 8 WalL S14, affiimt the dootrtue
■pa, diaciuaed in note (a), ne The Hart, of Sir William Orant, and aleo that when
SWaO. SSB; i. c Blatehf. Pr. 387; Jecker MTenl ehipe are iDcceniTtly akgngfii in
rj, 18 How. 110. The Ber- one truieaction of eonvejing a cargo to
[111]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 85 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PABT I.
Sailing under the flag and pass of an enemy ie another mode
by which a hostile character may be affixed to property ; for if
a neutral Teasel enjoys the priTilegea of a foreign character, she
lufficient to break the continuity of the voytge from the enemy'a colony to the
moLher countiy, and legalize th« ttsde by the msre tranmbipmsnt in the United
Statea. Sir William S«ott, in that case, thought that landing the goodi and p«j)sg
the datisa was a aufficient test of the bona jidu of the tranaaction. S C. Rob. S41.
But afterward*, in the oasea of the Eoax and the Haria (S id. SflS, SSS), it was
held that metely lowKifii at the naatral port, and paying a nominal duty, wai •
mere eTaaion, and not sufficient to exempt the voyage &om the charge uf a direct,
Gontiiiued, and nnlawful trade between the mother countiy and the colony of the
enemy. The queation ia one of intent. Did the anAaaa itnjurtmufi terminate at tha
intermediate port, or look to an ulterior port T Was it, under the circumstances, a
a hlockaded belligerent port, and a ship by Cnited States cmisan, which was the
is Ut by its owners for the firat part of lot* complained of, allied only a mental
the voyage with a view to the nlterior proceaa and not a participation in the un-
destination of the oaigo, or when a ship lawfnl tmnsaction, and so did not show a
let at aboTC ia carrying a oontnband concealment of material facta. iiL SII&,
oargo, destined to a belligerent port, un- n. 1.
der ciicamstancea of bad faith, such ship Aa to the latt part of note (a) lee
may be oondemned. See further The Eatchenonky's Piiie Law, tnnalated by
Peterhoff, 5 Wall 28, M ; s. c. Blatchf. Pratt, London, 1867, for criticism of the
Fr. 468. Sea farther, iii. 269, n. 1. British rule.
Professor Hountague Bernard, in his The next passage in the text is cited
Neutrality of Great Britain daring the and approved in The William Bagaky,
American Civil War (c. 12, pp. 810, 811), G Wall. S77, 410. The share of a neutral
•ays that these decisions extended Lord in a ship sailing under the flag and pass
Stowell'B doctrine of continuons voyages of an enemy, though porchaaed before the
to breaches of blockade and to convey- war, is liable to condemnation. The Pii.
anca of articles contraband of war for mus, 1 Rpinks, Ec. & Ad. SGS ; The In-
the first time ; and that before that war dustiie, ib. 444 ; same caset, SS Eng. I^w
' it hod been commonly aainmed that if a & Eq. S89 ; 38 id. 672.
neutral port were the ftona fd» destdnn- By an order in conncil, which was
tion of the ship and the eud of her out- paased at the beginning of the Crimean
ward voyage, both ship and goods were war, and which will be refeired to sgun,
safe, and a prize conrt would not inqnire 128, n. 1, it was signified not to be " her
what was the destination of the cargo. H^csty's intention to cUim the oonfiaca-
In Hobbe r. Henuing, 17 C. 8. k. a. tion of nentral property, not being con-
791, which was a iniit against the insurers traband of war, fonnd on board enemy'*
of the Peterboff's cargo, after the condem- ships." 1 Spinks, Ec &Ad. R.ai^. p.ii.
nation by our courts, it waa held that a No. 8. The French government, which
plea that the goods were contraband, and hod maintainad a contrary doctrine, made
were shipped by the plaintiff for the pur- a aimilar declaration. Wheat. Lawreoce's
pass of being sent to a port in a sUte at note 328. See declaration of principln
war with the United States, &c., that de- of the Cougress of Psris, April 16, 1854 ;
fendant was ignorant of these facta at the Ann. R%. ISGO, p. 221 ; Wheat. Law-
time of insuring, and the veswl was eeized Fence's note 102 ; foiL, 128, u. 1.
[1121
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT, IT,] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. "85
most expect, at the same time, to be subject to the inconreniences
attaching to that character, lliis rule is necessary to prevent
the fraudulent mask of enemy's property. But a distinction is
miide, in the Et^lish cases, between the ship and the cai^o.
Some countries have gone so far as to make the fl^ and pass of
the ship conclusive on the cargo also ; but the English courts
have never carried the principle to that extent, as to cargoes
Uden before the war. The English rule is, to hold the ship
bound by the character imposed upon it by the authority of the
government from which all the documents issue. But goods
which have no such dependence upon the authority of the state
may be differently considered ; and if the cargo be laden in time
of peace, though documented as foreign property in the same
manner as the ship, the sailing uuder a foreign flag and pass has
not been held conclusive as to the cargo. (() The doctrine of the
federal coorts in this country has been very strict on this point,
and it has been frequently decided that sailing under the license
and passport of protection of the enemy, in furtherance of his
views and interests, was, without regard to the object of the
voyage or the port of destination, such an act of illegality as
subjected both ship and cargo to confiscation as prize of war. (c)
iomfide importation, ending at t^« intermediate port,, or a mere contrivance to
tOKt the original acheme of the voynge to an nlterior port I This ig the true prin-
d[d« oT the case*, ■■ declared by Sir William Grant, in the can of The William,
I C. Bob. 385, and recognized in this country. OjHnions of the Attomeya^General
of tb* United BUtea, i. 869-362, 804-890. It ia nnderatood that the EnglUh and
Amnicui Comminionen at London, in 1800, came to an nnderatanding aa to the
pnpar and defined test of a bona fide importation of cargo into the comTDon stock of
the country, and aa to the difference between a continuous and an interrupted
Toyage. But the tr«aty so agreed on was withheld by President Jefferson from the
Senate of the United States, and never ratified. The doctrine of the English
admiralty is just .nnd rsMonable on the assamption of the British rnle, beosnse we
hare no light to do covertly and insidiouBly what we have no right to do openly
wd directly. That rule is, that a direct trade by uentrals, between the mother coon-
tty and the colonies of her enemy, and not allowed in tome of peace, is by the law
ef natjons unlawful. But if that rule be not well founded, all the i]ualificaliona of
it do not help it ; and in the ofBcial opinion of Mr. Wirt to the eiectitiTB dejiart-
■unt, while he condemns the legality of the rule itself, he approves, aa juat iu the
abttnct, the English principle of continuity. Opinions of the Attomeye^euersl,
LSH-8e«.
(6) The Elinheth, 6 C. Rob. 2 ; The Treede Schottys, oLted in the note to A C.
Sob. S.
(c| The Julia, 1 aalliw>n, 605 ; a. c S Crancb, 181 ; The Aaron, ib. 203 ; The
Hinia, ik 444 ; The Ariadne, 2 Wheaton, 143 ; The Caledonia, 4 WhestOD, 100.
TOI.L-8 [118]
;abyG00<^lc
• 86 OP THB LAW OP NATIOHB. [PART I.
* 86 The * federal courts placed the objectioD to tliese licenaea
on the ground of a pacific dealing with the enemy, and as
amounting to a contract that the party to whom the license is
given should, for that Toyage, withdraw himself from the war,
and enjoy the repose and blessings of peace. The illegality of
such an intercourse was strongly condemned ; and it was held
that the moment the vessel sailed on a voyage, with an enemy's
license on board, the o£Fence was irrevocably committed and con-
summated, and that the delictum was not done away even by the
termination of the voyage, but the vessel and cai^ might be
seized after arrival in a port of the United States, and condemned
as lawful prize.
4. Property In Tranalta. — Having thus considered the principal
circumstances which have been held by the courts of international
law to impress a hostile character upon commerce, it may be here
observed, that property which has a hostile character at the com-
mencement of the voyage cannot change that character by assign-
ment, while it is in tranaitii, so as to protect it from capture.
This would lead to fraudulent contrivances to protect the prop-
erty from capture, by colorable assignments to nentrals. But if
a shipment be made in peace, and not in expectation of war, and
the contract lays the risk of the shipment on the neutral c<h)-
signor, the legal property will remain to the end of the voyage
in the consignor, (a) During peace, a transfer tn tratuitu may
be made ; but when war is existing or impending, the belligerent
rule applies, and the ownership of the property is deemed to
continue as it was at the time of the shipment until actual deliv-
ery.^ This illegality of transfer, during or in contemplation of
' That in iniunnce U void, whan mide on % voyaga so midarad illegal by nilnig
ondar in memj's Uccdw, ii oooBidand as tettled. Colqnhonu n. N. Y. F. In*. Coi,
IG Johna. BS2 ; Ogdan v. Barker, IS Johna. 87 ; Ciaig e. U. & Id*. Co, 1 ttim,
C. C. 410.
[a) Puket De Bilboa, 2 C. Bob. 188, 134 ; Anna Cbthaiina, 4 id. 113.
1 The SaU7 Uagee, 8 WaU. 4S1, 460. Law K»g. and Law Sav., Aug. 1170,
See United StatM b. Tfaa LilK S Cliff, xxix. 288, adroeataa atUl mon libttal
1S9. Bot actual dalirerf tanninitea tlia dcwtrinaa.
traHtitut, ao Tar aa liability to capture ia Tha aboTs were caaaa erf' marchant
coDoeniecL Tha Bdtica, II Hoora, P. reisela. The Georgia waa a Confedent*
G. 141 ; Baltuii t>. Rydar, Tha Panaghia war atcamer. After crniaiiig a year or
Rfaonba, IS Uoore, P. C. 16S, 138. See more, aod doing a good daal of damage.
The Ariel, 11 Hoore, P. C 110 ; Th« ake tan into lirapool to aacapa the
[114]
sObyGoOl^lc
UCT. IT.] OF THE Ui.W OF NATIONS. * 87
war, is for &e Bake of the belligerent right, and to prevent eeoret
transfers from the enemy to neutrals, in fraud of that right, and
upon conditions and reservations which it might be imposaible to
detect (() So property shipped from a neutral to the enemy's
country, under a contract to become the property of the enemy
on arrival, may be taken tn trantitu as enemy's property ; for
capture is considered as delivery. The captor, by the righte of
war, stands in the place of the enemy, (c) The prize courts
will * not allow a neutral and belligerent, by a special agree- * 87
ment, to change the ordinary rule of peace, by which goods
ordered and delivered to the master are considered as delivered
to the consignee. All such ^reements, though valid in time of
peace, are in time of war, or in peace, if made in contemplation
d war, and with intent to protect from capture, held to be con-
structively fraudulent; and if they could operate, they would go
to cover all belligerent property, while passing between a bellig-
erent and a neutral country, since the risk of capture would he
Iftid alternately on the consignor or consignee, as the neutral
factor should happen to stand in the one or the other of those
relations. These principles of the English admiralty have been
explicitly reci^nized and acted upon by the prize courts in this
country. The great principles of national law were held to
require that, in war, enemy's property should not change its
hostile character, tn tranntu ; and that no secret liens, no future
elections, no private contracts looking to future events, should
be able to cover private property while sailing on the ocean, (a)
Captors disregard all equitable liens on enemy's property, and
lay their hands on the gross tangible property, and rely on the
simple title in the name and posaeBBion of the enemy. If they
were to open the door to equitable claims, there would be no end
(i) TiDw Hargurtlu, 1 C. Bob. 88S ; Jan Prederiok, S C. Bob. ISS. Sm aJn
lCBob.1, 101,132; SC. Rob. 137; I C.Bob, le.nota; IC. Rob. S2; ThsBoedei
Loit, G a Bob. 288 ; Stoir, J., in The Ann OreeD, 1 OslIiBOU, 291.
(e) The Amu Okthuiuo, 4 C. Bob. 107 ) The SiJly Oriffithi, 8 C. Bob. 800, ts
(s) The Fnneu, 1 Qklluon, 443 ; 8 Cranch, 33G, SCS, a. a.
Knmrtp ■nd other TJaited SUttM Tel- Kized u soon u she caina ont The
nU, which wire in leaTch of her. While Supreme Coprt affirmed > decree con-
in port, ihe KM boAa fidt dumantled, and demning ber ai good prize. The Oeor-
mU to a Bridah nibjeet for commercial gia, 7 Wall. 83 ; a. C. 1 Lowell, 06.
ptupoMa. But ahe wu watched and
[116]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 87 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
to diBCUBsion aod imposition, and the simplicity and celerity oi
proceedings in prize courts would be lost {b) ^ All reserration
of risk to the neutral conBignors, iu order to protect belligerent
consignees, are held to be fraudulent ; and these numerous and
strict rules of the maritime jurisprudence of the prize courts are
intended to uphold the rights of lawful maritime capture, and to
prevent frauds, and to preserve candor and good faith in the
intercourse between belligerents and neutrals, (ti) The modem
cases contain numerous and striking instances of the acnteDeag
o£ the captors in tracking out deceit, and of the dexterity of the
claimants in eluding investigation, (d) *
{b) The JoBspbine, 4 C. Bob. 2G ; The Tobago, G id. 318 ; The Uaiiuiiu, S id.
24 ; and the Americaa cubh, tibi supra. It is the geuenl rule and pnetiee in the
admiralty, on queetions depending npon title to reeaeU, to look to the legal title,
without taking notice of eqoit&hle claims. The Siaten, G C. Rob. 155 ; The Valiant.
1 Wm. Rob. 64.
(e) The priie law, aa declared b; the English admiiiltf as esrly as 1741, and bj
the deciaiona of the prize conrta in thia countrj, in the case of property m froniifii,
daring war, is clearly and correctly stated and ably enforced by Mr. Dner in hit
Treatise on Insurance, i. 478-484.
{d) The purchase of ships is a branch of tiade nsatrala may Uwfnlty engage in,
when they act in good faith, thongh from its nature it is liable to great anspicioii,
and the circumstauces of the case are examined iu the prize courts with a jealoni and
sharp Tigilance. Dner on InaaraDce, L 444, 44G, G73,^
> The Sally Magee, S WalL 4G1 ; a. c. SIS ; The Maria, 11 Hoore, P. Q 371,187.
Blatchf. Pr. 8B2 ; The Battle, 6 Wall . 408 ; commented on in The Amy Warwick, !
The Ida, Spinka, Prize Cas. 26. Andalike Spngue, ISO, 15B. Bnemy'a lieu od
principle was applied against a bonafide neutral ship* are to be equally disir-
mortffigw not in poaaession, although a gaided, and will not Tender then liable
citizen of the coautry whose coDrts da- to capture. The Ariel, 11 Moon, P. C.
cided the case. The Hampton, C Wall. 119.
373. See The Aina, Spioka, Ec. & Ad.
1 Sas, gsnerally. The Ariel, 11 Uoore, Uerck, 8[anks, Prin Cas. 99 ; a. C. 1
P. C. 119 ; The Baltica. ib. 141 ; Enut Spinka, Ec. & Ad. 87.
[116]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. v.] OP THE LAW OF NATI0H8.
LECTURE V.
OF THE BIGHTS OF BELUQERENT H1.T10NS IN BEUTION TO EACH
OTHEB.
The end of war ia to procure by force the juBtice which cannot
otherwise be obtained ; and the law of nations allows the means
requisite to the end. The persons and property of the enemy
may be attacked and captured, or destroyed, when necessary to
procure reparation or Becurity. There Ib no limitation to the
career of violence and destruction, if we follow the earlier writers
00 this subject, who have paid too much deference to the Tiolent
maxims and practices of the ancients and the usages of the
Gothic f^es. They have considered a state of war as a dissolu-
tion of all moral tiee, and a license for every kind of disorder and
intemperate fierceness. An enemy was regarded aa a criminal
and an outlaw, who bad forfeited his rights, and whose life, lib-
erty, and property lay at the mercy of the conqueror. Every-
thing done against an enemy was held to be lawful. He might
be destroyed, though unarmed and defenceless. Fraud might be
employed bb well as force, and force without any regard to the
meaDS, (a) But these barbarous rights of war have been ques-
tioned and checked in the progress of civilization. Public opin-
ion, aa it becomes enlightened and refined, condemns all
cruelty, and all wanton destruction of life * and property, as * 90
equally useless and injuriouB ; and it controls the violence of
war by the energy and severity of its reproaches.
1. Hodttratioa a dn^. — Grotius, even in opposition to many of
his own anthorities, and under a due sense of the obligations of
religion and humanity, placed bounds to the ravages of war, and
mentioned [maintained?] that many things were not fit and com-
mendable, tiiough they might be strictly lawful ; and that the law
(a) GrotiDi, b. 3, c 4 uid 9 ; Fa£ lib. 2, c. Ifi, mc S ; Bfnb. Q. J. Pub. b. 1, e.
1> % 8 ; BnrUmMini, pL 4, o. fi.
[117]
sObyGoOl^lc
*91 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PAXt I.
of nature forbade what the law of nations (meaning thereby the
practice of nations) tolerated. He held that the law of nations
prohibited the use of poisoned arms, or the employment of assas-
sins, or violence to women, or to the dead, or making slaves of
prisonerit ; (a) and the moderation which he inculcated had a visi-
ble influence upon the seutimente and manners of Europe. Under
the sanction of his great authority men began to entertain more
enlai^ed views of national policy, and to consider a mild and
temperate exercise of the righta of war to be dictated by an en-
lightened self-interest as well as by the precepts of Ghristianity.
And notwithstanding some subsequent writers, as Byukershoek
and Wolfius, restored war to all its horrors, by allowing the use
of poison and other illicit arms, yet such rules became abhorrent
to the cultivated reason and growing humanity of the Christian
nations. Montesquieu insisted (h) that the laws of war gave no
other power over a captive than to keep him safely, and that all
unnecessary rigor was condemned by the reason and conscience
of mankind. Rutherforth {c) has spoken to the same effect, and
Martens (d) enumerates several modes of war and species of
arms as being now held unlawful by the laws of war, Yattel (e)
has entered largely into the subject, and he argues with
*91 great strong *of reason and eloquence against all un-
necessary cruelty, all base revenge, and all mean and per-
fidious warfare ; and he recommends his benevolent doctrines by
the precepts of exalted ethics and sound policy, and by illus-
trations drawn from some of the most pathetic and illustrious
examples, (x)
(a) B. B, e. i, S, 7. {h) EM^nt (tea Loaii, b. 15, c 3.
(e) Inst. 2, e. 9. (cC) Sumiiuu^, b. S, c. 3, mc 8.
{e) B. S, e. 8.
(z) Thft Hntiment of the Bgs oondeaiiu bf other mum. WhettoD nji thkt nnge,
the emplojment of each initramenti or which hu acquired thl fores of hiir, ei-
WMpoiu u will causa a lueleu shsddiiig cepta from the opentionB of wir chnrchae,
of blood. It it DOW couudered a violation pnbUc ediflccs eicloaively devoted to the
ofrightif weapon* of wuwe turned Bgaiiut civil nervice, moniunenta of ut, mnwama,
noD-comtstauts or unfortified cities or and ecieutiGc eatablinhments. Modern
' towns, or if ft captured city is lacked or de- neagedoeanot pennit theoae orbvbaroiu
iDolished ; and the bombardment of forts weapons, as bar-ahot, poisoned weapons,
and other fortified placea is teguded as a ezptosive bullets, or balls so shaped ■« to
meaaure of extreme rigor, joati&able only make death the result of a waand. So
when it is impoadble to aecnn • •urrauder the innnitinntinn o
[118]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Y.] OP THE LAW OP K4TI0HB. • 91
There is a marked difference in the right of var, carried on by
land and at sea. The object of a maritime war is the deatmc-
tion of the enemy'B commerce and navigation, in order to weaken
and destroy the foundatione of bis naval power. The capture
or destruction of private property is essential to that end, and it
is allowed in maritime wars by the law and practice of nationa.
But there are great limitations imposed upon the operations of
war by land, though depredations upon private property, and
log of w«Ui or ol pTorinom »n looked 319 ; Halleck's Int. I^w, p. SS7 ; Glut,
BpanuodioOBeriiDM. InlSSS.mconipict Muine Int. L&w, p. 8S; 8 Wharton's Int.
m nude kt St. Petciabnig, betwsen kU I«w, {{ 34B u, 884 ; Walker'a Int. I«w,
tin Enropean powan, ah«olut«1y forbid- c. 6 ; D«rid Dndle; Field's Memoir, SB'
ding the nw of (izplosiTe UUs ; ud by Alb. L. J. 2Si ; 26 Rerue Droit Int. 9,
tliiB GfliuTa Conrention of 1864, imbn- fiSfl; 34 id. 404. Ai to divnlging milit<iTj
LuKca >nd hnpitali whm naed for the secrets, see 21 Jonm. dn Droit Int. 2S5,
on of the nek or wounded, were to b« 489.
■AiMmlodgad M MDtntl, uid petBoni, Prisoners of war are no longer required
IndodiDg medical men and cbaplaine, em- to give information to their capton ra-
^ojed in connection therewith, were also specting their own um; or eonntrj, and
to hiTe tha benefit of inch neutrality. So are not to be poniahed for giving fialM
ttta enemy's soldien, when Uken prisoner, information ; they are also permitted to
or diaabled, are not to be maimed or put retain their money and valuables, to a ren-
te drath, when the preaerration of their sonablfl amowit, and their extra clothing ;
Una it conaiatent with safety and the and persona forced to aerre as guides are
enemy has not by cruelty jurti&ed retalia- not to be pnniihad for ao doing. Instruc-
titti. Priatmen are not to be sold into tion« for the U. 8. Armiea (1868), { 8, cl.
e^tiTi^, and the employment of aaTagea, 72, 80, 94.
oodntiied Indians, M>d cMuiibak in war The influence of th« United States in
is also oondonned. But the rules of war promoting international arbitradon is
justify atratagema by land or sea, disguise sboirn historically in 26 Am. Law Bar. 66,
of unifonn, tfa« nee of spies, the ambosh, S6; 24 id. 897; 48 Alb. L. J. SBl. As to
■aines, bombs, cheTranx do friei«, grape, disarmament by intematioifal Bgreemeiit,
and shell ; also the falae flag, but not a tee 19 Kevue de Droit Int 472, 479 : 26
Use signal of dtitrese, at least after a id. G73. Upon the international rights of
UTal battle ie begnn ; the employment of iKilroads, owned by beUigerente or by neu.
printceis, if not forbidden by treaty ; trala, in time of war, eee 17 Bevae de
the wrecking or cottiag off of tbe enemy's Droit Int 832 ; 19 id. 164 ; 20 id. 862,
neonrcM by the deraetation, not mere)? 883 ; 21 Journal dn Droit Int 435, 641.
WBnt4m, of the adjacent territory, or the As to the protectioa of marine telegrapli
stopping of water loppliea ; or the confis- cables, see 15 Berue de Droit Int 17.
cation of any property belonging to the By the Postal Treaty of Aog. 30, 1690,
indiridQal inhabitanta of tha enemy's between Great Britain and France, postal
eoontry and taken therein. Sea 8 Pbilli- packets are aot liable to seizure or deten-
nore, Int Law, (3d ed.) co. 6, 7 ; tion in case of war, until postal communi-
Hoeack's I«w of Nations, 121 ; Maine's cation is ordered discontinued by either
Int Imw, 186 ; Qallandet's Manuel, p. natioD, and then they may retom home.
[119}
sObyGoOl^lc
• 91 OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PABI 1.
despoiling and plandering the enemy's territory, are still too
prevalent, especially vhen the war is assisted by irregulars.
Such conduct has been condemned in all ages by the wise and
Tirtuous, and it is usually severely punished by those commaod-
era of disciplined troops who have studied war as a science, and
are animated by a sense of duty or the love of fame. We may
infer the opinion of Xenophon on this subject (and he was a
warrior as well as a philosopher), when he states, in the Cyro-
psedia, (a) that Cyrus of Persia gave orders to his army, wbeu
marching upon the enemy's borders, not to disturb the cultiva-
tors of the soil ; and there bare been such ordinances in modem
times, for the protection of innocent and pacific pureuita (£)'
(a) lib. s.
{b) 1 EnMrigon, dei Ah. 129, ISO, 167, nivn to ordinances of France and HoQind,
in fovor of ]votection to fiahermen ; and to the like effect mu the older of the Britilli
gOTernmeut iu 1310, for ■batiitiing from lioatilitiea af^inet the inhatntants of tli«
Faroe Islands and Iceland. So it ii the jiiactice of all eiriUied nationa to comidcr
veaaete employed only for the pnrpoM of diicoTery and scienee, u excluded tmai the
openttions of war. The American Commiuloners {John Adams, Benjamin Franklin,
and Thomas Jefferson), in 17Bi, eubmitted to the Fraadan JlinitI
1 Cotton was treatsd ai a proper sab- ton Oattight Co., 10 Int. Ber. Bee 110,
jtet for capture nnder the peculiar cir- 2 Am. I ah Times, 117, with United
enmetances of the rebellion, although SUIes v. Eeehler, 0 WalL 83. But it
private property and on land. Mrs. may be donbted in view of the practice
Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall Vli ; United of the Unit«d SUtes and oUier natioai
States B. Padelford, 9 Wall. 631, 6*0 in cases where expediency has dictated
[Lamar b. Brown, 62 U. S. 187 ; Yonng the taking oPprivate property on land,
v. United States, 07 U. S. S9J ; poit, SG7, whether the immonity of such property
,. n. I. See Mitchell b. Harniony, 13 How. in general is so firmly eatablished, tbit
115 ; 1 Blatchf. 619. Both North and an ai;gunieDt can be drawn from it in
Soath also passed limited confiscation fsror of extending the exemption to jwi-
•ets which applied to property on land, rate property at se*. The objeetioDs to
IndndiDg credits; and the acta of Con- the latter principle are forcibly statrd
gress have been upheld by the Supreme by Professor J, N. Pomeroy, in the Nonh
Court IS a legitimate exercise of the war American Keview, cxir. 376, for April,
powers of the government. Miller v. 1S72, and the treaty between the United
- United States, 11 Wall. 268. See Wheat. States and Fnissia, mentioned in the note
Dana's notes ISB, 157- The Confederate (i), the conrae of the United Statca with
acts, to be snre, were treated aa invalid regard to the abolition of privateering by
in the United States courts. Texas the Congresa of Paris, pM, S8, n. 1. and
e. White, 7 Wall. 700; Knox t>. Lee, 12 the adoption of the principle by Pniesis
Wall. 457, 654 ; Hickman r. Jones, 9 in the war with France in 1370, are dit-
WbII. 197; post, lOS.n.l. Compaie Short- enssed and explained. Sne also Wheat,
idge 0. Macon, 1 Phillips, K. C. 892, Dnna's notes 1S8, 171, and the history in
2 Am. Law Rev. 9G ; Perdicaria «. Charles- Wheat. Lawrence's note 102.
[120]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. v.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 92
Tattel condemns * very strongly the spoliatiou of a country *92
without palpable necessity ; and he speaka vith a just in-
dignation of the boming of the Palatinate by Turenne, under the
cruel instructions of LuTois, the war minieter of Louis XIY. (a)
The general usage now is not to touch private property upon
land, without making compensation, unless in special cases, dic-
tated by the necessary operationa of war, or when captured in
places carried by storm, and which repelled all the overtures for
a capitulation. Contribntiona are aometimee levied upon a con-
qnered country, in lieu of confiscation of property, and as aome
indemnity for the expenses of maintaining order and affording
protection, (b) If the conqueror goes beyond these limits wan-
impron tha lam of war, bj ■ niataal stipalatioa Dot to molest non-combatanta, ai
enltiratoi* of th* earth, fiBhsTmen, merchanta and traders in nnanned ships, and
■itiita and mechanica inhabiting and working in open towni. These reatrictiona on
tfaa rigfata of war ware inserted in a treaty between the United States and Prnid*, in
1TS(. [Seepoal, SB.) General Bmoe rtated to the Dnke of York, in October, 1796,
when an anniatice in Holland was negotiating, that if the latter ahonld canse the dikes
to ha deatroTed, and the conntiy to be innndated, when not osaful to his own army,
or detrimental to the enemy's, it would be contrary to the laws of war, and most
dnw upon him the reprotiatinn of all Europe and of his own nation. Nat, ersu ths
olalinate defence of a town, if it partake of the cbarsctet of a mercantile place, rather
than a fortraae of atroigth, has been allied to be contrary t« the laws of war. (Sen
tks correspondence between Qeneral I^udohn and the GoTemor of Breslan, in 1760.
Dodsley's Ann. Reft 1760.) So, the destmction of the forts snd warlike stores of the
btaieged in tbe post of Almeids, by the French cototnander, when he sbandoned it
with hia ((arriaoD by night, in 1811, is declared by General Sarazin, in hia history of
tbe Peninsular War, to hare been an act of wantonness which jnstly placed him
without the pale of civilized warfare. When a Russian army, under the command
of Count Diebitsch, bad penetrated tbronf^h the peases of tbe Balkan to the pUins of
Bmuelia, in the snmmer of 1SSS, the Russian commander gare a bright example of
the mitigated rule* of modem warfare, for be assured the Mnonlmans that they should
be entirely safe in their persona and property, and in the exerdae of their religion ;
and that the Mossulman authorities in the eitieB, towns, and Tillagei might eontinne
in the eieieise of their civil adtnjnistration for the protection of person and property.
The iubabitanta were required to give up their arms, as a deposit, to be nutored on
Ike return of peace, and in every other respect they were to enjoy their property and
pacific pursuits as fortoerly. This p>nt«ctlon and full Mcnrity to the persons and
property of the peaceable inhabitants of conquered towns and provinces are according
to the doctrine and dechued ptactice of modem civilized nations. (See Dodsley's
Ann. Keg. 177!, p. 37-
(b) Vattel, b. 3, c. B. sec. 187.
(t) Vattel, b. 2. c. 8, sec. 147 ; c. 9, sec. 165 ; Scott's Life of Napoleon, JiL G8.
Contribotiona exacted from the inhabitants by the armies of an invader, without pay-
Bent, is contrary to tbe oidinary usages of modem warfare, though the practice is not
(onsiatent. The campaigns of revolutionary France, and of Napoleon, in modem
Kuope, were mdancholy exceptions, of the aerereet character. Upon the invasion of
sobyGooi^lc
•95 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PART I.
tonly, or vhen it is not clearly indispensable to the just
• 98 purposes of war, and seizes private * property of pacific
persons for the sake of gain, and destroys private direllings,
Mexico by the armiaf of the United St&te^ iu 184S, the Amerioui SecreUiy of Ww
(Marcy) iostnicted Qenenl Taylor (Septeniber 33, 1S46) to absUin ^m sppropiuting
private property to the pablic lUeti, uatU poTchued at ■ lair price, though he niil that
wNl in BoDie respects going far beyond the common requirementi of civilized warfan,
and that an invading army had the naqoettioDable right U> dnw ita luppliea from the
enemy without paying ftor them, and to reqnini oontiibntiDna for ita sappott, and lo
make the enemy feel the wught of the war. He fmthar obeerred, that upon the lib-
eral principles of civilized warfare, either of three modes might be pursued in relation
to obtuning mppUet from the enemy : first, to purchase them on such tenni as the
inhabitants of the country might choose to exact ; aecond, to pa; a bir price without
regard to the enhanced vedne resulting from the presence of a forngn snny ; and,
third, to require them as contributionB, withoat paying or engaging to pay therefor ;
that the lost mode was the otdinary one, and Genarol Taylor was insCracled to sdopt
it, if in that way he was satisfied he ooald get abaudant supplies for hia forces. The
ptevion* instroctiona in that campaign had been to abstain tnaa appropriating private
property to the paUio use without parohwe, at a bir prios ; but the iuitmctioni had
now, in the progress of the campaign, risen lo a severer character. The principle of
kindness and liberality towards the enemy seem.^ to be of a flexible character, and to
be swayed by considerations of policy and circumstances. The President of the Cuiled
States (James E. Polk), in his letter to the Secratory of the Treasmy, of the 33d
March, 1S17, declared the right of the conqueror to levy contributions npon the enemy,
in their seaports, towns, or provinces, which may be in his military possession by con-
qnest, and to apply the same to defray the expenses of the war. Ha further decland,
that the conqueror poeaeased the right to establiab a temporary military goventment
over such seaports, towns, or provinces, and to prescribe the terms of commerce with
such places ; that he might, in his discretion, exclude all bade, or impose terms npon
it, — such, for instance, as a prescribed rate of duties on tonnage and imports. Tie
President of the United States therefore, with a view to impose a tmrden on the
enemy, and deprive him of the revenue to be derived twro trade, and sccnra it to
.the United States, ordered that all the porta and places in Mexico, in the aetnal pos-
session of the laJid and naval forces of the United States, by oouquest, (hoald be
opened, while the military occupation continued, to the commerce of all nentral na-
tions, as well as of the United States, in articles not contraband of wot, upon the pay-
ment of a .prescribed tarifl' of dnties and tonnage, prepared nnder the instnictions of
the President, and by him adopted, and to be enforced by the military and navsl com-
manders. All these rights of war undoubtedly belong to the conqueror or nation who
holds foreign plades and countries by couqupst ; but the exercise of those rigbta and
powers, except those that temporarily arise from necessity, belong to that power in the
govemment to which the prerogative of war is constitntionally confided. The Pieai-
dent of the United States, in his official lettar to the Secretary of the Navy, of Haidi
SI, 1847, claimed and exercised, as being charged by the Constitation with the pmee-
ontion of the wsr, this belligerent right to levy military contribudons upon the enemy,
and to. collect and npplv the same towards defraying the expeoaea of the war, and to
open the Mexican porta for that purpose, on a footing favorable to neutral commerce.
The whole eiecntion of the commerckl i^folationa was placed under the control of the
nuliUry and naval forces, and, with the policy of blockading some and opening other
[122]
sObyGoOl^lc
LICr. T.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONB. * 93
or public edifices devoted to civil parposea only, or makes war
upon moauments of art and models of taste, he violates the
modem usages of war, and is sure to meet vith indignant resent-
ment, and to be held np to the general scom and detestation of
the world, (a)
X Law of Ratalution. — Cruelty to prisoners, and barbaroiia
destruction of private property, will provoke the enemy to severe
retaliation apou the innocent Retaliation is said by Ruther-
MezicaD ports, to eompel the whole commerce for the supply of Mexico to pMa trnder
thecontlol of the Ameiicaa forces, subject to the coDttibatioiis, ezsctions, and dutiea
to be unpoMd. (See Fresidmit Folk's Letter of Hsrch SI, 1847, to the SecieUr^ of
the HsTy, Mid hii letter of March 23, 1S17, to the Secretary of the Treaiury, and the
letter of Mr. Walker, of the SOth U arch, 1817, to the pRsident, coDtaioiDg s scale of
dutiet to be collected, as a military ooDtributian, in the ports of Mexico, and with a
neommaitdation that the Mexican coastwise trade, and the interior trade, above ports
of entry, b« conBued to American vessels, and that in all other respects the ports of
lUxiao in our poaaeauon be freely opened.) These Bscal and commercisl regulations,
iMwd and enforced at the mere pleasure of a President, would seem to preas strongly
upon tha constitutional power of Congress to mtw and tupport armies, to lay and eol-
ltd tajut, dvtia, and imporU, and to rtgulaie commenx ipith fvrti^ nafioTU, end to
iednrc uar, and make rufo fir the gmemmeni aitd rtgulatian of Vu laitd and ruival
Jbrca, and aMceming eaptura im land and waltr, and to dtfint oftnea agaiml the law
tftatmu. Though the Constitution Teste the executive power in the President, and
dnlares him t« be commander-in-chief of the army and uavj of the United States,
time powers must necessarity be snbordinate to the legiBlstive power in Congress, It
would appear .to me to be the policy or true coDitruction of this simple and general
grtnt of executive power to the President, not to suffer it to interfere with those ape-
ciGc powers of Congress which are more safely deposited in the legislative department,
■nd that the powen thus assumed by the President do not belong to him, but to
(a) Vattel, h S, e. 0, sec 103. In the case of The Marquis de Somemeles (Stew-
art's Tice-Adnt. Bep. 482), the enlightened judge of the vice-admiralty court at Holi-
hi restored to the Academy of Arts in Philadelphin a case of Italian paintings and
printa, captured by a Britbh vessel In the war of 1812, an their pasaage to the United
States: utd he did it "in conformity to the law of nations, as practised by all civilized
cotintrits,'' and becanae " the arts and sciences are admitted to form an exoaption to
theseven rights of watft.re." Works of art and taste, as in painting and scutptnre,
hsTe, by the modem taw of natione, been held sacred in war, and not deemed lawful
spoils of conquest When Frederick II. of Pmtuia took possession of Dre«den as can<
qnerur, in 17E>S, he respected the valuable picture gallery, cabinets, and museums of
tint capita], m not falling within the rights of a conqueror. Bat Bonaparte, in 17S6,
compelled the Italian slates and princes, including the Pope, to surrender their choicest
pietnres and woAs of srt, to be traaeported to Paris. The duft itmen of art of the
Dotch and Flemisb schools, and in Pmssia, were acquired by France in the same vio-
lent way. This proceeding is severely condemned by distinguiahed historians, as an
■boas of the power of conquest, and a species of military contribution contnry to the
usages of modem eivilized warfare. Alison's History of Europe, iii. 12 ; Sir Walter
Soott^s Life of Napoleon, iii. CS-flS.
[128]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 94 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PART L
forth (b) not to be a justifiable cauae for putting iunoceot prison-
ers or hostages to death ; for no individual is chargeable, by the
law of nations, with the gailt of a personal crime, merely because
the conununity of which he is a member is guilty. He is only
responsible as a member of the state, in his property, for repara-
tion in damages for the acts of others ; and it is on this princi-
ple that, by the law of nations, private property may be taken
and appropriated in war. Betaliatiou, to be just, ought to be
con&ued to the guilty individuals, who may have committed some
enormoua violation of public law. On this subject of retaliation
FrofesBor Martens is not so strict (c) ^ While he admits Uiat
the life of an innocent man cannot be taken, unless in extraor-
dinary cases, he declares that cases will sometimes occur, when
the established usages of war are violated, and there are no
other means, except the influence of retaliation, of restraining
the enemy from further excesses. Vattel speaks of retalia-
• 94 tion as * a sad extremity, and it is frequently threatened
without being put in execution, and probably without the
intention to do it, and in hopes that fear will operate to restrain
the enemy. Instances of resolutions to retaliate on innocent
prisoners of war occurred iu this country during the Kevolution-
ary war, as well as during the war of 181^ ; but there was no
instance in which retaliation, beyond the measure of severe con-
fiuement, took place in respect to prisoners of war. (a)
Althongh a state of war puts all the subjects of the one nation
in a state of hostility with those of the other, yet, by the custom-
ary law of Europe, every individual is not allowed to fall upon
the enemy.* If subjects confine themselves to simple defence,
they are to be considered as acting under the presumed order of
the state, and are entitled to he treated by the adversary as law-
ful enemies ; and the captures which they make In such a case
{b) Inst. b. S, c. 9.
(e) Summary of the I*w of Nstiona, b. 8, c 1, aec. 3, note.-
(a) Jonmala of Congreu andei the ConfederatioD, ii. S4G ; tu. 6 and 147 ; viii. 10 ;
British Orden ia Canada, of October 27 and December 12, 181S, and Pnddent'B Mes-
sage to Conf^resa of December 7, 1813, and of October 28, 1814.
I Bnt it is Mid that the above view Kent, 24C, dttug Veig^'a ad. 185S, t. ii
doea not appear in the last edition of Uar- 1. viij. c 2, {f 252, 262.
tena's work, and that the whole lahject is > Potl, 09, n. 1.
in a diEfeient spirit. Abd^a
[124]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. T.] OP THE LAV 0^ NATIONS. • 95
are allowed to be lawful prize. But they cannot engage in offen-
sive hostilities, without the express permiBsion of their sovereign ;
and if they hare not a regular commission, as evidence of that
coDBent, they run the hazard of being treated by the enemy as
lawless banditti, not entitled to the protection of the mitigated
rules of modern warfare. (6)
It was the received opinion in ancient Rome, in the times of
Cato and Cicero, (c) that one who was not regularly enrolled as
a soldier could not lawfully kill an enemy. But the law of
Solon, by which individuals were permitted to form associations
for plunder, was afterwards introduced into the Roman
law, and has been transmitted to us as * part of their sys- " 95
teuL (a) During the lawless confusion of the feudal ages,
the right of making reprisals was claimed and exercised without
a public commiasiou. It was not until the fifteenth century that
conuniasions were made necessary, and were issued to private
sobjeets in time of war, and that subjects were forbidden to fit
out vessels to cruise against enemies without license. There
were ordinances in Germany, France, Spain, and England to
that effect, (h) It is now the practice of maritime states to
make use of the voluntary aid of individuals against their enemies
as auxiliary to the public force ; and Bynkershoek says that the
■Dutch formerly employed no vessels of war but such as were
owned by private persons, and to whom the government allowed
a proportion of the captured property, as well as indemnity from
the public treasury. Vessels are now fitted out and equipped
by private adventurers, at their own expense, to cruise against
the commerce of the enemy. They are duly commissioned, and
it is said not to be lawful to cruise without a re^lar commis-
sion, (c) Sir Matthew Hale held it to be depredation in a sub-
ject to attack the enemy's vessels, except in his own defence,
vithoat a commission, (d) The subject has been repeatedly
(b) Bynk. Q. J. Pab. b. 1, c. 20 ; Vattol, b. 8, o. IE, lec 22S ; Joaintle of Cuu-
RKM, viL IS7 ; Hartemi, b. S, c S, sec. 2.
(f) De Off. 1). 1, c. 11. ,
(d) Dig. 17. 32. 1 ; Bynk. Q. J. Pnb. b. I, c. 18.
(b) Coda dm Piiies, L 1 ; Mtrtcna on PriTateera, 18 ; Bobinsan'i Collsctanw
Haritinu, 21.
(e) Bjuk. uH tupra ; Martens, b. 8, e. S, lec. Z ; Jndge Croke, in the cue of Tha
Cnrieir, Stemrt, Tics-Adm. 32lt.
{d) Harg. Uw T. 2«G, 216, 247.
[126]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 96 OP THE LAW OF MATI0H8. [PABT I.
discussed in the Supreme Court of the Uuited States, (e) and
the doctrine of the law of nations is considered to be that pri-
vate citizens cannot acquire a title to hostile property, unless
seized under a commission, but they may still lawfully seize
hostile property in their own defence. If they depredate
* 96 upon the enemy without * a commission, they act upon
their peril, and are liable to be punished by their own sov-
ereign; but the enemy is not warranted to consider them as
criminals, and, as respects the enemy, they violate no rights by
capture-
Such hostilities, without a commission, are, however, contrary
to usage, and exceedingly irregular and dangerous, and they
would probably expose the party to the unchecked severity of
the enemy; but they are not acts of piracy unless committed in
time of peace. Vattel, indeed, says, (a) that private ships of
war, without a regular commission, are not entitled to be treated
like captures made in a formal war. The observation is rather
loose, and the weight of authority undoubtedly is, that non-
commJBBioned vessels of a belligerent nation may at all times cap-
ture hostile ships, without being deemed, b; the law of nations,
pirates.^ They.are lawful combatanto, but they have no interest
in the prizes they may take, and the property will remain subject
to condemnation in^ favor of the government of the captor, as.
droit! of the admiralty. It is said, however, that in the United
States the property is not strictly and technically condemned
upon that principle, but^ure reipuhliccB ; and it is the settled law
of the United States that all captures made by non-commissioned
captors are made for the government (h)
(«) BrowD V. United States, 8 Cnnch. 132-13G ; Tbe Neraide, S Cnneh, U»;
The Dq« HenoMUM, S Wheaton, 76, tknd 10 Wheaton, 306 ; The Amiable IwbelK S
WhsBtOQ, 1.
(a) B. S, c IS, see. tM.
(») Com. Dig. tit Admiralty, E. 3 ; 2 Wood. Lect 438 ; The Gm^Um, 1 Dod*.
1 This paauge hu 'been critiaiMd as Sent, 349 et ug. It ia compotent for anj
incondatent with p. SI, aod it hal been penon to take posMamon of enemj't prop-
thoDght that altbongb eifttniM at soi by erty coming vitliia the hottils jnriadic-
penoM without t^dIu eommlMioiu are tion, nttlew it u protected by liceiue, and
lawflil with respect to the goTerumeut of to auiBt the sovereign to proceed against
the capton, nub acta might be paniihed it to adjudication. The Johanna Emilia,
M piracy by the oppodng balligerenta. Spinki, Prize C. 12, 14,
Halleck, c 16, S 10. Bnt aee Abdy's
[126]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. v.] OP THB iA.V OF HATIONB. * 97
3. PilTktMriiic. — In order to encourage privateering, it ie
Qsoal to allow the owners of private armed vefwela to appropri-
ate to themselves the property, or a large portion of the prop-
erty, they nkay capture ; and to afford them and the crews
other facititieB * and rewards for honorable and successful *97
efiorts. This depends upon the municipal regulations of
each particular power; and, as a necessary precaution against
abase, the owners of privateers are required, by the ordinances
d the commercial states, to give adequate security that they will
conduct the cruise according to the laws and usages of war and
the instructions of the government, and that they will regard
the rights of neutrals, and bring their prizes in for adjudication.
These checks are essential to the character and safety of mari-
time nations, (a) Privateering, under all the restrictions which
have been adopted, is very liable to abuse. The object is, not
fame or chivalric warfare, but plunder and profit. The discipline
of tiie crews is not apt to be of the highest order, end privateers
are often guilty of enormous excesses, and become the scoui^
of neutral commerce. 0) They are sometimes mannftd and offi-
cered by foreigners having no permanent connection with the
coontry, or interest in its cause. This was a complaint made by
the United States, in 1819, in relation to irregularities and acts
of atrocity committed by private armed vesBels sailing under the
flag of Buenos Ayres. (c) Under the best regulations, the busi-
ness t«nds strongly to blunt the senae of private right, and to
nourish a lawless and fierce spirit of rapacity. Efforts have
3ST; Tb« Brig Jimpk, 1 GalliMii, 5*6; The Dos Hennuioi, 10 Whe&ton, SOSt
|Th« Sinn, IS Wall. 389. See Hall, Iiit Law, pt S, o. 7, S 1S3.] Ths Americui
CoauniMfoMn mt the eonrt of Fmoee, in 1778 (BenJ&min Franklin, Arthur Lm, uid
John Aduni), In a letter to the TreDCh goverumeiit, laid down accntmtelj and with
pTednan the law in the text as to capture of enemy'* proper^ withoat « cotnuiiBnon.
Dildomatic Corraapondenoe, by J. Sparka, i. *4S.
(a) Bynk. Q. J. pnb. ti 1, a. 19 ; Joanula of CongreM, 177B, ii. 102, lU ; Acta of
CoDgnn of June Sfl, 1812, e. 107, and April SO, 1818, o. S3, wc. 10 ; Prandent's in-
■tiDctiaiu to prirate armed vMsela, S Wheaton, App. p. 80 ; Danish iniitnictionB of
Htmh 10, 1810, Hall'i !•. J. It. SOS, and App. to 6 Wheaton, 01 ; Vattel, b. S, c. 1G,
*■£■ £10; Hutima, Somm. 2S9, 290, note ; Ord. of Bnenoa ATree, Hay, 1817, in
App. to 1 Wheaton, 38 ; Digest of the Code of BtiUsh Inatrnctioiu, App. to S
Whetton, IM.
(i) Beporta of the UnitMl State* Seeretny of Btat^ March 2, 1794, and Jane 31,
1797.
(4 Mr. Adania'a letter of lit Jauoary, 1819, to Ur. De Fomat, and hii offioial
nport of 28th Jannair, 181S.
[127]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 98 OP THE LAW OF NATIOITS. [PABT L
* 9S been made, from time to time, to abolish * the practice. In
the treaty of amitj and commerce between Fmssia and the
United States, in 1785, it was stipulated that, in case of war,
neither party should grant commisBions to any priTate armed
vessels to attack the commerce of the other. But the spirit and
policy of maritime warfare will not permit such generous pro-
visions to prevail. That provision was not renewed with the
renewal of the treaty. A similar attempt to [Hit as end to the
practice was made in the agreement between Sweden and HoU
land, in 1675, but the agreement was not performed. The
French legislature, soon after the breaking out of the war with
Austria, in 1792, passed a decree for the total suppression of
privateering ; but that was a transitory act, and it was soon
swept away in the tempest of the revolution. The efforts to
stop the practice have been very feeble and fruitless, notwith-
standing that enlightened and enlarged considerations of national
policy have shown it to be for the general benefit of mankind to
surrender the licentious practice, and to obstruct as little as
possible the freedom and security of commercial intercourse
among the nations, (a) '
(a) 1 Emerigon, des Abb. 12D-1S2, 457 ; Habty's Droit Pablic, c. 12, tec 1 ; Edin-
burgh RsTievr, Till 18-16 ; North American Bevieir, K. S. ii- ItI8. Dnring the nr
between the (Tnited StaXm and Great Britain, the l^ialaton of Nsv York vent m
ftr M to pasa an act ta enomrage pHnateerimg tutoeiatiaiw, by aulhoriziiig anj five or
more peraoDB, who should be desirous to fonn a company for the porpoee of annoy-
ing the enemy and their commerce, by me&ni of private armed vesaels, ta sign and
file a certiOcate, stating the name of the compejiy and its stock, &o., and that they
and their sncceaaon ahonld therenpon be a bodg polUie and eorporaU, with the ordinaty
corporate powers. Laws, N. Y. S8 Sees. o. 12, Oct. 21, ISli.
> At the Congress of Puis of April isbed." (x) The United States refused to
IS, 186fl, a declaration was signed by the accede to this unlets it should be amended
representatlTas of Great Britain, Aastria, by adding that " tho prirste pmpertj of
Franoe, Prussia, Bnssia, Sardinia, and the sntgects or dtiiens of a belligerant on
Turkey, of which the lint principle was the high aeaa sliall be exempted fram
that " PriTateering is and remaine abol- seiznre by public armed venels of the
(x) The provision of the U. 3. Conati- A Bct. (4th Series), 8S.
tation (Art. I, S 8) empowering Congress man, armed for purely defemdre pi
to grant letters of marque and reprisal, thoo^ carrying a license, was subject
has been thought to deprive Congress of to condemnation in the limited war with
power to abrogate this constitutional pre. France, defined by the act of Congren of
logatire I>y permanently joining in the July 0, 179S. Cushing's Case, 22 Ct. CI.
Treaty of Paris or other tike treaty. See 23 1; Hooper's Cas^ id. 408; see Ony'a Case,
Am. L. Rev. 616; 24 id. 602; IS Law Hag. 21 id, 840 ; Holfarook's Case, id. 4U.
[128]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. T.] OF THE LAW OF NATI0K8. * 99
It lias been a questioD, whether the owoers and officers of pri-
vate armed vessels were liable in damages for illegal conduct
beyond the amount of the security giren. Bjnkershoek (b) has
discussed this point quite at large, and he concludes that the
owner, master, and sureties are jointly and Heverally liable, in
toUdo, for the damages incurred ; and that the master and own^
era are liable to the whole extent of the injury, though it may
eiceed the value of the privateer and her equipment, though
the Bnreties are bound only to the amount of the sums for which
they become bound. This rule is liable to the modifies*
ti<HiB of municipal regulations ; * and though the French * 99
Uw of prize was formerly the same as the rule laid down
by Bynkershoek, yet the new commercial code of France (a)
exempts the owners of private armed vessels in time of war from
responsibility for trespasses at sea, beyond the amount of the
BecDrity they may have given, unless they were accomplices in
the tort The ^glish statute of 7 Geo. II. c. 15, is to the same
effect, in respect to embezzIementB in the merchants' service. It
limits the responsibility to the amount of the vessel and freight,
but it does not apply to privateers in time of war ; and where
there is no positive local law on the subject (and there is none
with us), the general principle is, that the liability is commen-
snrate with the injury. This was the rule as declared by the
Supreme Court of the United States, in Del Col -v. Arnold; (b)
and though that case has since been shaken as to other points, (c)
it has not been disturbed as to the point before ua. We may,
therefore, consider it to be a settled rule of law and equity,
that the measure or [of] damages is the value of the property un-
lavfully injured or destroyed, and that each individual owner is
responsible for the entire damages, and not ratably pro tanto. (d)
(i) Q. J. Pnk K ], e. 19. (a) Cods de Commerce, art 217.
(b) S Dallas 888. (e) 1 WbMton, 269 ; 1 Paine, 111, to tbs Bune pcint.
(li) Ths Eanaui, fi C. Rob. 2S1 ; The Aqd* Maria, 2 Wheaton, 837. Bat the
anna of a printe«r are not lUUa civilly lieyood the aecnrity given by law, and the
other belligorent, except it be contra- 193 ; ante, 91, n. 1. See alao the act of
band ; " on the groimd that thia «bi do- Huch S, 1803, c SB ; 12 C. 8. 8t at L.
tmmrj to prerent a nation which ahonld 768 ; althoo^ the aotbority thereby given
'mtntaiTi a powBrfol navy from having to the Freddent for three years to com.
■B ondna advantage over one whoae ma- minion privateen wa« not eierciaed dDl>
tine wai wholly commercial. Ann. Beg. log the rebellioD.
UK, p. 221 ; Wlteat I^wrenca'a note
VOL.1. — 9 [1293
;abyG00<^lc
• 100 ■ OP THE LAW OP HATI0N8. [PABT L
y&ttel admits (e) that an iudividual maj, irith a eqie con-
science, serve his coautr; by fitting out privateers; but he
holdfl it to be inexcusable and base to take a commiBsion from a
foreign prince to prey upon the subjects of a state in amity
• 100 with his native country. The laws of the United * States
have made ample provision on this subject, and they may
be considered as in affirmance of the law of nations, and as pre-
scribing specific punishment for acts which were before uolaw-
ful. (a) An act of Congress prohibits citizens to accept, within
the jurisdiction of the United States, a commission, or for any
person not transiently within the United States, to consent to
be retained or enlisted, to serve a foreign state in war, against
a government in amity with us. It likewise prohibits Amer-
ican citizens from being concerned, without the limits of the
United States, in fitting out, or otherwise assisting, any private
vessel of war, to cruise against the subjects of friendly powers, (i)
Similar prohibitions are contained in the laws of other coun-
tries : (<;) and the French Ordinance of the Marine of 1681
treated such acta as piratical. The better opinion is, that a
cruiser, furnished with commissions from two different powers,
is liable to be treated as a pirate ; for, though the two powers
may be allies, yet one of them may be in amity with a state
with whom the other is at war. (d)^ In the various treaties
loM of • y«md, for pinUieal act* eominitted by the offieere and crew of tha piirateer.
Tbay are only liable, bj the maritime taw, for the condnct of the officen and ctf*
while In lA* exteuiion of the butituu of the emiat. Diaa o. Privateer ReTcngc, S Waah.
2SZ The New York acheme (aee lupra, S8, n. a) of making privateering eompaniat
' aetnal corporationB or bodies politic woatd iieem to exempt the roemben from the
penonal reipandbilit; ordinarily incident to tlie owners of privateers.
(«) B 8, c. Ifi, sec S29.
(o) Talbot c. Jinaon. S Dallas, 138 ; Brig Alerts v. B\*» Uoran, 9 Cnnch, SS0.
(b) Act of Congress of aoth April, 181S, c 83.
(c) See the AostriaD Ordinance of Neutrality of Aogtut 7, 1S0S, art. 2, 8. By the
law of Flymonth Colony, in 1SB2, it wai declared to be felony to commit hostilitiei on
the high SBM, nnder the flag of any foreign power, npon the tabjeeti of another
foreign power in amity with England. Bailie's Historical Memoir, iL pt. 1, 35. The
same acta were declared to be felony by a law of the colony of New York, in IMS.
Smith's edition of the U«a of the colony, i. SG.
(d) Valin's Oomm. il. 285, 288 ; Bynkerahoek, b. 1, c 17, aitd note by Pnponae—
to hia translation, 13B ; Sir L. Jenkins's Works, 7U. See pott, ISS, 191.
> 1 Philllmore, j ecclviii,, "The better pown against a ammon enemy] is itregn-
opinion aeema to be that [sailing ander larend inexpedient,bDtdoeanotcan7wIth
twoormon commiiaions granted by allied it the snbstonce or name of Piracy."
[ISO]
sObyGoOl^lc
IBCT. T.j OP THB LAW OF NATIONS, * 101
betreen the powers of Europe in the two last centaries, and
in the several treaties between the United States and France,
Holland, Sweden, PruBsia, Great Britain, Spain, Colombia,
Chili, Ac, it is declared that no subject or citizen of either
nation shall accept a commiesion or letter of marque, to assist
an enemy in hostilities against the other, under pain of being
treated as a pirate.
4. FilHa. — The right to all captures vests primarily in the
soTereigu, and no individual can have any interest in a prize,
whether made by a public or private armed vessel, but what
he receives * under the grant of the state. ^ This is a gen- • 101
eral principle of public jurisprudence, hello parta cedurU
rnpuiliftc, and the distribution of the proceeds of prizes de-
pends upon the regulations of each state; and unless the local
laws hare otherwise provided, the prizes vest in the sovereign, (a)
But the general practice, under the laws and ordinances of the
belligerent governments, is, to distribute the proceeds of captured
property, when duly passed upon and condemned as prize (and
whether captured by public or private commissioned vessels),
among the captors, as a reward for bravery and a stimulus to
exertion, (b)
When a prize is taken at sea, it must be brought, with due
care, into some convenient port, for adjudication by a competent
court; though, strictly speaking, as between the belligerent par-
ties, the title passes, and is vested when the capture is complete;
and that was formerly held to be complete and perfect when the
battle was over, and the ipet reeuperOTidi was gone. Yoet, in his
Coaunentaries upon the Pandects, (c) and the aaUiors he refers
to^ maintain with great strength, as Lord Mansfield observes in
(a) QrotiiiB, b. 8, e. fl ) Vattel, h. 8, c S, aec l<t4 ; The Elube, S C. Rob. 173 ;
Hoou p. Eazl Camden, 2 H. Bl. fi33. At common Uv, the goods taken from an
tncmj balmg to the captor. Fincli'B Law, 28, 178 ; 12 Hod. 13B ; 1 Wila. 213. Sm
<«/«, 867.
(i) Lonl Longbbarongh, 1 H. Bl. 18S-1B1 ; 2 Whsaton, App. 7, note a, and 71.
(e) iL 1166.
■ Tbe Siran, 7 WaH 16S; 102, 168 ; 118. For a disennioQ at to who an eiitl-
Tha Basda & Eirwoo Booty, L IL 1 Ad, tied to ahani ai joint cspton at sea and
4 Ee. 100, lU • Jeckar c. Hontgomery, on land, lee The Cherokee, S Sprafpie,
IS How. 468, G16 ; The Anglia, Blatchf. 2S6 ; The Selma, 1 Lowell, 80 ; Banda A
Pt. 5«S; The Aigbnrth, ib. S3G ; Stewart Elrwee Booty, lupro.
■■UiutedSUtes,lCt ofCl. (Kott AH.)
[131]
;abyGoO<^lc
• 102 op THE LAW 6f nations. [PABT I.
Cfoat V. Withers, (d) that occupation, of iteelf, transferred the
title to the captor, per aotam occupationem dominium prada hot-
tibus acquiri. The queBtlon never arises but between the
original owner aud a neutral purchasing from the captor, and
between the original owner and a recaptor. If a captured ahip
escapee from the captor, or is retaken, or if the owner ransoms
her, his property is thereby revested. But if neither of these
events happens, the question as to the change of title is open to
dispute ; and many arbitrary lines have been drawn, partly from
policy, to prevent too easy dispositions of the property to
*102 neutrals, * and partly from equity, to extend the /u« poit2i-
minii in favor of the owner. Grotius (a) and many other
writers, and some marine ordinances, as those of Louis XIT. and
of Congress during the American war, (&) made twenty-four
hours' quiet possession by the enemy the test of title by capture.
Bynkershoek {c) says that such a rule is repugnant to the laws
and customs of Holland ; and he insiste that a firm possessioD,
at any time, vests the property in the captor, and that ships and
goods brought infra preendia do most clearly change the prop-
erty. But by the modern usage of nations, neither the twenty-
four hours' possession, nor the bringing the prize ivfra prtBtidia,
is sufficient to chai^ the property in the case of a maritime cap-
ture. A judicial inquiry must pass upon the case, and the present
enlightened practice of commercial nations has subjected all such
captures to the scrutiny of judicial tribunals, as the only sure
way to furnish due proof that the seizure was lawful. The prop-
erty is not changed in favor of neutral vendee or recaptor, so
as to bar the original owner, until a regular sentence of con-
demnation has been pronounced by some court of competent
jurisdiction, belonging to the sovereign of the captor ; ' and the
purchaser must be able to show documentary evidence of that
{d) 2 Barr. eSS. (a) B. 8, c «.
(b) Valjn, lib. S, tit 9. trt S ; JodtdbU of the Confedenticin CongnM, Mmh 37,
17S1, viL BD.
(<) Q. J. Pab. b. 1, c 1 4iid 5 ; Hsrtens, Summuj, b. S, & 3, wc 1 1, s. P.
> TLb Fet«rhol^ Blatehf. Pr. 620. A faith. Jecker v. HoDtgomarj, 18 Hov.
Mptor does not forfeit hii iif[lits w BQcb, 110 ; Fa; r. Hontgomer?, 1 Cut. HSL
and lender himself liable to be treated aa See act of Congieas, Jooe SO, 18M ; IS
■ trespuaer, by delay in Bending home U. S. Bt. at L., pp. 806, tl4, O; 174,
hii priie fer Mtj<i<UcAtioii, if he thiaki |S 1, 28.
it neeeMuy, and neea diacretion and good
[1321
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. v.] OP THE LAW OP SATIONB. * 103
fact, to support his title. Until the capture becomes invested
vitb the character of prize by a sentence of condemnation, the
right of property is in abeyance, or in a state of legal sequestra-
tion. It cannot be alienated or disposed of, but the posseHsion
of it by the government of the captor is a trust for the benefit
of those who may be ultimately entitled, {x) This salutary rule,
&Dd one so necessary to check irregular condnct and individ-
ual outr^;e, has been long established in the English admi-
ralty, (d) * and it is now everywhere recognized as the * lOS
law and practice of nations, (a)
The condemnation must be pronounced by a prize court of the
government of the captor sitting either in the country of the cap-
tor or of his ally. The prize court of an ally cannot condemn.
Prize or no prize is a qaestion belonging exclusively to the courts
of the country of the captor. The reason of this rule is said to
be, (i) that the sovereign of the captors has a right to inspect
their behavior, for he is answerable to other states for tlie acts of
the captor. The prize court of the captor may sit in the territory
id) Ckrtb. 42S i 10 Hod. 79 ; 11 Had. 143; 3 Bnn. 6B4 ; 3 C. Rob. 97, in nolU ;
ICBob IBS.
(a) The ?Ud O^en, 1 C. Bob. 135 ; Tlu Hemick «od HuU, t C. B«b. 4G ; Vat-
la], b. 3, c. 14, fee 21Si Heineccii Opera, ed. GaoaTa, 1744, iL 310, 860 ; 6 C. Bob.
U9i DoDg. SBl : 8 Cnuch, 226 ; 4 WliMton, 298 ; 8 Tannt. 26; ZDallas, 1, S; 4.
£ra7 court hu the light to mqnin into the competano; of tbe jurisdiction of a
breign court to condcniu eaptai«d property, and if it baa none, the aentaiioa ia noU.
^M cnuol of ■ baUigerent in a neatial ooontry haa no poirar to condemn prize*.
Set euw, Abbott on Shipping, 5th Aniar. ed., Boaton, 1S46, 30-32. Bat a priie
nrried into the conntry of an all; may be eondenined there, and even by a conral
bdoDgiDg to tlie conntry of the captora ; ib. 88.
{b) Bntheifoitli'B Inatitntea, b. 3, c. 9.
(i) If there iipTobablBcanaa for the aaiz- are not liable for tlie loea, without tbdr
nrcofaTeeaelirhieli i* not gopd prize,, the fcult, of « Touel whbh they wiize and
captora may be awarded coets, thongh the hold aa couttsband of war. The Caro-
naad ia not oandemned. Hooper'a Caae, line Wilmani, 27 Ct CL 215. Aa to the
S2 Ct CL 408. A captor, who nnnaaoo- English Prize Coart* under recent leg-
ibly delayi bringing mit for oondemna- lation, aee 4 Law QoarL Bev. 107. The
tioa of ■ prize, ii liable for demnirage if captured VMael haa the burden of proof
it> reatontioD ia decreed. The Nenatni to clear bersalf of auspiciou. Hooper's
iewm De Begla, 108 U. S. 02. A bel- Caae, 28 Ct CI. 408. A torpedo lannch
ligcrent who wizes a neutral veasel merely ia a " ahip " within the acta of Congreet
OD antpcion ia only eicnaed for her loaa ai to the diatribntion of prize money.
irli«n cauuM by nnavoidable eaioalty. United Statet v. Sleever, 113 U. 8. 747-
riie Ship Tom, 20 Ct CI. 08. Captora
[13S]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 104 OF THB LAV OF NATIONS. [PABT I.
of the ally, but it is Dot lawful for such a court to act in a neutral
territorj. Neutral porta are not iutended to be auxiliary to the
operations of the power at war ; and the law of nations has clearly
ord&iued that a prize court of a belligerent captor cannot exer-
cise jurisdiction in a neutral country. This prohibition r«8tB not
merely on the uofitness and danger of making neulral ports the
theatre of hostile proceedings, but it stands on the ground of tlie
usage of nations, (c)
It was for some time supposed that a prize court, though sittii^
in the country of its own- sovereign, or of his ally, had no juris-
diction over prizes lying in a neutral port, because the court
wanted that possession which was deemed essential to the ezer-
cise of a jurisdiction in a proceeding in rem. The principle was
admitted to be correct by Sir William Scott, in the case of
* 104 the Senriek and Maria, (d) and he acted * upon it in a
prior case, (a) But he couBidered that the English admir-
alty had gone too far, in supporting condemnations in England
of prizes abroad in a neutral port, to permit him to recall the
vicious practice of the court to the acknowledged principle ; and
the English rule is now definitively settled agreeably to the old
usage and the practice of other nations. The Supreme Court of
the United States has followed the English rule, and it has held
valid the condemnations, by a belligerent court, of prizes carried
into a neutral port, and remaining there. This was deemed the
most convenient practice for neutrals, as well as for the parties at
war ; and though the prize was in fact within a neutral jurisdic-
tion, it was still to be deemed under the control, or tub poteatate,
of the captor, (b) ^
(c) Olus ■>. Tha stoop Betaay. S Dillu, 9 ; The Flad Ojbd, 1 C. Bob. 135 ; Han-
look V. Bockwood, S T. B. 268 ; OiAy *. Borlll, 2 Eut, 475 ; AiuweT to tbt Proaiui
Uemorid, 17S3 ; L'lnTiDcible, 1 Whekton, 388 ; The EttrelU, i Wbeaton, 298 ; Tha
Comet, 6 C. Bob. 28G ; The Victoria, Edw. Adm. 97.
(d) i C. Bob. IS.
(a) Note to thn cue of the Hsntelder, 1 C. Rob. [IIS] 100, Philadelphia ed. 1810.
(ft) S C. Bob. 13S i note to the caae of the Schooner Sophie ; Smart *. Wolff, S T. B.
323 ; Bfnk. by DiipoDceM, S8, note ; BadKm >. QDcetler, i Cranch, 398 ; Williania
V. Annrojd, 7 Cranch, 42S. In the treaty betTeen tlM Unit«d State* and the Be-
> The Polka, SplDk^ Prize C. 57 ; 18 id. 110 ; (z) See act of June SO, 1884,
The ZavalU, Blatchf. Pr. 173 ; Jeoker 13 U. S. St. at L. SOS, 314, c 174, } 38.
». Hon^mary, 18 How. i06, SIG : a. o.
(z) The Qannttat, L. R. » A. « E. SBl; L. B. i P. C.I84.
[184]
;abyG00<^lc
I.BCT. T.] OF THE LAV OF NATIONS. * 105
3. Suuom BUU. — Sometimee circumstances will not permit
property c&ptured at sea to be sent into port; and the captor, in
iQch cases, may either, destroy it, or permit the original owner to
ransom it It was formerly the general custom to redeem prop-
erty from the bands of the enemy by ransom ; and the contract
is undoubtedly valid, when municipal regulations do not inter-
rene. It is now but little known in the conunercial law of Eng-
land, for several statutes in the reign of George III. absolutely
prohibited to British subjects the privilege of ransom of prop-
erty captured at sea, unless in a case of extreme necessity, to be
judged of by the court of admiralty, (e) A ransom bill, when
not locally prohibited, is a war contract, protected by good faith
and the law of nations; and notwithstanding that the contract
is considered in England as tending to relax the energy of
war, and * deprive cruisers of the chance of recapture, it * 105
is, in many views, highly reasonable and humane. Other
maritime nations regard ransoms as binding, and to be classed
among the few legitimate commereia belli. They have never been
prohibited in this country; and the act of Congress of August 2,
1813, interdicting the use of British licenses or passes, did not
apply to the contract of ransom, (a)
The effect of a ransom is equivalent to a safe-conducl; granted
by the authority of the state to which the captor belongs, and it
binds the commanders of other cruisers to respect the safe-con-
duct thus given ; and under the implied obligation of the treaty
of alliance, it binds equally the cruisers of the allies of the cap-
tor's country, (b) From the very nature of the connection be-
tween allies, their compacts with the common enemy must bind
each other, when they tend to accomplish the objects of the
alliance. If they did not, the ally wonld reap all the fruits of
the compact, without being subject to the terms and conditions
of it; and the enemy with whom the agreement was made would
be exposed, in regard to the ally, to all the disadvantages of it,
piblie of Colorobu, In 1826, art. SI, uid of Chill, in 1SSZ, art. 21, it wm igread
Uiat the Brtabtialied oonrt* tot prm caniu in the coontrjr to which the priie may be
eoodncted thonld alone take oogninnce (^ them.
(e) 1 CMtty, Comm. Law, 428.
(a) Azoni on UariHine Law, U. c. 4, art 6 ; 1 Emerigao, o. 12, mc 21 ; 2 Talin,
art. M, p. 149 ; Le Gnidon, c, ft, art. S ; Qrotiiu, b. 8, c. 19 ; Ooodrlch r. Gordon, 16
Johna S.
(>) Killer p. The Beeolntion, 2 Dallas, 16.
[186]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 106 OP THE LAW or NATI0H8. [PABT L
without participating in the etipalated benefits. Such an in-
equality of obligation ia contrary to every principle of reason
and justica (c)
The safe-conduct implied in a raneom bill requires that ttte
vessel should be found within the course prescribed, and within
the time limited by the contract, unless forced out of her courae
by stress of weather or unavoidable necessity, (d) If the vessel
ransomed perishes by a peril of the sea, before arrival in port,
the ransom is, nevertheless, due, for the captor has not
* 106 insured the prize against the perils * of the sea, but only
against recapture by cruisers of his own nation, or of
the allies of his country. If there should be a stipulation in
the ransom contract, that the ransom should not be due if the
vessel was lost by sea perils, the provision ought to be limited to
total losses by shipwreck, and not to mere stranding, which
might lead to frauds, in order to save the cargo at the expense of
the ship, (a) (x)
If the vessel should be recaptured, out of the route prescribed
by the contract for her return, or after the time allowed for her
return, and be adjudged lawful prize, it has been made a question
whether the debtors of ttie ransom are discharged from their con-
tract Valin (6) says, that, according to the constant practice,
the debtors are discharged in such case, and the price of the ran-
som is deducted from the proceeds of the prize, and given to the
first captor, and the residue goes to the second taker. So, if the
captor himself should afterwards be taken by an enemy's cruiser,
together with his ransom bill, the ransom becomes part of the
lawful conquest of the enemy, and the debtors of the ransom
are, consequently, dischai^ed from the contract under the ran-
som bill, (e)
In the case of Bicord v. Bettenham, (i) an English vessel was
captured by a French privateer, in the war of 1756, and ransomed
(c) Millar v. Tba Bewliitdon, 2 Dallu, 16 i Fothier, Tniti da Droit de FropriM,
No. 134.
(d) Pothier, TniU da Di«it de Propn4M, Not. ]S4, ISG.
(<i) Pfythier, TraitI de Propri^U, No. 13S.
{b) Ord. dM PiIm^ att 19.
(e) Pothlsr, ib. Noa. 139, liO. (d) 8 Burr. 1784.
(z) Ocncndly there it no implied iiinir- perils of the ua. 2 HaUeck'a Int I«w
ance iD a ibumdi bill agunit low bj' the (3d ed.), SSI.
[136]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. v.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. " 107
and a hostage given as a security for the payment of the ransom
bill. The hostage died while in posaeseion of the French, and it
v&s made a question in the K. B., in a suit brought upon the
ransom bill after the peace, whether the death of the hostage
discharged the contract, and whether the alien could Bue on the
raoBom bill in the English courto. It was shown that each a
contract was valid among the other nations of Europe, and that
the owner of the bill was entitled to sue upon it, and that it was
not discharged by the death of the hostage, who was taken as
a mere collateral * security, and the plaintiff was, accord- * 107
iuglj, allowed to recover. But it has been since decided,
and it is now understood to be the law, that during war, and
while the character of alien enemy continues, no suit will lie in
the British courts by the enemy, in proper person, on a ransom
bill, notwithstanding it is a contract arisiugyure belli, (a) The
remedy to enforce payment of the ransom bill for the benefit of
the enemy captor is by an action by the imprisoned hostage, in
the courts of his own country, for the recovery of his freedom.
This severe technical objection would seem to be peculiar to the
British courts, for it was shown, in the case of Rieord v. Betten-
Aam, to be the practice in France and Holland to sustain such
actions bythe owner of tlie ransomed contract. Lord Mansfield
considered t^e contract as worthy to be sustained by sound
morality and good policy, and as governed by the law of nations
and the eternal rules of justice. (l>) The practice in France (c)
when a French vessel has been ransomed, and a hostage given
to the enemy, is for the officers of the admiralty to seize the
vessel and her cargo, on her return to port, in order to compel
the owners to pay the ransom debt, and relieve the hostage ; and
this is a course dictated by a prompt and liberal sense of justice.
The recapture of the ransom bill, according to Valin, (d) puts
an end to the claim of the captor. He may be deprived of the
entire benefit of his prize, as well a« of the ransom bill, either
by recapture or rescue, and the questions arising on them lead to
the consideration of postliminy and salvage. Upon recapture
from pirates, the property is to be restored to the owner, on the
(a) Anthon v. Fuhar, Dong. fl49, note ; The Hoop, 1 C Bob. IH.
{b) Comn V, Blackbuma, Doug. 0il.
(r> Pothier, Tnit^ de PrapnJU, No. IM.
(''} ii. liT. 3, tit. S, tfL IS.
[187]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 108 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAST U
allowance of a reasonable compensation to the retakcr in
* 108 the nature of salv^e ; for it * is a principle of the law of
nations that a capture by pirates does not, like a capture
by an enemy in solemn war, change the title, or divest the origi*
nal owner of his right to the property, and it does not reqnire
the doctrine of postliminy to restore it (a)^ In France, property
may be reclaimed by the owner within a year and a day;(i)
but in some other countries (and Grotius mentions Spain and
Venice) the rule formerly was, that the whole property recap-
tured from pirates went to the retaker, and this rule was
founded on the consideration of the desperate nature of the
recovery.
& Rlsht of PMtUniliiiain. — The jut pottliminii was a fiction of
the Boman law, by which persons or things taken by the enemy
were restored to their former state upon coming again under the
power of the nation to which they formerly belonged. Post-
liminium fingit eum qui captus est in civitate semper fuisse. (e)
It is a right recognized by the law of nations, and contributes
essentially to mitigate the calamities of war. When, therefore,
property taken by the enemy is either recaptured or rescued
from him, by the fellow-subjects or allies of the original owner,
it does not become the property of the recaptor or rescuer, as if
it bad been a new prize, but it is restored to the original owner,
by right of postliminy, upon certain terms. Movables are not
entitled, by the strict rules of the laws of nations, to the fall
benefit of postliminy, unless retaken from the enemy promptly
after the capture, for then the original owner neither finds a dif-
' ficulty in recognizing his effects, nor is presumed to have relin-
quished them. Seal property is easily identified, and therefore
more completely within the right of postliminy ; and the reason
for a stricter limitation of it in respect to personal property arises
from its transitory nature, and tbe difficulty of identifying it,
and the consequent presumption that tbe original owner had
(a) Qntiiu, b. 3, c », aec 10, 17 ; Bynk. Q. J. Pub. b. 1, o. U and IT.
(>) VbUd, Comm. iL 261.
(t) Iiut 1. 12. fi.
1 A nmilai priadple wu applied Tbe pnceediuge of meh a conrt are of
lAera a veMel «ag rac^tored vhich do validity in the conrte of tbe United
was alleged to haTs been coDdemned Statea. The Lllla, 9 Bpngat, 177 ; a. a
and Bold by a Coiifederat« piiie court. 2 ClfiT. 189 ; et ante, 91, d. 1.
[138]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. v.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONB. * 110
ftbudooed the hope of recovery, (d) • This right does * 109
not take effect in neutral countriea, becauae the ueatral
nation is bound to consider the war on each side as equally just,
go hr as relates to its effects, anS to look upon every acquisition
made by either par^ as a lawful acquisition ; with the exception
of cases where the capture itself is an infringement of the juris-
diction or rights of the neutral, power.- (a) If one party was al>
lowed, in a neutral territory, to enjoy the right of claiming goods
taken by the other, it would be a departure from the daty of neu-
trality. The right of postliminy takes place, therefore, only
within the territories of the nation of the captors, or of its ally ; (b)
and if a prize be brought into a neutral port by the captors, it
does not return to the former owner by the law of postliminy,
because neutrals are bound to take notice of the military right
which possession gives, and which is the only evidence of right
acquired by military force, as contradistingnished from civil
lights and titles. They are bound to take the fact for the law.
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a marine tort between
belligerents. All captures are to be deemed lawful, and they
have never been held within the cognizance of the prize tribunals
of neutral nations, (c) With respect to persons, the right of post-
limiay takes place even in a neutral conntry ; so that if a captor
briugs his prisoners into a neutral port, ho may, perhaps, confine
them on board his ship, as being, by fiction of law, part of the
territory of his sovereign, but he has no control over them on
shore, (d)
* In respect to real property, the acquisition by the * 110
conqueror is not fnlly consummated until confirmed by the
treaty of peace, or by the entire submission or destmctiou of the
■tate to which it belonged, (a) If it be recovered by the original
((Q Tatt«1, b. S, e. li, uc. 309.
(a) MDoiKMigh V. DaauflTT, 8 DaJlu, ISS, 188 ; Thg Jowfa Sefcniidi, S Wbeaton,
m, S5S. Sm ilao pcit, 121.
(t) Vattel, b. 8, c 14, kc 207, 208.
|e) L* AmiitBd de Roe*, 6 Wbaaton, SM.
id) YtnO, )x S, c. 7, lec. 182 ; Bynk. by DDpononn, 118, 117, notei ; Aattnaii
Oti. of N«ab«lity, Aog. 7, IS08, iX. 19. By on« of thg proruions of » commarcial
tmty bctwsen Cailluga and RonM, in the eailiast period of the Ronun republic,
MOB after tbe tipoUon of Taiquin, it wai ttipnlated, tbat if either party iboald
Mug into the porta of the other priaouen taken from an ally, the priaonen mfgbt ba
McUmed ud Mt ftee. Polybioa, b. 8, c. S.
(a) Pnff. Droit de la Natare par BarbeyTM, Ut. B, c. S, tec. 20.
[189]
sObyGoOl^lc
■ ill OF THE LAW OP MATIOMS. [PABT I.
sovereign, it retuniB to tiie former proprietor, Dotwithstanding
it may, in the mean time, have been transferred by purchaw.
The purcbaser is understood to have taken the property at the
hazard of a recovery or reconquest before the end of the war.
But if the real property, as a town or portion of the territory, for
instance, be ceded to the conqueror by the treaty of peace, the
right of postliminy is gone for ever, and a previous alienation
by the conqueror would be valid, (b)
In a land war, movable property, after it has been in complete
poBBesHion of the enemy for twenty-four hours (and which goes
by the name of booty and not prize), becomes absolutely his,
without any right of postliminy in favor of the original owner;
and much more ought this species of property to be protected
from the operation of the rule of postliminy, when it has not
only passed into the complete possession of the enemy, but been
bona fide transferred to a neutral. By the ancient and strict
doctrine of the law of nations, captures at sea fell under the same
rule as other movable property taken on laud ; and goods so
taken were not recoverable by the original owner from the res-
cuer or retaker. But the municipal regulations of most states
have softened the rigor of the law of nations on this point by an
equitable extension of the right of postliminy, as against a re-
caption by their own subjects. The ordinances of several of
the continental powers confined the right of restoration,
* 111 on recaption, to cases where the property * had not been
in possession of the enemy above twenty-four hours. This
was the rule of the French ordinance of 1681 ; (a) but now the
right is everywhere understood to continue until sentence of
condemnation, and no longer.
It is also a rule on this subject, that if a treaty of peace makes
no particular provisions relative to captured property, it remains
in the same condition in which the treaty finds it, and it is tacitly
conceded to the possessor. The right of postliminy no longer
exists, after the conclusion of the peace. It is a right which
belongs exclusively to a state of war, (6) and therefore a transfer
to a neutral, before the peace, even without a judicial sentence
of condemnation, is valid, if there has been no recovery or
recaption before the peace. The intervention of peace cures
(b) TmttsI, b S, c 11, Kc. S12 ; Harteni, K 8, c. 3, sec 11, 12.
(a) LiT. S, tit B, Dca Priiaa, Kt 8. (b) TttUl, U S, c. 14, sec. £1S.
[1401
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. T.} OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 112
all defects of title, and vests a lawful possesBion in the neu-
tral, equally as the title of the enemy captor himself is quieted
bj the intervention of peace, (c) The title, in the hands of
such a neutral, could not be defeated in favor of the original
owner, even by his subsequently becoming an enemy. It would
only be liable, with his other property, to be seized as prize of
TBT. (rf)
Every power is obliged to conform to these rules of the law of
nations relative to postliminy, where the interests of neutrals are
coucerned. But in cases arising between its own subjects, or
between them and those of her allies, the principle may undergo
Bucb modifications aa policy dictates. Thus, by several English
Btatates, the maritime rights of postliminy, as among English
subjects, subsists to the end of the war ; and, therefore, ships
or goods captured at sea by an enemy, and retaken at any period
during the war, and whether before or after sentence of condem-
nation, are to be restored to the original proprietor, on securing
to the recaptors certain rates of salvage, as a compensation
or reward "for the service they have performed, (a) The •112
maritime law of England gives the benefit of this liberal
rule of restitution, with respect to the recaptured property of her
own subjects, to her allies, unless it appears that they act on a
less liberal principle, and then it treats them according to their
own measure of justice. (() Great Britain seems to have no fixed
rale as to the quantum of salvage on a foreign vessel in cases of
recapture, and the rate of salvage in other nations of Europe is
different, as allowed by diflferent nations, (c) The allotment of
salvage on recapture or rescue is a question not of municipal law
merely, except as to the particular rat«s of it. It is a question of
ihe jut gentium, when the subjects of allies or neutral states claim
the benefit of the recaption. The restitution is a matter not of
strict right after the property has been vested in the enemy, but
one of favor and relaxation ; and the belligerent recaptor has a
right to annex a reasonable condition to his liberality, (d) Neu-
(c) Bchooner aophie, 6 Bob. 188.
W The PnriMiina CoDoeptioD, S C. Bob. 46.
(a) 1 Chitt7 on CotntDercial Law, 485.
W Tfae ShiU Cnu, 1 C. Bob. 60.
(c) WbMton on Captures, 245, 21S, 3S7; OpinioM at tfas Attomert-Osneial,
L«36.
W The Two Fruadi, 1 C. Bob. 371 ; HanbaU on Ina. 474 ; Doag. 048,
[141]
50.byGoOl^lc
* 113 OP THE LAV OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
tral property, retaken from the enemy, ia tuoally reatored, withont
the payment of any salvage, unless, from Ute nature of the case,
or the usages of the enemy, there is a probability that the property
vould have been condemned, if carried into the enemy's ports,
and in that case a reasonable salvage ought' to be allowed, for a
benefit has been conferred, (e)
The United States, by the act of Congress of 3d March, 1800,
directfid restoration of captured property, at sea, to the foreign
and friendly owner, on the payment of reasonable salvage ; but
the act was not to apply when the property had been condemned
as prize by a competent court, before recapture ; nor when the
foreign governmeiit would not restore the ^oods or vessels of the
citizens of the United States, under the like circnin-
*113 stances. The statute continued * the Jag pogtliminii, until
the property was devested by a sentence of condemnation,
and no longer ; ^ and this was the rule adopted in the English
courts, before the extension of the right of postliminy, by statutes,
in the reigns of Qeorge II. and George III. (a)
(e) The W«r Onukan, 2 C. UtA. 399 ; The Cirlotta, G C. Rob, 6*.
{a) Lord Mansfield, 2 Burr. 69S, 1209 ; L'Actif, Edw. Adm. ISA. [See, guienUj,
H«ll, lut Law, pL 3, c 5.]
' See now the iDbetitnted act of June reaMl or other property, captured by «jiy
SO, 1861, e. 174, ) 29 ; 13 U. 8. St. at L. fares hoetile to the United Statu, ii tt-
Sll ; which allows salvage according to optorod berore it has been o
the drcnmstaoce* of the csm, when mj u prin bj competent anthoritj.
[142]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. n.] OF THE l^W OF NATIONS.
LECTURE VL
OF THE GENERAL BIOHIS AND DtJTIBS OF NEUTBAL MATtONEL
The riglits and duties which belong to a state of neutrality
form a verj interesting title in the code of international law.
Thej oaght to be objects of particular stady in this coantry, in-
umnch as it is our true policy to cherish a spirit of peace, and
to keep ourselves free from those political connections which
would tend to draw us into the vortex of European contests. A
nation that maintains a firm and scrupulously impartial neu-
trality, and commands the respect of all other nations by its
prudence, Justice, and good faith, has the best chance to preserve
nnimpaired the blessings of its commerce, the freedom of its
institutions, and the prosperity of its resources. Belligerent
nations are interested in the support of the just rights of neutrals,
for the intercourse which is kept up by means of their commerce
emtributes greatly to mitigate the evils of war. The public law
of Europe has established the principle, that, in time of war,
conntries not parties to the war, nor interposing in it, shall not
be materially affected by its action ; but they shall be permitted
to carry on their accustomed trade, under the few necessary re-
strictions which we shall hereafter consider.
1. Nmitnd* mnst be ImputiaL — It belong not to a common
friend to judge between the belligerent parties, or to deter-
mine the question of right between them, (a) (x) The neutral is
(a) Bynk. 1. 7, c. 9 ; BarUmkqni, ii. pt t, e. S, wc. IB, 17.
(z) Tb« Diiit«d StatM may co-operate neutnilitj in muote Uads, tnch m UwU-
in oplontjons ki barbvoiu countriei with gtacai or the valley of the Coogo. See 1
atiier cmnercud powen, (ooter and prO' Wliarton, lot. Iaw, {$ Gl-Cl, 135, The
l«ct a frieDdlj trade therein, and gi*e pilTilt^ of protectioii and asylum in the
penonal protectinn to ita tnTellets and lefptioDa of foreign diplomatio agenta,
N there; hut it in not ita policy tbongh founded in baoMiiit;, i« not a
li any foreign goTemment or to right allowed by the law of nationa, bat ia
a alliatice* even for enforcing fraqoently exerdaed by every dviliied
[143]
sobyGoogle j
At
* 116 ' OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
* 116 not to favor ODe of them * to tbe detriment of the other;
and it is an essential character of nentralitj, to fnmish
no aids to one party which the neutral is not equally ready to
furnish to the other, (a) > A nation which would be admitted
(a) Hr. Manning, aftar Tefairing to the practice of fonner timet on the iattjcct
of breigD levio in uential coautriM, and critioaUj aiunining the naaoaing ol
Tattel, jnttly coocludea that foraipi Igviei may not be allowed to one helligeimt,
while reTosed to hit antagonist, WDaiatently with the duties of neatolitj, UDleaa neh
an aiclnalTe privilege wai granted by tnatj antecedent to the war. Hanning*!
Commentuiee, 180.
I Hiitoriciu, luternationkl Iaw, 147. See 117, n. 1.
Statein bwbwoiuoTiemi-barbannialAnda. importuM^ be tftkea I7 force from a
See iC Aibony L. J. 311 ; 17 I^w Hog. jninijAer'i dmlling, if he refoseB to nir-
* Be". (4th Serin), SS ; 10 id. 38 ; 28 render them. Bat writers generally deny
Am. Law Rev. 879. It is not conceded that thii may be dene as to a man-of-war,
to exist in the drilized Qationa of Eoropa and, in proportion aa the power of the
or their shipe of war or in the Spanish- local goTemment to act for ita own pro-
AmeticMi Slataa, and merchant vessels taction is diminished, the duty of the
olearly have no right of aaylom. See the foreign goremment to prevent ita geuor-
onthorities collected in Snow's Int. Law, osity to individuals tnm becoming an
130-150 ; aee also 7 Pohtical Science Quar- i^jniy to a fiiendly nation is incnaaed."
terly (1892), pp. 1, 197, 307. The right John Boesett Hoore, upon The Caw of the
of uylno) waa, however, recently main- Salvadorean BeltgeeB, in 2S Am. L. Bev.
tained by Portugal in enpport of the 1, 6. This article (p. IS) refnra to the
lefoge accorded in 18S4 at Rio Janeiro by change made in 1894 in Art. 287 of the U.
her warveasels to the fugitive Brazilian 3. Navy Regulations, by which the privi-
luanigeota, and this action led to a rap- l^e of aeylnm Is to be accorded only
ton of diplomatic relationa between the in eonntriea when, on account of frequent
two govemmente. See 10 Law Quarterly insarrections, and constant instability of
Bev. 2S6. government, local usage aanctiona it, but
" It is laid down by the pnbKciata as an even in the waten of snch coontrin it
elementary ptinciple that a man-of-war is should be refused except when nqnired
pennilted to enter a foreign port as a mat- by the iuteresta of hnmanity in extreme
t«T of conrtesy, rather than of strict right cases, each as the pnnuit of a refbgee \ij
... On many occasions the govemnent a mob ; and officers are never to invite
of the United States hoe in the most poai- refugeea to accept asylum.
tive manner forbidden its diplomatic rep- A peiaon who hen clainit a ri^t of
reeentativeB to allow their protection to be aeylnm in a foreign countty, with which
made use of for the disturbance of the the United Btatee haa a treaty, but who,
peace of the countries in which they having been there kidnapped, ia tried and
nalde. The duty of the government in convicted in a State court, cannot invoke
napect to its men-of-war is yet more strict, the protection of the U. 8, Supreme Court
liDca the extnterritoriality of a man-of- on error, bouDse of the violatiOD of auch
war is more nearly absolute than that of a right of aeylnm, or on the gnund of a
nunister's residence. Refugees may, if the denial of due process of law. Ecr r.
local government deems it of sufficient Illinois, IIS U. 8. 436.
[144]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT, Tl.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 117
to the privileges of neutrality, must perform the duties it enjoins.
Even a loan of money to one of the belligerent parties is con-
sidered to be a violation of neutrality. (6) A fraudulent neu-
trality is no neutrality. But the neutral duty does not extend
BO far as to prohibit the fulfilment of antecedent engagements,
which may be kept consistently vith an exact neutrality, unless
they go so far as to require the neutral nation to become an
associate in the war.(c) If a nation be under a previous stipu-
latioD made in time of peace, to furnish a given number of ships
or troops to one of the parties at var, the contract may be com-
plied with, and the state of peace preserved, except so far as the
ADxiliary forces are concerned. The cantons of Switzerland
have been accustomed to furnish such assistance to the other
European powers. In 1788, Denmark furnished ships and troops
to Russia, in her war with Sweden, in consequence of a previous
treaty prescribing the amount ; and this was declared by Den-
mark to be an act consistent with a spirit of amity and commer-
cial intercourse with Sweden. It was answered by the latter in
her counter declaration, that though she could not reconcile the
practice with the law of nations, yet she embraced the Danish
declaration, and confined her hostility, so far as Denmark was
concerned, to the Danish auxiliaries furnished to Russia, (d)
But, if a neutral power be under contract to furnish succors to
one party, he is said not to be bound if his ally was the
aggressor; and in this solitary instance the • neutral may • HT
examine into the merits of the war, so far as to see whether
the eamit foederis exists, (a) An inquiry of this kind, instituted
by the party to the contract, for the purpose of determining on
its binding obligation, holds out strong temptations to abuse ;
and, in the language of Mr. Jenkinaon, {b) " when the execution
(i) Ut. Pickering's LetUr to Mesare. Pinckney, Hanli«]l, ind Getty, 2d of March,
17BS. In DawQtz v. Hendiicka, 9 Moore, C. B. fi86, [B.C. 2 Bing. S14,] it vasbeld to
be oontniry to the Uw of DBtioni for penooa residing in Bngland to enter into
cngiftnnentB to imiu money, bj way of loui, for the parpose of eapporting eabjecte
of ■ foreign ttkte in arms iftdinst > goremment in friendship with England, and no
Tight of action attached upon any such contract.
<c) Vattel, b. 8, c. fl, sec. BB, 100, 101 ; ib. c 7, leo. 104,106 ; HarteoH, SnmniHy,
liL S, o. S, eec. 9 ; Mr. JeSerKin's Letter to Ur. Pinckney, Sept. 17, 17B3.
id) New Ann. Beg. for 178S, tit. Pahlio Papet^ 99.
[a) Bynk. Q. J. Fob. b, I, c 8 ; Tattel, b. 2, o. 12. b«c. ISS.
(ft) DiiconiM on the Coadnct of the Ooremment of Great Britiin in BeepMt to
Henttal Nationa, 17S7.
vol.. I.-10 [145]
;abyG00<^lc
• 117 OF THB LAW OF NATIOHS. [PAET L
of goarantieB depends on questiona like these, it vill never be
difficult for an ally who has a mind to break his engagemente,
to lind an evasion to escape. "
2. Nentrai Tenrltorr iDTloUbie. — A neutral has a right to pursue
his ordinary commerce, and he may become the carrier of the
enemy's goods, without being subject to any confiscation of the
ship, or of the neutral articles on board; though not without
the risk of having the voyage interrupted by the seizure of the
hostile property. As the neutral has a right to carry the property
of enemies in his own vessel, so, on the other hand, his own
property is inviolable, though it be found in the vessels of en-
emies. But the general inviolability of the neutral character
goes further than merely the protection of neutral property. It
protects the property of the belligerento when within the neu-
tral jurisdiction. It is not lawful to make neutral territory the
scene of hostility, or to attack an enemy while within it; and
if the enemy be attacked, or any capture made, under neutral
protection, the neutral is bound to redre^ the injury, and effect
restitution, (e) ' The hooks are full of cases recognizing this
(c) Orotiua, b. 8, o. t, Me. R, note 3 ; Bjnk. b. 1, c 8 ; Vattel, b. 8, c. 7, mc 132 ;
Burluniqni, ii. pt. 4, c G, (M. IB.
> AitU, 85, n. 1 ; potC, 128, d. 1. Uttor mii^t be himadf eotitled <p. It^.
Hiatoricos, in his paper on bcUigerant In lupport of hi* poaitioiii b> dta EoBt,
Tioktioii of DBDtnl righta (I&t Uw, 147 L 118, 119, 121. But the text doM not
tt itq, ), layi it down that the right whiob iMm to bear oat th* oonclnaioi) jnit
it injured by the act of the offending stated. In the weU-known ease of tbe
belligerent u tbe right of the neuttal General Annsbong, the Dnitad Stata
govemmant, and not that of the other made a claim against Portugal for not
belligerent ; and that, therafore, it is the preventing the . deabmction of a United
neutral, and not the belligerent, who i* States priT>te«r t^ British Teasels, when
atrictly entitled to elsjm or to enforce the lying in a Pottugnese harbor doting the
remedy (p. 15S). The belligerent, ha con- wmrotlS12. The case was sabmitted to
dndes, cannot demand at the hsnde of Louis Napoleon, than President of the
the nentral, as of right, compenaation for French Repnblic, who held that Portugal
the injury he may have (lutained, or im- was eiensed, even admitting the principle
poM npoQ tbe neutral the dnt; of obtain- that a nential might be lis,bl« nnder soeli
log for him any remedy beyond what clrcumstancea, by the alleged facts that
may be had over penons and things the garriaan was feeble, and that tha
within the nentral jaritdietion. If the American commander had not ajqtlisd is
offender has enoceedad in evading the proper time to the local offlcera for pre-
nentral jurisdiction, the belligerent can- taction, but had resisted the attaok with
not, as of righ^ call upon the nentral to tmu, thus bimaelf violating the neotrsl-
pnisne those further revediea to which the ity of the territory. Wheats I^wiMioa'*
[146]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. 71.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 118
principle of Qeatralit;. In the year 1798, the British ship
Grange was captured in Delaware Bay by a French frigate, and
upon due complaint the American government caused the
British ship to be promptly restored, (d) So in the case of
the Anna (e) the * sanctity of neutral territory was * 118
fnlly asserted and vindicated, and restoration made of
property captured by a British cruiser near the mouth of ttie
Mississippi, and within the jurisdiction of the United States.
It is a violation of neutral territory for a belligerent ship to take
her station within it, in order to carry on hostile expeditions
[rotn thence, or to send her boats to capture vessels being be-
yond it No use of neutral territory, for the purposes of war,
can be permitted. This is the doctrine of the government of
the United States, (a) It was declared judicially in England,
in the case of the Twee Oebroedert ; (&) and though it was not
understood that the prohibition extended to remote objects and
(d) Hr. Jeffenon'a Lcttar to Mr. Temuit, of IStli Mb;, 179S.
{<) S G Eob. 878.
(a) Ur. fiandolph's Circidkr to the Goremon of the (ereral State*, April 16,
ITIS. The American Commusionere to the conrt of Francu (Beqjamm Fnoklin,
Silii Deane, and Arthnr Lee), in their drcalar latter in 1777, to the commaDden o(
Auaricao anoed vraaela, carried very &>r the aztenaion of neatral protection, when
tbey ijipliad it indiscriminately to all capturea "within eight of a nentnl coaat."
Diplomatic Comepondence, bj J. 8park«, ii. 110. Vidt tupra. Lecture 11.
it) i C. Bob. 162.
not* 117 ; Wheat Dann'a note 20S. In Lord Ljona, Jane 10, 1883, 1 Dip. Corr.
1 ^doje h Dnvetdy, Ti*it4 des Priaea 186S, p. 681, for anotber admission of the
Hiritinea, 107, a coDtnu7 dootrioo to aame principle. [The Florida, 101 U. 8.
tliat of HiatoricDB ia laid down. S7, waa a case ariung ont of the tianaac-
The ri^t of the nentral governmeDt tion here mentioned. It waa held that
to leparation from the offending Mtiger- no title to the Florida vetted in the
nit ia not diapatad. Dnring the late war. United Statea, and that the veaael eonld
ia 13t4, the rehel ateamei Florida waa not be libelled aa prize. — b.]
taken ont by night from the Braiillan It ia nndonbtedly tme, that no privat*
pot tt Bahia, where ahe had aonght penon can refit a claim for the reatora-
'<fc|*,b]rthe Wachoaett, a war Tceael of tlon of prizein the court» of the eaptor on
the United Statea. The American gov- the groond that the capture waa made in
araneat disavowed the act, and althoogh nentnl waters, and that the neatnl nation
■HUe to reatora the Florida, which waa whoae righta have been infriaged alone
arddnitally aank, gave other repatation can interpoae. The Lilla, 2 Sprague,
■itiifactoiy to BiazU. Wheat Dana*« 177 ; The Sir WUliam Peel, B WalL 617 ;
note 308. The mattei w related with The Adela, 6 Wall. 206 ; The Anne, S
Mme temper In the Annoal Begiatar, Wheat 43C ; Wheat Dana'a nota SOS.
IHl, p. 281. See abo Mr. Seward to
[147]
^cibyGoQl^lc
* 119 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PARI I.
uses, such as procuring provisions and other innocent articles,
which the law of natiooB tolerated, yet it was explicitly declared,
that no proximate acts of war were in any manner to be allowed
to originate on neutral ground; and for a ship to station herself
within the neutral line, and send out her boats on hostile enter-
prises, was an act of hostility much too immediate to be per-
mitted. No set of hostility is to be commenced on neutral
ground. No measure is to be taken that will lead to immediate
violence. The neutral is to carry himself with perfect equality
between both belligerents, giving neither the one nor the other
any advantage ; and if the respect due to neutral territory be
violated by one party, without being promptly pmiisfaed
• 119 by • just animadversion, it would soon provoke a similar
treatment from the other party, and Uie neutral ground
would become the theatre of war. (a)
If a belligerent cruiser inoffensively passes over a portion of
water lying within neutral jurisdiction, that fact is not usually
considered such a violation of the territory as to affect and invali-
date an ulterior capture made beyond it. The passage of ships
over territorial portions of the sea is a thing less guarded than
the passage of armies on land, because less inconvenient, and per-
mission to pass over them is not usually required or asked. To
vitiate a subsequent capture, the pass^e must at least have been
expressly refused, or the permission to paaa obtained under false
pretences. (J)
The right of a refusal of a pass over neutral territory to the
.troops of a belligerent power depends more upon the incon-
venience falling on the neutral state, than on any injustice com-
mitted to the third party, who is to be affected by the permission
or refusal. It is no ground of complaint against the intermediate
neutral state if it grants a passage to belligerent troops, though
inconvenience may thereby ensue to the adverse belligerent It
(n) When Dom Hignel, 1828, ucended the throne of Paitngal, by a vote of tba
Portuguese Cortea, in TioUtian of the title bv BUCceMion of hie Diece, Donna Huii,
Eii(!1hiii1 declared heraelf neutral aa between those claimants, in their domestic quami
for tlie crown. Hariug declared her neuttality, England maintained it with fidelitf
and vigor. She wonld not allow any warlike equipments by either pity in her ports ;
and when an armament had been fitted out in disguise, and sailed from Fljnunith, in
support of tiie clsims of Donna Maria, England sent a naral force, and actoallf inter-
criited the Portngnese armament in its deetlnaljon to the ishmd of Teroeira.
{b) The Twee Gebroedets, 3 C. Rob. S8S.
[148]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKT. TI.] OP THE LAW OF NATIOHB, " 120
IB a matter resting in the sound discretion of the neutral power,
vho may grant or withhold the permisBion, without an; breach
of neutrality, (c) ' No belligerent power can claim the right of
passage through a neutral territory, unless founded upon a pre-
vioDs treaty; and it cannot be granted by a neutral, where there
is no antecedent.treaty, unless ao equality of privilege be allowed
to both belligerents, (x) This is the reasonable and just rule to be
deduced from the opinions of jurists and the conventional law of
modem nations. ((2)
* Bynkershoek (a) makes one exception to the general * 120
inviolability of neutral territory, and supposes that if an
enemy be attacked on hostile ground, or in the open sea, and flee
Tithin the jurisdiction of a neutral state, the victor may pursue
kim dumfeT-oet opus, and seize his prize within the neutral state.
He rests his opinion entirely on the authority and practice of tlie
Dutch, and admits that he had never seen the distinction taken
by the publicists, or in the practice of nations. It appears, how-
ever, that Casaregis, and several other foreign jurists mentioned
by Azuni, (6) held a similar doctrine. But D'Abreu, Valin,
Emerigon, Vattel, Azuni, and others maintain the sounder doc-
trine, that when the flying enemy has entered neutral territory,
(c) Oratiiu, b. 3, c 3, «ec. 18, D. 4 ; Tatlal, b. S, c 7, mc. IIB, 12S, 127 ; Sii
WgUKD Bcott, 8 C. Bob. 3S3.
(d) Rrotiiu, b. S, c 7, B«c 2, S ; Vattel, k S, c 7, mo. ISS ; MumiDg'i Comnien-
tuio, 183-186. Witbin > few yeaia after the ezpnlnoD of tbe Tarqnina, the Bomani,
nodn tbe ao^cea of tbe consiil Bparint Cusiaa, eobcladed a league with the thiitj
dtM OT statei of I^nro ; and one article was, that neither part? ahould give to each
«W> eiMiiiea a paeaage through tbiir laiida. DioiiTiiiu, b. 8, aec 95 ; Ifiebobr'a
Hiftotj of Borne, ii. 28.
(s) Q. J. PoU b. 1, c. S. (ft) Haritmie Iaw, iL S28, ed. N. Y.
1 AtiU, 117, n. 1 ; Hiitoriciu, Int Law, 168, 1G9.
(x) The aaseot of the nentnl State ISO, 189. If a beUigerent, wbeii attacked
iMv appeara to be nsceaaaTy for the pax- on nentrsl territer;, elects to dsfend hiiD-
Hga of belligerent troopa or venela aver self, tbe neiitral in no longer raapoDsible
ita territory. See Cobbett's Int. Law for vioktion of territory. The Generet
Cues (2d ed.), 237. Tbe approved opin- Anostrong, 2 Ortolon, Dip. de la Her,
ion is that neatnlitj requiRs a refnsai SOO ; Cobbett's Int Law Cases (2d ed.),
■hen pennlsaioD is aaked by one belliger- 2SB. A mle aa to land aeizarBa laid down
tut ht its troopa to pass over a nentrtl'a by a beUigerent cannot change neattil
territory, and that tbe privilage shonld be territory into bigh sesi or make it subject
Fijnillj granted to both belligerrats or to to maritime law. Field tr. United States,
nritber. See 21 Revue de Droit Int, 117, 27 Ct CL 22*.
[149]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 121 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAET L
be IB placed immediately under the protection of the neutral
power. The same broad principle that would tolerate a forcible
entrance upon neutral ground or waters,' in pursuit of tiie foe,
would lead the pursuer into the heart of a commercial port
There is no exception to the rule that every voluntary entrance
into neutral territory, with hostile purposes, is absolutely unlaw-
ful, (c). The neutral border must not be used as a shelter for
making preparations to renew the attack ; and though the neu-
tral is not obliged to refuse a passage and safety to the pursuing
party, he ought to cause him to depart as soon as possible, and
not permit him to lie by and watch his opportunity for further
contest. This would be making the neutral country directly
auxiliary to the war, and to the comfort and support of one
party. In the case of the Anna, (d) Sir William Scott was in-
clined to agree with Bynkershoek to this extent, that if a vessel
refused to submit to visitation and search, and ded within neu-
tral territory, to places which were uninhabited, like the
*121 little mud islands before the * mouth of the Mississippi,
and the cruiser, without injury or annoyance to any per-
son, should quietly take possession of bis prey, he would not
stretch the point so far, on that account only, as to hold the cap-
ture illegal. But in this, as well as in every other case of the
like kind, there is, m atricto Jure, a violation of neutral jurisdic-
tion, and the neutral power would have a right to insist on a res-
toration of the property. It was observed by the same high
authority, in another case, depending on a claim of territory, (a)
"that when the fact is established, it overrules every other con-
sideration. The capture is done away; the property must be
restored, notwithstanding it may actually belong to the enemy."
A. neutral has no right to inquire into the validity of a cap-
ture, except in cases in which the rights of neutral jurisdiction
were violated; and, in such cases, the neutral power will restore
(f) Tattel, b. 3, c T, see, 183 ; 1 Emerigon, Tnitd dw Au. 149 ; Azani, ii. 22S.
It «M olBerved by the American Secretary of State (Hr. Webster), in tha diplomatic
correapoQ denes between him and the British minister (Lard Ashborton), relatiTe to
the case of the iteaniboat Caroline, on the CaDadian border, and seemingly admitted
by Lurd Ashburton, that, to jnatify a hostile entrance npon neutral territory, then
must exist a necessity of selT-defence, instant, OTerwhelimng, leaving no choice ot
ntenQB, and no moment for deliberation.
(d) 6 C. Rob. S73. SSS. d.
(,'i) The Trow Anns Cathsrina, G C. Bob. IG.
[160]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. YI.] OP THE LAW OP HATIOKS. • 122
the property, if found in the hands of the offender, and within
iU jurisdiction, regardless of any sentence of condemnation bj a
court of a belligerent captor, (&) It belongs solely to the neu-
trft! government to raise the objection to a capture and title,
founded on the violation of neutral rights. The adverse bel-
ligerent has no right to complain when the prize is duly libelled
before a competent court, (i:) If any complaint ia to be made
on the part of the captured, it must be by his government to the
neutral government, for a fraudulent, or unworthy, or unneceS'
sary submission to a violation of its territory, and such submis-
sion will naturally provoke retaliation. ' In the case of prizes
brought within a neutral port, the neutral sovereign exercises
jorisdietion so far as to restore the property of its
*ovn subjects, illegally captured; and this is done, says *122
Yaliu, (d) by way of compensation for the asylum granted
to the captor and his prize. It has been held, in this country,
that foreign ships, offending against our laws, within our juris-
diction, may be pursued and seized upon the ocean, and rights
fully brought into our ports for adjudication. (S)'
(() Tbs Am^uite Bucelonet, 7 WhMton, 196 ; The Atutriui Ordinuiu of Nen-
tality, Angwt 7,1S08, art. IS; Ia Amistad de Raes, 6 Wheaton, SHI.
0} Cus of ths Etnuco, 8 C. Sob. 1S2, note ; [anU, 117, a. 1.]
(s) Comm. ii. 274.
(i) The HuiuitM Flora, II Wlieaton, 43.
■ Antt, 117, n. 1 ; Uiitoriciu, Int. ww. Dt. Twin and Dr. Phillimore both
Law, lEll- gtre opinions tluit ths leiziire, u it wai
* Id Jnne, 1867, the Cagliari, « Bar- not beiligercDt, and w the veuel vu not
dinian mail steamer, pljing betwoen nnder the Biupicion of a piratical condi-
Genoa and Tnnia, was seized b; armod tion, ma illegal, and tliat the privilege of
nKD and directed to a amall idaod where the flag waa the privilege of the itatA.
*«Te confined some Neapolitan priMnert. June 8, ISGS, the Cagliari and crew were
Thoe were roleased and taken on Ixiard, given up to the British goTemment, upon
asd the venel waa directed to the coait of their eameet TemanstraDcea, and by them
NapUi. There the armed man and the reetored to Satdiuia. The Neapolitan ap-
released prisoners landed, with the intent pellate conrt attmnurd pronounced the
to promote an inaarrectjon, and aban- seizora ri^tfnl, on the gronnd that the
doned the vgeeeL The master at once vessel hftd been engaged in mixed acts of
set sail (bi Naplee under the Sardinian war and piiacj, with the fault of the man-
Ssg, bat was captured bj- a Neapolitan ter and crew. Add. Reg. 1868, pp. S3,
endwr on the high seas. The prize court 181 ; Wheat. Dana's note 940 ; Wheat,
at Naples condemned the vessel, and the Lawrence's note 84 ; Dr. Abdy (EeDt,
government held the master and crew, in- 8S1, SS2) thinks this qualifies the case of
dodhig two Englishmen, as priaonen <d the Haiianna Flora.
[161]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 128 OP tbe: law op nations. [pabt l
The govenuaent of the United States was warranted by tbe
lav and practice of nations, in the declarations made in 1793, of
the rules of neutrality, which were particularly recogaiz^ u
necessary to be observed by the belligerent powers, in their inter-
course with this country, (c) Theav rules were, that the original
arming or equipping of vessels in our ports, by any of the powere
at war, for military service, was unlawful ; and no such vessel
was entitled to an asylum in our ports. The equipment by them
of government vessels of war, in matters which, if done to other
vessels, would be applicable equally to commerce or war, was
lawful. The equipment by them of vessels fitted for merchandise
and war, and applicable to either, was lawful ; but if it were of
a nature solely applicable to war, it was unlawful And if the
armed vessel of one nation should depart from our jurisdiction,
no armed vessel, being witiiia the same, and belonging to an
adverse belligerent power, should depart until twenty-four hours
after the former, without being deemed to have violated the lav
of nations, (d) Congress have repeatedly, by statute, made suit-
able provision for the support and due observance of similar nileB
of neutrality, and given sanction to the principle of them,
*123 as being 'founded in the universal law of nations, (x) It
(«) Vattel, h. S, sec 104 ; Wolflua, aec. 1174 ; Aartritn Ordinaaoe of Neutrtlitj,
Angiut 7, ISOS : Conn de Droit Pnblia, put M. Pinheiro-FerTeira, ii. 44—47.
id) loBtructioDa to the CoUectora of tjie CnitomB, Aoguit 4, I7S3. Hr. JeBamn's
Letters to H. Oenet, nf Gtb and I7th June, 1793 ; hU Letter to Hr. Honu, of ISdi
Anguit. 1763 ; Ur. Pickaring'* Lrtter to Mr. PinckDcy, Jumuf 16, 1797 ; Itii Letta
to H. Adet, Jaoiur; 20, 1796. [Foil, 1S4, n. 1.]
{x) Th» present nentrelity Uws are now at « point not blockaded. The FloriJi,
embraced in U. S. B«v. Stat, (g GS81- 4 Ben. 4S2. Secti. S2B3, S286 do not
62S1. Sect. 528S, prohibiting the fit- apply to arai and munitions of war pur-
ting ont and anning of veaseU with chsaad here and carried to Inmrgenti in
iDt«nt to be emplojred against a Stal« a foreign conntiy but not (onning a put
or people with which this country is of the veasel's foinishiiigi. Tbe ItaU.
at peace, pceaappoaea, it Memo, two «iipn»,- The Carondelet, 87 Fed. Bep.
or more fonign belligerent powen, and 7B9 ; ITnited States r. TnunbnU, 48 F«d.
not fiMtions notccognized l^ this gov- Rep. 99 ; see United StatM ■>. Bud.
tmoieat. Tbe Coueirs, S8 Fed. lUp. 17 id. 142 ; United States e. The Ren-
4S1 ; The Itata, 66 id. 506 ; 40 id. Inte, 40 id. B4S. Or to a vtnaA menlv
646; but see 13 A. 0. Op. 179; The employed to tnnaport them to a veurt
Salvador, L. R. S C. P. 31S. A cugo, which is ao fitting oat. United Swlr*
which is ooDtnibMid of war, may be d. The Robert and Minnie, 47 Fe<i. Ri?
luded on the territory of one bslUgereDt 84 j Unitod States v. Skinner, 2 Whwl"
[152]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. VI.] OP TEE LAW OP NAT10H8. * 123
ia declared to be a miBdemeanor for an; citizen of the United
States, within the territory or jurisdiction thereof, to accept and
exercise a commission to. serve a foreign prince, state, colony,
district, or people, in war, by land or by sea, against any prince,
gtate, colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are
at peace ; or for any person, except a subject or citizen of any for-
eign prince, state, colony, district, or people, transiently within
the United States, on board of any foreign armed vessel, within
&e territory or jurisdiction of the United States to enlist or enter
himBelf, or hire or retain another person to enlist or enter him-
self, or to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United
States, with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any
foreign prince, gtate, colony, district, or people, as a soldier, or
mariner, or seaman ; or to fit out and arm, or to increase or aug-
ment the force of any armed vessel, with intent that such vessel
be employed in the service of any foreign power at war Vith an-
other power with whom we are at peace ; or to begin, or set on
foot, or provide, or prepare the means for any military expedition
or enterprise, to be carried ou from thence against the territory or
dominions of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, dis-
trict, or people with whom we are at peace ; or to hire or enlist
Cr. Cu. 2S2. Or to money contributed to formera andar these BtatnUn, see Tlie City
■id > IbreigD iiittineetian. Bailey v. of Mexico, S2 Fed. Rep. 106 ; United
O'UaluHiey, S3 N. Y. Snpr. Ct 2S9. SUtes v. The Resolute, 40 id. 543 ; The
ne mt«nt is nuterial, and U alone anf- Cb&pman, i Sawyer, COl.
fidect to comtitnte the Btatatoty offence, Militacy eipnditionB or enterprisee orig-
tbe Ktul uiaiiig of the venel here not ineting within the United Btatea, and to
being Qeceaniy. The City of Hezico, 28 be carried on from this country, are clearly
Fed. B«p. 148; TheConserra, S8 id. 431 ; prohilnted by the Ber. SUta. S G283.
Uidted States v. 214 Boxes of Anns, 20 Bnt tJie sending of a ahip from a foreign
id. GO. The plan and intent mnit be conntry to the United States, to take on
(armed bare and not sRcr the veasel board arms and ommanition purchased
naehei a forelKD port The Ci^ of here, uid carry them to the foreign state,
Mexico, 24 Fed. Rep. 33 ; see 25 id. is not the preparing or setting on foot of
K4 ; SS Ed. lOS. Sect G2Sfl does not such an expedition or ecterprise within
require that the expedition ibonld have the meaning of the st&tnte. United States
■ctnally set ont, or any paiticnlar nnm- v. Tmmbnll, 48 Fed. Rep. 90 ; The Itata,
ber of mrn, the crime being completed by 49 id. 646 ; TIih City of Mexico, 24 id. 33 ;
the orgaiiixation only. United State* d. Hendricha n. Gouzalei, 67 id. SRI, See
Tbaoez, 53 Fed. Rep. SS6. The organiiv- Oienn'e Int I^w ch. 21, p. 2S6.
tion ia i1lq{al, tliongh formed and de- A neutral government is not bound to
ipatched in separate parts. United States prevent neotral shipe from supplying
t. nogw), 18 Fed. Rep. S29 ; see United materials to a belligerent. The Mads-
Btatea v. 214 Boxes, 20 id. CO. As to in- gascar Expedition, 29 Am. L. Rev. GS9,
[153]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 123 or THE LAW OP NATIONS. [riBT I.
troops or aeamen for foreign military or naral service ; or to be
concerned in fitting out anj vessel to cruise or commit hostilities
in foreign service against a nation at peace with us ; and the
vessel, in this latter case, is made subject to forfeiture. The
President of the United States is also authorized to employ force
to compel any foreign vessel to depart, which, by the law of
nations, or by treaty, ought not to remain within the United
States, and to employ the public force generally in enforcing the
observance of the duties of neutrality prescribed by law. (a)^ Id
(a) Act* of CongTtta of tth June, 17M, aiid 20th April, laiS, & 83. B; an ict of
Congreu of Harch 10, 1838, c. SI, the proviiioiu of the *ct of 1818 vere eokrgid
and applied to any military elpeditioD or enterpriie againat the territoiy of any
foreipi princa or stale, or of an; colony, diitrict, or people, contenninom wilh the
United States, and with whom they are at peace. Great Britain, by act ol Farlia-
nwnt of Gd 0«o. 111., called the Foreign Enlistment Act, in like manner pnbilated
enliatmenta and aqnipmenta within the king's dotniniona, for warlike porpoaee m
foreign etatea.
' Cnited States n. Eaziniki, 3 Spragne, departnre from its jnrisdicdon of any Tea-
7; IB I^w Bep. SSi; 7 Op. Att-Qen. eel intended to cruise or canyon war as
857; nnU, 117, n. 1, The act of 1838, sbara, snch vessel haviug been spedallj
mentioned In note (a), expired by limit*- adapted, in whole or in part, within such
tion at the end of two ye«ra. jarisdiction, to warlike nse.
The resujt of the controTers; between " Secondly, not to permit or infler
the United States and England as to rebel either belligerent to make ose of ita pott*
privataers boilt and fitted out in EngUah or watera aa the base of nsTal operatiaiB
parts, has been to establish principles of agninst the other, or for the pnrpoae of
dealing, at least between the two countries the renewal or augmentation of military
in qaeitJon, which England lisd preTioaaly mppliea or amu, or the leemitment of
insisted did not belong to international men.
law, bnt depended on municipal regula- "Thirdly, to exerciae due diligence in
tions, like the act referred to in the text, ita own ports and watera, and, as to all
The principles are embodied in the follow- peiaona within its jurisdiction, to prsTent
ing rules which were agreed to be taken any violation of the foregoing obligations
as applicable to the case before the board and duties.
of arbitration on the Alabama clums; " Her Britannic Mqeatf has earn-
but the protestation of England as to the mauded her High Commissionen and
principles in force at the time the claims Plenipotentisriea to dedare that Hrr
arose should be noticed. Majesty's Govemment cannot assent to
"A neutral goremmeot ia bound — the foregoing rules as a at^tement of
"First, to use due diligence to pre- principles of international law which were
Tcnt the fitting oat, anning, or eqnippinf^ in force at the time when the dainu men-
within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which tioned in Article 1. arose, but that Her
it has reasonable ground to believe is in- Majesty's Qovemment, in order to evince
tended to cruise or to carry on war sgaiust its desire of strengthening ths ftiendl}'
a power with which it is at peace ; and relations between the two conntries and
aim to use like diligence to prevent the ^ making satiafoctor; proTision for the
[164j
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. VI.] OP THE LAW OP NATI0M8. "124
caw of the iSantiiiima Trinidad, (b) it was decided, that captures
made b; a vessel so illegally-fitted out, whether a public or private
armed ship, were torts, and that the original owner was entitled
to restitution, if the property was brought within our jurisdiction ;
but that an illegal outfit did not affect a capture made after the
crDiBc, to which the outfit had been applied, had terminated.
The offence was deposited with the voyage, and the delictum
ended with the termiuation of the cruise, (c)
Though a belligerent vessel may not enter within neutral jnris'
diction for hostile purposes, she may, consistently with a state
of neutrality, until prohibited by the neutral power, bring her
prize into a neutral port, and sell it (d) The neutral
power is, however, at liberty *to refuse this privilege, "124
provided the refusal be made, as the privilege ought to
be granted, to both parties, or to neither. The United States,
while a neutral power, frequently asserted the right to prohibit,
at discretion, the sale within their porta of prizes brought in by
the belligerents ; and the sale of French prizes was allowed as an
indulgence merely, until it interfered with the treaty of Eng-
land of 1794, in respect to prizes made by privateers, (a) In the
(i) 7 WhMton, 283.
ft) Tha Kamen of a neatnl nation iomj mtto on board of > eommemial reuel
tt 1 bolligerGnt power, or be etaplojed in a contnband trade on board of a neutnl
fMael, irithoDt being liable to pimiBhment penonally, by the manicipal laws of bia
own conntiy, or by the law of natlona. Opinion! of the Attorneyt-Oenend <^ the
United SUtea, i. 8G.
Id) BjDk.b.1, c IS; Tattal, b.8, c. T.mc 182; Hartena, b. 8, c. fl, «ec S ; Hop-
Htv. Applebjr, 6 Maaon, 77.
{a) Initractionji to the Ajneiican Hiniaten to Fnmee, Jnly IS, 1797. Mr. Plck-
htnre, agree* that, in deciding the qnea- Brown, k Co., 1866 ; Hountagne Bernard
ticma between the two coautriee ariiiDg on Neutrality of Great Britnin duHng the
ont of thoaa claimi, the arbitrator! ihould American Civil War, London : Longmana,
iMome that Her Uiyetty'a QoTenunrat 1870, Hiatoricua, Int. Law, lEl ; [Hall,
had andertaken to act upon the ptiaciplei Int. Law, pt 4, c. 3 ; 6 BaTue de Droit
•et forth in these rule!. International, i6Z and pamim.] See alao
" Aod the High Contracting Parties the great caae ander the Britieh act, The
agree to obaerre these mlea as between Alszandra, Attomey-Genend v. Sillem,
thenieelvea in futore^ and to bring them London : Eyre & Spottiawoode, 1803, and
to tha knowledge of other maritime letter of Earl Rassell to the Lords of the
pamra, and to invite them to uceda to Treasary, ib. vol. 2, spp. i. ; s. c. 2 Rnrlst
them." i C. 4SI ; and a *efy important case
For discussiona of the qnestion, see nnder the American act; The Meteor,
Wheat. Dana'a note SIS; Beroia on Boston: Little, Blown. &Co., 1SB9, statsd
American Nentrality, Boston : Little, btieflj, 8 Am. Law Bev. 234 ; I id. 401.
[165]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 124 OF THE LAW OP NAT10H8. [PART L
opinion of some jurists, it is more consistent with a state of nea-
trality and the dictates of true poUcj to refuse this favor; for it
must be very convenient to permit the privateers of contending
nations to assemble, together with their prizes, in a neutral port
The edict of the States General of Idt'id forbade foreign cruisers
to sell their prizes in their neutral ports, or cause them to be
unladen ; and the French Ordinance of the Marine of 1681 con-
tained the same prohibition, and that such vessels should not cod>
tinue in port longer than twenty-four hours, unless detained by
stress of weather, (b) The admission into neutral ports of the
public ships of the belligerent parties, without prizes, and under
due regulations, is considered to be a favor, required on the prin-
ciple of hostility among friendly powers, and it has been uni-
formly conceded on the part of the United States, (c) >
3. Enemy's Prop«rt7 In Nantral VmmU. — But neutral sbips do
not afford protection to enemy's property, and it may be seized
if found on board of a neutral vessel, beyond the limits of tiie
neutral jurisdiction. This is a clear and well-settled principle
of the law of nations, (d) ' It was formerly a question whether
ering'i Lattan to H. Adot, Ifsy 3t, ftnd NoT«mb«r IG, 1796. His Lcttor to Hi.
Pinckaci]', JtBOUj 18, 1797. It ii deemed proper and safe for k neutral power to
permit a prize, bnmgbt iota port in diatraM, to bi rtpaired, for the pnrpoae of further
n«Tig*tion. OpbioDS of the Attornejs- General, L 403.
(b) Vatin, Comm. ii. 272.
(e) Ht. Jeffersoo'i Letter to Ur. HaminoDd, September 9, 1798 ; Initmctions to
the Ataencan Commieeionen to France, Jnly 15, 1797 ; Conn de Droit PnbUc, pa
M. Pinheiro-Ferreira, ii. 47. Soch pQbUc vteaeli are wtempt from the jariadiction
of the looal aathorities, but thi< eiemption doee not ertend to prirate venela. Vide
infra, 166, note.
Id) Orotina, L S, c S, sec. 6 ; Heinee. de Nav. ob Tect c 3, sec. 9 ; Bjnk. Q. J.
Pub. c. 14 ; Locceniiu, de Jure Mv. et Na7. b. S, c 4, ate. S ; HoUoy, d« Jure Hari-
timo, b. 1, c 1, sec IB ; I^mpredi, dn CommerM da Neatres, aec 10, 11 ; Tattel,
b. 8, c. 7, iec. 115 ; Answer, in 17S3, to the Pmssian Uemorial ; Consulat de la Mer,
par Boncher, ii. c. 273, 276, sec. 1004.
■ Ur, Cushing's opinion in the case of * Asf, 12S, n. 1 ; [Hall, Int Law, pt 4,
The Sitks, 7 Op. Att-Qen. 122, contains c 7 and 9. In the Institnt de Droit Intei^
moch learning on this rabject, and oon- natioDal, held at La Haje in 1875, resoln-
firms the text and note (c). tions were adopted, though not withont
The twenty-fonr hours nJe seems to dissent, to the attett that^l. The nle
have become part of intemationRi law. that euetDj's property on board neatnl
Pistoye & DuTerdy, i. lOS; M. Bernard, vessels is inviolable unless contraband is
Neutrality of Great Britain, c 11, p. 273 ; a part of the poeitiTC law of nations^ 2.
Moore's Babellion Becord, iiL U( ; Haute- That merchant ahipe and cargoes should
feuille, i. S66. not be captured oulesa they eatiy conttv
[166]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. TI.] OF THE LAW OP KATIONB. •125
the neutral 'ship, coDTejing enemy's property, was not* 125
liable to conGscatioa for that cause, (x) This was the old
lav of France, (a) in cases in which the master of the vessel know-
ii^lf took on board enemy's property; but Byukershoek truly
obserres, that the master's kacrwledge is immaterial in this case,
and that the rule in the Roman law, making the vessel liable for
the fraudulent act of the master, was a mere fiscal regulation, and
did not apply ; and for the neutral to carry enemy's goods is not
unlawful, like smuggling, and does not afEect the neutral ship, (b)
If there be nothing unfair in the conduct of the neutral master,
be will even be entitled to his reasonable demurrage, and his
freight for the carriage of the goods, though he has not carried
them to the place of destination. They are said to be seized and
condemned, not ex delietOy but only ex re. The capture of them
bj the enemy is a delivery to the person who, by the rights of
war, was substituted for the owner, {e) Bynkershoek (d) thinks
the master is not entitled to freight, because the goods were not
carried to the port of destination, thou^ he admits that the
Dutch lawyers and the Contolato give freight. But fhe allow-
ance of freight in that case has been the uniform practice of the
English admiralty for near two centuries past, except when there
was some circumstance of mala fidee, or a departure from a
Btrictly proper neutral conduct, (e) The freight is paid, not pro
(■) Otd. de U Ifiriiie, liv. S, tit 9, du PriMa, art. 7.
[h) Bjak. Q. J. Pub. lib. 1, c H,
(c) Vtttel. b. 8, c 7, SBC. lis. (<I) B. 1, c. 14.
(() Jenkimon'i Diuoum id 1767, p. 18 ; Hie Atlx, S C. Bob. SOI, noU; Annrer
to the PranUn Hemorial, 1758.
hud or tttampt to TJoIate ■ duly declared tdntd to tska part, in tlie ha«tilitie«. Sea
Uodndt. 8. He above rale* not to 7 BevaadeDToitIntenkati<aul, 2B8. — b.]
tpfilT to anj Tcaiela takjug part, or dea-
(i) i* between the paitiea to the when actnally and Tolnntarily nnder an
DKlarattcm of Parii, lioetile goods in enemj'e protection. The Nancy, 27 Ct.
mtnl ihipg go free. Cobbett's Int CI. 99. At the cloee of the eigfaternth
Iaw Caas (2d ed.), 298, 298. A nenttal centnry an enemj'a cargo captured on
TMd in the direct emploj' of a belligerent eoch a Teuel iraa enl^ect to confiscatiao,
is, upon captnre, ae well as hei enemj'B bnt the veeeel iteelf wonld have been
cugo, liable to condemnation. The City (reed with fKight money and compeiua-
«( Mexico, U Fed. Bep. 38, 10; eee 11 tion for loea directly earned by the eeizare.
Ub Uig. ( Rer. (4th Series), S6 : GO The Joaona, 34 Ct. CL 198 ; The William,
iibany I. J. 8BS. A neatral Tealel laden 28 id. 201.
■itli uantnl cargo w liable if captured
[167]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 127 OF THE LAW OP HATIOMS. [PIST I.
rata, but in totOf because capture is considered as delivery, and
the captor pays the whole freight, because he represents hi»
* 126 enemy, by poesessing himself of the enemy's goods *Jvre
belli, and he interrupts the actual delivery to the con-
signee, (a)
The right to take enemy's property on board a neutral ship has
been much contested by particular nations, whose interests it
strongly opposed. This was the case with Prussia in the case ot
the Silesia loan, and with the Dutch in the war of 1756 ; and
Ur. Jenkinson (afterwards Earl of Liverpool) published, in 1757,
a discourse, very full and satisfactory, on the ground of author!^
and usage, in favor of the legality of the right, when no treaty
intervened to control it The rule has been steadily maintained
by Qreat Britain. In France it has been fluctuating. The ordi-
nance of the marine of 1681 asserted the ancient and severe rule,
that the neutral ship, having on board enemy's property, was sub-
ject to confiscation. The same rule was enforced by the arrSts
of 1692 and 1704, and relaxed by those of 1744 and 1778. (&) In
1780 the Ehapress of Russia proclaimed the principles of the Baltic
code of neutrality, and declared she would maintain them by
force of arms. One of the articles of that code was, that " all
effects beloi^ng to the subjects of belligerent powers should be
looked upon as free on board of neutral ships, except only such
goods as were contraband." The principal powers of Europe, as
Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Germany, Holland, France, Spain,
Portugal, and Naples, and also these United States, acceded to
the Russian principles of neatrality. (c) But the want of the coa-
sent of a power of such decided maritime superiority as that of
Great Britain was an insuperable obstacle to the success of the
Baltic conventional law of neutrality ; and it was abandoned in
1793 by the naval powers of Europe, as not sanctioned by the
existing law of nations, in every case in which the doc-
* 127 trines of that code • did not rest upon positive compact
During the whole course of the wars growing out of the
French revolution, the government of the United States admitted
the English rule to be valid, as the true and settled doctrine of
(a) Ths Copenhsgsn, 1 C. Rob. 289.
(t) Valin, Comm. 1. S, tit. 9, dtm Frii«, art. 7.
(c) Sew Ana. Big. 1780, tit Poblic Pftpon, 119-120 ; Maitons, BQmiiiary. 837. mi.
FbU. ; Jonnult of Congien, riL 88, 186.
[168]
sObyGoOl^lc
LICT. TI.] ' OP THX Li.W OP NATIONS. * 128
international lav ; and that eDemy's property was liable to seizure
on board of neutral ships, and to be confiscated as prize of war. (a)
It has, however, been very usual, in commercial treaties, to stip-
ulate that free ships should make free goods, contraband of war
always excepted ; but such stipulations are to be considered as
resting on conventional law merely, and as exceptions to the
operation of the general rule, which every nation not a party to
the stipulation is at perfect liberty to exact or surrender. The
Ottoman Porte was the first power to abandon the ancient rule,
and she stipulated, in her treaty with France, in 1604, that free
ships should make free goods, and she afterwards consented to
the Bame provision in her treaty with Holland, in 1612; and
according to Azuni, (b) Turkey has, at all times, on international
qoeBtions, given an example of moderation to the more civilized
pavers of Eiurope,
The effort made by the Baltic powers, in ISOl, to recall and
enforce the'doctrines of the armed neutrality, in 1780, was met,
and promptly overpowered, and the confederacy dissolved by the
naval power of England. Russia gave up the point, and by her
convention wiUi England of the 17th June, 1801, expressly
agreed that enemy's property was not to be protected on board
of neatral ships. The rule has since been very generally ac-
quiesced in; and it was expressly recognized in the Austrian
ordinance of neutrality, published at Vienna the 7th of
Angnst, 1803. Its reasons * and authority have been ably * 128
vindicated by English statesmen and jurists, and partica-
larly by Mr. Ward, in his treatise of the relative rights and duties
<!f belligerent and neutral powers in maritime affairs, published
in 1801, and which exhausted all the law and learning applicable
to the question, (a) ^
(a) Hr. Jeffenon'i Letter to H. Oenet, Jnl; 24, I7ft8 ; Hr. Fickerin^i Latto- to
Ht. Pfnckne;, JanniTy 16, 1797 ; Letter of Means. Pinckney, MewhaU, uid Qoiy,
to tb« French govemnieiit, Jennar; S7, 1798.
(A) Haritiine I^w ot EDropr, ii. 168. Fla«8on, in his Hiatoin de U Diplonatie
Fru9aiM, ii. 226, n^a, that it iraa not the ol^ect of the Ottoman Porte, in the
inatance mentioned in tlia text, to abandon the andent rule, and that it wa» not s
tnatf, bot a eoncwwion to France of piiTilegee and eiemptian, tiaia pore liberalily.
(a) Hr. Hanning, in hU Commentaries on the I«w of Nations, !0S-S44, baa die.
Med the qneetuai, whether " tma sbipa make fret gtwda," qnita at Urge, and with
1 On the bnaking ont of the mr with the Engliah prinmple that anemy'a goods
SoMuIulUM, ■■ the e«»UnMl effect of im neattsl reeaeU are good prize, and the
[169]
;abyG00<^lc
* 128 OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PABT I.
«. N«ntnl Fioperly la an Enamjr'a VmmI. — It is also a principle
of the law of Dationa relative to neutral righta that the e£Fects
of neutrals, found on board of enemy's veBsela, shall be free ; and
it ia a right as fully and firmly settled as the other, though, like
that, it is often changed by positive agreement (6) The prin-
ciple is to be met with in the Conaolato del Mare, and the
property of the neutral is to be restored without any compeosa-
tion for detention, and the other necessary iaconvenieuceB inci-
dent to the capture. The former ordinances of France, of 1543,
1585, and 1681, declared such goods to be lawful prize ; and
gntt strsngth of ntsooing. Ha Tindicatea the belligerant right aguiut the doetriiw
of the Baltic powers, iipon solid principles, snd upon the anthoritj' of the CouBolito
del llsM, snd of the most eminent Eoropcan juriBts who have written on the Isir of
nations within the Isst two oentniies. The piincipsl anthorities have heen slraadj
refsrred to, at pages 124, 12fi, n. [tl leq.]. Hr. Hauniiig slso aiaminee the qnestion,
on the authority of the ciutamsry sud conrentional law of nations, bf a nnew of ■
■uccessioD of treaties between European powers, from the year ISfil to the present
time*. The result i*, that there is nothing like aystem or consistencj of prindple in
the conventional law of Europe. The belligerent rale has been alternately adopted
and ngected, and qnallGed with infinite Tidstdtude, and so as to letn the rale, u s
general and settled prindpls of intemstional law, when not disturbed by positire
•tipnlations, in full force. Comm. Sil-2S0.
(i) Orotioi, b. 3, c. 6 and 16 ; Bynk. e. 18 ; Tattel, b. 3, c 7, sec. 110 ; Answer to
the Prossian Memorial, 1753 ; Hr. Jeffsnon's Letter to H. Genet, July 24, 1793;
Hr. Pickering** Letter to Hr. Pinckney, Janaary 10, 1797.
French doctrine that neutral good* on Piatoye t I>aTerdj, SIS et tiq. (tit ri.
enemy's Teasels are *o, would hsTo be«n c. 1); Edinburgh Reriew, July, 1864. By
to almost put an snd to neutral com- the declaration of prindples of the Coo-
merM, the Engliah snd French gorem- gresi of Paris, April IS, 185fl, " Ihe nea-
mentt declared that although they oonld trsl flag coven enemy's good*, with tlie
not forego the right of sdxing articlee exception of contraband of war. Nenlnl
contraband of war, and of preventiag goods, with the exception of contraband
nentrala from be^ng the enemy's de- of war, are not liable to capture undrr
spstches, or from breaking effective block- enemy's flag." Ann. Beg. 18M, p. SJI ;
ades, they would "waive the right of Piatoye* Dnranly, it. 607 ; ib. i. SS7 (tat
ssizing enemy's property laden on board vi. c 2) ; Wheat. Lawrence's note IM.
a nentral vessel, QUless it be contraband See Treaty of United States with BussiB,
<rf war." Neither was it intended "to July 22, 1S54, 10 St. at L. 21G ; ind tlw
claim the confiscation of nentral prop- treaties 11 St at L. S07 ; flSS ; IS id.
erty, not being contraband of war, fonnd 1005, 1012 ; IG id. 473, 481, Ac These
on board enemy's ships." Spinks, Ec k prindple* were applied as onbodying Um
Ad. R. app. i. No. 1, and Order in Conn- traditional policy of the United States
dl of AprillB, 1B54, ib. ix. No. 8; Ann. during the war of the rebellion. Dip.
B(«. 1864, p. 210 : Wheat Lawrence's Corr. ISfll, pp. 44, 148, ISl, 261.
not* 328 ; Wheat Dana's note 223 ; 1
[160]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. Tl.] or THE LAW OP NATIONS. " 129
VaIiD(f;) juBtifies the ordinances, on the grouDd that the neutral,
by patting his property on board of an enemy's vessel, favors
the enemy's commerce, and agrees to abide the fate of the res*
sel. But it is fully and satisfactorily shown, by tiie whole cur-
rent of modern authority, that the neutral has a perfect right to
avail himself of the vessel of his friend, to transport his prop-
erty; and Bynkershoek has devoted an entire chapter to the
vindication of the iustice and equity of the ri^t {d)
The two distinct propositions, that enemy's goods found on
board a neutral ship may lawfully be seized as prize of war,
and that the goods of a neutral found on board of an
■enemy's vessel were to be restored, have been explicitly • 129
incorporated into the jurisprudence of the United States,
and declared by the Supreme Court (a) to be founded in the law
of nations. The rule, as it was observed by the court, rested on
the simple and intelligible principle, that war gave a full right to
capture the goods of an enemy, but gave no right to capture the
goods of a friend. The neutral flag constituted no protection to
enemy'a property, and the belligerent flag communicated no hos-
tile character to neutral property. The character of the property
depended upon the fact of ownership, and not upon the charac-
ter of the vehicle in which it was found. After vindicating the
simplicity and justice of the original rule of the law of nations
against the speculations of modern tbeorista, and the ultima ratio
of the armed neutrality, which attempted to effect by force a
revolntion in the law of nations, the court stated that nations
hare changed this simple and natural principle of public law, by
conventions between themselves, in whole or in part, as they
believed it to be for their interest ; but the one proposition, that
free ships should make free goods, did not necessarily imply the
converse proposition, that enemy's ships should make enemy's
goods. If a treaty establish the one proposition, and was silent
as to the other, the other stood precisely as if there had been
no stipulation, and upon the ancient rule. The stipulation that
neutral bottoms should make neutral goods was a concession
(c) Camm. b. 8, tit. 9, dm PrUu, «rt. 7.
(4 Coiualat da 1b Har, pw Boucher, U. o. 270, hc 1012, lOlS ; HeiiuociaB, d«
Sn. ob. Tect. c 3; mc. »; Open, 11. pt. I, S4»-46ti ; Tattel. b. S, c 7, mc 116 ;
Bjttk. c. IS.
(a) The Nereide, 9 Cnueh, S8&
VOL. I. -11 [161]
;abyG00<^lc
* ISO OF THB LAT OP KATIONS. [pABI I.
made by the belligereDt to the neutral, and it gave to the neutral
flag a capacity not given to it by the law of nations. On the
other hand, the stipulation Bubjecting neutral property found ia
the vessel of an enemy to condemnation as prize of war was a
conce^ion made by the neutral to the belligerent, and took from
the neutral a privilege he possessed under the lav of na-
* ISO tions ; but neither reason nor practice * rendered the two
conceasions bo indissoluble, that the one could not eziat
without the other. It rested entirely in tiie discretion of the
contracting parties, whether either or both should be granted.
The two propositions are distinct and independent of each other,
and they have frequently been kept distinct by treaties, which
etipnlated for the one and not for the other, (a)
The government of the United States, in their negotiations
with the repablica in South America, have pressed very earnestly
for the introduction and establishment of the principle of the
Baltic code of 1780, that the friendly flag should cover the
cargo; and this principle was incorporated into the treaty
between the United States and Colombia, in 1825, and into the
treaty of navigation and commerce between the United States
and the Republic of Chili, in 1832. (b) The introduction of
those new republics into the great community of civilized nations
has justly been deemed a very favorable opportunity to inculcate
and establish, under their sanction, more enlarged and liberal
doctrines on the subject of national rights. It has been the
desire of our government to obtain the recc^ition of the funda-
mental principles, consecrated by the treaty with Prussia, in
1785, relative to the perfect equality and reciprocity of com-
mercial rights between nations; the abolition of private war
upon the ocean; and the enlargement of the privil^ies of nen-
(a) Th« Cygnet, 2 Doda. 290, a. P.
(A) It wu Etipnlmted in thoaa AmericBn tnatiea tiiat, u between the pwUea, fne
shipt ihonid giT« freedom to goods, — that the 9ig shonld cover the cargo even of
eiMmiei, contraband gooda excepted, and should also oorar the peraont, thoof^
enemies, nnleaa tbey vere offinen or aaldien in actual aerrice. But thg proviaion
waa onlj to apply to those pofrera nrbo recognizod the principle ; and neutral prop-
trtj found on board eneray'a Tedsela w«i« [waa], andsr the above atipalation, liaUe
to capture. If, boTerer, the neotral Mag did not protect enemy'a property, then the
gooda of a nentral on board of an enemy's Tesad were to be fne. Treaty with
Colombia, art 13, 13 ; Treaty with Chili, art. 13, 13 ; Treaty with TensEaela, art. IS -,
Treat; with the Peru-BoliTian Confedentlon, art. 11, 13 ; Treaty with Ecuador, in
1839, art. IS.
[162]
sObyGoOl^lc
I
IKt. Tl.] OF THE LAW OF KATI0N8. * 181
tnl commerce. The rale of public law, that the property of an
enem; is liable to capture in the vessel of a friend, is now de-
clared, on the part of our govenunent, to have no foundation
Id nfttoral right; and that the usage rests entirely on force.
Though the high seas are a general jurisdiction, common to all,
yet each nation has a special jurisdiction over its own veBsels ;
and all the maritime nations of modem Europe have, at times,
acceded to the principle, that the property of an enemy should
be protected in the vessel of a friend. No neutral nation, it is
i&id, is bound to submit to the usage; and the neutral
may have * yielded at one time to the usage, without * 181
eacrificing the right to vindicate, by force, the security of
tile neutral flag at another. The neutral right to cover enemy's
property is conceded to be subject to this qualification : that a
belligerent nation may justly refuse to neutrals the benefit of
tiiiB principle, unless it be conceded also by the enemy of the
belligerent to the same neutral flag, (a)
But whatever may be the utility or reasonableness of the neu-
tral claim, under such a qualification, I should apprehend the
belligerent right to be no longer an open question; and that the
anthority and usage on which that right rests in Europe, and
the long, esplicit, and authoritative admission of it by this
country, have concluded us from making it a subject of contro-
versy; and that we are bound, in truth and justice, to submit to
ita regular exercise, in every case, and with every belligerent
power who does not freely renounce it.
It has been a matter of discuBBion, whether the captor of the
enemy's vessel be entitled to freight from the owner of the neu-
tral goods found on board, and restored. Under certain circum-
itancea, the captor has been considered to be entitled to freight,
even though the goods were carried to the claimant's own coun-
try, and restored : and he clearly is entitled to freight, if he per-
forms the voyage, and carries the goods to the port of original
destination. In no other case is freight due to the captor; and
the doctrine of pro rata freight is entirely rejected, because it
would involve a prize court in a labyrinth of minute inquiries and
considerations, in the endeavor tt> ascertain, in every case, the
(a) Letter of Hr. Aikms, Secretu; of Stata, to Hr. Andenon, S7th H>7, 183S ;
Pmident'a Hassags to the Senate, of 2(lth December, ISSfi, knd to the HoQee of
I, ittnh IS, ISSfl.
[168]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 138 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
balance of advantage or disadvantage which aD interruption and
loBS of the original voyage, by capture, might have produced to
the owner of the goods. (()
* 132 * In the case of the Nereide, {a) the Supreme Court
of the United States carried the principle of immunity of
neutral property on board an enemy's vessel to the extent d
allowing it to be laden on board an armed belligerent cruiser;
and it was held that the goods did not lose their neutral charac-
ter, not even in consequence of resistance made by the armed
vessel, provided the' neutral did not aid in such armament or
resistance, notwithstanding he bad chartered the whole vessel,
and was on board at the time o{ the resistance. The act of arm-
ing was the act of the belligerent party, and the neutral goods
did not contribute to the armament, further than the freifi^t,
which would be paid if the vessel was unarmed; and neither the
goods nor the neutral owner were chargeable for the hostile acts
of the belligerent vessel, if the neutral took no part in the resist-
ance. A contemporary decision of an opposite character, on the
same point, was made by the English High Court of Admiralty
in the case of the Fanntf ; (b) and it was there observed that a
neutral subject was at liberty to put his goods on board the
merchant vessel of a belligerent ; but if he placed them on board
an armed belligerent ship, he showed an intention to resist visi-
tation and search, by means of the association, and, so far as he
does this, he was presumed to adhere to the enemy, and to with-
draw himself from hia protection of neutrality. If a neutral
chooses to take the protection of a, hostile force, instead of his
own neutral character, he must take (it was observed) the incon-
venience with the convenience, and his property would, upon
just and sound principles, be liable to condemnation along with
the belligerent vessel.
The question decided in the case of the Nereide is a very
important one in prize law, and of infinite importance in its prac-
tical results; and it is to be regretted that the decisions of
two courts of Uie highest character, on such & point,
*133 'should have been in direct contradiction to each other.
The same point afterwards arose, and was again ai^ed,
(&) Brnk. Q. J. Pub. b. 1, c 13; The fortnoa, t C. Rob. 278; The Diftnt, 6<X
BoU 67 i Trow Anna Catharhit, fi C. Rob. 260.
(a) 9 Cranch, 3S8. (b) 1 Dods. 418.
[164]
sObyGoOl^lc
**'^- VI,] OP THE LAW OF KAT10M8. • 138
r'^ %e former decision repeated in the case of the Atalanta. (a)
*u observed, in this latter case, that the rule with us was
.,^t in principle, and the most liberal and honorable to
^ jurigprudence of this country. The question may, therefore,
'^QBidered here as at rest, and as having received the most
Uitiritative decision that can be rendered by any judicial
^''luial on this side of the AUantic.
(a) 8 WbeatoD, 40&.
[166]
sObyGoOl^lc
OF THE LAV OF KATIONa. [PABT I.
LECTURE TIL
OF BBBIBICnONS UFON NEDTBAL TBADB.
The principal restriction which the lav of natioiu imposes on
the trade of neutrals is the prohibition to furnish the belligerent
parties with warlike stores and other articles which are directly
auxiliary to warlike purposes. Such goods are denominated con- ^
traband of war; but in the attempt to define them the authori*
ties vary, or are deficient in precision, and the subject has long'
been a fruitful source of dispute between neutral and belligerent
nations, (x)
1. ContTKbMid of 'War. — In the time of Orotius, some persons
contended for the rigor of war, and others for the freedom of
(z) England'* podtioD bM bMn that rule, enum«rmtM oonbaband aiticla ai
•U implements of war, indading artidei followB : — (1) Am abaolutely contraband,
■nited for naTal conatmction, an contra- — Arms of all kinds and machinery for
bud. BUevhera it has been maintained manufactming arma ; unmnnitiou and
to the extent of including coal, hmnan nuteriaU for ammunition, including laad,
beings, monej, and mittan despatches, potash, nitnte of soda, gnnpowder, salt-
vhile France, in ISSG, attempted, in coer- petre, brimstone, and gnn-cotton ; mili-
ciug China, to include rice as a prime taiy equipments and clothing ; militaiy
necessity of the Chinaman. The msm- stores ; nsTal stores, including roaata,
ing of the term in the Dsclsistiou of Paris spais, ndders, ship-timber, hemp^ cord-
has not bean as jet defined. Accotdlng age, saO-cloth, pitch and tar, copper fit for
to Hr. Field's definition goods become sheathing, marine enginea and all the
contraband when *'actnaU; destined for component part* and materiab used in
the use of the hoatile nation in war, bnt the manufsctnte thereof; iron in anjr of
not otherwise." See 2 Jur. Bev. K, 84S, the forms in vfaicb it is nsed for naval
S51 ; Boyd's Whsaton's Elementa of Int. shipbaUding or repair. (2) As condition-
Law (3d ed.), flSl, 791; 8 Wharton's all; eontrahand, — Provisions and liqaoia
Digest, {{ 8S8, 300 ; 25 ReTne de Drmt fit for consumption in the aimj or navy ;
Int. 7, 134, 339, 3SB ; 24 id. IIS, 214, money ; telegraphie materials, snch as
401 ; 27 id. SB. The British Admirdty wire, poronBcaps,pUtinuia,ralphuiic*dd
Manual of Priie I^w (ISSS) statea that it and (inc ; materials for railway oonstmc-
is put of the Cr«wn'* prerogatJTe to ei- tion ; coal, hay, horses, laain, tallow,
tand or tedace the list of contraband arti- and timber,
clea In time of war i and, snbjaot to thia
[166]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Til.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 130
commerce. As neutral nations are willing to seize the oppor-
tiuiity which war presents of becoming carriers for the belliger-
ent powers, it is natural that thej shonld desire to diminish the
list of contraband as much as possible. Grotius distinguishes (a)
between things which are useful only in war, as arms and ammu-
nition, and things which serve merely for pleasure, and things
which are of a mixed nature, and useful both in peace and war.
He agrees with other writera in prohibiting neutrals from carry-
it^ articles of the first kind to the enemy, as well as in pennit-
ting the second kind to be carried. As to articles of the t^ird
class, which are of indiscriminate use in peace and war, as money,
provieions, ships, and naval stores, he says that they are some-
times lawful articles of neutral commerce, and sometimes not;
and the question will depend upon circnmstancea existing
" at the time. ^ They would be contraband if carried to a • 186
besieged town, camp, or port In a naval war, it is admit-
ted that ships and materials for ships become contraband, and
horses and saddles may be included, (a) Vattel speaks with
some want of precision, and only says, in general terms, (b) that
commodities particularly used in war are contraband, such as
arms, military and naval stores, timber, horses, and even pro-
visions, in certain junctures, when there are hopes of reducing
the enemy by famine. Loccenius, (e) and some other authorities
referred to by Valin, consider provisions as generally contraband ;
but 7alin and Pothier insist that they are not so, either by the
law of France or the common law of nations, unless carried to
besieged or blockaded places, (d) The marine ordinance of
Louis XrV. (e) included horses and tiieir equipage, transported
for military service, within the list of contraband, because they
were necessary to war equipments ; and that is, doubtless, the
general rule. They are included in the restricted list of con-
traband articles mentioned in the treaty between the United
States and Colombia, in 1825. Valin says that naval stores
have been regarded as contraband from the beginning of the last
(a) B. 8, c. 1, sac. 6. (a) Batherforth'i Inrt. b. 1, c 9.
(i) B. S, c 7, wo. na. (c) D« Jura Haritimo, Ub. 1, c. 4, note ».
{d) TUiii, CoDim. iL SU ; Pothim da ProprieU, No. 104.
(<) Dta Pruea, iL II.
> Tbe PeterlM^ 5 Wall. 38, S8 ; a. a tit vL e. 2, { S, p. 8S3. [See, gencnllj,
VktAl Pr.MS ; ViMtfe « Damd;, t. L HftU, Int. Uw, pt i, c. 6 and 6-1
[167]
^cibyGoOl^lc
• 137 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
century, and the English prize law ie very explicit on this point
Naval stores, and materials for ship-building, and even corn,
grain, and victuals of all sorts, going to the dominions of the
enemy, were declared contraband by an ordinance of Charles L
in 1626. (f) Sail-cloth is now held to be universally contraband,
even on a destination to porta of mere mercantile naval equip-
ment ;(^) and in the case of the Maria (h) it was held
* 137 that * tar, pitch, and hemp, and whatever other materials
went to the construction and equipment of vessels of war,
were contraband by the modem law of nations; though for-
merly, when the hostilities of Europe were less naval than at the
present day, they were of a disputable nature. The exeonUve
government of this country has frequently conceded that the
materials for the building, equipment, and armament of ships of
war, as timber and naval stores, were contraband, (a) But it
does not seem that ship timber is, tn te, in all cases, to be con-
sidered a contraband article, though destined to an enemy's port.
In the case of the Austrian vessel, 11 Volante, captured by the
French privateer, L'JBtoiU de Bonaparte, and which was carry-
ing ship timber to Messina, an enemy's port, it was held, by tiie
Council of Frizes at Faris, in 1807, upon the opinion of the advo-
cate-general, M. Collet Descotils, that the ship timber in that
case was not contraband of war, it being ship timber of an ordi-
nary character, and not exclusively applicable to the building of
ships of war. {b)
Questions of contraband were much discussed during the con-
tinuance of our neutral character in the furious war between
England and France, commencing in 1793, and we professed to
be governed by the modern usage of nations on this point. («)
The national convention of France, on the 9th of May, 1793,
decreed that neutral vessels laden with provisions, destined to
(/) Bobiiuoa'i Coll«c Hu. AS. {;} The Keptimiu, S C. Bob. IDS.
(A) 1 C. Bob. 287, PhU. »d.
(a) Ut. Randolph's Letter to U. Adet, July S, irSfi; Mr. Pickeiiitg'B Lett«r to
Mr. PinckDej, Juinuy 16, 17B7 ; Letter of Heun. Pincknejr, HarBhall, uid Oerry,
to the French Hioiiter, JaniiU7 27, 1798.
(b) fi^pvitoire uniTersel et TaieoDD^ de JnriBpradence, par M. Herlin, ix. tit. Priaa
Huritime, s«c. 3, art. S. [s. C Fistoje t DDverdy, i. 40S.] [Modo;, bolliou, Ac,
are contrabaiid when deiUned for hostile nee or to procoie hottile snppIlM. United
Statea v. Diekehnan, 92 U. 6. S20. — B.]
(e) President's Proclamation of Neutrality, April 32, 1793.
[168]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECI. ni.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 139
an enemy's port, should be arrested and carried into France ;
and one of the earliest acta of England, in that war, (<2)
was to detain all neutral * TesBels going to France, and * 138
laden with com, meal, or flour. It waa insisted, on the
part of England, (a) that, by the law of nations, all provisions
vere to be considered as contraband, in the case where the de-
priving of an enemy of those supplies was one of the means
employed to reduce him to reasonable terms of peace; and that
the actual situation of France was such as to lead to that mode
of distressing her, inasmuch as she had armed almost the whole
laboring class of her people, for the purpose of commencing and
supporting hostilities against all the govemments of Europe.
This claim on the part of England was promptly and perse-
reringly resisted by the United States; and they contended
tli&t corn, flour, and meal, being the produce of the soil and
labor of the country, were not contraband of war, unless carried
to a place actually invested, (b) The treaty of commerce with
Snglaud, in 1794, in the list of contraband, stated, that what-
ever materials served directly to the building and equipment of
vessels, with the exception of tinwrought iron and fir planks,
should be considered contraband, and liable to confiscation ; but
the treaty left the question of provisions open and unsettled, and
neither power was understood to have relinquished the con-
stmction of the law of nations which it had assumed. The
treaty admitted that provisions were not generally contraband,
bat might become so according to the existing law of nations,
in certain cases, and those cases were not defined.
It was only stipulated, by way of relaxation of the penalty of
die law, that whenever provisions were contraband, the captors,
or their government, should pay to the owner the full value of
the articles, together with the freight and a reasonable profit.
Our government has repeatedly admitted that, as far as
that treaty enumerated contraband articles, • it was declar- * 189
atory of the law of nations, and that the treaty conceded
nothing on the subject of contraband, (a)
(i) loKtnictioiu of 8th Jaua, 17SS.
(a) Hr. BanHDOnd'B Letter to Mr. JeSenon, ScpteiitbM 12, 1798, knd hie Letter
to Ml. Handolph, Apnl II, 1704.
(ft) Hr. Jefferson'e Letter to Mr. Pinckaey, September 7, 17SS, tnd Hr. Baadolph's
Letter to Mr. Hunmoud, Ha; 1, 1794.
(o) Ur. Pickering'B Letter to Hr. Uonroe, September 12, 17SC ; Us Letter to
[169]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 142 OP THE LAW OP NATIONB. [FAST L
army or navy were in a neatral port, for it would be a direct
interposition in the war.
This case followed the decisions of Sir WiHiam Scott, and
carried the doctrine of contraband, as applied to provisions, to
as great an extent It held the voyage of the Swedish neutral
so illegal aa to ijesorve the infliction of the penalty of loss <rf
freight.
It is the utua beUici which determined an article to be contra-
band ; and as articles come into use as implements of war which
were before innocent, there is truth in the remark, that as the
means of war vary and shift from time to time, the law of naticns
shifts with them ; not, indeed, by the change of principles, but by
a change in the application of them to new cases, and in order to
meet the varying inventions of war. When goods are once clearly
shown to be contraband, confiscation to the captor is the natural
consequence. This is the practice in ail cases, as to the article
itaelf, excepting provisions ; and as to them, when they become
contraband, the ancieht and strict right of forfeiture is softened
down to, a right of pre-emption on reasonable terms, (a)
* 142 But, generally, to stop contraband goods, would, * as Yat-
tel observes, (a) prove an ineffectual relief, especially at
sea. The penalty of confiscation is applied, in order that the fear
of loss might operate as a check on the avidity for gain, and deter
the neutral merchant from supplying the enemy with contraband
articles. The ancient practice was, to seize the contraband
goods, and keep them, on paying the value. But the modem
practice of confiscation is far more agreeable to the mutual duties
of nations, and more adapted to the preservation of their ri^ts.
It is a general understanding, grounded on true principles, that
the powers at war may seize and confiscate all contraband goods,
without any complaint on the part of the neutral merchant, and
without any imputation of a breach of neutrality in ilie neutral
sovereign himself, (h) It was contended, on the part of the French
nation, in 1796, that neutral governments were bound to restrain
their subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband of war
to the belligerent powers. But it was successfully shown, on Uie
part of the United States, that neutrals may lawfully sell, at
home, to a belligerent purchaser, or carry, themselves, to the
(a) Cu> of ths Hubet, S C. Rob. 1S2. (a) B. 8, o. 7, Me. 118.
(») Va.ua, b. 3, c. 7, aec. 118.
[172]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. til] op the LAW OP NATIOSfl. * 148
belligerent powers, contraband articles subject to the right of
seizure, in traiuitii. (o) This right has since been explicitly de-
clared by the judicial authorities of this country, (d) The right
of the neutral to transport, and of the hostile power to seize, are
confiicting rights, and neither party can chat^ the other with a
criminal act'
Contraband articles are said to be of an infectious nature,
and they contaminate the whole cai^ belonging to the
■ same owners. The innocence of any particular article is • 143
not usually admitted to exempt it from the general confis-
cation. By the ancient law of Europe, the ship, also, was liable
to condemnation ; and such a penalty was deemed just, and sup-
ported by the general analogies of law ; for the owner of the ship
had engaged it in an unlawful commerce, and contraband goods
are seized and condemned ex delicto. But the modern practice of
the courts of admiralty, since the age of Grotius, is milder ; and
the act of carrying contraband articles is attended only with the
loss of freight and expenses, unless the ship belongs to the owner
of the contraband articles, or the carrying of them has been con-
nected with malignant and aggravating circumstances ; and among
those circumstances, a false destination and false papers are con-
sidered as the most heinous. In those cases, and in all cases of
fraud in the owner of the ship, or in his agent, the penalty is car-
(e) M. Adet'B Letter to Mr. Pick«rii|g, Much II, 1796 ; Hr. Pickering'B Letten
to X. Adat, JU1IIU7 20 «iid Hay 8fi, I79S ; Circular Letter of the Secratory of the
Htny to the CoUector*, Angiut 4, 1793.
(^ Bidujdaon v. Maine Ins. Compaii:r, 6 Mau. 113 ; The SantiMiiiia Trinidad,
7 Wbaeton, 3SS.
) Thi* pamge is cited and approTed The Fetarhcff, S Wall. 2S, G9 ; a. 0.
liT Lord WMtbiiry in Ex parte Chavawe, BUtchf. Pr. 488 ; The Springbok, S Wall
ft Oniebnah, II Jnr. x. & 400, S4 1, 20 ; Blatchf. Pr. 484. Veseela wtn
L J. V. a. By. 17 ; Hiatoricna, Int. Law, condemned in the caaea of The Bermuda,
119, 129 (on nentral trade in contmband 8 Well. 514, 6SG ; Bart, ib. C69 ; b. a.
of war> ; Hoblv v. Henning, 17 C. B. Blatchf. Pr. 387. Bee also Hobbe v. Hen-
n. 1. 791, 810 ; 11 Op. Att^Oen. 408, ning, 17 C. B. s. a. 791, 814.
410 ; itiL 4G1 i The Helen, L. R. 1 Ad. t Other treaties beddea those men-
Ec 1. The above caaea ihow that aimi- tioned in note (ft) of the next page are
lar prindplaa apply to blockade-ronning, to be found 11 U. S. St. at L. 642 (with
See alao ao article in 6 Am. Law Bev, Sing of Two SiclUee) ; 15 id. 473, 480,
247. 481 (with Dominican Bepablic) ; 10 id.
The next paaaage, ae to the infediona 880, 881 ; ib. 987, Ac
nature of conUabaod, ia analaiiMd by
[173]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 144 OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PAET L
ried beyoDd the refus&l of freight and expenses, and is extended
to the confiscation of the ship, and the innocent parts of the
cai^o. (a) This is now the established doctrine ; but it is some-
times varied by treaty, in like manner as all the settled principle!
and usages of nations are subject to conventional modi&O'
tion. (i) ^
a. BlookkdHi. — A neutral may also forfeit the immunities of
his national character by violations of blockade; and among the
rights of belligerents there is none more clear and incontn>-
vertible, or more just and necessary in the application, than that
which gives rise to the law of blockade. Bynker-
* 144 shock {c) says, * it is founded on the principles of natural
reason, as well as on the usage of nations; and Grotiiu(a)
considers the carrying of supplies to a besieged town, or a block-
aded port, as an offence exceedingly aggravated and injurioiu.
They both agree that a neutral may be dealt with severely ; and
Yattel says he may be treated as an enemy. (6) The law of
blockade is, however, so harsh and severe in its operation, titat, in
order to apply it, the fact of the actual blockade must be estab-
lished by clear and unequivocal evidence ; and the neutral must
have had due previous notice of its existence; and the squadron
allotted for the purposes of its execution most be competent to
cut off all communication with the interdicted place or port ; and
the neutral must have been guilty of some act of violation, eitlier
by going in, or attempting to enter, or by coming out with a
(a) Bynk. Q. J. Pub. Ii. I, c. 12 ud 11 ; Heinec de Ntv. ob Tect. Here. TttU.
Com. 0. 2, Me. 6 ; Opera, ii 846 ; Tbe Studt Embden, 1 C. Rob. 26 ; Tba Imgi
Tobiu, 1 C. Bob. 32B ; Tbe Fnnlclia, S C. Bob. 217 ; The Nentralitet, S C. Bob. !H ;
He Edwwd, 4 C. Eob. S8 ; The Raager, 6 Bob. 126. Vide m/ro, 151, note.
(b) Id tbe trsa^ betn-een the United States and the Bepablic at CoIomUa, end n
tbat with the republics of Chili, of Tanemele, and of tbe Pera-Bolirian Coofedtn-
tioQ and Ecuador, it ii provided, that contraband articlee ihaU not affect the rot of
the cargo, or the rmmH, (ur it is declared that thej ahall be left free to the omn.
In then treatiea, the articles of contraband are ennmerated, and they eooiiit cl
nunitioni of war, and other things mede up in a milituy farm and for a miUtarr
VM, and cavalry honea, with their furniture, and all materials, manufactured, pn-
pared, and formed eipresil; for the purposei of war, either by sea or land. All otbti
mecbaodiaei and things are declared to be satyeota of lawful oommeroe.
(c) Q. J. Pub. b. 1, c 4, sec 11. [See Hall, tut. Law, pt 4, c. 8.]
(a) B. S, c I, see. G. ' [&) B. S, c. 7, mc 117.
> AnU,U2,n.l. On the next passage on the law of blockade^ Interaatiaoil
In the text, compare Historidu's Istters I«w, 87, 97.
[174]
sObyGoOl^lc
i-BCT. VII.] OP THE LAW OF NAnOHB. ' 144
cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade. The fail-
ure of either of the points requisite to establish the existence of
a legal blockade amounts to an entire defeasance of the measure,
even though the notification of the blockade bad issued from the
authority of the government itself, (o)
A blockade must be existing in point of fact; and, in order to
constitute that existence, there must be a power present to en-
force it (x) All decrees and orders, declaring extensive coasts
and whole countries in a state of blockade, without the presence
<<:) His B«t»e]r, 1 C. Bob. BS ; 1 Chit^ cm Commercial I^w, 460 ; Latter from
Mr. Claj, the Smictary of SUte, to Ur. Tador, dated October IS, 1827.
Ix) Tfae maritiine blockage of a bit terreDod, hj a show of force, to prevent
leqnirea the actual preaence of a force the inaai^eut ibipa front firing od nentnl
•nfficieatlj itrong to prcTent, or render veMele seeking to enter the port. See 19
dangeroiu, attempts to pass iL 2 Hal- Law M»g. & Ber. (1th Series), SS; 10
leck'a Int I^w, c 26, p. 188. So when l^w Qnatterly Rev. 250.
a port ia blockaded, it ia the duty of the Forfeitnrea for violating the govem-
blockaden to maintain a force infficient ment'i interdict of commercial intercourse
d itaelf to enforce the blockade, and a laay be enforced after hostiiitiea have
veanl which innocently enters U)d deporta ceased. Dnvall r. United States, 151 U. B.
ia not liable to aeiiuie later in its voyage. 618 ; »ee United States v. Hallock, id.
The Nancy, 1 Acton, 67. War reaeels 687.
which have been commiaiioned by, and Beeidea the right of blockade in time
thrown off their allegiance to, their coon- of war, a blockade in lime of peace, known
try, the government of which is atiU in as the " paciHc blockade," first used
pnawiMinn on the land, aa happened ax a mode of international coercion in
recently in the Bepublic of Chili, are, it 1827, hat been since often employed by
seema, aimply piratea, if they have not the EuropoiD powers. It is not, however,
been commiMoned afresh by any State or recognized ae a legitiraate form of oon-
reoogniied belligerent, snd foreign powers atraint accoiding to the rules of Interna-
cannot allow to a blockade by such ves- tionsJ I^w, The AmbroM Light, 26 Fed.
aela any validity in Intemational Law. Rep. 408, 446. In every recorded case.
See 16 Law Hag. & Rev. (1th Series) IM, while detrimeDtal to neutrals, snch 'pio-
174; infra, p. 184, n. Unreci^iied in- ceedinga have amoantedto no more than
■orgenta are clearly pirates eo far as they an armed coercion of ■ feeble State into
eaumit depredations upon the citiiens or some conrse demanded by a moch stronger
sbipa of neutral states. The Hsgellsn one. and the olfject has been, either to
. Hrate^ 1 Spinks. 81 ; The Hnsscsr, 8 obtain satisfaction by means falling short
Whsrton's Digest, 174 ; Snow's Int Uw, of war for some damage caused by the
206-208. At Bio Janeiro, in 1891, the other State, or to influence its conduct by
United States, with the assent of the direct intervention in its affairs. See Mr.
frmch and Austrian naval commanders, J. M. Graver's article in 11 Law Mag. ft
rebwed to rerognize belligerent rights over Rev, (1th Series), 127 ; 18 id. 818 j Cob-
nentnl commerce in favor of the purely beU's Int Law Cases (2d ed. ), 160.
naval iiwnmnta, and ita war veasels in-
[176]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 145 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PART I,
of an adequate navsl force to aupport it, are manifestly illegal
and void, and have no sanction in public law. The aacient au-
thorities all referred to a strict and actual siege or blockade.
The language of Orotius (d) is oppidttm obaettum velportw clmuvt,
and the investing power must be able to apply its force
* 145 to every point of the * blockaded place, so as to render it
dangerous to attempt to enter, and there is no blockade of
that part where its power cannot be brought to bear, (o) The
definition of a blockade given by the convention of the Baltic
powers, in 1780, and again in 1801, and by the ordinance of
Congress, in 1781, required that there should be actuall; a nam-
ber of vessels stationed near enough to the port to make the entry
apparently dangerous. The government of the United States
has uniformly insisted that the blockade should be effective b;
the presence of a competent force, stationed and present at or
near the entrance of the port; and they have protested with
great energy against the application of the right of seizure and
confiscation to ineffectual or fictitious blockades. (H) ^
(rf) B. 3, & 1, MC. 6.
(a) ThB HsrcnriaR, 1 C. Bob. SO; The Betas;, 1 C. Bob. 9S; Tha Start, 4 a
Bob. 65 ; Letter of the Secretaij of the Navy to Gommodon Preble, FetenHy 1,
1804.
(6) Mr, King's Lettei to Lord OrenTille, May 2S, 1799 ; Ur. HuduU'i Letter ta
Hi. King, Sept. 20, 1799 ; Mr. Mftdieon's Letter to Mr. Pinckaey, October 2E, 1S01 ;
Letter of the Secretary of the Nary to Commodore Preble, Febnury 4, I80(;
Mr. Pinckney's letter to Lord Wellasley, Juiauy 14, 1311. In tbe conTeotioD
between Great Britaia and Bonia, on the 17th of Jane, 1801, a blockaded port wai
deckred to be, " that where there is, b; the diapoeitian of the power which atticki
it with ahips stationary, or soffidentJy near, an evident danger in entering." The
definition in the treaty of commerce between the United States and Chili, in Maf,
1832, art IB, and the Pem-Bolivian Confederation, in May, 1S38, art 14, of * he-
•ieged or blockaded place ia, " one actnslly attacked by a belligerent foTM, capable
of prerentiag the entry of tbe neatrsL"
I Post, 147, n. 1 ; The Peterhoff, 6 veasel swear that they saw no blockadii^
Wall. 28 : B. c. BUtchf, Pr. 4S8 ; The ships off the port. The Baigorry, 3 Waa
Sarah Starr, Blatchf. Pr. BB ; The Douro, 474; The Circassiai), ib. 135. Theooca-
ib. 363 ; HirtoricuB, Int. Law, 89. A pub- pation of Hew Orlaans 1^ f»e Northeni
lie hlookade once established and duly forces in 1862 did not inunediatdy pot
notiBed, must be preetuned to coutiane an end to the blockade of the port The
until notice of discontinuance, in the ab- Circesnau, 2 Wall 186 ; Thn Biigorry,
•snce of poritiTo proof of discontinnance ib. 474. See The Venice, ib. S6S ; The
hy other evidettce ; and it ia not enangh Jo■ephin^ 3 Wall. SS.
that the master and mate of the captoied
[176]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. Vn.] OP THE LAW OP NAnONB. * 148
The occasional absence of the blockading squadron, produced
bj accident, as in the case of a storm, and when the station is
resumed with due diligence, does not suspend the blockade,
provided the suspension, and the reason of it, be known ; and
the law considers an attempt to take advantage of such an acci-
dental removal as an attempt to break the blockade, and as a
mere fraud, (e) The American government seemed disposed to
admit the continuance of the blockade in such a case ; {d) and
the language of the judicial authorities in New York has been in
favor of the solidity and justness of the English doc-
trine of blockade on this * point, (a) But if the blockade * 146
be raised by the enemy, or by applying the naval force,
or part of it, though only for a time, to other objects, or by
the mere remissness of the cruisers, the commerce of neutrals
to the place ought to be free. The presence of a snfficient force
is the natural criterion by which the neutral is enabled to ascer-
tain the existence of the blockade. He looks only to the matter
offset ; and if the blockading squadron is removed when he arriveB
before the port, and he is ignorant of the cause of the removal,
or if he l>e not ignorant, and the cause be not an accidental one,
but voluntary, or produced by an enemy, he may enter, without
being answerable for a breach of tiie blockade. When a blockade
is raised voluntarily, or by a superior force, it puts an end to it
absolutely ; and if it be resumed, neutrals must be charged with
notice de novo, and without reference to the former state of
things, before they can be involved in the guilt of a violation of
the blockade, (b)
The object of a blockade is not merely to prevent the impor-
tation of supplies, but to prevent export as well as import, and
to cut off all communication of commerce with the blockaded
port. The act of egress is as culpable as the act of ingress, if it
be done fraudulently ; and a ship coming out of a blockaded {)ort
is, in the first instance, liable to seizure, and, to obtain a release,
the party must give satisfactory proof of the innocence of his
(i:) The Fredsriek Molko, 1 C. Rob. 66 ; The Columbi*, 1 C. Eob. 164 ; Th«
JnAvw Mam Schroeder.'S C. Bob. 15K ; The UofTnung, 6 C. RoK US, 117.
(fT) Hr. IbnbaU'B Lettir to Hr. King, S^tember 20. 17S9.
(a) BkdeUO; J,, 3 Johiu. Cm, 187 ; R»dcliff o. U. Ins. Co.. 7 Johns. SB.
(t) waiuira V. Smith, 3 Cunet, 1 ; Letter of the Spcwtaiy of Slnte 1o Mr. King,
SepUmher 20, 17S0 ; The HoffoaDg, 6 C- Rob. 112.
VOL. 1.-12 [177:1
;abyG00<^lc
* 147 OF THE UW 09 NA.TIONS. [PABT L
intention, (c) But according to modem us^^ a blockade does
not rightfully extend to a neutral Teasel found in port when
the blockade was instituted, nor prevent her coming out irith
the ca^o honajide purchased, and laden on board before
* 147 the * commencement of the blockade, (a) ^ The modern
practice does not require that the place should be invested
by laud, as well as by sea, in order to constitute a legal blockade;
and if a place be blockaded by sea only, it is no violaticKi of
belligerent rights for the neutral to carry on commerce with it
by inland communications, (fi)
It is absolutely necessary that the neutral should have had
due notice of the blockade, in order to affect him with the penal
consequences of a violation of it. This information may be com-
municated to him in two ways: either actually, by a formal
notice from the blockading power; or constructively, by notjce
to his government, or by the notoriety of the fact It is imma-
terial in what way the neutral comes to the knowledge of the
blockade. If the blockade actually exists, and he has knowledge
of it, he is bound not to violate it A notice to a foreign govern-
ment is a notice to all the individuals of that nation ; and they
are not permitted to aver ignorance of it, because it is a duty of
the neutral government to communicate the notice to their peo-
ple, (c)' In the case of a blockade without r^ular notice,
notice in fact is generally requisite ; and there is this difference
between a blockade regularly notified and one without such
notice; that, in a former case, the act of sailing for the block-
aded place, with an intent to evade it, or to enter contingently,
amounts, from the very commencement of the voyage, to a breach
of the blockade ; for the port is to be considered aa closed up^
(c) Bynk. Q. J. Pub. b. 1, o. * ; The Frederick Molke, 1 C. Bob. SO ; The Nep-
tataa, 1 C. Bob. 170 i Tha Vronw Jnditb, 1 C. Bob. 160.
(of The B«ti«y, 1 C. Bob. 9S ; The Vtouw Jndith. 1 C. Hob. 150 ; The Comet,
Bdw. Adm. 82; Oliren v. Union Ins. Co., 8 Wheaton, 18S.
(i) The Ocean, 8 C. Bob. 297 ; The Stert, ib. 299, note ; Letter of the 8M»tu7
of State td Mr. King, September 20, 1799.
(c) The Ncptoniu, 3 C. Bob. 110 ; Tbe Adelaide, 3 a Bob. Ill, noto.
■ The Hiawatha, Blatchf. Pr. I ; s. c. of Hexieo, w«a not blockaded, and, H
Prize Caaea, 2 Black, S8S ; The Oeia- eeema, it conld not have been. The P«-
aimo, H Moowi, P. C. 88, 118. During terhoff. 5 Well. 28 ; b. c. Blatchf. Pr. MS.
the late war the moath of the Bio Grande, * The Hiawatha, Blatcbt Pr. 1. See
between Texaa and tbe neutnl tenitor; tha treatie* nfetred to, ante, 143, n. 1.
[ITS]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. TU.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. •149
until the blockade be formally revoked or actually raised;
whereas, in the latter case of a blockade defaeto, the ignorance
of the party as to its continuance may be received as an excuse
for sailing to the * blockaded place, on a doubtful and
provisional destination, (a) The question of notice is a * 148
question of evidence, to be determined by the facts appli-
cable to the case. The notoriety of a blockade is of itself suffi-
cient notice of it to vessels lying within the blockaded port ' In
the case of the Adelaide, {h) it was the doctrine of the English
admiralty that a notification given to one state must be pre*
sumed, after a reasonable time, to have reached the subjects of
neighboring states, and it affects them with the knowtei^ of
the fact, on just grounds of evidence. And after the blockade
is once established, and due notice received, either actually or
constructively, the neutral is not permitted to go to the very
station of the blockading force, under pretence of inquiring
whether the blockade had terminated, because this would lead to
fraudulent attempts to evade it, and would amount in practice to
a universal license to attempt to enter, and on being prevented,
to claim the liberty of going elsewhere. Some relaxation was
very reasonably given to this rule, in its application to distant
voyages from America; and ships sailing for Europe, before
koowiedge of the blockade reached them, were entitled to notice,
even at the blockaded port. If they sailed after notice, they might
sail on a contingent destination for the blockaded port, with the
purpose of calling for information at some European port, and
be allowed the benefit of such a contingent destination, to be
rendered deHnite by the information. But in no case is the in-
fonnation as to the existence of the blockade to be sought at
the mouth of the port, (c)"
A neutral cannot be permitted to place himself in the vicinity
of a blockaded port, if his situation be so near that he
may, with impunity, break the blockade whenever • he * 149
pleases, and slip in without obstruction. If that were to
(d) The Colombia, I C. Bab. IG4 ; The NeptunoB, 2 C. Kob. 119.
(») 2 C. Rob. Ill, in noUt. (c) The flpe« uid Inns, 6 C. Bob. 70.
1 PriM Cues, 3 BUck. flSS, 677. ■ The Jonphine, 8 WalL BS ; The
Notice of a b1t>ck«d« mnit not be more Cheshire, ib. 231 ; The Admiral, ib. 603 ;
ntnuive than the blockade itaelf. The The Empreu, BUtchf. Pr. 175. SG9 ; Thn
Fninciila, 10 MooiT, P. C. 87. Union, Spbika, Priw C. 1»H.
[179]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 149 OP THE LAW OF NATIONB. [PART I.
be permitted, it would he impoBsible that any blockade could be
maintained. It is a presumption, almost de jure, that the neu<
tral, if found on the interdicted waters, goes there with an inten-
tion to break the blockade; and it would require very clear and
satisfactory evidence to repel the presumption of a criminal
intent, (a)^
The judicial decisions in England and in this country hate
given great precision to the law of blockade, by the application
of it to particular cases, and by the extent, and clearness, and
equity of their illustrations. They are distinguished, likewise,
for general coincidence and harmony in their principles. All
the cases admit that the neutral must be chargeable with knowl-
edge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of the block-
ade, and with an intent, and with some attempt, to break it,
before he is to suffer the penalty of a violation of it. The evi-
dence of that intent, and of the overt act, will greatly vary, ac-
cording to circumstances; and the conclusion to be drawn from
those circumstances will depend, in some degree, upon the char-
acter and judgment of the prize courts; but the true priuciptea
which ought to govern have rarely been a matter of dispute.
The fact of clearing out or sailing for a blockaded port is, in
itself, innocent, unless it be accompanied with knowledge of the
blockade. Such a vessel not possessed of such previous knowl-
edge is to be first warned of the fact, and a subsequent attempt
to enter constitutes the breach. This was the provision in tiie
treaty wiUi England, in 1794, and it has been declared in other
cases, and is considered to be a correct exposition of the law of
nations, (b)
(a) The NBOtraUtet, fl C Rob. 30 ; The Chwlotta Christine, fl C. Bob. 101 ; Thu
Outo EnrartDDg, 6 C. Bob. 182 j Bynk. t), J, Pob. b. 1, c 11 ; Thu Arthur, Kd«.
Adm. 208; lUdcUffn. United In*. Co., 7 John.. « J FitwrnimoMi.. Newport Itu. Co,
4 Cranch, ]3&.
(4) Fitzsimmons c. Newport Ins. Co.. 4 OrMwii, 185 ; Britiih Inatnictiotu to thtii
fleets on the West India station, 6tli of JiDnsiy, 1804 ; Latter of the Secretary of the
N»vy to Commodore Preble, Febniery 4, 1804 i Treaty between the United StUM
and the Republic of Chili, May, 1882, art. IT, and between the United 3tUei and
Veneznela, May, 1836, art SO.
1 The Comelios, 3 Wall, 214. See QaeaHons of eridenee of an intent to
The Sea Witch. 3 WaU. 242. Nothing violate m blockade an very nntnewus in
less than uncwitrolUblB necoMity will Blatchford's Prize Cases. See alM 1
joHtiry a neatral in attempting to enter a Sptagne, 9, 3, and G Wallace,
blockaded port The Diana, 7 Wall. 864.
[180]
„Gooi^lc
LECr. mJ] OP TBE LAW OP NATIONS. " X51
• It has been a question in tiie courts of this country, * 150
whether they ought to admit the law of the English prize
courts, that sailing for a blockaded port, knowing it to be block-
aded, was, in itself, an attempt, and an act sufficient to charge
the party with a breach of the blockade, without reference to the
distance between the port of departure and the port invested, or
to the extent of the voyage performed when the vessel was
arrested, (a). But in Yeaton v. Frj/ (6) the Supreme Court of
the United States coincided essentially with the doctrine of the
English prize courts ; for they held, that sailing from Tobago for
GuraQoa, knowing the latter to be blockaded, was a breach of the
blockade; and, according to the opinion of Mr. Justice Story, in
the case of the Nereide, {c) the act of sailing with an intent to
break a blockade is a sufficient breach to authorize confiscation.'
The offence continues, although at the moment of capture the
vessel be, by stress of weather, driven in a direction from the
port, for the hostile intention still remains unchanged. The dis*
tance or proximity of the two ports would certainly have an effect
upon the equity of the application of the rule. A Dutch ordi-
nance, in 1630, declared that vessels bound to the blockaded ports
of Flanders were liable to confiscation, though found at a distance
from them, unless they had voluntarily altered the voyage before
coming In sight of the port; and Bynkershoek contends for the
reasonableness of the order, (d) What that distance must be is
not defined ; and if the ports be not very wide apart, the act of
sailing for the blockaded port may reasonably be deemed evidence
of a breach of it, and an overt act of fraud upon the belligerent
rights. But a relaxation of the rule has been required and
granted in the case of distant voyages, " such as those * 151
across the Atlantic ; and the vessel is allowed to sail on a
contingent destination for a blockaded port, subject to the duty
of subsequent inquiry at suitable places, (a) The ordinance of
Congress, of 1781, seems to have conceded this point to the
(a) FitoNiDmoiw o. Newport Ini. Co., 4Cmicli, ISS ; Vm A GnvMv. U. I1W.C0.,
JJ(ibDi.CB«.180, 469.
{b) 5 Cnncb, S36. (e) 9 Cnnch, 44D, 446.
(rf) Q. J. Pub. b. 1, c. 11 i 8 C. Hob. 826, in ruXis.
(a) G C. Bob. 76 ; 6 Cnncb, 29 ; Span? e. The Delawwe Iiu. Co., 2 Wuh. 243 ;
Ntylor t>. T«jlor. 9 Barn, uid Creas. 718.
> The CircuuED, 2 Wftll. 186 ; The Admiral, S Wall. 608 ; ante, 8G, n. 1.
[181]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 152 OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PAJtT I.
extent of the English rule, for thej made it lawfnl to take and
condemn all veBsels of all nations, "destined to aay such pOrt,"
without saying anything of notice or proximity, (b)
The consequence of a breach of blockade is the confiscation of
the ship; and the cargo is always, prima facie, implicated in the
guilt of the ow^er or master of the ship ; and it lays with them to
remove the presumption that the vessel waa going in for the bene-
fit of the cargo, and with the direction of the owner, (c)* The
old doctrine was much more severe, and oft«n inflicted, not merely
a forfeiture of the property taken, but imprisonment, and other
personal puniBhmeDt;(d) but the modem and milder usage has
confined the penalty to the confiscation of the ship and goods.
If a ship has contracted guilt by a breach of blockade, the offence
is not discharged until the end of the voyage. The penalty never
travels on with the vessel further than to the end of the return
voyage ; ^ and if she in taken in any part of that voy^e, she is
taken tn delicto. I'his is deemed reasonable, because no other
opportunity is afforded to the belligerent force to vindicate
• 152 the law. (e) The penalty for a • breach of blockade is also
held to be remitted, if the blockade has been raised before
the capture. The delictum is completely done away when the
blockade ceases, (a)
There are other acts of illegal assistance afforded to a belHger-
(b) Joumftli of CoDgresi, viL 18fl. The msn act of niling to • bloclnded port is
not an offmce, if then waa no premeditated dasigu of breaking the blockade, tboogh
it ehonld be found to continue when the Teasel aTriTes off the port. See the opinion
of Sir Wm. Scott, in the oae of the ShepherdeM, 6 C. Rob. SSi ; and of Lord
Tenterden, in Naylor v. Tarlor, 9 B«ro. & Cran. 718 ; andof Tindal, Ch. J., inHedri-
roer. Hill, S Bing. 331.
(c) The Mercuriua, 1 C. Bob. SO ; The ColmnUa, 1 C. Bob. 161 ; The Neptnnna,
8 C. Rob. 173 ; The Alexander, 4 C. Bob. 08 ; The Ezcliange, Edw. Adm. 89.
(d) Bynk. Q. J. Pub. b. 1, c. 11.
(e) The Welviart Von PUlaw, 2 C. Bob. 128 ; The Juf&ow Maria Schroeder, S C.
Bob. 147. In caaes of canCrabaud, the retnm vojag« haa not uanaUy bemi deemtd
coanected with the outward, and the offence waa depoaited with the offending sab-
ject ; but in distant Toyagea, with contraband and false papera, the rale ia differeot ;
the frand contaminatea tbe return cargo, and anbjecta it to coDdemnation, m being
one entire tranasction. The Rosalie and Betty, 2 C. Rob. 318 ; The Nancy, S C,
Rob. 122 ; CarringtoD n. The Merchanta' Ina, Co., S Patera, 495.
(a) The Liaette, S C. Bob. SS7-
1 The PanaghU Rhmnba, 12 Moore, d. QniUein, 11 How. 47, « ; The Sally
P. C. 168 } The WUIiam Bagaley, 5 Wall. Hage«, S WaU. 4G1.
877, 411. 3m aUo The United State* * The Wkd, 0 Wall. ESS.
[182]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. TU.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 153
cntbeaideB supplying him with oontraband goods and relieving
ilia distreBB, under a blockade. Among these acts the convey-
ance of hostile despatches is the most injurious, and deemed to
be of the most hostile and nosions character. The carrying of
two or three ca]^;oes of stores is necessarily an assistance of a
limited nature ; but in the transmission of despatches may be
conveyed the entire plan of a campaign, and it may lead to a
defeat of all the projects of the other belligerent in that theatre
of the war. The appropriate remedy for this offence is the con-
fiscation of the ship ; and in doing so, the courts make no inno-
vation on the ancient law, but they only apply established
principles to new combinations of circumstances. There would
be no penalty in the mere confiscation of the despatches. The
proper and efficient remedy is the confiscation of the vehicle
employed to carry them ; and if any privity subsists between the
owners of the cargo and the master, they are involved by impli-
cation in his delinquency. If the cargo be the property of the
proprietor of the ship, then, by the general rule, ob conttnentiam
delieti, the cai^ shares the same fate, and especially if there was '
an active interposition in the service of the enemy, concerted and
continued in fraud, (b)
A distinction has been made between carrying despatches of the
enemy between different parts of his dominions and carry-
ii^ despatches of an ambassador from a neutral " country • 153
to hie own sovereign. The effect of the former despatches
is presumed to be hostile ; but the neutral country has a right to
preserve its relations with the enemy, and it does not necessarily
follow that the communications are of a hostile nature.^ Ambas-
(») The Atalaabt, 6 C. Bob. iVt.
1 JlU Trml Jffitir. (z) — In Novem- called, who lud be«D taken on board ■•
her, ISSl, Captain Wilkes, of th« United panengen bound for England. Ifawn
Btateawar-tteatnerSaaJadDto, after filing and Slidell were coDreyed to tbe United
a muid ehot and a shell, boarded the Eng- State*, and committed to prison ; but after
Uah mail-packet Trent, in Old Bahama a formal tequiaition bj Great Britain, de-
Channel, on its panaga from Havana to cluing the capture to be illegal, tbey were
SoatbimptoD, and bj force carried off nirrandered by the federal government.
Mmn. Haw>n and Slidell, two rebel min- Hr. Seward took the ground that tlic
iiten Erom the Confederate State*, so Sonthem endasaria* and their despatchea
(«) See Franda Wharton's comment* on thiaafhir in 10 Cent. L. J. SM, 366. See
IB Am. L Bcv. 274.
[188]
;abyGoO<^lc
* 163 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS, [PABT 1.
Badora resident in a neutral country are favorite objects of the
protection of the lay of nations, and their object is to preserve
the relations of amity between the govemmenta ; and the pre-
vare coDtnbuid at war, and that tlia The Brittsli claim to take their Milora ont
Trent might properly have been carried of AmsricaD ahipa ttood od vhullj' differ'
into port and condemned aa prize. Ifauch ent groundi. Lawrenoe's Wheaton, App.
a condemnation had taken place, it waa 8, pp. 955, 660, and n. 72, pp. 217, 218.
intimated that, as there was no direct pro- Ur. Dan* tMnke that thia caae can be
ceaa in prize comta against contraband considered as having settled hot one
peraans, the adjudicatian against the ship principle, and that one no longer die-
would have carried the right to detain puted: that a puUic ahip, though of «
the psrsoua for carrying whom ahe wae nation at war, cuinot take persons out of
' condemned, as an indirect consequence, a neutral Tessel at sea, whatever may be
But as the ship was released by Captain the claim of her government on those
Wilkee without neceeaity, and partly ont peiwma. Wheat. Dwia's note 228.
of coneidention for her innocent passec- Professor Hountague Bernard, after
gers, the capture was waived while in- atating the case and giving the despatches,
complete, and the prisoners must therefore comes to the conclusion that a neutral
be released also. The principle waa ship conveying persons in the enemy's
thought to be eiiuilar to the denial of the employment^ whether military or civil, is
right of belligerents to search neatral not liable to condemnation unless she ii
vessels which the American government serving the enemy es k transport, and
had alwaya made. Hr, Seward to Lord so as to asmst, snbstaotially, thoagh not
Lyons, Dec. 26, 1861. perhaps directly, hia militaiy opentiona
The British gOTemment did not ac- If the enemy has not the actual control
qnieace in these propositions, hot denied and disposal of the ship by any contract,
that the conveyance of public agents of he thinks that it mnst be proved that ths
this chaiw;ter from Bavana to St Thomas aarvice performed was in its nature such
on their way to Qreat Britun and France, as is rendered by a tmnsport, and that
and of their credentials or despatches (if there should be evidence of intention or
any) on board the Trent, waa or oould knowledge from which iutenlioa may be
be a violation of the duties of neutrality rsaaonably inferred, on the part of the
on' tha part of that vessel ; and both for owner or his agen^ the master. Re
that reason, and also because the destina- thinks the rules of contraband inappfi-
tion of these persons and denpatchea was caUe, and that the fact that the voyage
bona fide neutral, it was thought certain is to end at a neutral port, though not
ihnt they were not contrshand. The eonclnsive, is a etrong argoment against
govemmeut further declared that they condemnation, eapecially if coupled with
would not acqniesce in the capture of proof that the ship waa portoing her
any British merchant ahip in dream- ordinary employment Nentwlity of
stances simiUr to those of the Trent, even Qreat Britain during tlie Am. Civil War,
though it was brought before a prize court, c. 9. pp. 224, 225,
Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, Jan. 23, 1S62. Forfurther diacnssion of the subject
Mr. Lawrence thinks that the same see Ur. Sumner's speech in the United
prinui|ile of thaja* btlli which subjects a States Senate, Jan. B, 1882 ; M. Thoo-
nentral to confiscation for carrying mili- venel's despatch lo M.. Hercier, of Dec
tary officers applies to the carriage of 3, 1861 ; Ann. Beg. ISSl, p. 252, and
important persons in the civil service. Pub. Doc. 388 ; pamphlets by Protcsmr
[184]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. Til.] OP THE LAW OF KATIONB. • 168
gumption is, that the neutral state preserves its integrity, and i»
Dot concerned in any hostile design, (n)
3. Bight of B«aioh. — In order to enforce the rights of belligerent
nations against the delinquencies of neutrals, and to ascertain the
real as well as assumed character of all Tessels on the high seas,
the law of nations arms them with the practical power of visita-
tion and search. The duty of self-preservation gives to hellige-
rent nations this right. It is founded upon necessity, and is
strictly and exclusively a war right, and does not rightfully exist
in time of peace, unless conceded by treaty. (h)'(x) AH writers
(a) The Cuoliue, 6 C. Bob. 161 ; UaiieDs, Summary, b. 7, o. 18.
(b) U Lonit, 2 Doda. 248 ; The Antelope, 10 Wlieatoo, 119. Yet the BriUsh
Piriiiment, b; itatate, in Angnat, 1839, in order more eHectaBlIj to lupjiresa tb«
■Utc Cade, and eBpecialJy as Bgainst Portugal, a powar that bad grosslj violated
hor traity with Engknd on that snlgect, anthoriied the power of viaitatioti aiid aearcb
in time of pwwe. The British govemiiiaBt disclaim the rigbt o/ tearch in tinm of
peace, but thej claim at all times the right o/titU, in order to know wbether a Tesael,
pntending, for instance, to be American, and hoiadng tbs American flag, be really
what she aeems to be. Lord Aberdeen's Despatch of December, ISil, to the American
Hiuiater, Mr. Stevenson. Bat tbe Kovemaent of the United States do not admit
the dittiDction between the right of visitation and the right of search. They consider
IhediSerence to be one rather of definition than principle, and tbat it Is not knowD
to the law of nations. Thej will not admit tbe ezerdse of the claim of visit to be a
rlfU; while the British government concedes that if, in tbe extrait of the right o/ mail
to ascertain tbe gennineneta of the flag which a aospectad vessel bears, any inJDi?
atatt, prompt reparstian woold be made. TKt mtitual right of vttitoC^ and uarch
in nfimice to the slave trade bas ever been conceded by tbe European governments
of AoMria, Fimnce, Great Britain, Pnusia, and Bussia, who were parties to tbe
Qnintaple Tna-^ at London, of December, 1S41. See Mr. Webater's Despatch, aa
American Secretary of State, to Hr. Everett tba American Minister at London, of
Uareh 28, 1843. This treaty was snbaeqaently ratified by all the contracting pwties
except France, who remained bonnd only to a restrictive right of search nnder the
conventjons of 1S3I and 18S8, The inter-visitation of shipe at aea is a branch of tbe
law nt self-defence, and is, in point of fact, pniotieed by the public vessels of all
naliona, inclading those of the United States, when tbe piratical character of a vessel
ti BDspected. The right of visit is conceded for the sole pnrpoae ot ascertaining the
Psrlcer (Cambridge, 1862), M. Hante- time ot peace for the parpoae of verifying
(enillcs and Professor Hountagae Ber- tbe flag, except so far as sllowed by
nard (Oxford, 1682) ; Woolaey, Int. Imr, treaty. Historicns, Int. Law, 173, where
f 1S4 : Hijitoriciu, Int. L>w, 186 ; Lord tbe whole snliiiect is discossed. Hansaid,
Mackenzie, Boman Law, 80. cli. 1307, 2082] Ann. Reg. 1SG8, p. 188.
* The British government have aban- Treaty with Great Britain of May 2G,
doMd the claim of a rigbt of visitation in lSfl2. 12 U. S. St. at L. 279.
(z) Visitation and search are no lon^^r searched by foreign cruisers, reparation
penniasible in time of peace, and if vrsspIs will be reqnired. S Wharton's Digest,
of the United States are in time of peace | 327; see 16 Cent. I. J. 3SG.
[185]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 154 OP THE LAW OP NATI0K8. [PABT I.
upon the law of uationa, and the highest authorities, acknowledge
the right in time of war as resting on Bound principles of public
jurisprudence, and upon the institutes and practice of all great
maritime powera. (c) And if, upon making the search, the vessel
be found employed in contraband trade, or in carrjing enemy's
property, or troopB, or despatches, she is liable to be taken and
brought in for adjudication, before a prize court
Xentral nations have frequently been disposed to question and
resist the exercise of this right This was particularly the case
with the Baltic confederacy during the American war, and with
the convention of Uie Baltic powers, in 1801. The right of search
was denied, and the 6ag of the state was declared to be a substi-
tute for all documentary and other proof, and to exclude all right
of search. Those powers armed for the purpose of defend-
* 154 ing their neutral * pretensions ; and England did not hesi-
tate to consider it as an attempt to introduce, by force, a
now code of maritime law inconsistent with her belligerent rights,
and hostile to her interests, and one which would go to extinguish
the right of maritime capture. The attempt waa speedily frus-
trated and abandoned, and the right of search has, since that
time, been considered incontrovertible, (a)
The whole doctrine waa ably discusaed in the English High
Court of Admiralty, in the case of the Maria, (b) and it was ad-
judged that the right waa incontestable, and that a neutral sov-
ereign could not, by the interposition of force, vary that right
Two powers may ^ree among themselves that the presence of
one of their armed ships, along with their merchant ships, shall
be mutually understood to imply that nothing is to be found in
that convoy of merchant ships inconsistent with amity or neu-
Ttal national eharacUT of the v««el Miliog onder aaapidanB circamEtaDco, and is
wholly distinct trom the rigtit of smrcb. It baa been tanned, by the Snprame Oooit
of the United Statu, tbe right of approach for thM piupoae (The HaiianDS Flan,
11 Wlieaton, 1, 43) ; and it ia eonaidered to be well warranted by th« principlea of
public law and tha uaagea oF nation*. Bynk. Q. J. Pub. lib. 1, c. 114, 8, r.
(c) Vette], b. S, c. 7, aec. 114 ; Ord. de la Marina, of IflBl, art. 13 ; Hdbner, da la
Siisie deg MtimeDH Neutrea ; The Haria, 1 C. Bob. SIO ; Le Lonis, 2 Doda. 246 ; The
Harianna Flora, 11 Wbaaton, 42.
(n) In tbe coDvention between England and Rniaia, on the 17tb of Jnne^ 1801,
Rnaua admitted the bfllij^rent ri|;bt of aearch, even of merchant Teasala natigatio;;
onder convoy of a ship of war, provided it was eierdaed 1^ a ship of war beknging la
govemmenL
(b) 1 C. Bob. 340.
[186]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Til.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 156
trality. {if But do belligerent power can legally be compelled,
by mere force, to accept of such a pledge ; and every belligerent
power who ia no party to the agreement has a right to insist on
the only security known to the law of nations on this subject,
independent of any special covenant, and that is the right of
personal visitation and search, to be exercised by those who have
an interest in making it. The penalty for the violent contraven-
tioQ of this right is the confiscation of the property so withheld
from visitation ; and the infliction of this penalty is conformable
to the settled practice of nations, as well as to the principles of
the municipal jurisprudence of most countries in Europe. There
may be cases in which the master of a neutral ship may be
authorized, by the natural right of self-preservation, to defend
himself against extreme violence threatened by a cruiser, grossly
abusiog his commission; but, except in extreme cases, a mer-
chant vessel has no right to say for itself, and an armed vessel
has no right to say for it, that it will not submit to visitation or
aearch, or be carried into a proximate port for judicial
inqniry. Upon * these principles, a fleet of Swedish mer- * 155
chant ships, sailing under convoy of a Swedish ship of war,
and under instructions from the Swedish government to resist,
byforce, the right of search claimed by British lawfully commis-
sioned cruisers, was condemned. The resistance of the convoying
ship was a resistance of the whole convoy, and justly subjected
the whole to confiBcation. (a)
The doctrine of the English admiralty on the right of visitation
and search, and on the limitation of the right, has been rec-
(^ized, in its fullest extent, by the courts of justice in this
country. (6) The very act of sailing under the protection of a
(c) In tlie treat; of commerct bebceen tba Uoitod Statea and the Repablic of Cbili,
in 1S3S, it ms agreed that tha right of visitation and aearch ahoald not apply to vea-
•rli uiling under conroy. So, also, in the convention between the United States and
the Pern-Bolivian Confederacr, of 1S38, art IS.
(n) The MBriA, 1 C. Rob. MO ; The Elsabe, i C. Bob. 408.
lb) The Nereide, 9 Oanch, 427, 438, 448. 446, 463 ; The Harianna Flora, 1]
Whraton, 42. The KOTFmment of the United Statea admits the right of ndtation and
sareh hj belligerent government vessels of their private merchant Teasels, for enemy's
property, articles contreband of war, or men in the land or naval service of the enemy.
But it does not nnderatand the law of nations to aathorize, and does not admit, the
right of search for snbjects or seamen. England, on the other hand, asserts the right
lo look for her snbjects on the high seas, into wbatsTer service they might wsnder, and
The ubjections to the British olaim, on the groiuid of public
[187]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 156 OP THE LAW OF NATIOMS. [PART I.
belligerent or neutral convoy, for the purpose of resisting search,
18 a violation of neutrality. The Danish gOTemment asserted
the same principle in its correspondence with the gOTernmentof
the United States, and in the royal instructions of the 10th of
March, 1810 ; (c) and none of the powers of Europe hare called
in question the justice of the doctrine, (i^ ' GonfiBcation is ap-
plied, by way of penalty for resistance of search, to all vessels,
without any discrimination as to the national character of the
vessel or cargo, and without separating the fate of the cargo from
that of the ship.
This right of search is confined to private merchant vessels,
end does not apply to public ships of war. Their immunity from
the exercise of any civil or criminal jurisdiction but that of the
sovereign power to which they belong is uniformly asserted,
claimed, and conceded. A contrary doctrine is not to be
* 156 found in any jurist or writer on the law of nations, or * ad-
mitted in any treaty; and every act to the contrary has
been promptly met and condemned, (a)
law uid policy, were stated with great (oraa aad cleaniees, in 1819, by the Amcritu
Hinisier in Laudoo to Lord Cutlemgh. Buah's Memoruids, 181-183, S79-2SJ.
The claim of Great Britain to the right of M»rch, on the high uas, of oealTal veuek,
for desertera and other peraom liable to military and naval uirice, hae beam a qoestion
of animated dieciusian between that goTemment and the United State*. It wai oni
principal caiue of the mz ot 1812, and remoiDs nnaettled to thia day. In the di«eu-
lioDB in 1812, between Lord Ashhnrton and Mr. Webster, rdatare to the boondaiy
line of the Slate of Maine, the Americftn HiuUter incidentally diecoMed the (nlgect,
and iuUmabtd that the mle hereafter to be instated on would be, that every ngolirlj
documented American merchant Teasel wm evidence that the Beamen on board vn*
American, and would find protection under the AmericaD flag.
(e) 1 Hall's I^w Journal, 208 ; Letters of Count Boeenkrautt to Hr. Erring, 2Stk
and 30th June, and 9th July, ISIl.
(d) The Austrian ordinance of neutrality of August 7, 1803, enjoined it upon lU
their vesaels to lubmit to risitatian on the high teaa, and not to make any difficulty u
to the production of the documentary proofi of property.
(a) Tharlow's SlAte Papen, ii. S03 ; Casart^s's Diacoursn, 138 ; Ut. Canning's
Letter to Hr. Monroe, August 8, 1S07 ; Edinburgh Beview for October, 1807, ut- 1-
I HistorlcuB, Int. I.iw, 173, 181 ; ii not likely to be eierciaed except ander
Wbest Dana's note £12. The captain of snipirioua circunutances. Hall, Int. La*,
a merchant steamer Is not privilt^d fnm pt. 1, c S, J 262. — B.]
search by the fact that be has a govern- As to public shipa, see 7 Op. Att-Gen.
ment mail on board. Tbe Peterhoff, 5 122, anU, lU, a. 1.
Wall. 28 ; s. c. Blatchf. Pr. 4S3. [As to See tbe treaties referred to, mU, 112,
the right to search the mail itself the law n. 1, for regulations of TiaitBtion snd
ii not settled, but the right, if it exists, search.
[188]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Ttl.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 156
The exercise of the ri^t of visitation and search must be con-
ducted with due care and regard to the rights and safety of the
In the MM of Friiu Frederik, 2 Dodo. 4G1, the question wu nised, uid learnedly dta-
cnsnd, whether ft pablic armed ship, belonging to ths King of the Netbarluidi, wm
liiUe to dnl or dimiual procen in ■ Britiifa port. She wu brought in hj MUBtaace,
in diitnei, and salvage was claimed, and the ahip waa arrested npon that claim, and a
pit* to the jariadictioli iuterpoaed. The qnestion went off by arrangement, and waa
Dot dtdded, though the immunity of such Tenals ^m kll private claims waa forcibly
urged, en gmnads of general policy and the uaaga of nations. And in this oountry,
in the case of The Schooner Exchange r. HTaddan, 7 Cnuich, 118, it wu decided,
iFtcr gnat dismmdon, that a public tsssoI of war of a foreign soTsreign, at peace with
the United States, coming into their ports, and demeaning herself in a friendly man-
ner, waa exempt from the jurisdiction of the country. L'lnTiudble, 1 Wheaton, 288,
Hi, a T. In that interesting ease. The Schooner Exchange, it waa ahown that the
eie*i|i<ian of a pnbUc ship in port fima the local jurisdiction wm not founded on the
■taolote ri^t of another sovereign to saoh an exemption, but upon principles of pnb-
Ik Qoaiity and convenience, and arose from the prommed consent of nations ; that
OHuent mi^t be withdiawn, upon notice, withont just offence ; and if a foreign ship,
■Iter mch notice, comes into the port, she becomes amenable to the local laws in the
■on manner ss other venels ; and though a public ship and her armament might be
•iceptcd, the prize property which she brings into port is subject to the local jurisdic-
tion, for the purpose of examination and inquiry, and, in a proper case, for restitntion.
It has been asserted, on the part of the executive authority of the Onited States, that
a writ of hl^eat eorpiti may ha lawfully awarded to bring up a subject illegally de-
tained on board a Foreign ship of war in our waters. Opinion of the Attorney- General
irfths tTnitcd Sutes, Jnne 24. 1791. (Opinions of the Attomsyn-GenerBl, i. 47.) So,
•lao, it was the official opinion of the Attorney- General of the United States, in 1709,
that it wu lawful to ssrre ciiil or criminal proceaa upon a peiwn on board a foreign
■hip of war lying within a harbor of the United States. lb. i. GS-67. These opinions
do not api^y, of course, to any process against the ship itself. Ur. Webster, the
Amnicsn Secretaiy of State, in his diplomatic letter to Lord Ashbarton, the British
Uimster at Washington, of the date of August I, ISIS, contended, that if a vessel be
driven by stress of weather or other necessity, or carried by unlawfol force into a
British port, even if It be a prohibited or blockaded port, that necessity exempted the
mael from all penal^ and all hazard ; that a vessel on the high seu is regarded ei
pan i^ the territory rf the nation to which she belongs, and subject to its exclusive
jnrisdiction ; and if it be forced by such necessi^ into a foreign port, her immunities
coDtinDe by the comity and practice of nations ; that the juriadiction continues,
thmgh the vesBel be at an^or in t^ foreign port ; so that if a murder be committed
on board a vessel in • foreign port by ons of the crew, or a passenger, on another of
the crew, or a passenger, the offiSDce i* cognisable by the courts of the nation to which
the vessel belongn ; that the vessel, wMle water-borne in foreign places, was, for the
jRneral purpott of governing and ngulatwig A* righli, dutiel, and abligatvnu of that)
tm ioetrd, considered as part of the territory to which she belonged, and that local laws
did not affect existing relations between persons on board. He further stated that, by
fix comity and practice of nationa, menJuml vataU going voluntarily into a foreign
irart for trade, retain on board, for their protection and government, the jurisdiction
and laws of their own country. These Immunities were presumed to exist as a pert of
civilization, and to bs allowed QUtU expressly ntmcted. This presumption is deemed
[189]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 166 OF THE LAW OP NATIONB. [PABI L
TCMielB. (h) If the neutral has acted vith candor and good faith,
and the inquiry has been wrongfully pursued, the belligerent
to be p«it of the Tolonluy uid adopted kw of natioiia. The csm of ft rnwl fbited bj
neceadtf into a fonign pnl, placed Uie claim for eiemptioit from interfereocg on
higher prindplea and atronger conrtea;. If the reeael ba* alana on txaid, the fondgii
goTernment has no right to enter on board and intofere with tbat leUtion. It wu
admitted, howerer, that the exemption lioin the local jnriadiction could not be claimed
for nnlkwfnl aote done, and oontracta made, on bMrd the veMel ao [dacad. FUt
tupra, 109, 124, a,, and ii^ra, S62. The act of Congrtai giving Juriadiction in eaeee
irf febny committed in a foragn port, aa in the caae ttated by Mi. Webater, asnniH,
and imtdiedl; admita, a concnrrent Jurisdiction in the couita of the territory where the
Teasel was at the time. Lord Ashburton, in his leplj of the 6th of Angust, dediDed
the diecuanon of the qneation of immunity in harbor, on general prineipls^ and nid
that llr. Webater had advanced some propoaitions which rather eurjHiaBd and ttartlad
him, though ha did not pretend to judge of them. He admittad, that in the can at
American vessels, driven b; necessity into a Britiah port, there tng^t not to ba any
officiona interference with them, nor any farther inqniaition into the state of poaam
or things on board than might be indispensable to enforce the obeervanca of the mu-
nicipal laws of the eonntry, and the proper regnlalion of its harbors and waten. The
principles of national law, stated in the diplomatic corrcspondenea above Tefemd to,
were judicially t«cc^iMd by the Supreme Court of Loniriana, in the case of HeCsrgo
e. New Orleans Ins. Ca, 10 Bob. U. 302, 81S. It was than decUred to bs a tme o.
podtioa of the law of nations, that a Tease] on the high aeaa, in time of peace, engiged
in a lawfol royage, was under the exclusive jnriadiction of the state to which her Bag
beloi^ ; (z) and that if forced by neceMity ioto a port at a friendly power, she loara
(i) The Anna Maria, 2 Wbeaton, S27. The rigfat of visitatiim and aaaich is
iometjmet laid nnder apedal restrictions, by oonTsntion between maritime strtta
See, for instance, art. 17 of the conTention of navigation and commeroa between the
tfuited State* and the Pern-Bolivian Confederation, Hay, 1S8S.
(«] In The Annapolis, The Johanna by him,ifeheconT«yBmailaand«arn«aat
Stoll, Lnsli. 296, SOS, Dr. Lnahington commerce, is exempt from the admiralty
. said: " The Parliament of Great Britain jurisdiction in En^and- Hie I^riemest
has not, aowrding to the principles of Beige, G P. D. 107 ; 4 P. D. IS) ; see Tha
public law, any authority to l^ialate for Constitation, 4 P. t>. SB. But a foreign
fordgn vessels on the high saao, or for aorenign, whose pnblic Teasels cannot be
foreigners ont of the limits of BtitJBh arreited, may, if he sues as [daintiff to re-
jurisdiction, though, if Parliament thought coTer damaget for a colludon, be required
fit so to do, this Court, in its inatsnce to glTO secnrity lor M«ta to a defendant
jniiadiction at leasts would be bound to who brings a counter-claim. The New-
obey. In case* admitting of donbt, the battle, ID P. D. 3S : Highell a. Saltan of
preaomption would be that Parliimetit Johore, [18B<] 1 Q. B. 14B.
intended to legielste without Tiolating any A mercbsnt veasel of a nenbal nation,
mle of international law, and the oon- wMeh is acting as a transport of one bd-
atructioi) accordingly." See United States ligerent in carrying munition* of wsr and
o. Diekelman, 92 U. 3. E20. troops, is liable to uondemuatian a) a
A packet owned by a foreign sorereign, priia, bnt cannot, it seems, if readily ca-
and oommonded by offleers conimiaaicaied paUe of capture, be properly fired upon
[190]
sObyGoOl^lc
LXCT. ni.] OF THE LAV OF NATIONS. * 166
cntiser ia responaible to the neutral in coats and damagea, to be
aBseased b; the prize court which Buatains the judicial esamina-
MM of the right* ftppertaining to her on the high was, bnt herself uid cugo, >nd the
penoni on hoaid, with their propert;, and all the light* incident to their penonal rs-
ktinui, ai Mtabliahed b; the lam of the itate to which they belong, were placed nnder
the pn)lectio& which the Uwe of nations extend to the onfortnnate under euch cir-
emnatancaa. Although the joiisdiction of the nation otct the reaael belonging to it be
Dot wholly exclusive, and thongb, for any imUwfn] acta oommittad, while in euch a
BtnatioD, bj the maeter, crew, or owners, she or they may be reepouuble to the lam
of the place, yet the local law* do not anpersede the law* of the country to which the
Tosd belongs, so far a* i«lAtes to the tights, datie*, and obligations of those on boud ;
sid tbat whaterer might be the state of the foreign law in relation to slareiy, it did
not operate on board the Teasel so forced by necessity into the foreign port, and before
tTolantarylandingof the slaTeeon board, to dissolTe the relation of master and *taT&
TvD cases, in which this interesting sulyect was discussed, are cited from Ortolan,
Bi^ea IntematioDaUa de la Her, L in WbMton's Elements, 8d ed. 162-151, ia which
it was decided by the Council of State, in ISOfl, in the French conrta, that foreign
piWe TGssela in French port*, for the parposa of trade, were exempted from the local
jnrisdictioii, as to acts of mere international discipline of the Tessel, and sven as to
ttimes and oDenoea committed by a persoD forming ■ part of its offlcars and crew,
■pinat another person belonging to the same, when the peace of the port is not
diitnrbcd. But the local jarisdietion is properly asserted ss to crimss committed on
tnard the Tessel against person* not forming part of it* officers and crew, or by any
othv llian a person belonging to the same, or thoss committed by the officers and
crew npon each other, if the peace of the port be thereby disturbed ; and the juris-
diction, also, is exercised ss to civil eontrscta made to persons not belonging to the
nMsL(y] These ware the cmbs of the Newton at Antwerp, and of the Sslly, at
ud mnk by a warvessel of the other bel- 8 Journal de Droit. Int. Fnti, 41B. The
UKBRUt, as wa* recently done in the case law of the port i* binding on foreign mer-
ot the Briti*h transport, Kow Shing, de- chant Teasel* in all matters concerning
■troyed by the Japanese man of war the pouM of the port. Pelletier d. Hayti,
Huiwa. 19 I<w Mag. t Bev, (tth 85 Albany L. J. 141. Hr. A. P. Horse,
Soies), 816. in an srticls in 12 Albany L. J. SIB,
(y) When a Teasel is in a foreign port, 3GS, oondndee that: — (1) By modam
"dinrdsTs which diatnrb only the peace international law, the law of the flag in
of the ship or those on board are to be respect to merchant Teasels is ezclusiTe
dsalt with exclusively by the sorereignty of the law of the port ; (2) There are
<rf the home of the ehip, but those which drcamstances and conditions under which
dJstnrb the public peace may be •up' the law of the flag and the law of the port
fessed, and, if noed be, the offenders msy exercise concntrent jurisdiction ; (S)
pnnishsd by the proper authorities of the There are cases in which the law of the
kwsl jnrisdiction." Waits, C. J., in Wit- port is sxclnsive of the law of the flag.
dsBhos'* Csse, ISO U. 8. 1, 18 ; 28 Fed. The exemption of a public reaeel from
Bsp. Kl ; •«« United States r. Diekd- the local soTereignty in foreign waters is
msn, n tJ. S. 620; The Kewton, and not an abeolnts bnt s quslified right
The Sslty, 1 Ortolan, Dip. de Is Mer, which should be reo^tnized and respected
460 ; Hie Tempest, id. 466 ; L' Anemone, in sccordance with the nc^rocal ri^ts
[191]
;q.l7.jrb,G00l^lC
• 167 OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PAHT I,
tion. The mere exercise of the right of search inTolves tbe
cruiser iu no trespass, for it is strictly lawful ; but if he proceeds
to capture the vessels [vessel] aa prize, and sends her in for
adjudication, and there be no probable cause, he is responsible. (2)
It is not the search, but the subsequent capture, which ia treated
Id such a case as a tortious act (c) If the capture be justifi-
able, the subsequent detention for adjudication is never punished
with damages; and in all cases of marine torts, courts of admi-
ralty exercise a large discretion in giving or withholding dam-
^es. ((f) ^
* 157 * A rescue effected by the crew after capture, and when
the captors are in actual possessioD, is unlawful, and con-
sidered to be a resistance within the application of the penalty
of confiscation ; for it is delivery by force from force, (a) And
where the penalty attaches at all, it attaches as completely to
HarseillM, Then casea ihow > liboral relaiktioii of the strict righti of the local joiu-
dictioD, sod 10 they are regarded b; Hr. Wbeaton. Anothor ImporUnt principle of
intemational juriapnideDce wu declared bj the French Coart of Canatioit, id 1833, in
(he case of the Carlo Alberto (Sirey, Recneil Qdnjnl de Jaritpmdmce, rzxii- 578,
cited from Wheaton's Elementa, 8d ed. IGl), nz. that b; the law of natioiu, ■ fnreign
reasel, allied or neutral, ia considered as part of the territory of the nation to which
it beloDga, and entitled to the privilt^ of the inTiolability of the tenitory ; bat that
privilege ceases to protect her when having committed acta of hostility in the Franch
territory inconnitent with its cbaraister of «11y or nential, and that even the pretext
of pntting into port in distress will not exclude the juiiadietion of the local tribunals
of a chsigB of high treason against th« per«oui found on board.
(c) 2 Hasou, ise. (<j) Story, J., 11 Wbwton, Gt-H.
(a) The Despatch, S C. Bob. 278 ; Brown p. Union Ina. Co., IS Day, 1.
> The Ostaee, 0 Uoore, P. C. ISO, the Privy Conncil reversed Dr. Lushii^
Spinks, Pr. 174, SS Bng. L. ft Eq. 28 ; ton's decinon, and laid down more liboal
The Leucade, afunka, Pr. 217 ; ^'be Aline prineiplea as to allowing coate and dam-
and Fanny, 10 Moore, P. C. 491, SOO ; ages to claimants of a vessel captnred
The Uaria, 11 Moors, P. C. 271, 287 ; without probable canse, than had for-
The Thompson, 3 WalL 1G& ; I^ Mancbe, msrly prevailed in the English practice.
9 Spragoe, 207 ; The Jane Campbell, See Katohenovi^'* Prite Law, by Piat^
Blatchf. Pr. 101 ; The Dashing Wave, London, 167 « sag.
fi Wall. 170. In the first of thne casM
and datiea of the sovereign of the State (i) See Mipra, p. 1(>3, note (z). This
and the sovereign of the ship ; and a dis- right, when lawful, must be exetdsed in a
tinction is to be drawn between acts lawful manner ; if resisted, the penalty is
which have no effect externally to the the eonfisealian of the property withheld
vessel and those done on her which have from vidtation and search. S Halleck's
an external operation. Sra Ur. A. F. InL Law (Baker's Sd ed.), 3SS, 359.
Mone'K article in 60 Alb. L.J. 204.
[192]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. vn.] OF THE LiW OF KATIONfl. • 158
tbe cargo as to the ship ; for the master acted as agent of the
owner of the cargo, and his reBistauce was a fraudulent attempt
to withdraw it from the rights ot war. (6)
A neutral is bound not only to submit to search, bat to hare
his ressel duly furnished with the genuine documents requisite
to support her neutral character, (e) The most material of these
documents are the register, passport, or sea-letter, muster-roll, log-
book, charter-party, invoice, and bill of lading, (x) The want
of some of these papers is strong presumptive evidence against
the ship's neutrality; yet the want of any one of them is not
absolutely conclosiTe. (d) Si aliquid ez solemnibus deficiat, com
eqaitas poscit subveniendum est The concealment of papers
material for the preservation of the neutral character justifies a
capture, and carrying into port for adjudication, though it does
not absolutely require a condemnation. It is good ground to
refuse costs and damages on restitution, or to refuse further proof
to relieve the obscurity of the case, wiiere the cause labored under
heavy doubts, and there was prima facie ground for condem-
nation independent of the concealment (e) The spoliation of
papers is a still more a^ravated and inflamed circum-
stance of suspicion. That fact may exclude further * proof, * 158
and be sufficient to infer guilt; but it does not, in Eng-
land, as it does by the maritime law of other countries, create an
absolute presumption yum et de jure ; and yet a case that escapes
with sQch a brand upon it is saved so as by fire, (a) The Su-
preme Court of the United States has followed the less rigorous
English rule, and held that the spoliation of papers was not,
{b\ Tb* CaOuiuft Eliisbeth. 6 C. Bob. 23D.
(c) Answar to the Fnuiiui Homoiitl, 1758 ; Hiibti«r, da Is Suns dei Bttim«ns
(4 Danish Imtnictioiu, 10th March, 1S10. Hie ngistor of ■ tmmI it ths ooly
docnment which nwd be on bo«rd « Tried in time of aniveraat peace, to prove
■ational character. Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co., 1 Paiue, B04. By the conrention of
Bsngatioii and commerce between the DnJted States and the Pem-BoliTiaii Confed-
witioD, May, 1888, art. 18, the Tegeeb of sub power are to be Auniahed in time of
<tar with aea-Ietten or passporte, dewiibiag the name, property, and burden of the
abip, and name and residence of the commander. So they mnit also be provided
with certiAcalca, containing the particnlaiB of the cargo, and the place whence the ship
■Qed, signed bj tha offlcera of the port.
(«) LiTinfCttoD V. UaiTlaiid Iqb. Co., T Cnaeh, 544.
(a) The Honter, 1 Doda. 480.
(0) Hall, Int. Law, AppNL HI
VOL. I. -IS [198]
;abyG00<^lc
" 158 OF THE LAW OP NATIOMB. [PABT L
of itself, auffioient grotind for condemnation, and that it was a
circumstance open for explanation ; for it may have arisen from
accident, necessity, or superior force, {b) If the explanation be
not prompt and frank, or be weak and futile ; if the cause labors
under heavy suspicions, or there be a vehement presumption of
bad faith, or gross prevarication, — it is good caune for the denial
of further proof; and the condemnation ensues from defects in
the evidence, which the party is not permitted to supply. The
observation of Lord Mansfield, in Btmardi v. Motteux, (c) was
to the same effect. By the maritime law of all countries, he
said, throwing papers overboard was considered as a strong pre-
sumption of enemy's property ; but, in all his experience, he had
never known a condemnation on that circumstance only.^(2:)
(b) Th« PizBTTo, a Whsaton, 227. (c) Doug. 6S1.
1 The JobMioa Emilie, apinlts, Priia The Peterlioff, ib. 468 ; Th« H«ner> i^
a 13 f The Elk Wirlsy, BUtchf. Pr. 187 ; The Z«t»1U, ib. 178, ud oOm
288, SIB ; The Stephen Uut, ib. SS7 ; cuea in the sune roloine.
(z) An Americui venel on the high 12, 28, mrte. 26, 27] le itiU entitled to tbe
■eu, which baa no pauaport or nuinifeet, protection of internatioDel Uw, uid i* not
though 4hereb; depriTed of &«edom hota nitject to coad«nn»tion. The Yanni,
■euch under the treat; ol amity and cam- 37 Ct CL 118.
merce of 17S8 (8 U. 8. SUL at Img^
[194]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. TIU.] OF THE LAV OP HATIONS.
LECTURE Vin.
OF TBUCES, FAS8P0BTS, AND TREATIES OF PEACE.
Havino considered the rights and dutieB appeTtaining to a
state of war, I proceed to ezamiDe the law of nations relative
to oegotiations, conventioiia, and treaties, which either partiallj'
interrupt the war, or terminate in peace.
L Of TmoM. — A truce or Buspension of amiB does not termi-
nate the war, but it ia one of the commereia belli which suspends
its operations. These conventions rest upon the obligation of
good futh ; and as they lead to pacific negotiations, and are nec-
essary to control hostilities, and promote the caase of humanity,
they are sacredly observed by civilized nations.
A particular truce is only a partial cessation of hostilities, as
between a town and an army besieging it. But a general truce
applies to the operations of the war ; and if it be for a long or
indefinite period of time, it amounts to a temporary peace, which
leaves the state of the contending parties, and the questions
between them, remaining in the same situation as it found them.
A partial truce may be made by a subordinate commander, and
it ia a power necessarily implied in the nature of his trust ; but
it is requisite to a general truce, or suspension of hostilities
thronghout the nation, or for a great length of time, that it may
be made by the sovereign of the country, or by his special
authorit7. (a) The general principle on the subject *is, *160
that if a commander makes a compact with the enemy, and
it be of such a nature that the power to make it could be rea-
sonably implied from the nature of the trust, it will be valid
and binding though be abuse his trust. The obligation he i&
nnder not to abuse his trust regards his own state, and not the
enemy, (a)
A truce binds the contracting parties from the time it is con-
cluded, but it does not bind the individuaU of the nation so as to
(a) Vatlel, b. 8, c. 16, kc. 238-236 ; Grotiua, b. 8. c. 21.
(a] Rnlluriorth, b. 3, c. 0 i Vatlel, b. 8, c 16, tec 261 ; Qrotiiu, b. 8. c. 22, wc 4.
[195]
sObyGoOl^lc
•161 OP THE LiW OF KATIONS. [ PART I.
render them personally responsible for a breach of it, until they
have had actual or constructive notice of it. Though an iudi-
vidual may not be held to make pecuniary compensation for a
capture made, or destruction of property, after the suspenaion of
hostilities, and before notice of it had reached him, yet the sover-
eign of the country is bound to cause restoration to be made of
all prizes made after the date of a general truce. To prevent
the danger and dami^e that might arise from acts committed ia
ignorance of the truce, it is common and proper to fix a prospec-
tive period for the cessation of hostilities, with a due reference to
the distance and situation of places. (()
A truce only temporarily stays hostilities ; and each party to
it may, within his own territories, do whatever he would have a
right to do in time of peace. He may continue active prepara-
tions for war, by repairing fortifications, levying and disciplining
troops, and collecting provisions and articles of war. He may do
whatever, under all the cLrcumstances, would be deemed compati-
ble with good faith and the spirit of the agreement; but he is
justly restrained from doing what would be directly injurious to
the enemy, and could not safely be done in the midst of hostili-
ties. Thus, in the case of a truce between the governor of a
fortified town and the army besieging it, neither party is at
liberty to continue works, constructed either for attack or de-
fence, and which could not safely be done if hostilities had
* 161 " continued ; for this would be to make a mischievous and
fraudulent use of the cessation of arms. So, it would be
a fraud upon the rights of the besieging army, and an abu»e of
the armistice, for the garrison to avail themselves of the truce to
introduce provision and succors into the town, in a way or through
passages which the besieging army would have been competent
to prevent, (n) The meaning of every snch compact is. that all
things should remain as they were in the places contested, and
of which the possession was disputed, at the moment of the con-
clusion of the truce. (6)
At the expiration of the truce, hostilities may recommence
without any fresh declaration of war ; hut if it be for an indefi-
nite time, justice and good faith require due notice of an intention
to terminate it. (<:)
(4) V»tWl. b. 8, c. 16, MC. 238, 244. («) Vattel. b. 3, o. 16, wc 247, S46.
(i) lb. lec. £60, (c) V«ttel, b. 3, c, Ifi, wc. 36a
[196]
sObyGoOl^lc
LETT. Till.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. •162
Grotius and Vattel, ((2) as well as other writers on national lawr
have f^tated the question, whether a truce for a given period, as,
for imtance, finm the first of January to the first of February,
will include or exclude the first day of each of these months.
Grutiux says, that the day from whence a truce is to be com-
puted is not one of the days of the truce, but that it will inclnde
the whole of the firat day of February as being the day of its
termuiation. Puffendorf, Heineccius, and Vattel, on the other
hand, are of opinion, that the day of the commencement of the
truce would be included ; and as the time ought to he taken
taigely and liberally, for the sake of humanity, the last day men-
tioned would also be included. Every ambiguity of this kind
ought always to be prevented, by positive and precise stipula-
tions, as, from such a day to such a day, both inclu8ive.(fi)
2. PaamportM. — * A passport or safe-conduct ia a privilege * 162
granted in war, and exempting the party from the effects of
its operation, during the time and to the extent prescribed in
the permission. It flows from the sovereign authority ; but the
power of granting a passport may be delegated by the sovereign
to persons in subordinate command, and they are invested with
that power either by an express commission, or by the nature of
their trust (a) The general of an army, from the very nature
of bis power, can grant safe-conducts ; but the permission is not
transfei-able by the person named in the passport, for it may be
diatthe government had special reasons for granting the privilege
to the very individual named, and it is presumed to he personal.
If the safe-conduct be granted, not for persons, but for effects,
those effects may be removed by others besides the owner, pro-
vided DO person be selected as the e^ent agaiust whom there
may exist s personal objection, sufficient to render him an object
of suspicion or danger, within the territories of the power grant-
ing the permission.
He who promises security, by a passport, is momlly bound to
afford it ^[tunst any of his subjects or forces, and to make good
(d) Orotliu, b. 3, c. 21, lec. i ; Vattel. b. 3, c. 16, lec. 241 ; Pnft. 8. T. 8 ; Heinecc.
Jv. Nil et Oent. 2. 9. 208.
(t) The raie proposed bj the EngdUh commiuionera, in their report on the pno-
tice of the Engiuh cotirtt, In Jolj, 1831, i« recommended hj Ita siniplicitj Mid
eeruinty. They propow to compnle the first dmy excliuivel;, and the iMt dij
indiulrelj, In all eata. See It. 96.
(o) VaHd. b. 8, c 17.
[197]
;abyGoO<^lc
■ 163 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
any dam^e the party might sostain hy a violatioii of the pass-
port. The ptivil^e being so far a dispensation from the legal
effects of war, it is always to be taken Btrictly, and must be cou-
fiiied to the purpose, and place, and time, for which it was granted.
A safe-conduct generally includes the necessary b^gi^e and aer-
vants of the person to whom it is granted ; and, to save doabt
and difficulty, it is usual to euumerate, with precision, every
particular branch and extent of the indulgence. If a safe-con-
duct be given for a stated term of time, the person in whose favor
it was granted must leave the enemy's, country before the time
expires, unless detained by sickness, or some unavoidable
* 163 circumstance, *and then he remains under the same pro-
tection. The case is different with an enemy who comes
into the country of his adversary during a truce. He, at bis own
peril, takes advantage of a general liberty allowed by the suspen-
sion of hostilities, and, at the expiration of the truce, the war
may freely take its course, without being impeded by any claims
of such a party for protection, (a)
It is stated that a safe-conduct may even be revoked by him
who granted it, for some good reason ; for it is a general principle
in the law of nations, that every privilege may be revoked when
it becomes detrimental to the state. If it be a gratuitous privi-
lege, it may be revoked purely and simply ; but if it be a pur-
chased privilege, the party interested in it is entitled to iademnitj
against all injurious consequences, aod every party affected by
the revocation is to be allowed time and liberty to depart in
safety, (i)
The effect of a license given by the enemy to tJie subjects of
the adverse party, to carry on a specified trade, has already been
considered, (c) in respect to the light in which it is viewed by
the government of the citizens accepting it. A very different
effect is ^ven to these licenses by the government which grants
them, and they are r^arded and respected as lawful relaxations ■
or suspensions of the rules of war. It is the assumption of a
state of peace to the extent of the license, and the act rests in
the discretion of the sovei-eign authority of the state, which alone
is competent to decide how far considerations of commercial and
poUtical expediency may, in particular cases, control the ordinary
(0) Yattel. b. 3, a IT, wc 278, 274.
(b) tb. tec. 370. {e) St^ra, [Bl.] 86.
[198]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. Till.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 165
conseqneDCes of war. In the conatry which grants tbem, licenses
to curry on a pacific commerce are stricti juris, as being ezcep-
tioDs to a general rule ; though they are not to be con-
straed with pedantic accuracy, nor will every * Bmall * 164
deviiMion be held to vitiate the&ir effect of them, (a) An
excess in the quantity of goods permitted to be imported might
not be considered as noxious to any extent ; but a variation in
the quality or Bubstance of the goods might be more sigQifioant.
WheneTer any part of the trade assumed under the license is
denuded of any authority under it, such part is subject to con-
demnation.
Another material circumstance in all licenses is the limitation
of time in which they are to be carried into effect, for what is
proper at one time may be very unfit and mischievous at another
time. Where a license was limited to be in force until the 2dth
of September, and the ship did not sail from the foreign poit
until the 4th of October, yet, as the goods were laden on hoard
by the 12th of September, and there was an entire honafidet on
the part of the person holding the license, this was held to lie
legal, (i) But where a license was to bring away a cargo from
Bordeaux, and the party thought proper to change the license,
and accommodate it to another port in France, it was held by the
English admiralty, in the case of the Twee Q-ebroedert, (o) that
the Ucense was vitiated, and the vessel and cai^o were con-
demaed. It has also been held that the license must be limited
to the use of the precise persons for whose benefit \t was ob-
tained. The great principle in these cases is, that subjects are
not to trade with the enemy without the special permission of
the government; and a material object of the control which
the government exercises over such a trade is that it may
jndge of the particular persons who are fit to * be intrusted * 165
(a) Tbe CMinapolIte, 1 C. Bob. 8 ; Orotiiii, b. 3, c 21, aec. 14, laya down tbe
fNwnl role, that ■ ufe-coadact, of which these tiCFDies tire a speclM, *re [is] to be
lbmll7 comtroed ; iaxa magii qtiatn itrirta interprttatio admltaida al. And ticensee
were erratnallr comtmed with gna.t libsmlitr in the British courts of admirslty.
Judge Croke, in the cue of The AbigkU, Stewart, Tice-Adm, 380; Duer on Iniur-
■Dce, L 696-619. The English MbninUty and common-law decisions on this subject
of iieensei are collected and examined hj Mr. Doer, with his ntnal diligence and
Mgadtj.
(t) Scbroeder v. Tatu, 16 East, 62 ; 8 Camp. 88.
|c) Bdw. Adm. 9&
[199]
;abyG00<^lc
• 166 OP THE LAW OF NATIONB. [PAItT I.
with an exemption &om the ordinary restrictions of a state of
war. (a)
3. TrastiM of Fmos. — The object of war is peace ; and it ia
the duty of every belligereut power to make war fulfil its end
wilh the least possible mischief, aud to accelerate, by all fair aod
reasonable means, a just and honorable peace. The same powei
which has the right to declare and carry on war, would seem
naturally to be the proper power to make and conclude a treaty
of peace ; but the disposition of this power will depend upon
the local constitution of every nation ; and it sometimes happens
that the power of making peace is committed to a body of men
who have not the power to make war. In Sweden, after the
death of Charles XII., the king could declare war without the
consent of the national diet, but he made peace in conjunction
with the senate. (&) So, by the Constitution of the United States,
the President, by and with the advice and consent of two thirds
of the Senate, may make peace, but it is reserved to Congress to
declare war. This provision in our Constitution is well adapted
(as will be shown more fully hereafter) to unite, in the negotia-
tion and conclusion of treaties, the advantage of talents, expe-
rience, stability, and a eompreheusive knowledge of national
intei-est, with the requisite secrecy and despatch.
Treaties of peace, when made by the competent power, are
obligatory upon the whole nation. If the treaty requires the
payment of money to carry it into effect, and the money canDOt
be raisedj but by an act of the legislature, the treaty is morally
obligatory upon the legislature to pass the law, and to refuse it
would he a breach of public faith.' The department of the gov-
ernment that is intrusted by the Constitution with the
* 166 treaty-making power is competent to * bind the national
faith in its discretion ; for the power to make treaties of
peace must be coextensive with all Uie exigencies of the nation,
and necessarily involves in it that portion of the national sov-
ereignty which has the exclusive direction of diplomatic negotia-
tions and contracts with foreign powers. All treaties made by
(a) The JonfK Johanna, 4 C. Rob. 263. See the Uw u to Uceniee, collected in
1 Holt, 120, note. Mr. Holt mjb, that Sir William Scott was, in fact, the anthor of
the whole learning of the law relating to the lyitem of licenaei.
lb) Vattel. b. 4, c. 2, tec. 10.
' But lee 286, n. 1.
[200]
;abyG00<^lc
LECr. Till.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 167
that power become of absolute efficacy, becanBe they are the
snpreiDe law of the laud.
There can be no doubt that the power competent to bind the
nation by treaty may alienate the public domain and property by
treaty. If a nation has conferred upon its esecutive department,
without reeerve, the right of treating and contracting with other
states, it ig considered as having invested it with all the power
necessary to make a valid contract That department is the
organ of tiie nation, and the alienations by it are valid, because
they are done by the reputed will of the nation. The funda-
mental laws of a atat« may withhold from the executive depart-
ment the power of transferring what belongs to the state ; but
if there be no express provision of that kind, the inference is,
that it has conGded to the department charged with the power
of making treaties a discretion commensurate with all the great
ioterests and wants and necessities of the nations. A power to
make treaties of peace necessarily implies a power to decide the
terms on which they shall be made, and foreign states could not
deal safely with the government upon any other presumption.
The power that is intrusted generally and largely with authority
to make valid treaties of peace can, of course, bind the nation
by alienation of part of its territory ; and this is equally the
case wheUier that territory be already in the occupation of the
enemy or remains in the possession of the nation, and whether
the property be public or private, (a) (x) In the case of the
Schooner Peggy, (6) the • Supreme Court of the United * 16T
States admitted that individual rights, acquired by war,
and vested rights of the citizens, might be sacrificed by treaty for
(a) Tittel, b. 1, e. SO, ate 241 ; ib. c 21, wc. 202 ; b. 4, c 2, lec. 11, 13. Tittel
tdnita thit the fOndunentsl Iawh of ■ nstion maj withhold the power of mlisnatioii
t^ tica^ ; and it would M«m, by neouMry inrerenc*, to be s rloUtton of fnndk-
mmtd Uw for tb< tmty-inkkitig powgr, acttng nndcr such an initraniBQt la ttiB
CooititatioD of the United States, to agree by treaty for tha abolition or alteration
of loy part of the Conetitntioiu Tha itlpnlatioii would go to de«n^ the mj
tothorily for making the treaty.
(») 1 Cranch, 103.
(r) Tha Clajton-Bnlwer Treaty of 1860, m <t e<Hit«mplated a canal that waa Derer
bFtweni Qnat Britain and the United acttully conatrncted, and appean not to
Sbtea, u to a canal acraaa tha Iithmni have applied to Bondnraa. Bee Cobb«tt'*
of Panama, ii itrictlj no longtiT Mnding, InL I^w Cosei (2d ed. ), 4S.
[201]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 167 OP THE LAW OF MATIONB. [PABI I.
national porposes. So, in the case of Ware t. MyUon (a) ' it
was said to be a clear principle of national lav that private rigfata
might be Bacrificed by treaty to secure the public safe^, thong^
the government would be bound to make compensation and
indemnity to the individuals whose rights had thus been surren-
dered. The power to alienate, and the duty to make compensa-
tion, are both laid down by Grotius (S) in equally explicit terms.
A treaty of peace is valid and binding on the nation, if made
with the present ruling power of the nation, or the government
de facto. Other nations have no right to interfere with the do-
mestic affairs of any particular nation, or to examine and judge
of the title of the party in pogseBsion of the supreme authority.
They are to look only to the fact of possession, (c) And it is an
(a) CluM, J., S DftlUs, IBB, 24G.
\b) B. 8, a. 20, oec 7. Tbe goTenunent of the United State* dechrad to tbe
Brituh goTemmenC, in refsTance to the disputed lins of the nMthautecti boundirf
of tha United Statea, that it h*d no power to cede aoy part of the tenitoiy claimed
\ij the State of Haiae, withont the consent of that state. See the letter of Lord
Palmerston to Mr. Fox, the Britiah Minititer at Washington, Navember 19, 13S7.
Plough the better opinion would aeem to be, that «och a power of ceasioD don
leaide Bxdnrively in the treatf-tnaking power, under the Constitntion of the Uaited
States, TOt eouod diicretion wonld forbid the exercise of it withont the consent of
the local goTemmeDta who are interested, except in caaei of great oecesait;, in which
that consent might ha presumed. («) B7 the treaty made between the United State*
and Great Britain, in 134% respecting the diipnted bonndar; line between the State
of Uaine and the British pronnce* of New Bninswick and Canada, part of the land*
claimed by the Stale of Maine were, by the line agned on, placed witbio the Britiih
territory, and ceded to Great Britain ; jet the United Statea did not act on the sub-
ject until they had pceTioasly and rery wisely piorided, that commisdonen on the
part of the states of Hassaohusetta and Maine should be pnsent at the n^[otia-
tion, and assenting to the boundary line ^reed on.
(e) Tsttel, b. 1, c 2, eec 11, and 'tide nipra, [21,] 2G.
> little V. Wateou, 83 Hatns^ 211 ; Head* v. United States, S Nott & H. {Cout of
Claims) 2M
(jr) " But," says Dr. Woolsey (Int domain I Snch leaifal power wss nwer
Law, Sd ed. j 99), in referring to this lodged in the general goTemment by the
passage, " it mig^t be asked, whether the Constitadon, and coald nerer be lawfnlly
treaty-making power is not neeesBarily exercised in the oidinaiy contingsnciea of
limited by the existence of states parties the con federation. Only in extreme cases,
to the confederation, having contrd for where the traaty-rasking power is calkd
meet purposes orer their own territory, apon to accept the fad of conqoeat, or to
Coald the treaty-making power blot ont sare the whole body ftam min by "■'^
the existence of a atate which helped to rendering * part, eoold sooh an eieitin
create the onion, by ceding away all its of power be jaatifled."
)vGooi^lc
1.ECT. Tm.] OF TBB LAW OP KATIOIIS. * 168
Acknowledged rule of international law, that the principal party
in wfaoBe name the war is made cannot justly make peace with-
out including those defensive allies in the pacification who have
afforded assistance, Plough they may not haTO acted as princi-
pals; for it would be faithless and cruel for the principal in the
war to leave his weaker ally to the full force of the enemy's
resentment. The ally is, however, to be no further a party to
Hie stipulations and obligations of t^e treaty than he has been
witling to consent. All that the principal can require is, that
his ally be considered as restored to a state of peace. Every alli-
ance, in which all the parties are principals in the war, obliges
the allies to treat in concert, though each one makes a separate
treaty of peace for himself, (d)
* The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the * 168
war, and to abolish the subject of it. Peace relates to the
war which it terminates. It is an agreement to waive all discus-
sion concerning the respective rights of the parties, and to bury
in oblivion all the original causes of the war. (a) It forbids the
revival of the same war, by taking arms for the cause which at
first kindled it, though it is no objection to any subsequent pre-
tensions to the same thing on other foundations, (b) After peace,
the revival of grievances arising before the war is not to be
encouraged, for treaties of peace are intended to put an end to
sncb complaints ; and if grievances then existing are not brought
forward at the time when peace is concluded, it is to be presumed
that it is not intended to bring them forward at any future
time, (c) Peace leaves the contracting parties without any right
of committing hostility, for the very cause which kindled the
war, or for what has passed in the course of it It is, therefore,
no longer permitted to take up arms again for the same cause, {d)
But this will not preclude the right to complain and resist, if the
same grievances which kindled the war be renewed and repeated ;
for that would furnish a new injury and a new cause of war
equally just with the former war. If an abstract right be in
(i) Ttttel, b, 4, o. S, tec. ifl.
(a) Sir Willuni Scott, in the eua of the £liz& Ann, 1 Doib. 349. Tfaoagh p"nts
ti^ti eiitting Man the mu maj not be nmitted b; pMce, the pneamption i*
■tbtrwiM mi to tba rigkta of klnp and natioiu. Qrotiiu, b. S, c. 30, ue. 10.
{t) Tattal, b. 4, c S, Mc IB.
(c| Sir 'WilliMu Scott, Hie Hollr.lDodL SOS.
W V»tt*l, b. 4, c 2, •*<). 18.
[203]
;abyG00<^lc
*169 OF THE lAV 07 KATIONS. [PABT L
question between the parties, the right, for instance, to impress
at sea one's own subjects from the merchant veaaela of the other,
and the parties make peace without taking any notice of the
question, it follows, of course, that all past grievances, damages,
and injury, arising under such claim, are thrown into
*169 oblivion, 'by the amnesty which every treaty implies;
but the claim itself is not thereby settled, either one way
or the other. It remains open for future discussion, because the
treaty wanted an express concession or renunciation of the claim
itself, (a)
A. treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it
finds it, if there be no express stipulation on the subject If
nothing be said in the treaty of peace about the conquered coun-
try or places, they remain with tha poBseasor, and his title cannot
afterwards be called in questioo. (b) During war, the conqueror
has only a usufructuary right to the territory he has subdued;
and the latent right and title of the former sovereign continues,
until a treaty of peace, by its silence or by its express stipulation,
shall have extinguished his title for ever, (e)
The peace does not affect private rights which had no relation
to the war. Debts existing prior to the war, and injuries com-
mitted prior to the war, but which made no part of the reasons for
undertaking it, remain entire, and the remedies are revived (d) ^
There are certain cases in which even debts contracted or inju-
ries committed between two subjects of the belligerent powers,
during the war, are the ground of a valid claim, as in the case of
ransom bills, and of contracts made by prisoners of war for sub-
sistence, or in a trade oarrried on under a license, (e) This
would be the case if the debt between them was contracted, or
the injury was committed, in a neutral country, (f)
A treaty of peace binds the contracting parties from tibe
moment of its conclusion, and that is understood to be from
(a) Vkttd. b. 4, 0. 2, sec 10, SO.
(ft) Vattel. b. 4, c. 2, MC ig, 31.
(e) Sir WilliMa Scott, 1 Dodi. 4ES ; Tattel, b. 3, e. IS, ssc.ie7, IBS ; lb. b.4, c.2,
MC. 1 ; OroHui, lib, 9, c 6, lec 4, G ; VMj, Droit de I'Enrope, L c 2, 144.
(d) Orotiiu, b. 8, c. 20, bbc 16, IS.
(<> Crawford 0. The Williain Pann, 3 Wash. 4S4 ; 1 Peters, C, C. IM a. c.
{/) Tattel, b. 4, c. 2, see. 22.
1 AldDoni «. Nigren, 4 Bl. ft BL 217, 219 ; amU, 37, n. 1 ; 91, n. I.
C204]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. VIII.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 170
• the day it is Bigned. (a) ' A treaty made by the minister • 170
abroad, when ratified by his sovereign, relates back to tbe
time of signing; (&) but, like a truce, it cannot affect the subjects
of the nation with guilt, by reason of acts of hostility subsequent
to the date of the treaty, provided they were committed before
the treaty was known. All that can be required in snch cases
is, that the government make immediate restitution of things
captured aft«r the cessation of hostilities; and to guard against
iDConvenience from the want of dne knowledge of the treaty, it
Ib uslial to fix the periods at which hostilities are to cease at
different places, and for the restitution of property taken after-
vards. (c)
But though individuals are not deemed criminal for continuing
hostilities after the date of the peace, so long as they are ignorant
of it, a more difficult question to determine is, whether they are
responsible civiliter in such cases. Grotius (d) says, they are not
liable to answer in damages, but it is the duty of the government
to restore what has been captured and not destroyed. In the
case of the American' ship Mentor, (e) which was taken and
destroyed, off Delaware Bay, by British ships of war, in 1783,
after the cessation of hostilities, bnt before that fact had come to
the knowledge of either of the parties, the point was much dis-
cussed; and it was held that the injured party could not pass
over the person from whom the alleged injury had been received,
and fix it on the commander of the English squadron on that
station, who was totally ignorant of the whole transaction, and
at the distance of thirty leagues from the place where it passed.
There was no instance in the annals of the prize courts of such
(a) Tattal, b. 1, c 8, tee. 24 ; Martras, Saminary, b. 8, o. 7, mo. G ; Id th« matter
oTHet^ttr, N. Y. Li^ Oburvar for Hsrch, 1B17.
(t) HjltoD tr. Brown, 1 Wufa, 312.
(c| Vattd, b. *, c. 3, sec. 24. 2S ; ib. b. 2, c. 12, aec. IBfi, 167 ; ib. b. 3, e. 16 ;
2 EUUs, 40 ; Azuni. ii. 227 ; HjlUm v. Browa, 1 W»«b. 811, 312, S42, BGl.
(J) B. 3, e. 21, BBC. 6.
it) 1 0. Kob. 17B ; [The Oitoee, B Hoore, P. C. 150, 176.]
' SoTereigD power om territoTf ceded in so IJu- ug the treat; affecta iDdiridnal
ends at the RioroeDt of ceaiioD , except for rights which ware vested before it was
nmnicipal purposes and keeping order, for ratilied, it is not considered as concluded
which it coDtinDei nntil delirer?. United nntil there is an exchange of latiGca-
SUtn e. Rernw, 0 How. 127 ; Davis v. tions. HaTsi v. Taker, 9 WaU. S2.
Police Joi; of Concordin, ib. 280. Bat
[205}
;abyGoO<^lc
• 172 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT L
a remote and consequential responsibility in snch a case.
' 171 The actual wrong-^oer is the person to answer in * judg-
ment, and to him the responsibility, if any, is attached.
He may have other persons responsible over to him, but the
injured party could look only to him. The better opinion was,
that though such an act be done through ignorance of the cessa-
tion of hostilities, yet mere ignorance of that fact would not
protect the officer from civil responsibility in a prize court; and
that if he acted through ignorance, his own government must
protect him and save him harmless. When a place or country is
exempted from hostility by articles of peace, it is the duty of tiie
government to use due diligence to give its subjects notice of the
fact; and the government ought, in justice, to indemnify its sub-
jects who act in ignorance of the peace. And yet it would seem
from that case that the American owner was denied redress in
the British admiralty, not only against the admiral of the fleet
on that station, but against the immediate author of the injury.
Sir William Scott denied the relief against the admiral ; and ten
years before that time relief had equally been denied by his pre-
decessor against the person who did the injury. If that decision
was erroneous, an appeal ought to have been prosecuted. We
have, then, the decision of the English High Court of Admiralty,
denying any relief in such a case, and an opinion of Sir William
Scott many years afterwards, that the original wrong-doer was
liable. The opinioDS cannot otherwise be reconciled than npon
the ground that the prize courts have a large and equitable dis-
cretion in allowing or withholding relief, according to the special
circumstanceB of the individual case, and that there is no fixed
or inHexible general rule on the subject.
If a time be fixed by the treaty for hostilities to cease in a given
place, and a capture be previously made, but with knowledge of
the peace, it has been a question among the writers on public law
whether the captured property should be restored. The
* 172 better and the more reasonable opinion * is, that Mie cap-
ture would be null, though made before the day limited,
provided the captor was previously informed of the peace ; for,
as Emerigon (a) observes, since constructive knowledge of the
peace, after the time limited in different parte of the world, ren-
(a) ViJin, TraiU des PriBCS, c 4, sec 4, 5 j Bmerigoii, TniU dec An. c. IS, »c
IB ; AiuDi on Huitimt Uw, ed. N. T. ii. 2S1.
[206]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. Tin.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 178
den the capture void, much more ought actual knowledge of the
peace to produce that effect, (b)
* Another question arose subsequent to the treaty of * 178
Ghent, of 1814, in one of the British vice-admiralty courts,
on the validity of a recapture, bj a British ship of war, of a
British vessel captured b; an American privateer. The capture
made by an American cruiser waa valid, being made before the
period fixed for the cessation of hostilities, and in ignorance of
the fact; bat the prize had not been carried into port and con-
demned, and while at sea she was recaptured by the British
cruiser after the period fixed for the cessation of hostilities, but
without knowledge of the peace. It was decided that the pos-
sesaion of the vessel by the American privateer was a lawful pos-
session, and that the Britis^ cruiser could not, after the peace,
lawfully use force to divest this lawful possession. The restora-
tion of peace put an end, from the time limited, to all force, and
tiien the general principle applied, that things acquired in war
remain, as to title and possession, precisely as they stood when
the peace took place. The uti potndetia is the basis of every
beaty of peace, unless it be otherwise agreed. Peace gives a
final and perfect title to captures without condemnation; and
as it forbids all force, it destroys all hopes of recovery as much
as if the vessel was carried it^ra prceaidia, and condemned, (a)
(i) Thii point «u «ztenBirely diBoiuwd in the Freocli piiie courta, in the eaae of
A* ctpttire of the Britiib ship Bwineherd, hj the FreDch privateer Bellana, in ISOl,
tad whit wu mfficient knowlsdgs of the fut of Ou paioe to uidoI the capture waa
the gfMt qsMtioii. The Engliah ahip was taken poaHtaion of, and carried into the
Iile of Fnnca, and libelled, and condemned as Iswfnt prize of irar. The wntence of
cmdcmnatian wM affirmed in 1S08, on appeal to the Council of Prizea at Paris, and
K. Herlin has nportad at large the elabonte irgnmeDt «nd opinion of M. CoUet-
DMcodl^ tbe imperial advocate^general in the Council of Prizes, in favor of the oap-
tori. Tbe ground he Uok, and upon which the Counoil of Priies proceeded, was,
that' tbe biDK'i proelsniation of the dgnatara of the preliminary articles of peaoe,
tboogh made known repratedlj to the French cmiser before the esptnre, but noac-
eompiDied by any French attestation, wss not thst snfBcient and indabitable erl-
dcnee to the Firaeh cniiesr of the taat of the peace, npon which be ought to hsTe
acted, and that the period of the five mouths had not elapsed within which it was
Ikwfnl, in the Indian seaa, to coDtinae hoatilitieB. Tbe learned and Tenerable authoi
I of tlut imraenae work, the Bepertory of Jnrispnidence, says, on introducing the ease,
tiut he shall b« silent on ttie qneation, and contents himself with giving the discos-
tiona, and particnlnrly the opinion of the adTocate-general and the reasons of the
Coondl of Priztt. See IWpertoire Universel et Baisonnd de Jarispradenoe, p«r V. le
Cmnte Merlin, xiiL tit. Prise Haritin]^ aee, B.
ffli Case of the L(^ Tender, Halifax, April, 1815, cited in Wbeaton't Dig. 802.
[207]
;abyGoO<^lc
• 175 OP THE LAW OP KATI0N8. [PART 1.
• 174 A similar doctrine was held io the case of * the Schooner
Sophie, {a) and a treaty of peace has the effect of quieting
all titles of posseBsion arisii^ from the war, and of putting an
end to the claim of all former proprietors to things of which
possession was acquired by right of war.
If nothing be said to the contrary, things stipulated to be
restored are to be returned in the condition in which they were
taken ; but this does not relate to alterations which have been the
natural consequence of time, and of the operations of war. A
fortress or a town is to be restored in the condition it was when
taken, so far as it shall still be in that condition when the peace
is made, (b) There is no obligation to repair, as well as to re-
store, a dismantled fortress or a ravaged territory. The peace
extinguishes all claim for damages done in war, or arising from
the operations of war. Things are to be restored in the condition
in which the peace found them ; and to dismantle a fortification
or to waste a country, after the conclusion of the peace, and
previous to the surrender, would be an act of perfidy, (e)
Treaties of every kind, when made by the competent authority,
are as obligatory upon nations as private contracts are binding
upon individuals; and they are to receive a fair and liberal
interpretation, according to the intention of the contracting par-
ties, and to be kept with the most scrupulous good faith. Their
meaning is to be ascertained by the same rules of construction
and course of reasoning which we apply to the interpretation of
private contracts, {d)^ If a treaty should, in fact, be
• 176 violated by one of the contracting • parties, either by pro-
ceedings incompatible with the particular nature of the
(a) 6 C. Bob. IS8.
lb) Vattel, b. «, c 3, BBC 31, Si. (c) lb. mc. 81.
(d> Orotitia, b. 2, c 16, »M. 1 ; Poff. b G, c 12, lec. I ; Ratherfortli'B IiutitatM,
b. 3, c. 7 ; Vattel, b. 2, c. 17; Eyre, Cfa. J., in 1 Boa. & PnU. 4S8. 480 ; Opinion of
Sir Janira Harriott, cited in 1 Chittj, Comm. Law, 14. But if the l^isIatiTB and
azecutiTa branchaa of the gorammant b«Te given and anerted a construction to ■
treaty witb a foreign po«er, under wbich it claiou dominion orer a territory in iti
poaaanion, the courts of jnatice will not let up or tnatain a differant conatnietion.
Foater t>. Neilaon, 2 Peten, 2SG. If a treaty be ambiguona in any part of it, the
party who bad the poirer, and on wbom it waa ppcnliarly incumbent to apeak deariy
and plainly, ought to Bubmit to the coDBtniction moat unfaTorable to him, npui the
reaMiiabiB maxim o( the Roman law, that Pictionem obacunin lis nocore, in qowont
fnit pot«8tata legem apertina conscribere. Yattel, b. 3, a, 17, aec. 294.
1 S*e. aa to note (rf), Wilnn v. Wall, fl WalL 88, 89, poat, 386, n. 1.
;abyG00<^lc
LEOr. T1I1.J OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 170
treaty, or hy an iateotional breach of an; of its articles, it resti
alone vith the injured party to pronounce it broken. The
treat;, in such a case, is not absolutely roid, but voidable, at
the election of the injured party, (a) If he chooses not to come
to a rupture, the treaty remaiua obligatory. He may waive or
remit the infraction committed, or he may demand a just satiB-
faction.
There ia a very material and important distinction made by
the writers on public law between a new war for some new
cause, and a breach of a treaty of peace. In the former case,
the rights acquired by the treaty subsist, notwithstanding the
new war ; but, in the latter case, they are annulled by the breach
of the treaty of peace on which they are founded. A new war
may interrupt the exercise of the rights acquired by the former
treaty, and, like other rights, they may be wrested from the
party by the force of arms. But then they become newly
acquired rights, and partake of the operation and result of the
new war. To recommence a war by breach of the articles of a
treaty of peace is deemed much more odious than to provoke
a war by Bome new demand and a^p^ession ; for the latter is
simply injustice, but in the former case the party is guilty both
of perfidy and injustice, (b) The violation of any one article of a
treaty is a violation of the whole treaty ; for all the articles are
dependent on each other, and one is to be deemed a condition
of the other, and a violation of any single article overthrows the
whole treaty, if the injured party elects so to consider it. This
mav, however, be prevented by an express provision, that if one
article be broken, the others shall, nevertheless, continue
in full force, (c) "We have a strong instance, in • our • 176
own history, of the annihilation of treaties by the act
of the injured party. In 1798, the Congress of the United
Stat^ (a) declared tliat the treaties with France were no longer
obligatory on the United States, as they had been repeatedly
riolated on the part of the French government, and all just
claims for reparation refused.
(a) Grotins, b. 2,c. 16, sec. IS ; b. S, c 20, tec 85-38 ; Bnrkmftqai, pt. 4, c. 11,
(N. B, p. SfiS ; Vatte], b. 4, c. 4, kc. G4.
(ft) Qrotiai, K 8, c 90, see. 27, 38 ; Vattel, b. 4, c. 4, sec. 42.
(e> GiotiD), b. S, c. 19, ICC. 14; Tattel, b. 4, c 4, we. 47, tS ; b.2,c. 1S,kc.202.
(>) Actof Jnlj7, 17»8.
, VOL. I. — U [209]
;abyG00<^lc
* 177 OF THB LA.W OP MAHONB. [tAXt I.
As a general rule, the obligations of treaties are dissipated hj
hostility, and they are extinguished and gone forever, ooless
roTived by a subsequent treaty. But if a treaty contains any
stipulations which contemplate a state of future war, and make
proviaion for such an exigency, they preserve their force and
obligation when the rupture takes place. All those duties of
-which the exercise is not necessarily suspended by the var, sub-
sist in their full force. The obligation of keeping faith is so far
from ceasing in time of war, that its efficacy becomes increased,
from the increased necessity of it. What would become of
prisoners of war, and the terms of capitulation of garrisons and
towns, if the word of an enemy was not to be relied on? The
faith of promises and treaties which have reference to a state
of war is to be held as sacred in war as in peace, and among
enemies as among friends. All the writers on public law admit
this position, and they have never failed to recommend the duty
and the observance of good faith, by the most powerful motives,
and the most pathetic and eloquent appeals which could be
addressed to the reason and to the moral sense of nations, {b)
The tenth article of the treaty between the United States and
Qreat Britain, in 1794, may be mentioned as an instance of a
stipulation made for war. It provided that debts due from
individuals of the one nation to those of the other, and the shares
or moneys which they might have in the public funds, or in
public or private banks, should never, in any event of war, be
sequestered or confiscated. There can be no doubt that
* 177 the obligation of that article was not impaired * by the war
of 1812, but remained throughout that war, and continues
to this day, binding upon the two nations, and will continue so,
until they mutually agree to rescind the article; for it is a prin-
ciple of universal jurisprudence, that a compact cannot be re-
scinded by one party only, if the other party does not consent to
rescind it, and does no act to destroy it. In the case of The
Society for Propagating the Gogpel v. Nete Maven, (a) the Sb-
preme Court of the United States would not admit the doctrine
that treaties became extinguished ipso facto by war, unless re-
vived by an express or implied renewal on the return of peace.
{£) Tkttol, b. S, 0. 10, iw. 174 ; Ototiua, b. 3, c. 26; HaiiiBoe. Jnr. Nit. at Owt
b. 2, c 9, p. 21S.
(a) 8 WheatoD, iU ; SattoD v. Sutton, 1 Rum. ft M7. OSS, s. t.
[210]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. VIII.] OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 178
Sach a doctrine is oot oniTeraall; true. Where treaties contem-
plate a permaneat arrangemeot of aational rights, or which hj
their terms are meant to provide for the event of an intervening
war, it would be against every principle of juat interpretation to
hold them extinguished bj the event of war. They revive at
peace, unleBS waived, or new and repugnant etipulations be
made, (b)
*. Of TonitoriM Coded o^Aoquited. — With respect to the ces-
Bion of places or territories by a treaty of peace, though the
treaty operates from the making of it, it is a principle of public
law that the national character of the place agreed to be surren-
dered by treaty continues as it was under the character of the
ceding country, until it be actually transferred. Full sover-
eignty cannot be held to have passed by the mere words of the
treaty without actual delivery. To complete the right of prop-
erty, the right to the thing and the possession of the thing must
be united. This is a necessary principle in the law of property
in all systems of jurisprndence. There must be both the jus in
[ad] rem and the jut in re, according to the distinction of the
civilians, and which Barbeyrac (c) says they borrowed from the
canon law. This general law of property applies to the
right of territory, no less than to other rights. • The prac- • 178
tice of nations has been conformable to this principle, and
(b) Tha Amerieaii Ministers, in thsir negotiationB at London, in 1818, 'nth the
Brituh gorenunsut, iniuted thdt the third article of the tnaty of S«ptember, 1788,
rdativt to Ike JUitria, vna a fnndamantal and pernumeDt article, •ecuring a primatjr
nilht, not annnlled, though the exercise ot the right was interrapted bf the war of
1812 ; and that the right remained in fall farce, after tha trrminatioa of the war, not-
wttb*tuiditig it wag not noticed in the treat; of Ghent. The Britiah eommisaianen,
am the other hand, allied that the war of 1812 canceUed the prorision, and, not heing
noewed b; the Biibsn]aent trrat; of peace, the right was cztinguiahed. The two
DBtiooB at laat agreed to the convention of the SOth of October, 181S, modifying and
' nttling the qoeation as to th« flabetiea, without yielding, on either aide, their conttrac-
tion of the □peiKti'in of the war of 1S12, apon the ti«aty of 17S3. Bnih's Memo-
randa, S&1-8SS. See the Diplomatio CorreapondeDce between Hr. Adama and Lord
Bstbnnt, in 1815. In thii coTTeapondence, the BKtish uegotiator admitted that the
adniovlUdgtamit of a right or title in a treaty of peace was, in its own nature, of per-
petnal oUigatlon. The ceasion of a light, aa that of bonndaiy lines and plaeea, for
instance, woald seem to fall within the same priociple. Snch were the treaties of
3(anlrter, 1040, and of Utrecht, 1713, which, after long and eihanating wars, eettled
*he right* of the great Enropean powen on a solid and permanent fonndation, and
«n still deemed to be in vigor, and intimately connected with the settlement of
Europe, fThe history of the fisheries qaestion will be foond in S Am. Latr Ber. SSS.]
[c) Puff, par Bsrbeync, Hr. ir. c e, eec 8, note 2.
[211]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 178 OP THE LAW OF NATIONS. [PAHT r.
the coDTentional lav of nations is full of ingt&ncee of this kind,
and several of them were stated by Sir WiUiam Scott in the
opinion which he gave in the case of Hie Fama, (a) '
(a) C C Bob. 106. It is a sattUd prindpls, In tKe law and nnge of mliona, tint
the inhabitaala of > cooqaered t«mtory cbuige their allegumce, and their lelatwu to
their fornjtr Mrereign ia dlasoWed ; but their relatioiu to each other, and their ri^^ts
of property, not taken from them by OTdera of the conqasror, lemained nndiatorbed.
The cession or conquest of a territory doe« not oJfct the right* of proper^. Vattet,
b. 3, c. 13, Bee. 200 ; The Unit«d Stalei tr. Percheman, 7 Feten, Gl ; Uitchel v. The
Uaited States, 9 Peters, 711 ; Strothar v. Lncai, 12 Petet«, 410, 4S8. The laws,
usages, and municipal T^ulations in force ftt the time of the conquest or caaioa,
renmin in force, until ijiangid by the van taPtrtign. Calvin's case, 7 Co. 17 ; Campbell
V. Hall, Cowp. 209 ; S Petere, 711, 734, 748, 749 ; Strother «. Lucas. IS Peters, 410.
There is uo doubt of the power of the sovereign to change tlie laws of a oonquend
or ceded country, unless restnined by the capitnlation or treaty of cession. In the
case of the Canal Appraisen u. The People, in 17 Wendell, £87, Chancellor Wtlworth
declared, that in the ease of a country acquired t>y conqneat, no formal act of l^i»-
Istion is necessary to change the Uw ; the meie will of the oonqaetor i« sufficient
This is the caae in governments where the conqneror is in poeseesion of the legislattve
as well as the ezecntive power; sod until a nation or territory is wholly subdued,
the conqueror is only entitled, by the usage of nations, to hold it aa a temporary pos-
session, by military occupation, until the final issne of the conquest is settled hy
treaty, or by the competent constitutional power. The principle of national law, as
declared by the courts of the United States, is, thst conquest doen not give the
conqueror pUnam dominium tl tUiU, A temporary right of possession and govemtiieat
is only acquired, unless ths treaty of peace settle* the qnestion otherwiae, or there
be an sbeolnte abandonment of the territory l^ the foimer sovcRign, or an irretrier.
able subjection to the conqneror. United States v. HAy ward, 2 GaUiaon, 4SS ; Clail v.
United States, 3 Wash. 104. The rule is different when a ooontiy ia claimed by the
right of discovery and occnpancy, and not by right of cooqiuat »r cession. In the
former case, the discoverers and new oconpanta cuiy with them all the general laws
of the niotbn conntry applicable to their new utoation aa colonies, and they become,
ipto facia, the law of the conntiy. Bach was the ease with the United States, when
they were first colonized by Great Britun ; and this waa the caae, aaya Chancellor
Walworth, with Kew York, when conquered from the Dntch in 1S84; for the En^^iah
held it, though acquired by oonqaest from the Dntch, not by that title merely, bat
by the prior right of discovery. But if he was in eiror on that point, yet, when the
English acquired poesesmon of New York by force, in 1064, the charter gnnted in
that year to the Duke of York contained an explicit declsrstion of the king's will,
thst the laws of En^and ihonld be the established laws of the province, and this pot
an end to the operation of the Roman Dutch laws imparted from HoUattd. The
illustrations above alladed to, of the sovereign power of the conqueror over the laws
of the conquered couutrlea, appears in the case of the northern barbariauB who over-
ran the south of Europe during the &th and 6th centuries. They neither adopted
their own laws entirely, nor retained those of th>^ conquered countries to their fall
extent. The Roman provincials were governed between themselves, as to their pas-
I See, on the firststateoientin note (a), 211 ; on the next, Lsitensdorfsr o. Webb,
United States v. Repentigny, 6 Wall 20 How. 17S.
[212]
MbyGoOl^lc
LBCJT. Tni.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. • 179
Tbe release of a territorj from the dominion and Bovereigntr
of the country, if that cession be the resnlt of coercion or con-
qoest, does not impose anj obligation upon the government to
indemnify those who may suffer a Iors of property by the ces-
sion, (x) The annals of New York furnish a strong illustration of
this position. The territory composing the State of Vermont be-
longed to this state ; and it separated from it, and erected itself
into an independent state, without the consent, and against the
will, of the government of New York. The latter continued for
many years to object to the separation, and to discover the
strongest disposition to reclaim by force the allegiance of the
inhabitants of that state. But they were unable to do it; and
it was a case of a revolution effected by force, analogous to that
which was then in action between this country and Great Britain.
And when New York found itself under the necessity of acknowl-
edging the independence of Vermont, a question arose before the
legislature, whether they were bound in duty to make compen-
sation to individual citizens whose property would be sacrificed
by the event, because their titles to land lying within the ju-
risdiction of Vermont, and derived from New York, would be
disregarded by the government of that state. The claimants
were heard at the bar of the house of assembly, by counsel, in
1787, and it was contended on their behalf that the state was
bound, upon the principles of the social compact, to protect and
defend the rights and property of all its members; and that
whenever it became necessary, upon grounds of public expedi-
ency and policy, to withdraw the protection of govern-
ment • from the property of any of its citizens, without • 179
teanotu uid penontl righto, by th« RomBn law ; the Salian FnakB, bf the Silio
Uw ; tb« FnDka of tha Rhine, by the Bipaaiian Uw ; the JJemuii end Sw«biui^
hr the Alemumic Uw ; ind the Lomhanla bj their own law. {Savigny'a Hist of th«
Boman law, i. ; and aee infra, iii. 491.) So the Hahometan oonqaerors of HindortaD
introduced their own Uw so far only as it affected the followers of Mahoniet, leaving
the conqaered Hindooe to ei^oj their owd lawe as between thenuelTes. There ii,
therefore, now in India one Uw for Enropruu and their descendants, another for
tbe Hindoos, and another for the Mahometans ; and these different laws hare been
adopted in India hy tha will of the English aoTereign, witbont any parliamentary
anthority. The conqaeat of Qibndtar, Trinidad, Ceylon, die Cape of Good Hope,
LouisiaDa, Ac, all show that the old Uwe remain, or the Uwi of the conquering
nation, in whole or in put, are Bnlwtitnted, at the inera will and pleaanre of the
{x) See Mtpro, 36, note («}■
■ [218]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 179 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT 1.
actnally making the utmost efforts to reclaim the jurisdiction
of the country, the state was bound to make compensatioQ for
the loss. In answer to this ailment, it was stated that Ha
independence of Vermont was an act of force beyond the power
of this state to control, and equivalent to a conquest of that ter-
ritory, and the state had not the competent ability to recover, by
force of arms, their sovereignty over it, and it wonld have been
folly and ruin to have attempted it All pacific means had been
tried without success ; and as the state was compelled to yield
to a case of necessity, it had discharged its duty ; and it was not
required, upon any of the doctrines of public law, or principles
of political or moral obligation, to indemnify the sufferers. The
cases in which compensation had been made for losses conse-
quent upon revolutions in government were peculiar and gratui-
tous, and rested entirely on benevolence, and were given from
motives of policy, or as a reward for extraordinary acts of loy-
alty and exertion. No government can be supposed to be able,
consistently with the welfare of the whole community, and it is,
therefore, not required to assume the burden of losses produced
by conquest, or the violent dismemberment of the state. It
would be incompatible with the fundamental principles of the
social compact.
This was the doctrine which prevailed ; and when the act of
July 14, 1789, was passed, authorizing commissioners to declare
the consent of the state to the independence of Vermont, it was
expressly declared that the act was not to be construed to give
any person claiming lands in Vermont, imder title from this
state, any right to any compensation whatsoever from New York.
[214]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. IX.J 0? THE LAW OP NATIONS.
LECTURE IX.
OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS.
The Tiolation of a treaty of peace, or other national compaot,
is a Tiolatioii of the law of nationa : for it is a' breach of public
Uiib. (_ay Nor is it to be undeistood that the law of nations is a
oode of mere elementary speculation, without any efficient sanc-
tion. It has a real and propitious influence on the fortunes of the
hmnan race. It is a code of present, active, durable, and binding
obligation. As its great fundamental principles are founded in
the maxima of eternal truth, in the immutable law of moral ohli-
gatiou, and in the su^estions of an enlightened public interest,
they maintain a steady influence, notwithstanding the occasional
violence by which that influence may be disturbed. The law of
nations is placed under the protection of public opinion. It is
enforced by the censures of the press, and by the moral influences
of those great masters of public law, who are consulted by all
nations as oracles of wisdom ; and who have attained, by the mere
force of written reason, the majestic character, and almost the
authority, of universal lawgivers, controlling by their writings the
conduct of rulers, and laying down precepts for the governmeut
of mankind. No nation can violate public law, without being
subjected to the penal consequence of reproach and disgrace, and
without incurring the hazard of punishment, to be inflicted in
open and solemn war by the injured partyr The law of
'nations is likewise enforced by the sanctions of municipal *182
lav. It is, says Blackstone, (a) adopted in its full extent
by the common law of England ; and whenever any question
arises which is properly the subject of its jurisdiction, it is held
to be a part of the law of the land. The offences which fall more
immediately under its cognizance, and which are the most obvious,
the most extensive, and most injurious in their efl'ects, are the
(a) V»tlel, b. 2, c. 15, kc. 321 ; Rcwlutioii of Congreu of Norember 23. 1781.
(a) Comui. IT. 67; [anU, 1, n. 1.]
[216]
sObyGoOl^lc
•183 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.'
Tioktiona of safe-conduct, infringements of the rights of ambas-
sadors, and piracy. To these we may add the slave-trade, which
may now be considered, not, indeed, as a piratical trade, abso-
lutely unlawful by the law of nations, but as a trade condemned
by the general principles of justice and humanity, openly pro-
fessed and declared by the powers of Europe.
1. violation of PaHports. — A safeKiOuduct or passport contains
a pledge of the public &ith, that it shall be duly respected, and
the observance of this duty is essential to the character of ihe
government which granto it. The statute law of the United
States has provided, in furtherance of the general sanction of
public law, that if any person shall violate any safo-conduot or
passport, granted under the author!^ of tiie United States, he
shall, on conviction, be imprisoned not exceeding three years, and
fined at the discretion of the court. (6)
2. Violation of Ambauadoim. — The same punishment is inflicted
upon tliose peraons who infringe the law of nations by offering
violence to the persons of ambassadors and other public ministers,
or by being concerned in prosecnting or arrestiDg them or their
domestic servants. (<;) This is an offence highly injurious to a
free and liberal communication between different governments,
and mischievous in its consequences to the dignity and well-being
of the nation. It tends to provoke the resentment of the sov-
ereign whom the ambassador represents, and to bring upon the
state the calamities of war. The English Parliament, under an
impression of the danger to the community from violation of the
rights of embassy, and ui^ed by the spur of a particular occasion,
carried the provisions of the statute of 7 Anne, 0. 12, to a
*183 dangerous extent. That statute prostrated all the *safe-
guards to life, liberty, and property, which the wisdom ot
the English common-law had established. It declared, that any
person convicted of suing out or executing civil process, upon an
ambassador, or his domestic servants, by the oath of the party,
or of one witness, before the lord chancellor and the two chief
justices, or any two of them, might have such penaltaee and cor-
poral punishment inflicted upon him as the judges should think
(b) Act of Congreu, April 30, 1790, wc. 27. A foreign miniiter (aad ui kttacM
to* foreign legktion ie bqcIi) cannot vaive his privilege, for it belongs to h~
*ba lendi blm. United States n. Benner, 1 Baldw. 284 ; [ante, 39, n. 1.)
(c) Apt, mpra, aec. 25, 26.
[216]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. IX.] OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 184
fit The preamble to the statute contains a special and inflamed
recital of the breach of the law of nations which produced it, by
tlte arrest of the Russian Minister in the streets of London.
The Congress of the United States, during the time of the
American war, discovered great solicitude to maintain inviolate
the obligations of the law of nations, and to have infractions of
it punished in the only way that was then lawful, by the exercise
of the authority of the legislatures of the several states. They
recommended to the states to provide expeditions, exemplary, and
adequate punishment for the violation of safe-conducts or pass-
ports granted under the authority of Congress, to the subjects of
a foreign power in time of war; and for the commission of acts
of hostility against persons in amity or league with the United
States; and for the infractions of treaties and conventions to
vbich the United States were a party ; and for infractions of the
immunities of ambassadors and other public ministers, (a)
3. pinoT. — Piracy is robbery, or a forcible depredation on the
bi^ seas, without lawful authority, and done animo furandi, and
in the spirit and intention of universal hostility, (x) It is the ^
same offence at sea with robbery on land ; and all the writers on
the law of nations, and on the maritime law of Europe, agree in
diis definition of piracy. 0) Pirates have been regarded by all
civilized nations as the enemies of the human race, and the
most atrocious violators of the universal * law of society, (a) '184
They are everywhere pursued and punished with death,
and the severity with which the law has animadverted upon this
crime arises from its enormity and danger, the cruelty that accom-
panies it, the necessity of checking it, the difficulty of detection,
and the facility with which robberies may be committed upon
pacific traders in the solitude of the ocean. Every nation has a
(a) JoDnuklt of Congien, Tii. 181.
(i) Tbs Uniled Btstes v. Smith, E Whe&ton, 1S8, and not*, lb. 163.
(a) Cio. in Vermn, lib. G ; 8 loit. 113.
(z) Aa maritiiiie warian is tbs right of public anctioti to a bomtjide pnrcbuer,
•omeigni, and a depredation committed before proceeding! against her by tb*
npoo the higb aeaa withoat their aathoritj Crown, cannot afterwards be condemned
ia finey by the law of nations, naval oom- for earlier [uratical acta. B^. e. UuClar-
■linaat iaaned by those who wage war erty, L. B. S P. C. 673 ; tae Att-Gen. for
without recognition of belligerent rights Hong Kong *. Kwok-a-Sing, L. B. B P.
an Toid. The AmbriMe Light, 2S Fed. C. 17», IBS ; Coz v. Hakes, 13 A. C
Btp- 408. A ship which hu bten told at 606, 620.
[217]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 185 OP THE LAW OP NATIONB. [PABT I.
right to attack and exterminitte them withoat any declaration (^
var ; for though pirates may form a loose and temporary associa-
tion among themselves, and re-establish in some degree those
lawB of justice which they have violated with the rest of the
world, (6) yet they are not oonaidered as a national body, or
entitled to the laws of war, as one of the community of nations.
They acquire no rights by conquest; and the law of nations, and
the municipal law of every country, authorize the tme owner to
reclaim his property taken by pirates, wherever it oon be found;
and they do not recognize any title to be derived from an act of
piracy. The principle, that a piratii et latron^uB capUt domi-
nium non mutant, is the received opinion of ancient civilians and
modem writers on general jurisprudence ; and the same doctrine
was maintained in the English courts of common law, prior to
the great modem improvements made in. the science of tlie law
of nations, (c)
By the Constitution of tiie United States, Congress are [is]
authorized to define and punish piracies and felonies committed
on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations. In pur-
suance of this authority, it was declared, by the act of Gon-
• 185 gress of April 30, 1790, c. 9, sec, 8, that murder or • robberi-,
committed on the high seas, or in any river, haven, or bay .
out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, or any other offence
which, if committed within the body of ft county, would, by the
laws of the United States, be punishable with death, should be
adjudged to be piracy and felony, and punishable with death. It
was further declared, that if any captain or mariner should pirat-
ically and felonioiisly run away with any vessel, or any goods or
merchandise to the value of fifty dollars ; or should yield up any
such vessel voluntarily to pirates ; or if any seaman should forcibly
endeavor to hinder his commander from defending the ship or
goods committed to his trust, or should make a revolt in the ship ;
every such offender should be adjudged a pirate and felon, and
be punishable with death, (a) Accessaries to such piracies before
(6) Cic de Off. 2, 11.
(<:) BTnk. Q. J. Pub. b. 1, e. 17; RathelfoItI^ b. S, c >; Azniii, iL 851, 361, 341,
•d. y. Y. ; Cro, Eliz. 68B ; Anon. 2 Wctodd. Lcc. 139. Pttipeitj roimd on beard >
pirata ship goM to the crown, of itrict right, te droiti of ths idmirait; ; hnl the
claim of the origiDal owner is admitted apoa equitable prinoiplM, on dne appljcation.
The HeleD, 1 Higg. Adm. 112.
(a) By the act of Congreu of March S, ISSB, e. 31S, tbe ofienoe of making ■
[218]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. IX.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. • 185
the fact are puaiBhable in like maoDer ; but acceBBaries after the
fact are only punishable by fine and impriaonment. And, by the
act of March 8, 1819, c. 76, sec. 5, CongreBS declared, that if
any person on the high seaa should comniit the crime of piracy,
at defined by the laa of natioTit, he should, on conviction, suffer
death. This act was but temporary in its limitation, and has
expired : but it was again declared, and essentially to tiie same
effect, by the act of Congresa of 15th May, 1820, c IIS, sec. 8,
that if any person, upon the high seas, or in any open roadstead,
or bay, or river, where the sea ebbs and flows, commits the crime
of robbery in and upon any Tessel, or the lading thereof, or the
crew, be shall be adjudged a pirate. So, if any person engaged
in any piratical enterprise, or belonging to the crew of any pirat*
ical vessel, should land and commit robbery on shore, such an
offender shall also be adjudged a pirate. The statute, in this
respect, seems to be only declaratory of the law of nations ; and
npon the doctrine of the case of lAndo v, Rodney, (h) such plun-
der and robbery ashore, by the crew, and with the aid of vessels,
is a marine case, and of admiralty jurisdiction. The statute
further declared, that the above provision was not to bo eon-
straed to deprive any particular state of its jurisdiction over such
offences when committed within the body of a county, or to
authorize the courts of the United States to try any such offend-
ers, after conviction or acquittance, for the same offence, in a
state court. '
Ttmlt in a ibip i* so Itmger ptudthabla u • c«pit«l ofienoe, bnt only by fine and tin*
pruoniDCDt at haid labor.
(i) Dong. 613, note.
' Sea the trial of Qie SaTBundi PriT*. nintrary to my treaty between the TJnited
teen, Kew Turk, 1 8fl2. It hu been made . States and the itate of which auch per-
felonj for officers or TD&rinen of Teasela Ma ia a citizen or entyect, where by such
on mten witbin the admiralty joria- treaty ancb acta of sach person are de-
■lictioD of the United States to piratically clared to be pintcj, ntay be punished in
or frionionaly ran away with tbe sMDe, or the circatt coart like other pratea. Act
*nj goods on board sDch Tessel to the of March S, lSi7, 9 U. 8. St. at L. e. CI,
tsIm of fifty doDara. Act of Aug. S, 1846, p^ 176. Moreover, TesMk bnilt, pQr-
B U. 8. St, at L. 0. 9S, S G, p. 73. So, any cbMsd, flttad ont, or held, for piratiosl
■nlgect M dti2en oi any foreign state, acts, may be seized and condemned,
who shall be fbnnd and taken on the sen, whether any act of piracy shall have
nuking war npon tbe United States, or been committed or attempted from snefa
cnising against the Tessels and property Teasel or not Act of Aug. 5, 1861, 13
ttwreof, or of the citizens of tbe same, U. S. St at L. c IS, p. 31(.
[219]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 186 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
* 186 * Under these le^slative provlBioiiB it has been made a
question, whether it was sufficient to refer to the law of
nations for a definition of piracy, without giving the crime a pre-
cise definition in terms. The point was settled in the case of tbe
United States v. Smith ; {a) and it was there held not to be neces-
sar; to give by statute a more logical enumeration in detail of
all the facts constituting the offence, and that Congress might as
well define it by using a term of a known and determined meaning,
as by expressly mentioning all the particulars included in that
term. The crime of piracy was defined by the law of nations with
reasonable certainty, and it does not depend upon the particular
provisions of any municipal code for its definition.and punish ment
Robbery on the high seas is, therefore, piracy by the act of Con-
gress, as well aa by the law of nations, {b)
There can be no doubt of the right of Congress to pass laws
punishing pirates, though they may be foreigners, and may have
committed no particular offence against the United States. It is
of no importance, for the purpose of giving jurisdiction, on wkom
or where a piratical offence baa been committed. A pirate, who
is one by the law of nations, may be tried and punished in any
country where be may be found ; for he is reputed to be out of
the protection of all laws and privileges, {c) The statute of any
government may declare an offence committed on board its own
vessels to be piracy, and such an offence will be punishable exclu-
sively by the nation which passes the statute. But piracy, under
the law of nations, is an offence against all nations, and punisba*
(a) C WhMton, IGS.
{b) In the caw of United SUtes v. Brig Hdek Adhel, 2 How. 210, it wu bold,
■ftar ui elaborate diacnuiou, that an act wu piratiod in tbe view of the law of Con-
gren of Harcli 3, 1819, & 77, if the act or acts done be hostile io their chancter,
and wanton and criminal in their commimioa, without any lawfiil unction, whether
committed for purposes of plunder, or for purposes of hatred, revenge, or a wanton
abuie of power, or a lawlen appetite for mischief. They are piratical aggnaaiona in
the eense of the law of uations aud of the act of Congress, BJid work a forfeiture of
the tkip, whether the owner be or be not innocent. He is, in that case, bound by the
•eta of the master. But the cargo presents a different coniidemtion, and it is not to be
forfeited under the act of Cougresa or the law of natioDs. except in cases of extiaor-
dinary turpitude and violence. In ordinary torta aud injuries the law admits of a
compeumtiou in damage*. If, however, the owner of the cargo co-opentea in the
piratical acta, the penalty of confiscation is also inflicted on the cargo ma well ai on
the ship. The more strict role is also enforced in the case of belligerent rights, and
the cargo follows the fate of the ship.
(c) Bynk. Q. J. Fub. b. 1, c. 17 ; Sir Leoline Jenkins, Works, i. 714.
[220]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. IX.} OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. * 187
ble by all.^ In the case of the United States v. Palmer, (d) it
was held that the act of Congrem of 1790 was intended to punish
ofFences against the United States, and not offences against the
human race ; and that the crime of robbery, committed by a per-
son who was not a citizen of the United States, on the high
Beas, on board of a ship belonging * exclusively to subjects * 187
of a foreign state, was not piracy under the act, and was
Dot punishable in the courts of the United States. The offence,
in such a case, must, therefore, be left to be punished by the
nation under whose flag the vessel sailed, and within whose par-
ticnlar jurisdiction all on board the vessel were. This decision
was according to the law and practice of nations ; for it is a clear
and settled principle, that the jurisdiction of every nation extends
to its own citizens, on board of its own public and private vessels
at sea. (a) The case applied only to the fact of robbery com-
mitted at sea, on board of a foreign vessel, at Hie time belonging
exclusively to subjects of a foreign state ; and it was not intended
to decide that the same offence, committed on hoard of a vessel
not belonging to the subject of any foreign power, was not piracy.
The same court afterwards, in the case of the United State* v.
Sliiaock, {&) admitted that murder or robbery, committed on the
high seas, by persons on board of a vessel not at the time belong-
ing to the subjects of any foreign power, bat in possession of a
crew acting in defiance of all law, and acknowledging obedience
b) no government or fiag whatsoever, fell within the purview of
the act of Congress, and was punishable in the courts of the
United States. Persons of that description were pirates, and
proper objects for the penal code of all nations. The act of Con-
gress did not apply to offences committed against the particular
sovereignty of a foreign power ; or to murder or robbery com-
mitted in a vessel belonging at the time, in fact as well as in
right, to the subject of a foreign state, and, in virtue of such
property, subject at the time to its control. But it applied to
offences committed against all nations, by persons who, by com-
[d) S Wbnton, SIO; United 8UtM v. EeMlar, 1 Baldw. 15, e. f.
{aj BntlMifortli, Inat b. 2, c B ; Ur. JAfferaoD'a Letter to M. OeDet, June 17,
1703.
(6) G Whaton, lU.
' Tha >baT« paange u sited KtA wid to Iw the Uw of England, In TfTnon's Cue,
t Bert a Sm. 640, anU, 87, Q. 1.
[221]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 189 OF THE LAW OF HATIOMS. [PABt I.
mon coiueDt, were equally amenable to the lavs of all
* 188 nations. * It vas further held, in the case of tiie Uniud
StaUB T. Piratet (a) and in the case of the United State* \.
Holme*, (b) in pursuance of the aame principle, that the moment
a vessel assumed a piratical character, and was taken from her
officers, and proceeded on a piratical cruise, she lost all claim to
national character, and the crew, whether citizens or foreigners,
were equally punishable, aader the act of Congress, for acta of
piracy; and it would be immaterial what was the national char-
acter of the vessel before she assumed a piratical character.
Piracy is an offence within the criminal jurisdiction of all nations.
It is against all and punished by all ; and the plea of autrefoit
ac^it, resting on a prosecution instituted in the courts of any
civilized state, would be a good plea in any other civilized state.
As the act of Congress of 1790 declares every offence committed
at sea to be piracy, which would be punishable with death if
committed on land, it may be considered as enlai^ng the defini-
tion of piracy, so as not only to include every offence which is
piracy by the law of nations and the act of Congress of 1819,
bvt other offences which were not piracy, until made so by
statute.
An alien, under the sanction of a national commission, cannot
commit piracy while he pursoes bis authority. His acts may be
hostile, and his nation responsible for thent They may amount
to a. lawful cause of war, but they are never to be regarded as
piracy, (a) The Barbary powers, notwithstanding some doubts
which formerly existed, are now, and for a century past hare
been, regarded as lawful powers, and not pirates. They have
ail the inaignia of regular, independent governments, and are
competent to maintain the European relations of peace and war.
Cicero, and, after him, Grotius, define a regular enemy to be a
power which hath the elements or constituents of a na-
* 189 tion, such * as a government, a code of laws, a national
treasury, the consent and agreement of the citizens, and
<a) lb. 18*. (M lb. *12.
(c) Muteiu, Enay on PiiTttcwt, truulatsd bj Home, 42 ; M*""'"g, Comm. Ill,
118. StatM gOQtnUly prohibit theii ■□^eeti from taliuig letten of marque tron a
fotaigu poirer, without ths penninioD of theiT (orereigii ; and tnatia an nuneroin
in which the contraetiiig parti«a stipulata, that if the snbjectt of either party take
bttan of marque from the enemiei of the other, they (ball be treatad ai pirataa.
[222]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. IX.] OP THE LAW OP NATI0S8. * 190
which pays a regard to treaties of peace and alliance ; (a) and
all these things, saja Bynkershoek, (b) are to he found among
the states of Barbarj. In some respects their lavs of war have
retained the barbarity of the middle ages, for they levy tribute
or contributions on all such Christian powers as are not able to
protect their commerce by force; and they also make slaves of
tiieir prisoners, and require a heavy ransom for their redemption.
But this, Bynkershoek insists, is conformable to the strict laws
of war; and the nations of Europe who carried on war with the
Barbary states, such as Spain, Naples, Holland, &e., have here-
tofore exercised the same rule of ancient warfare, upon the prin-
ciple of retaliation. When Lord Ezmouth, in 1816, attacked)
Algiers, and compelled tbe Dey to terms of peace, he compelled'
him also to stipulate, that, in the event of future wars with any,
European power, no Christian prisoners of war should be con-
signed to slavery, but they should be treated with all humanity
as prisoners of war, until regularly exchanged, according to the
European practice; and at the termination of hostilities the
prisoners should be restored without ransom. By that treaty
of peace upward of 1000 prisoners belonging to Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Holland, and Greece were released from galling sla-
very, and in which part of them had subsisted for thirty-
five years. This stipulation * in favor of general humanity * 190
deserves some portion of that exalted eulogy bestowed by
Monteeqoien (a) on the treaty made by Gelon, King of Syracuse,
with the Carthaginians. It would have been still more worthy
of a comparison, if it bad not left color for the construction that
the renunciation, by the Dey of Algiers, of the practice of con-
demning Christian prisoners of war to slavery was to be confined
to the " event of future wars with any European power ; " and if
(a> Cic. Philip. 1, & 6 ; Orotda*, b. S, o. S, nc. 1.
ifi) Q, J. PDb. Iki 1, c. 17. A flTATi, in the mouiiiig of public law, la » eompleta
Br •«II«ilGci«it bodj of panotu, nnited together in one commimity, for the defence
of their rigbti, uid to do right to foreignen. A «t>te ha* ita afiiin utd intereits ; it
delibentn, uid bocomea ■ moral person, havinj; an nnderatanding and will, and ia
RK«ptibl« of obligationa and lawa. Orotina, b. 1, c 1, aac. 11 ; ib. b. S, c S, bm. 2 ;
Bnilamaqai, ii pt. 1, o. i, mc. 6; Tattel, h. 1, c 1. Seapablica «Bt coetua mnltitu-
tinia, jnria conaenaa et ntilitatia onrnmnnione aooiatna. Cic de Bepnb. lib. 1, aao. Sfi.
n« SbUa is foanded on the niationa of right. Protection ia ita aim and object, and
that protection ia bat another woid for jnatioe, or the obtaining and granting to everj
neUadiM. Lajnatice eonatitn^ o'ast Vftat (CoiiBin)^ Idebei, PolltLcal Ethica, L
(a) Eqnit dea Ltrii, b. 10, e. S.
[228j
;abyG00<^lc
• 191 ■ OF THE LAW OF KATI0N8. [PABT I.
a. great Chnstian power on this side of the Atlantic, whose pres-
ence and whose trade are constantly seen and felt in the Medi-
terranean, had not seemed to have been entirely forgotten. (&)
Bnt notwithstanding Bynkershoek had insisted, near a century
ago, that captures by the Barbary powers worked a change of
property by the laws of war, in like manner as captures made by
regular powers, yet, in a case in the English admiralty so late
as 1801, (c) it was contended that, the capture and sale of an
English ship by Algerines was an invalid and unlawful conver-
sion of the property, on the ground of being a piratical seizure.
It was, however, decided that the African states had long ac-
quired the character of established governments, and that though
their notions of justice differ from those entertained by the Chris-
tian powers, their public acts could not be called in question;
and a derivative title founded on an Algerine capture, and
matured by a confiscation in their way, was good against the
original owner. In the time of Richard I., when the laws of
Olerou were compiled, all infidels were, by that code, (tf)
regarded as pirates, and their property liable to seizure wherever
found. It was a notion, at that time, that such persons could
not have any fellowship or communion with Christians.
• 191 • In a case which occurred in 1675, Sir Leoline Jenkins
held that the commander of a privateer regularly commis-
sioned was liable to be treated as a pirate, if he exceeded the
bounds of his commission. Bynkershoek justly opposes this dan-
gerous opinion ; (a) and the true rule undoubtedly is, that the
vessel must have lost its national, and assumed a piratical
character, before jarisdiction over it, to that extent, could be
exercised.
If a natural-bom subject was to take prizra belonging to his
native country, in pursuance of a foreign commission, he would,
on general principles, be protected by his commission from the
charge of piracy. But to prevent the mischief of such condact,
the United States have followed the provisions of the English
statute of 11 &, 12 Wm. III. c. 7, and the general practice of
other nations, (b) and have, by the act of Congress of April 30,
(i) Dsdantion of Um D^ of Algiers, nude with Lord Ezmovtli, Aogoat 3S, 181S.
Annul Kflglfter for ISIS, >pp. to Chronicle, £88.
<c) Tlie HbIbiu, * C. Bab. S. [d) Sec 46.
(a) Q. J. Pab. b. 1, o. 17. {b) Vid* *upn, 100.
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. II.] OP THE LAW OP NATIONB. • 192
1790, sec. 9, declared, that if any citizen should commit any act
of hostility ^aioat the United States, or any citizen thereof,
apon the high seas, under color of any commiasion from any
foreign prince or state, or on pretence of authority from any per-
son, such offeqder shall be adjudged to be a pirate, felon, and
robber, and, on being thereof convicted, shall suffer death. The
act of Congress not only authorizes a capture, but a condemnation
in the courts of the United States, for all piratical agressions
by foreign vessels; and whateTer maybe ihe responsibility in-
cnrred by the nation to foreign powers, in executing such laws,
there can be no doubt that courts of justice are bound to obey
and administer them. All such hostile and criminal aggressions
on the high seas, under the flag of any power, render property
taken tn delicto subject to confiscation by the law of nations, {e)
4. SUv*-tnd«. — The African slave-trade is an offence against
the municipal laws of most nations in Europe, and it is declared
to be piracy by the statute laws of England and the
* United States. Whether it is to be considered as an * 192
offence against the lav of nations, independent of com-
pact, (x) has been a grave question, mncb litigated in the courts
charged with the administration of public law; and it will be
useful to take a short view of the progress and present state of
Qie sense and practice of nations on this subject
Personal slavery, arising out of forcible captivity, has existed
in every age of the world, and among the most refined and civil-
iied people. The possession of persons so acquired has been
invested with the character of property. Captives in war were
sold as slaves by Greek and Roman commanders. The slave-
trade was a regular branch of commerce among tbe ancients ; and
a great object of Athenian traffic with the Greek settlements
on the Enxine was procuring slaves from the barbarians for the
Greek market (a) In modem times, treaties have been framed,
(e) Sfanr, J., 11 Wlicitoti, S»-41.
{a) Hitfoid, Hiat. It. 2M. Cattle and ilaTea oonstitated Ilia principal rieliaa of
(z) The ilaTe-trada appear* to be now G7, 1S8 ; and the Proclamation, by the
pinc7 jan getUiuiai, contrary to Eha earlier Preaident of the United St&tca of July 2,
nk. Le Lonia, S Dod«. 21D. It waa to iseo (27 St. at L. 886), of the general act
tnated in the Treaty at 18S9 between for the repreadon of the alave-trade in
(heat Britain and Italy, See SI Sevne AMca by clnli^ed iwtioiia.
da Droit Jntematioiial, 167, 602 ; 22 id.
VOi-I. — 10 [2251
;abyG00<^lc
• 193 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAET I.
and national monopolies Bougbt, to facilitate and extend com-
merce in this species of propert;. {b) It has been interwoven
in the municipal institutions of all the European colonies
in America, and with the approbation and sanction of the
parent states. It forma to this day the foundation of large
masses of property in the southern parts of these United States.
But, for half a centur; past, the African slave-trade began
to awaken a spirit of remorse and sympathy in the breasts of
men, and a conTiction that Ihe traffic was repugnant to Ute
principles of Christian duty, and the maxims of justice and
humanity.
Uontesquieu, who has disclosed so many admirable truths and
so much profound reflection, in his Spirit of Laws, not only con-
demned all slavery as useless and unjust,, but he animadverted
upon the African stave-trade by the most pungent reproaches.
It was impossible, he observed, that we could admit the negroes
to be human beings, because if we were once to admit
* 198 them to be men we should * soon come to believe that we
ourselves were not Christians. Why has it not^ says he,
entered into the heads of European princes who make so many
useless conventions, to make one general stipulation in favor of
humanity ? (a) We shall see presently tJiat this suggestion was,
in some degree, carried into practice by a modem European
congress.
the early agtt of Greece. The Byzsntinee, nyi Polyhliu (OsnenI HlBtoi^, h. t,
c. S), aupplisd, from the PoDtuj, ths Grceki with honey, wtx, salted meata, leather,
and great uumitn of very lennaabU ilaves. It u mootioiied in Scriptara tliat A*
Tyrisus tnded with the Caucuian proTiueea for alarea : " JaTan, Tubal, and
Meahech traded the peraoni of men and vessela of bran in thy market," Enk.
xzTiL 13 : and that they itole the children of the Jews, and sold them a* elaTea t*
the Greeks, Joel iiL fl. So the Corthagiciani exchanged black alaTee fniin the
interior of Africa, in their commerce and barter irith the dtia of Italy aad Gmc*.
The gnat extent of the alsve-trade, which vai carried on by the poliahsd natiani of
antiqaity aettled on the coaata of the Mediterranean, with Central Africa, by mtaat
of canTMiB, appean from Heeren in hi» Historical Researches, i., on the land trade
of the Carthigiciuis.
{I) By the Assiento Treaty of Harch SB, 1713, between Great Britain and Spain,
the letter paver granted to the Eni^isb South Sea Company, tor thirt; yean, the
right of supplying the Spanish colonies in America witli negro slaves, at the nte ol
4800 aoDuelly. Thii Aasiento conttao; mu eipbuned snd confirmed by a conrentioa
between England and Spain, in May, 1710. A similar contract had been prerionsly
agreed on by Spain with the Boyal Oninea Company settled in France. Jenkins
Collection of Treatiea, London, 1776, L S76 ; iL ITS.
(d) Esprit dee Lois, L IG, c. 6.
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. IX.] OF THE LAV OF NATIONS. * 194
The Constitution of the Uuited States laid the foundation of
a series of provisions to put a final stop to the progress of this
great moral pestilence, by admitting a power in Congress to pro-
hibit the importation of slaves after the expiration of the year
1807. The Constitution evidently looked forward to the year
1808 as the commencement of an epoch in the history of- human
improvement. Prior to that time, Congress did alt on this subject
that it was within their competence to do. (b) By the acts of
March 22, 1794, and May 10, 1800, the citizens of the United
States, and residents within them, were prohibited from enga^ng
in the transportation of slaves from the United States to any
foreign place or country, or from one foreign country or place to
another, for the purpose of traffic These provisions prohibited
our citizens from all concern in the slave-trade, with the excep-
tion of direct importation into the United Statfis ; and the most
prompt and early steps were taken, within the limits of the Gon-
stitotion, to interdict also that part of the traffic. By the act of
2d March, 1807, it was prohibited, under severe penalties, to
import slaves into the United States after the Ist January,
1808; and, on the 20th April, -ISIS, the penalties and •194
panishments were increased, and the prohibition extended
not only to importation, but generally against any citizen of the
United States being concerned in the slave-trade. It has been
decided (a) that these statute prohibitions extend as well to
carrying slavea on freight, as to cases where they were the prop-
erty of American citizens, and to carrying them from one port to
another of the same foreign empire, as well as from one foreign
conntry to another. The object was to prevent, on the part of
our citizens, all concern whatever in such a trade.
The act of March 8, 1819, went a step further, and author-
{i) The contiiunitBt congresa, which assemhled st Philadelphia in 177i, gave the
£nt general and authoritatiTe condemDatioi] of the slave-trade by the resolution not
to import or purchaae any slaTO imported after the first day of December, in that
year, and wholly to diacontioae the trade. Jonrnals of Congrese, i S2. The cod-
TEction of delegstea of the people of Viiginia, and the proTincUl congresa of North
CaroliiM, had anticipated thia msBsare ; for in Augnat preceding they reiolred to
diaoontinae the importation of alana. Ktkin, History, L App. n. 10 ; Jones, DefcDce
cf the B«To]ationary History of North CaroliDa, 145.
(a) Tlw Merino, B Wheston, 391. The declaratians of the mastm coanected with
Ida acts in fnrtberaDce of the voyage hare been held to be etidence on an indiotniBnt
a^inat the owner ol the ship, under the act of SOth April, ISIS. United States v.
Gooding, 12 Wbeaton, 4S0.
£2271
;abyG00<^lc
* 195 OP THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PABT I.
ized national armed vessels to be sent to the coast of Africa to
stop the slave-trade so far as citizens or resideote of the United
States were engaged in that trade ; and their vessels and effects
were made liable to seizure and confiscation. The act of 15th
Hay, 1820, (5) went still further, and declared, that if any citizen
of the United States, being of the crew of any foreign vessel
engaged in the slave-trade, or any person whatever, bein^ of the
crew of any vessel owned in whole or in part, or navigated for
or on behalf of any citizen of the United States, should land on
any foreign shore, and seize any negro or mulatto, not held to
service or labor by the laws of either of the states or territories
of the United States, with intent to make him a slave ; or should
decoy, or forcibly bring or receive, such person on board such
vessel with like intent; or should forcibly confine or detain on
board any negro or mulatto, not lawfully held to service, with
intent to make him a slave ; or should, on board any such vessel,
oSer to sell as a slave any negro or mulatto, not held to service
as aforesaid ; or should, on the high seas, or on any tide water,
transfer or deliver over, to any other vessel, any such negro or
mulatto, with intent to make him a slave, or should deliver on
shore, from on board any such vessel, any negro or mulatto, with
like intent, such citizen or person should be adjudged a pirate,
and, on conviction, should suffer death.
It is to be observed that the statute operates only where our
municipal jurisdiction might be applied, consistently wiOi the
general theory of public law, to the persons of our citizens, or te
foreigners on board of American vessels. Declaring the
• 195 crime piracy does not make it so, within the ■ purview of
the laws of nations, if it were not so without the statute;
and the legislature intended to legislate only where they had
a right to legislate, over their own citizens and vessels. The
question, notwithstanding these expressions in the statute, still
remained to be discussed and settled, whether the African slave-
trade could be adjudged piracy, or any other crime, within the
contemplation of the code of international law. It has been
attempted; by negotiation between this country and Great Bri-
tain, to agree that both nations should consider the slave-trade
piratical ; but the convention for t^at purpose between the two
nations has not as yet been ratified, though the British nation
(») a 118, lec t, G.
;abyGoO<^lc
UCr. n.] OP THE LAW OF MATlOSft * 195
have carried their statute denunciation of the trade as far as the
law of the United States, (a) ^
The first British statute that declared the eUve-trade unlawful
vas in March, 1807. (6) ThiB was a great triumph of British
justice. It was called for by the sense of the nation, which had
become deeply convinced of the impolicy and injustice of the
Blave-trade ; and by the subsequent statute of 51 Geo. III. the
trade was declared to be contrary to the principles of justice,
humanity, and Boond policy ; and lastly, by the act of Parliament
of Blat March, 1824, the trade is declared to be piracy, (c) Eng-
land is thus, equally with the United States, honestly and zeal-
ously engaged in promoting the universal abolition of the trade,
and in holding out to the world her sense of its extreme crimi-
nality. Almost every maritime nation in Europe has deliberately
and solemnly, either by legislative acts, or by treaties and other
formal engagements, acknowledged ihe injustice and inhomanity
of the trade, and pledged itself to promote its abolition. By the
treaty of Paris of the 80th May, 1814, between Great Britain
and France, Louis XVIII. agreed that the traffic was repugnant
to the principles of natural justicej and he engaged to unite his
efforts at the ensuing congress to induce all the powers of Chris-
fa) All thoM *cta of CoDgraw ftpply ucltuiTBl7 to external eomiaeice in alareiL
The itUmial eammercg irltbin Che ITnitod States in alaves ia left to the coatrol tud
dveretioii of tbe itate goTeTDmgntg ; and ths Northeni States, whieb hare aboliibed
ilam;, admit of no internal commerce in slavee within their respective atatea. It
imat to in tbe alareholdinn state*. Some of them permit a traffic in slavea as he-
tvetn dtiiens of difforent itatea ; bnt in Uu7land, as early na 1796, it was declared
bj law to be nnlawfnl to import or bring into tbe state, bj land or water, any slave
far Mia or to reside within tbe state ; and ever? slave brooght in contrary to the
Matnte was declared to be free. And in the Constitution of Uiaaisaippi of 1B3S, the
introduction of slaves into the state as merchandise, or for sale, was prohibited,
though actual settlen were allowed tintil 18U to pnrchue slaves &om an; state in
the Union, and bring tbem into that state for tbeir individual oae.
|i) Slat. 47 Oeo. HI. Denmark abolished, in 1762, the foreign slave-tiade, and
the importation of sIlvm into her coloniee, tbongb tbe probibitions were not to take
■fleet BBtil 1804. Wheaton, Inquiry into the Right of Search, 1842.
(e) But. S Geo. IT. c US. The statute of 8 and 4 Wm, IV, c. 73, for the extinc-
tkn of ilavery, has some new and important penal provisions respeoting the dealing
in ilavss on tbe high seas, nr an; traffic in them ; and the statnte of 1 Tict. o. 91, t
wall as the pieeeding statute, repeated tbe declaration, that Britieh subjecta con-
tamed in the Blave-tr*de should be adjudged pirates, and punishable accordingly.
' Tbt abolition of slavery in tiie United stitution makee it unnecessary to ftuiher
Stats* by tbe 18th amendment of the Con- inTestJgata this snbJFct.
;abyG00<^lc
• 196 OF THE LAW OP NATIONS. [PAST I.
*196 tendom *to decree the abolitioD of the trade, and that it
should cease .definitively, on the part of the French gor-
ernmeDt, in the course of five years. The ministers of the eight
principal European povers, who met in Congress at Vienna on
the 8th February, 1815, solemnly declared, in the face of Europe
and the world, that the African slave-trade had been regarded,
by just and enlightened men, in all ages, as repugnant to the
principles of humanity and of universal morality, and Uiat the
public voice in all civilized countries demanded that it should be
suppressed ; and that the universal abolition of it was conformable
to the spirit of the age and the generous principles of the allied
powers. In March, 1815, the Emperor Napoleon decreed that
the slave-trade shoald be abolished ; but this effort of ephemeral
power was afterwards held to be null and void, as being the act
of an naurper ; and in July following, Louis XYIII. gave direc-
tions that this odious and wicked traffic should from that present
time cease. The first French decree, however, that was made
public, abolishing the trade, was of the date of the 8th January,
181T, and that was only a partial and modified decree, {a) ■ In
(a) Bj Vat oonventiini betwaan GT««t Brituii uid Fnnce, of the SOtb Norembn,
IStl, tha uiDttul Tight of search wu allowed on board the Tesaela of each of the tin
□atiotia, within certain apedfted water*, L e. aloDg the wcateru coeat of Abie* fiwn
Cape Terd, or 16 degraea north latitude, to 10 degreea south of the equator, — ill
arottod the blaod of Hadagasear to the extent of 20 leagnee from the island, — to the
same dlst&DCe from the coasts of Brazil, ud from the ooaata of the islands of Cuba
and Porto Rim ; the right of searching merchant nuala to he confined to ships of
war, nadar special authority ftom each of the two gorernment*, and never to he eiir-
eiaed upon the ahipe of war of either uation. The United 3tataa have refuaed to be-
coma a party to any convantion authoridug the mntnal right o£ •eareh, and Fnncs
afterwards refoaed to ntifjr the treaty of 1841, conoeding tb* mntnal ri^t of search.
Vidt tiBpra, 1 B3. The afforta and the failars of the eOorts to sanction the mutoil
right of seaxcb, In respect to the alaye-trade, form an fnatmctlve item in models
diplomado history. In ISIS, the British goTcrument proposed to Franca the nmtail
right of searoh of merohant Teaaela on the high seaa, with a riaw t« the moi* cBiictDal
suppression of the slsTe-trade, and which had been conceded by Spain, Portugal, and
the Netherlands. The proposition waa at the same time made to the United Slates,
and rejected by both powers. In Norember of th&t year, the British goramaient
proposed to the oongrest of the fire great powers, at Aii-la-Chapalle, the following
propoaitiODS ; (1.) The mutual right of aearch of merchant Teasela angagod in the
alBTO-tisdei (2.) The dedanttion that the slave-trads was [niaoy, under the law of
nations. Both propoaitionB were rejected on the part of France, Anatria, Prussis,
and BnasU. Hie pcopositioiis were renewed at the congress at Yeron*, in 1S2S, bat
without success. Afterwards, in ISil, the mntnal right of search waa ooncedod by
the northern BoropMUi powers, parties to the Qnintapl* Treaty, as see n^To, 161.
Though the goremment of the United State* ha* uniformly otgeeted to the a
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. II.] OF THE LAW OF NATI0M8. • 196
December, 1817, the SpaniBfa goTemment prohibited the purchase
of Blares on &ny part of the coast of Africa, after the 81st of
May, 1820; and this was in pursuance of the treaty between
Great Britain and Spain of the 23d September, 1817, made for
the abolition of the slave-trade immediately, north of the equator,
uid entirely, after 1820. In January, 1818, the Portuguese gov-
ernment made the like prohibition as to the purchase of slaves on
any part of the coast of Africa north of the equator. In 1821,
there was not a flag of any European state which could legally
cover this traffic, to the north of the equator ; and yet, in 1825,
the importation of slaves covertly continued, if it was not openly
countenanced, from the Bio de la Plata to the Amazon, and
throu^ the whole American Archipelago, (b)
ot tb« lig^t of vidteliotL tud March, in time ot pe«M, evou in mpsct to Qu Africao
dan-tnde, 7at thuj »gntd, in fhrtheranca of efficimt mtUDTea for it> mppKacian,
bjtlw tnttj of WuhiugtoD, in 1842, with Gi«*t Brituo, that Muih putj ihoold
"prspue, equip, mi muntkin in Mrvice, on the eoaet of Africa, ■ infficiect and ade-
qatta eqnadnia, or tuiTal fore« of venela, of anitable number* and dMcriptions, to
eurj, in all, not len thu eightj gum, to enforce, eejianitelj and reapectiTely, the
ixwt, right*, and obligationi of each of the two countriea, for the enppreeeiou of the
dare-trade, — the said sqaadroat to be iudepaudint of each other; hot the two
IDTanmente etipalating, nererthelssa, to give such ordera to the officera commaiidiiig
tbOT rcapeotiTC forcea ai ahall enable then most effectoaUy to act in concert and
OHipeiatiQn, upon mutual consultation, aa ezigeiiciea may ariae, "
(i) Heport of a CommittM of the IIoqm of Bepi«««Qtativgs of the Uuited Statea,
Tebnur; IS, 1826. See alio the Qnarterlj Hqvimr, No. 88 and No. 89, pp. 248-S4fl ;
Alieon'a fiiihny of Enrope, *L 128, 129, and the Engliih pwrliimantar; diacuMious
and doenmenta. It appeara that the AlHcan ilaTB-trade waa carried on to au enoi-
nona extent down to the Tear 1889. The trade waa prineipally between Africa, ind
Brazil and Cab*. lu 1S28, 4C,000 African alarea were imported into the citj of Eio
JmairD. But by a conrantion between England and Brazil, in ISSfi, it was made
liiatieal lor the tatijeet* of Brazil to be engaged in the trade after the year 1830 ;
and it i( nnderatood tiiat the goremmeDt of Brazil, in 1881, not only pnt a atop by
k« to the impoitatioit of ilavM, but declared that all ilaTea thereafter imported
iboold be free, and impoaed a heavy aatewment on the importers, and provided for
&i tiuiiportation of such negroea hack to Africa. In the treaty eondoded lOth 8ap-
tenlcr, 18SS, between Great Britain and the Imann of Hoacat, the Utter agreed to
•boliah the foreign slave-trade forever in hla dominions. So, by the treaty of the 2Sd
ofOetober, 1817, betwaen Or«at Britain and Badama, king of Madagascar, it waa
■gned that there should be, throaghont all the dominions of the king of Madagascar,
•D SDtira eeasation of the sale or transfer of ilaves. And in the treaty of commerce
end navigation between Great Britain and the United Provinces of Rio de la Flala,
febraaiy 2, 132G, it wai agreed br the latter to prohibit all pereons, subject to its
jniadiction, by the moat aolemn laws, &om taking any shatc in the slave-trade ; and
Jit it waa (tated by Ugh aathoiity in the British Parliament, May, 18S8, as a matter
of [let, and agnad to altenraids in an sddrats to the Qoeen, that notwithstanding
[231]
50byGoO>^lc
* 198 OF THE LAT OP NATIONS. [PART 1.
* 197 * The case of the Amedie (a) wae the earliest decision
in the English courts on the great qaestion touching the
legality of the slave-trade, on general principles of international
law. That was the case of an American vessel, employed in carry-
ing slavee from the coast of Africa to a Spanish colony. She was
captured by an English cruiser, and the vessel and cargo were
condemned to the captors, in a vice-admiralty court in the West
Indies, and on appeal to the court of appeals in England the
judgment was affirmed. Sir William Grant, who pronomiced
the opinion of the court, observed that the slave-trade being
abolished by both England and the United States, the court wae
authorized to assert, that the trade, abstractly speaking, could
not have a legitimate existence, and was, prima facie, illegal upon
principles of universal law. The claimant, to entitle him to res-
titution, must shoT affirmatively a right of property under the
municipal laws of his own country ; for, if it be unprotected by
his own municipal law, he can have no right of property in human
beings carried as his slaves, for such a claim is contrary to the
principles of justice and humanity. The Fortuna (b) was con-
demned on the authority of the Amedie, and the same
*198 opinion was again affirmed. But in the subsequent 'case
of the Diana, {a) the doctrine was not carried so far by
Lord Stowell, as to hold the trade itself to be piracy, or a crime
against the law of nations. A Swedish vessel was taken by a
aU die efforts of Qreat Britain to put down the ikTe-tnde, it ttill cantina«d, Httk
dimiuiahBd in oxteut, and much aggraTsted in horror. Portugal was tbe priadlial
offender. . What waa ones a legal had beoome now a ooDtraband tnffic She hid
qntematieally and groealy rioUted hor treaty eagagetnenta on that anlgecL Ss«
1B29, there had been IGS FortugDeM veieela aeiied aa alaren, coDtainiug apwirdi
of 168,000 slaTea, and Portngal bad, dnce that period, tnnaported a tnilliea of alana.
This enormooa abuae indacad EogUnd, in I83S, to aathoriie bj law the forcitda
eiamination and aearch of Teeaeli anapected to be conoemed in tbat trade. Tb*
British Miniatar, Sir Enbort Peel, stated in the Houm of Cotnniona, in July, 1S44,
that Spain and Brazil were the two powers chargeable with the whole reaponsibiliCy
of the continuance of the slaTe-trade, and that the island of Cnba was in a precaiioui,
if not a periloua poaition, (him the Mttled determination of ber black population to
tuuuicipate themselTes ; and it ia atated, on strong authority, that the English effort
to pat down the alave-ttede by an armed force of British erniseta on the coast of
AfKcs has increased the horron of the sUre-ttade, withont materially diminiahing
it* amount. See Hill's NarratiTe of ilfty Days on Board a SUTe-Ship^ Sir F. Buxton
on African Slave-Trade, and tha other document* nfemd to and diacnaaad in Weat-
minater Review for June, 1844, p. 446, kc.
(a) 1 Acton, 240. {h) 1 Doda. SI. (u) 1 Doda. 06.
;abyG00<^lc
lECT. IX.] OF THE LAW OF NATIONS. * 199
British cmiser on the coast of Africa, engaged in canying slavea
from Africa to a Svedifth island iu the West Indies, and she
was restored to the owner, on the ground that Sweden had not then
prohibited the trade, and bad tolerated it in practice. England
had abolished the trade as unjust and criminal, but she claimed
no ri^t of enforcing that prohibition against the subjects of
Uioee states which had not adopted the same opinion; and Eng-
land did not mean to set herself up as the legislator, and cuatoB
fflorwx, for the whole world, or presume to interfere with the
commercial regnlationa of other states. The principle of the case
of the Amedie was, that where the mnnicipal law of the country
to which the parties belonged had prohibited the trade, English
tribunals would hold it to be illegal, upon general principles of
justice and humanity, but they would respect the property of
persons engaged in it under the sanction of the laws of their own
country.
The doctrine of these cases is, that the slave-trade, abstractly
speaking, is immoral and unjust, and it is illegal, when declared
80 by treaty or municipal law ; but that it is not piratical or ille-
gal by ttie common law of nations, because if it were so, every
claim founded on the trade wonld at once be rejected everywhere
and in every court, on that ground alone.
The whole subject underwent further, and a most full, elabo-
rate, and profound discussion, in the case of Le Lovit. (&) '
A French vessel, owned and documented as a FreDcb vessel, was
captured by a British armed force on the coast of Africa, after
resistance made to a demand to visit and search. She was
carried into Sierra Leone, and condemned by a court of
vice-admiralty, for being concerned • in the slave-trade, • 199
contrary to the French law. On appeal to the British High
Court of Admiralty, the question respecting the legality of the
capture and condemnation was argued, and it was judicially
decided, that the ri^t of visitation and search, on the high seas,
did not exist in time of peace. If it belonged to one nation,
it equally belonged to all, and would lead to gigantic mischief
and universal war. Other nations had refused to accede to the
(i) 2 Dodi. 310.
I Bnron v. Denmui, S Exeh. 1S7. 8m Sutm v. Illidgc, 0 G. B. k. i. 841 ; ■. O.
Ttnerttd, B C. B. n. i. 861.
[288]
;abyGoO<^lc
* 200 O? THE LAW OP MATIOHS. [PASI L
ElngUsh proposal of a reciprocal right of search in the Africaii
seas, and it vould require an express convention to give the
right of search in time of peace. The slave-trade, though
unjust, and condemned by the statute lav of England, was not
piracy, nor was it a crime by the aniversal law of nations. To
make it piracy, or such a crime, it must have been so considered
and treated in practice by all civilized states, or made so by
virtue of a general convention. On the contrary, it had been
carried on by all nations, even by Great Britain herself, until
within a few years, and was then carried on by Spain and Portugal,
and not absolutely prohibited by France. It was, therefore, not
a criminal traffic by the law of nations ; and every nation, inde-
pendent of treaty, retained a legal right to carry it on. No one
nation had a right to force the way to the liberation of Africa,
by trampling on the independence of other states ; or to procure
an eminent good by means that were unlawful ; or to press for-
ward to a great principle, by breaking through other great
principles that stood in the way. The condemnation of the
French vessel at Sierra Leone was, therefore, reversed ; and the
penalties impraed by the French law (if any there were) were
left to be enforced, not in an Bnglish, but in a French court.
The same subject was brought into discussion in the King's
Bench in 1820, in Madrtao v. WilU9. (a) The court held, that the
British statutes against the stave-trade were only applicable
* 200* to British subjects, and only rendered the slave-trade
unlawful when carried on by them. The British Parlia-
ment could not prevent the subjects of other states from carrying
on the trade out of the limits of the BriKsh dominions. If a ship
be acting contrary to the general law of nations, she is thereby
subject to condemnation; but it is impossible to say that the
slave-trade was contrary to the law of nations. It was, until
lately, carried on by all the nations of Europe ; and a practice
so sanctioned can only be rendered illegal, on the principles of
international law, by the consent of all the powers. Many states
had so consented, but others had not, and the cases had gone no
further than to establish the rule, that ships belonging to conn-
tries that had prohibited the trade were liable to capture and
condemnation, if found engaged in it.
The final decision of the question in this country has been the
<a} S B. ft AkL 3GS.
[284]
;abyG00<^lc
LICT. TX.'] OF THB LAW or NATIONS. * 200
same as in the case of Lt LouU. In the case of La Jeune
Svginie, (a) it was decided, in the Circuit Court of the United
States, in Massachusetts, after a masterly discussion, that
the elave-trade was prohibited by universal taw. But snbse-
qnentlj, in the case of the Antelope, {b) the Supreme Court of
the United States declared that the slave-trade, though contrary
to the law of nature, had been sanctioned, in modem times, by
the laws of all nations who possessed distant colonies; and a
trade conld not be considered as contrary to t^e law of nations
vhich had been authorized and prot«cted by the usages and laws
of all commercial nations. It was not piracy, except so far as it
was made so by the treaties or statutes of the nation to which
tiie party belonged. It might still be lawfully carried on by the
BubjectB of th(»e nations who had not prohibited it by municipal
acts or treaties, (e)
(a) S Huou, MB. [») 10 Wheitou, fl3.
(c) The dootrine in Um cue of tite Antelope, and in tiie Engliih cuee thereiii
nfand ia, ii, tlikt ri^t of bringiiig in tin a^inilioaliou, in time of peace, foraign
tnmIi engaged in the alsTe-trade, tnd captoied on the liigh aeaa for Uut oanie, did
BOt niit ; and Tcaaeli bo captured would h« reetored, nnleea the ttado ma alao
■alawfnl, and prohihited by the oountry to which tiia veasel belonged ; and if a
ibba be pnt In for Afrioani as ilavee and property, the (mm prtfAoMlt ii thrown npon
the claimant to make (pedfle proof of the individnal proprietaiy intanct aooording
to file Inn of tlie wnairj to which the reaMl belonga.
[2863
sObyGoOl^lc
PART n.
OF THE GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL
JITRISPRUDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES.
LECTURE X.
OF THB BISTORT Of THB AHEBICAN OHIOK.
Thk government of the United States was erected by the free
voice and joint will of the people of America, for their commoD
defence and general welfare. Ita powers applj to those great
interesta which relate to this country in its national capacity,
and which depend for their stability and protection on the
consolidation of the Union. It is clothed with the principal atfari>
butes of political sovereignty, and it is justly deemed the goar-
dian of our best nghts, the source of our highest civil and
poliUcal duties, and the sure means of national greatness. The
constitution and jorisprudenoe of the United States deserve the
most accurate examination ; and an histoiioal view of the rise
and progress of the Union, and of the establishment of the
present ConstitutioQ, as the necessary fruit of it, will tend t«
show the genius and value of the government, and prepare the
mind of the student for an invest^ation of its powers.
The association of the American people into one body pditic
took place while they were colonies of the British empire,
*202 and owed allegiance to the British crown. That *the
union of this country was essential to its safety, its pros-
perity, and its greatness had been generally known, and fre-
quently avowed, long before the late revolution, or the claims
of the British Parliament which produced iL The people of
the Kew Ei^Iand colonies were very early in the habit of ood-
federating together for their common defence. As their origin
[236]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. S.] JinUSPRlTDENCli OF THE UKTFED STATES. " 208
and their interests were the same, and their manners, their
reli^OD, their laws, and their civil institutions exceedingly simi-
lar, they were nstaially led to a very intimate connection, and
were governed by the same wants and wishes, the same sympa-
thies and spirit. The colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New Haven as early as 1643, under the im-
preaeion of daoger from the aarrounding tribes of Indians, and
for protection against the claims and encroachments of their
Dutch neigbboTS, entered into a league, offensive and defensive,
which they declared should be firm and perpetual, and be distin-
guished by the name of the United Colonies of New England.
By their artiolee of confederation, each colony was to have
exclusive jnrisdiotion within its own territory ; and in every war,
offensive and defensive, each of the confederates was to furnish
its quota of men and money in a ratio to its population ; and a
congress of two commissioners, del^j^ted from each colony, was
to be held annually, with power to deliberate and decide on all
t&irs of war and peace, and on sU points of common concern ;
and every determination, in which three fourths in number of
the assembly ooncuired, was to be binding upon the whole cod-
federacy. (a)
This assomtion may be considered as the foundation of a series
of efforts for a more extensive and more perfect union of
die colonies. It contained some provident and 'jealous *208
provisions, calculated to give security and stability to the
whole. It provided that no two colonies were to join in jurisdic-
tion, without the consent of all ; and it required the like unan-
imous consent to admit any other colony into the confederacy ;
and if any one member violated any article of it, or any way
injured another colony, the commissioners of the other coloniea
were to take cognizance of the matter, and determine upon it.
In this transaction, and under the authority of this union, the
New England colonies acted, in fact, as independent states, and
ine from the control of any superior power, because the civil
war in which England was then involved occupied the whole
(a) Huard, State Papen, 496, 683, S90; HntchliMOD, Hlitoiy of HoMuhiuetlB,
i. 1S4, ISO; RobertM>n, PcMthumoiu Hiitory of America, b. 10, pp. 191, 192 ; Wln-
thn^, BUtOTj at New England, hj Sarage, ii. 101 ; Baylies, Hiilorlcal Hemoii, IL
118; TnunbuU, Hictoij of ConnMticnt, i. 124; Plfmoath ColoDy Lawi, App. S0&
td-isae.
[287]
;abyGoO<^lc
* 204 JnUSFBUDENCE OP [PABT !I.
attention of the mother country ; and this first step towards %
future independence was eafiered to pass without muuh notice,
and without any animadversioa. The confederacy subsisted, with
some alterations, for upwards of forty years, aiid for part of
that time, with the countenance of the goTemment in Eogland.
It was not dissolved nntil the year 1686, when the charters of
the New England colonies were in effect vacated by a comnuB-
eion &om King James II. (a)
The people of this country, after the dissolution of this earliest
le^ue, continued to afford other instruotiye precedents of asso-
ciation for their safety. A congress of governors and commis-
sioners from other colonies, as well as &om New England, wbs
occasionally held, to make arrangements for the more effectual
protection of our interior frontier, and we have an instance of
one of these assemblies at Albany, in 1722. (A) But a much
more interesting congress was held there in the year 1754. Jt
consisted of commissioners from New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Mary-
land, and was called at the instance of the lords commissioners
for trade and the plantations, to take into consideration the best
means of defending America, in case of war with France,
* 204 which was then impending. The object of the English * ad-
ministration in calling this convention was in reference to
treaties of friendship with the Indian tribes; but the colonies
had more enlarged views ; and the commissioners which met in
congress, and who enrolled among their number some of the
most distinguished names in our colonial history, asserted and
promulgated several invaluable truths, the proper reception of
which, in the minds of their countrymen, prepared the way for
their future independence, and our present greatness. One' of
the colonies (Massachusetts) expressly instructed her delegates
to enter into articles of union and confederation with the other
colonies, for their general security in peace as well as in war.
The convention unanimously resolved, that a union of the colo-
nies was absolutely necessary for their preservation. They re-
jected all proposals for a division of the colonies into separate
confederacies, and proposed a plan of federal government, con-
sisting of a general council of delegates, to be triennially chosen
[238]
D.qitizeabyG00<^lc
LECT. Z.] THE mnTED STATES. * 205
b; the proTinoial assemblies, and a preudent-genersl, to be
a^^inted by the crown. In this coaocil wag vested, subject to
the immediate negative of the president, and the eventual neg-
ative of the king in council, the rights of war and peace, in
respect to the Indian nations; and the confederacy was to em-
brace all the then existing colonies, from New Hampshire to
Georgia. The council were to have authority to make laws for
the government of new settlements, upon territories to be pur-
chased from the Indians, and to raise troops and build forts, and
even to equip vessels of force, to guard the coast and protect
trade, as well on the ocean as upon the lakes and rivers. They
were likewise to make laws, and lay and levy general duties, im-
poBto,and taxes, for those necessary purposes, (a) But the
times were * not yet ripe, nor the minds of men sufficiently * 205
enlarged, for such a comprehensive proposition ; and this
bold project of a continental union had the singular t&te of being
njected, not only on the part of the crown, but by every pro-
Tincial assembly. It was probably supposed, on the one hand,
that the operation of the union would teach the colonies the
secret of their own strength, and the proper means to give it
activity and direction ; while, on the other, the colonies were
jealous of the preponderatii^ influence of the royal prerogative.
We were destined to remain, for some years longer, separate,
and, in a considerable degree, alien commonwealths, emulous of
each other in obedience to the parent state, and in devotion to
her interests ; but jealous of each other's prosperity, and divided
by policy, institutions, prejudice, and manners. So strong was
the force of these considerations, and so exasperated were the
people of the colonies in their disputes with each other concern-
ing boundaries nod charter claims, that Doctor Franklin (who
was one of the commiBsioners to the congress that formed the
plan of union in 1T54) observed, in the year 1760, that a union
of the colonies against tlie mother country was absolutely im-
possible, or at least without being forced by the most grievous
granny and oppression, (a)
(a) FranUin'i Worki, edited b; Spuki, ill 22-56 ; Smith, Hiator; of New York,
B. 21»-226; ManluU, life of Wuhingioo, t. u. 6 ; Mftwachiuettt Biftorickl Colleo-
^am, Tii. 208-214.
(a) Frutkliu'i Worki. edited hj Sparks. It. 42. Oovernor PowdkI, in hii work
oa the Adinlnbtntion of the Coloniet (the 4th edition of which agipeiireil in 1768],
declared thktttaecoloniethadnooiw principle of uaociktioa kmonfrai iliem, and that
[2891
;abyG00<^lc
• 206 JOBISPRttDENCE OF [PABT H.
The great value of a federate union of the colonies had, how-
ever, sunk deep into the minds of men. The subject was fiimiliu
to our colonial aooeston. They had been in the habit, especially
in seasons of danger and difficulty, of forming associations, more
or less extensive. The necessity of union had been felt, its ad-
vantages perceived, ita principles explained, the way to it pointed
out, and the people of this country were led by the force
• 206 of irreaistible motives * to resort to the same means of
defence and security, when they considered that their lib-
erties were in danger, not from the vexatious and irregular war-
fare of the Indian tribes, but &om the formidable claims, and
still more formidable power, of the parent state. The assertion
by the British Parliament of an unqualified right of binding the
colonies in all cases whatooever, and specifically of the right of
taxing them without their consent, and the denial by the colonies
of the right of taxation without representation, and the attempt
of the King and Parliament to enforce it by the power of the
sword, were the immediate causes of the American revolution.
Soon after the first unfriendly attempt upon our chartered priv-
ileges, by the statute for raising a revenue in the colonies by
means of a stamp duty, a congress of delegates from nine col-
onies was assembled at New York in October, 1765, upon the
recommendation of Massachusetts, and they digested a bill of
rights, in which ^le sole power of taxation was declared to reside
in their own colonial legislatures, (a) This was preparatory to
a more extensive and general association of the colonies, which
their manner of Mttlement, direnitT' of ctuirUn, conflicting inl«reati, and mntnil
riTftbhIp »nd jeatoDiies, woDld render t, nnloii impracticable, pp. 8G, S0, 03.
(a) 2 Belknap'i N. H. S20 ; Journal* of the Auemblj of the Colony of Hev Tork,
October, 1766^ ManhnU'i Life of Washington. U. App. No. 5; Pitkb'i Follllcm) and
ClTil BUtorj of the United Sutea,!. lT8-lS6,App.No. 7,6, ». A full and appaienllr
rery authentic "Journal of the Continental Congreai of 1766" wai publiihed at New
York by E. Wlnchetter, 1S4S, being fonnd among the papen of Caaar Rodney, odf
of the delegate* to the convention of 1705, and flnt mentioned in Nile«'i National
Register, ta 1612. It waa a preconor, in point of ability, intelligence, and tpirit, of
the proceeding! of the Continental Congreta of 1774. The 6th and 7tb chapten
of the flnt Tolnme of Mr. Pitkin's HIaCory contain a clear, anthentic, and Teiy
intereiUng detail of the retoluCioni and acts of the Britiih Parliament, relating to
America, inbaequently to the peace of 1T6S ; of the proceeding! of the Bridah gor-
emmenl^to enforce them ; and of the ipirit of oppoaitlon and reaiataflce which tbey
met with on the part of the colonic*. The reaistance kept pace with the parliamen-
taiy imposlUoni, and was conitantly growing in iCrength, actirity, and determined
purpoie, until it was i;on»ummated by the permanent onion of the coloaie* in 1774.
[ 240 1
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. X.] THE DNITED STATES. •208'
took place in September, 1774, and laid the fotindatioDS of onr
indepeadeace and permanent glory. The more serioQB claims of
the British Parliament, and the impending oppresnons of the
British crown at this last critical period, induced the
twelve colonies, which * were spread over this vast conti- • 207
neat, from Nova Scotia to Geo^a, to an interchange of
opinions and views, and to unite in sending delegates to Phil-
adelphia, " with authority and direction to meet and consult
together for the common welfare." In pursuance of their au-
thority, this first Continental Congress, whose names and pro-
ceediags are still familiar to the present age, and will live in the
gratitude of a distant posterity, took into consideration the
afilicted state of their country ; asserted, by a number of declar-
atory resolutions, what they deemed to be the unalienable rights
of English freemen ; pointed out to their coDstitueuts the system
of violence which was preparing against those rights ; and bound
them by the most sacred of all ties, the ties of honor and of their
country, to renounce commerce with Great Britain, as being the
most salutary means to avert the one and to secure the
blessings of the other, (a) ^ These • resolutions received • 208
(a) The mott mBterial of those declaratOTj reiolutioiii wu the one which itated.
thtt, u the coloniei wera DOt, and could not properlj be. repretented in the BritUh
pRrliament, ttey were entitled '^ to k free and excltulTe power of legislation in their
KTeral proTincial legiilaturei, in all caiei of taxation aod interoal polity, subject
oolj to Che DegatiTe of their aovereign." ' The coloniei from the earliest periods of
the MttleiDeiit of the country, witb the exception of yeonsylTanla, whose charter
RCDgnixed the force of such laws, had generally claimed, nnder their charters, an
nemption from the operation of the British narigation acts, and of their system of
commetcial monopoly ; and they had, by all indirect meani short of open resistance,
traded the fbrce of those laws, and assumed the right to a free trade. (1 Hatcli.
Hilt. S22.) Bat the Congress of 1774, in the spirit of conciliation, renounced erery
rach pretension, and declared, that " from the necessity of the cue, and in regard
to the mntnal interests of both conntries, they cbeeitaUy consented to the operation
of inch acta of the Bri^h Parliament as were bona Jide restrained to the regulation
of Uieir external comtnerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of
the whole empire to the mother coontry, and the commercial benefits of its respec-
tirc members ; txcbidmg entry idea of Icaatim, ctfsno/ or exleraal,for raititig a reeeaue
n Ik MA/ecU in Avuriea, widiad ihea- eament." Journals of Congress, L
> Delolme argued, in chapter 20 of his they so far rendered the crown tndepen-
wnk OD the British Conatitntion, that dent of Parliament. The author adds, in
tbedaimoftheAmericancolonieadirectly a note. Chat being with Dr. Franklin at
clashed with one of the TiCal principles his house in Crsren Street, he mentioned
of that conititution. For if the colonies this view to the Doctor, who appeared
could grant sabsidlei to the crown, un- mnch struck by It
oootraOed by the imperial Parliament,
Toi. ..-M [ 241 ]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 209 JDRISPBUDENCE OF [PART n.
prompt and DDivenal obedience, and the Union being thos auR-
piciously formed, it was continqed b; a sncceastoo of dele-
gates in Congress ; and through evet; period of the war, and
through ever; revolution of our government, this Union has been
rovered and cherished, as the guardian of our peace, and the
only solid foundation of national independence.
In May, 1775, a Congress again assembled at Philadelphia, and
was clodied with ample discretionary powers. The delegates
were chosen, an those of the preceding Congress had been, partly
by the popular branch of the colonial legislaturos when in ses-
sion, but principally by conventions of the people in the several
colonies, (a) They were instructed to " concert, agree npon,
diroct, order, and prosecute " such measures as they should deem
most fit and proper, to obtfun redress of American grievances, or,
in more general terms, they were to take care of the libertieB of
the country, (b)
Soon after this meeting, Georgia acceded to and comideted the
confederacy of the thirteen colonies. Hostilities had already
commenced in the province of Massachusetts, and the claim of
the British Parliament to an unconditional and tanlimited sover-
. eignty over the colonies was to be asserted by an appeal to arms.
The Continental Congress, charged with the protection of the
rights and interests of the people of the united colonies, and
intrusted with the power, and sustained by the zeal and confi-
dence of their constituents, prepared for resistance. They pub-
lished a declaration of the causes and necessity of taking up
arms, and proceeded immediately to levy and oiganize an army,
to prescribe rules for the government of their land and naval
foroes, to contract debts, and emit a paper currency upon the
faith of the Union ; and gradually assuming all the powers of
national sovereignty, they at last, on the 4th day of July, 1776,
took a separate and equal station among the nations of the
earth, by declaring the united colonies to be free and indepen-
dent states.
This memorable declaration, in imitation of that published by
the United Netherlands on a similar occasion, recapitn*
* 209 lated ' the oppressions of the British king, asserted it to
be the natural right of every people to withdraw bma
(a) JoDinali of Congreu. of Haj, ]TT6, [i.] 60-74.
{b) Joumali of CongreM, of Hay, 1776, 1. 74.
[242]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. X.} THE UNITED STATES. . * 210
tyranny, fuid with the dignity aod the fortitude of conscious rec-
titude, it contained a i>olemn appeal to mankind in vindication of
the necessity of the measure. By this declaration, made " in the
name, and hy the authority of the people," the colonies were
absolved from all allegianoe to the British crown, and all political
connection between them and Great Britain was totally disBolved.
The principle of self-preservation, and the right of every com-
munity to freedom and happiness, gave a sanction to this separa-
tioD. When the government established over any people becomes
incompetent to fulfil its purpose, or destructive to the essential
ends for which it was instituted, it is the right of that people,
founded on the law of nature and the reason of mankind, and
supported by the soundest authority, and some vety illustrious
precedents, to throw off such government, and provide new
guards for their future security. This right is the more appor-
ent, and the duty of exercising it becomes the more clear and
nneqniTOcal, in the case of colonies which are situated at a great
distance from the mother country, and which cannot be governed
by it without vexatious and continually increasing inconvenience;
and when they have arrived at maturity in strength and resources,
or, in the language of Montesquieu, which he applied to our very
case, " when they have grown great nations in the forests they
were sent to inhabit." If, in addition to these intrinsic causes,
gradually and powerfully tending to a separation, the parent state
shotdd think fit, in the arrogance of power and superiority, to
deny to her colonies the equal blessings of her own free govern-
ment, and should put forth a claim to au unlimited control, in her
own discretion, over all their rights, and the whole administration
of their afiairs, the consequence would then be almost inevitable,
that the colonists would rise and repel the claim ; and
more certainly would this be the case, if * they were a * 210
spirited and intelligent race of men, true to themselves,
and just to their posterity.
The general opinion in favor of the importance and valae of
the anion appears evident in all the proceedings of Congress;,
and as early as the declaration of independence, it was thought
expedient, for its security and duration, to define with precision,
and by a formal instrument, the nature of our compact, the
powers of Congress, and the residiiiiry sovereignty of the states.
On the 11th of June, 1776, Congress undertook to digest and
[24a J
sObyGoOl^lc
* 211 JDBBPKUDENCB OP {FkKt tt.
prepare articles of confederation. But the buHinees was attended
with much emharraasment and delay, and, notwithstandiog these
states were dien sniroonded by the same imminent dangers, and
were contending for the same illustrious prize, it was not unlal
the 15th of NoTember, 1777, that Congress could so far unite the
discordant interests and prejudices of thirteen distinct communi-
ties as to f^ree to the articles of confedeiation. And when those
articles were submitted to the state legislatures for their perusal
and lalnfication, they were declared to be the result of impending
necessity, and of a dispoution for conciliation, and that they
were agreed to,' not for their intrinsic excellence, but as the
best system which could be adapted to the circumstances of sU,
and, at tbe same time, afford any tolerable prospect of general
assent, (a)
These celebrated articles met with still greater obstacles in
their pn^^ss through the states. Most of the legislatures rati-
fied them with a promptitude which showed their sense of the
necessity of the confederacy, and of the indulgence of a liberal
spirit of accommodation. But Delaware did not accede to them
nntil the year 1779, and Maryland explicitly rejected them, (h)
She instructed her delegates to withhold their assent to the arti-
cles, until there was an amendment, or additional agreement, to
appropriate the uncultivated and unpatented lands in tbe
* 211 western part of the Union, as a common * fund to defray
the expenses of the war. (a) These lands were claimed
by the states within whose asserted limits and jurisdiction they
were ntuated, and several of them, from a deep sense of the
importance of the union, agreed to an unconditional ratification
of the articles, or, in other words, to a separate confederacy
between the states bo ratifying the same, though Maryland, or
other states, should withhold their approbation and sanction, (i)
The legislature of New York, by their acts of 23d of October,
1779, and 19th of February, 1780, even consented' to a release
of the unsettled lands in the western part of tbe state, for the
use and benefit of such of the United States as should become
(a) Jonrnali of Congreu, iii. The inatmctioiu gi*en to the delegate* to (he Coo-
Uiieiital Congreu by the KTenl colonUL congreues, coaventlotu, and lueoiUiea, io
1776, and prior to the declaration of mdepeadence, coDtauied ao espreu rcMrratioa
to each coIod; of the iole and exclnaire regulation of its own iDlemal goTemmeii^
police, and coDcemt. {b) Id. tU.
(a) JooraaU of CoDgreu, r. 206. \t) Id. r.
[244]
;abyGoO<^lc
LBCT. Xj TH£ UNITED STATEb. * 212
members of t^e federal alliance ; and to resign the jurisdiction
as well as the right of pre-emption over her waste and unculti-
vated territory. The refusal of Maryland, so long persisted in,
gave encour^ement to the enemy, and injured the common
cause, and damped the hopes of the friends of America at home
and abroad. These coDsiderations at last induced that state to
make a generoud sacrifice of her pretensions; and on the Ist of
March, 1781, and which was upwards of three years from their
first promulgation, the articles of confederation received the
unanimous approbation of the United States.
The difBcnlties which impeded the framing and adopting the
articles of confederation, even during the pressure of a common
calamity, and which nothing at last but a sense of common
danger could surmount, form a striking eicample of the mighty
force of local interests and disoordant passions, and they teaoh a
monitory lesson of moderation to political councils.
Notwithstanding the articles of confederation conferred upon
CongresB (though in a very imperfect manner, and under a most
unskilful oi^snization) the chief rights of political su-
premacy, the^wa awmmi imperii, by which " our existence * 212
88 an independent people was bound up together, and
known and acknowledged by the nations of the world, yet they
were, in &Gt, but a digest, and even a limitation, in the shape of
written compact, of those undefined and discretionary sovereign
powers which were delegated by the people of the colonies to
Congress, in 1775, and which had been freely exercised and
implicitly obeyed, (a) A remarkable instance of the exercise of
(a) Thp goTemmeat of tbe Union i« cooiidered to hmre be«n rerolutionary in it*
DUnTe, from iti firat initltntion bj the people of the colontei, in ITU, duwn to tbe
flnal ratiflcktion of the articles of confederation, in 1T81, and to have poMe)ued,powen
adequate to evei7 national emergency, and coextenaive with the object to be attained.
(Patenoa, J., IredeU, J., and Blair, J., in Penhallow v. Doane, S Dallai, 80, SI, 06, 111 ;
Dane's Abr. ti. App. 1, 13, 16, 21, 26; Jndge Wilaon. in hii ai^ninient in support of
Ibe ordinance of Congreaa of December 31, 1781, incorporating the Bank of North
America, Wilnn'a Worki, iU. 897 ; Story, Comm. on the Constitution, i. pp. 186-101.)
Mr. Hadiaon, who wai a member of Congress at the time, sa;i, that the members
were generally of tlie opinion tiiat they had no power, under the recently adopted
artklea of confederation, to incorporate the bank. They were, in fai^t. Impelled to
do it from the great expediency, if not absolute necessity of the institution, to sustain
tbe war and our credit. The Madison Papers, i. 104. According to Mr. Dane, the
goTemment of the United States has passed through three forms: 1. The revoln-
tionaiy ; 2, The confederate : S. The constitutional ; and the first and the third pro-
ceeded equally from the people in theii original capacity.
[246]
D.qilizMbyG00>^le
" 21S JUBISPBDDEKCE OF [PABT n.
this ori^nal, dormant, and vast discretion appears on the journals
of Congress, the latter end of the year 1776. The progress of
the British arms had, at that period, excited the most alarming
apprehension for our safety, and Congreas transferred to the
commander-in-chief, for the term of six months, complete dicta-
torial power over the liberty and property of the citizens of the
United States, in like manner as the Roman senate, in the critical
times of the republic, vas vont to have recourse to a dictator,
ne quid respubliea detrimenti capiat. (&) Such loose, undefined
authority as the Union originally possessed was absolutely incom-
patible with any regular notions of liberty. Though it was exer-
cised, in the instance we have referred to, and in other strong
cases, with the best intentions, and under the impulse of an
irresistible necessity, yet such an irregular sovereignty never can
be durable. It will either dwindle into insignificance, or degen-
erate into despotism, (z)
The powers of Congress, as enumerated in the articles of con-
federation, would perhaps have been competent for all the essen-
tial purposes of the Union, had they been duly distributed among
the departments of a well-balanced government, and been carried
down, through the medium of a national, judicial, and
*213 executive power, to the individual citizens *of the Union.
The exclusive cognizance of our foreign relations, the
rights of war and peace, and the right to make unlimited requi-
sitions of men and money, were confided to Congress, and the
exercise of them was binding upon the states. But, in imitation
of all the former confederacies of independent stat«s, either in
ancient Greece or modem Europe, the articles of confederation
carried the decrees of the federal council to the states in their
sovereign or collective capacity. This was the great fundamental
defect in the confederation of 1781 ; it led to its eventual over-
throw; and it haa proved perniGious or destructive to all other
federal governments which adopted the principle. Disobedience
to the laws of the Union must either be submitted to by the
government, to its own disgrace, or those laws must be enforced
{b) JoDTiiala of Congrees, iL il6.
(x) CriticUma npoD onr present afEtem WiltOD obwrrei, i«Ur alia, that gxrvm-
will be found, e.g., tit Sif Henry B. Huno'i ment oi »n art ia not in the poaaeoiaii of
PopnUr GoTemment, aod 4 Jurid. Bev. onrpeople. (^ Bryce'g Amerion CommoD-
881; 6 id. 49, 248, where Mr, G. W. wi'iilt}n Ui^ky's Democncy luid Libertj.
[246]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. Z.] THE tJMITED STATES. * 214
bj armB. The mild influence of the civil magistrate, however
strongly it may be felt and obeyed by private mdividuals, will not
be heeded by an oi^anized community, conBcioas of its strength
aikd swayed by its paasions. The history of the federal govern*
ments of Oreece, Germany, Switzerland, and Holland afford
melancholy examples of destractive civil war springing from the
disobedience of the separate members. I will mention only a
single instance to this effect, taken from the generally uninterest-
ing annals of the Swiss cantons. By one of the articles of the
Helvetic alliance the cantons were bound to submit any difference
which might arise between them to arbitrators. In the year
1440, a dispute arose between Zurich on the one side, and the
cantons of Schweitz and Glaris on the other, respecting some
territorial claims. Zurich refused to submit to a decision against
her, and the contending parties took to arms. All Switzerland
was, of course, armed against Zurich, the refractory member.
She sought protection from her ancient enemy, the house of
Austria, and the controversy was not terminated in favor of the
federal decree until after six years of furious and destructive
war. (a)
'Had there been sufficient enei^ in the government * 214
of the United States, under the articles of confederation,
to have enforced the constitutional requisitions, it might have
proved fatal to public liberty ; for Congress, as then constituted,
was a most unfit and unsafe depositary of political power, since
all the authority of the nation, in one complicated mass of juris-
diction, was vested in a single body of men. It was, indeed, ex-
ceedingly fortunate, as the event has subsequently shown, that the
state legislatures even refused to confer upon Congress the right
to levy and collect a general impost, notwithstanding the refusal
appeared to be extremely disastrous at the time, and was deeply
(a) Hilt, de 1» ConM. H«1t. par Watterille, Ut. t. ; PUnta, Hut of Switzerland,
L last cbapUr. Tha Swiia Conrederation was lemodelled b; the fedenJ act of 1S16,
and cooaiat^ at the preMut time, of twentjr-fiTe cantonk The fedaial Diet conaiati
of ono deputy from each of the twenty-two cantona, with one rote each, and with a
half Tota only to the three additional cantooi, crested on a aubdiviiioo. The powers
of war and peace, alliance and commerce, reside exclnii*fly in the general Diet, with
a commoa army and treasury ; bat each canton may eonelade separate capitnUtioDs
and tr«atie* relative to local and municipal matters, and retain ite origiDsl lOTereignty
nnim^ired for all domestic purposes. Wheaton, Elements of International I^w, Sd
ad. 9S ; [Sth ed. 8S, { &? tf^i utd Dana's note 8S.]
[247]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 214 JORISFRnDENCE OF [PART n.
regretted by the intelligent friendB of the Union. Had auch &
power been granted, the effort to amend the confederation vonld
probably not have been made, and the people of this coontry
might hare been languishing to this day, the miserable victimB
of a feeble and incompetent union.
There was no provision in the articles of confederation enabling
Congress to add a sanction to its laws. In this respect, they were
more defective than some of the other federal governments which
are to be met with in history. The Amphictyonic council, in
Greece, had authority to fine and punish their refractory states.
Lacedaemon and Phocis were both prosecuted before tiie council
of the Amphictyons (which was a council of the representatives of
twelve nations of Greece), and all the Greek states were required
by proclamation to enforce the decree. The Germanic diet, aa
it formerly existed, could put its members under the ban of the
empire, by which their property was confiscated; and it vas
aided in enforcing obedience to its laws by a federal judiciary
and an executive head, (a) Congress, under the old confed-
(a) Tbs Imperial cbunber b»d app«Uat« joiudictioii only. Iti atntanctm imt
carried into ezccntioD agsiDst Nfractorj itatea bj ths military foice of the dnlm.
Pfefiel, Abr. Chro. de I'Hiit d'AUemisne, ii 100 ; Potter, Conit. Hut. SS5. Tbc
new Osrmuiic Confedenc;, eatabllihed under the acta of the Congreaa of Tienna in
1811 and ISiS, and modified afterwaida in 1339 and 1S34, conaiita of the aoTereigii
princea and free citiea of Qermauy. It inclDdei the great powen of Anatria and
Proaaia, in reipect to their posuaaioiiB, which fonnerl]' belonged to the Oennank
Empire, Denmalk, in raapect to the Duchy of Holatein, the Netherlands, BaTaria,
SuoDf, HanoTer, Wnrtemberg, and many other leater piincipalitie* and atato,
together with the free cities of Lnbeck, Frankfort, Bremen, and Hamburg. The
tederatiTe Diet or Congreaa meeta at Frank fort-on-the-Uain, and ia represented I7
the reapective powen by their miniitara, and their rotes in the General AaaemUy or
Diet are, in point of nambeia, in some defjree iu a ratio to their Telatire powv.
While a few of the great powera have each four rota, othera of a leaser d^ree hare
reapectirely three or two rotes, and many of the atatea, and, among others, the trrt
cities, hare each only one rote. It is a singular and complicated onion of miied
powers, partly national and partly separate and indiridnaL It ia declared, in the
solemn acts of nnion, to be a federal league of the sorereign priocea and fiee dliea of
Germany, formed for the exterior and interior safety of Germany, and the indepra-
dence and inriaUbility of the confederated states. In thtdr interaal lelationi^ the
states are independent between themselves, and bonnd to each other by rroipneal
rights and dntiea ; and in respect to their external relationB, thtoy are a consolidated
sorereign power, established on the principle of political nnion. The Oenenl
Assembly has a great maia of sorereign powen confided to it, bnt its federal laws
do not operate distinctly on the prirate indiridual subjects of the states of the mian,
bnt only Arough the agency of their aeparate garemments. Though there are rety
great restreints npon the internal lorereignty of the states, yet the Oennaoic Cod-
[248]
sObyGoOl^lc
LEOT. X.] THE UNITED BTATES, • 215
eratioD, like the states general under, the Dutch confed-
enej, 'were restricted from any constructive aflsiimption •215
of power, however essential it might have been deemed to
the complete enjoyment and exercise of that which was given.
No expresB grant conveyed any implied power; and it is easy to
perceive that a strict and rigorous adherence to the letter of the
grant, without permission to give it a liberal and equitable inter-
pretation, in furtherance of the beneficent ends of the govern-
ment, mnst, in many cases, frustrate entirely the purposes of the
power. A government too restricted for the due performance of
its high trust will either become insignificant or be driven to
QBurpation. We have examples of this in the government of the
United Netherlands, before it was swept away by the violence of
the French revolution. While that government moved within
its constitutional limits, it was more absolutely nerveless than
any other government which ever existed. The states general
coald neither make war or peace, or contract alliances, or raise
money, without the consent of every province ; nor the provincial
states conclude those points, without the consent of every city
having a voice in their assemblies. The consequence was, that
the federal bead was frequently induced, by imperious necessity,
to assume power unwarranted by the fundamental charter of the
union, and to dispense with the requisite unanimity. This was
done in the years 1648, 1657, and 1661, as well as in another
strong instance in 1668, given by Sir William Temple, and of
which he was the author, (a)
Ttdenej fa cMmtully an aUiaiiea Mw«eu indeptndeDt itfttM, thoogh, in mauj
important particalan, they are nibj«ct to Uie confaderate power. The lOTeTeigo
powera are ao intemized and diatributed among the memban of the onion, betveen
the federal head and the aepaiate atate, aa to render the BTitem exceedingly complex,
bat it do«a Dot fall within the prorinee of thii work to enter into detail A. mora
geoeni and {mdae iketch ia given in Wheaton'i El^menta of International l<w, 3d
(d. 7»-ft2.
(n) Tetnple'a Worka, i. 115, 128, S37. In 17S1, a report wai made by a committM
of Congreaa, for robmitting to the atatea an amendment to the ISth article of the
confedemtion then recently rabacribed by all the statea, in which amendment it waa
to be prorided, that in caae of refusal or neglect of any one or more of the confed-
erated atntw to aUde by and obey the detenninationa of CoDgrass, in reaped: to
reqnUttione of men and money, agreeably to the apportioned qnotae, Coogren might
employ tbe land and naval forces of the United States to compel compliance by the
delinqnsnt etatea, and to make diatreaa of the property of inch state and its citizens,
and alao prohibit and prevent their trade and com merce with other states and with
foreign powera. Kr. Kadiaon, and even General Washington, perceived the necea.
[249]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 216 niBISPBODENCE OF [PABT U.
The former confederation of this country was defective in not
giving complete authority to Congresa to interfere in contests
between the several states, and to protect each state from inter-
nal violence and rebellion. In many respects our confederation
was superior to those of Germany, Holland, or Switzerland, and
particularly in the absolute prohibition to the several states
* 216 from auy interference ur * concern in foreign or domestic
alliances, or from the maintenance of land or naval forces
in time of peace. But in the leading features which I have sog-
gested, and in others of inferior importance, it was a most unskil-
ful fabric, and totally incompetent to fulfil the ends for which it
wag erected. Almost as soon as it was ratified, the states began
t^ fail in a prompt and faithful obedience to its laws. As danger
receded, instances of neglect became more frequent, and before
the peace of 1783, the inherent imbecility of the government had
displayed itself with alarming rapidity. The delinquencies of
one state became a pretext or apology for those of another. The
idea of supplying the pecuniary exigencies of the nation from
requisitions on the states was soon found to be altogether delu-
sive. The national eng^ements seem to have been entirely
abandoned, (a) Even the contributions for the ordinary expenses
of the government fell almost entirely upon the two states which
had the most domestic resources. Attempts were very early
made by Congress, and in remonstrances the moat manly and
persuasive, to obtain from the several states the right of levying,
«ty of BQch > coeroire ttdeni ponror. Tha Hadison Papon, L 81, Sfl, SS. Bat the
poirer was DBTer foniuillf proposed to the stat«4 or gnnted ; and if it lud fa««n, it
never would or could hare been executed, without leading to the datrnotiaft of tba
(a) The efforts of Robert MoirU, the EuperinteDdent of Gnmnce, in the jtu* 1781
and 17S2, to infOiia same fprtioa of life and energ; into the iaogoiahing powen of the
confedeislion, were inceaaaut, daroted, and masteiiy, and hia appeal* to the inlemta
and honor of the atatea were moat eloquent, but utterly nnavailing. Sac, among
othen, hi« Circular Letters to the Qovernan of the States, of the data of Jannaiy S,
Februar; 15, Ha; Ifl, and October 21, 1782, and his Letters to Congraea, of Fsbnui7
11, and Hay 17, 17S2, and Haich 17, 1783. Diplomatic CorrMpondanea, edited by
J. Spaika, zii. Hen we ma; as;, if ever it might be tral; aaid.
Si Pargama dextra
Defend] poasent, etiam hao defeiua Inunnt ;
and the pemsal of the original correspondence of Hr. Honia, while at the head of the
financial department of the United States, cannot but awaken in the breaata of the
present generation, in respect to tha talents and aerricea of that aooomplisbed stMea-
man, the most lively BBntiments of admintion and gratitode.
[260]
sObyGoOl^lc
I.BCT. I.] THE UNITED 8TAT». * 218
for a limited time, ft general impost, for the excluaive
* purpose of providing for the discbarge of the national * 217
debt. It was found impracticable to unite the states in any
provision' for the national safety and honor. Interfering regu-
lations of trade and interfering claims of territory vere dis-
solving the friendly attachments and the sense of common
interest which had cemented and sustained the union during the
arduous struggles of the Revolution. Symptoms of distress and
marks of humiliatioD were rapidly accumulating. It was with
diffioalty that the attention of the states could be sufficiently
exerted to induce them to keep up a sufficient representation in
Congress to form a quorum for business. The finances of the
nation were annihilated. The whole army of the United States
was reduced, in 1784, to eighty persons; and the states were
ur^d to provide some of the militia to garrison the western posts.
In short, to use the language of tbe authors of the Federalist,
"each state, yielding to the voice of immediate interest or coa-
veaience, successively withdrew its support from the confedera-
tion, till the frail and tottering edifice was ready to fall upon our
heads, and to crush us beneath its ruins. "
Most of the federal constitutions in the world have degenerated
or perished in the same way and by the same means. They are
to be classed among the moat defective political institutions
which have been erected by mankind for their security. The
great and incurable defect of all former federal governments,
such as the Amphictyonic, the Acbnan, and Lycian confederacies,
in ancient Greece, and the Germanic, the Helvetic, the Ean-
seatic, and the Dutch republics, in modem history, is, that they
were sovereignties over sovereigns, and legislations, not for pri-
vate individuals, but for communities in their political capacity.
The only coercion for disobedience was physical force, instead
of the decree and the pacific arm of the civil magistrate. The
inevitable consequence, in every case in which a member of such
a confederacy chooses to be disobedient, is either a civil war,
or an annihilation of national authority.
"The first effort to relieve the people of this country •218
from a state of national degradation and ruin came from
Virginia, in a proposition from its legislature in January, 1786,
for a convention of delegates from the several states to regu-
late oar commerce with foreign nations. The proposal was well
[251]
D.qilizMbyG00>^le
• 218 JOBIBPBDDENCE 0? [PAET D.
received in many of the other states, end Gve of them seat del-
egates to a coDTention which met at AnnapoliB, in September,
1786. (a) This small assembly being only a partial representa-
tion of the states, and being deeply sensible of the radical defects
of the system of the existing federal government, thought it in-
expedient to attempt a partial and probably only a temporary
and delusive alleviation of our national calamities. Tbey con-
curred, therefore, in a strong application to Congress for a gen-
eral convention, to take into consideration the situation of the
United States, and to devise such further provisions as should
be proper, to render the federal government not a mere phantom,
as heretofore, but a real government, adequate to the exigen-
cies of the Union. Congress perceived the wisdom and felt the
(a) Though the proiiiDite origiii of the federal ooDvention of 1787 wu the propo-
dtion from Virgiiiia, in 17SS, yet the Deceadty of a natioiul conrentuin, witti faD
authority to UDend and reorganize the govemmeat, was Erst enggeated, and fDllj
■hewn, bj Colonel Hamilton, in 1780, nhile he waa an aid to General WaihingUm.
In hie muterly and very eittaordinary letter (considering hia age of only twmty-
thrae yean), addressed to the Honorable Jsmes Duaoe, a member of Congras, fmn
Kew YorlE, in September, 1730, he ahowed most manifestly the defects and ahsolate
inefficiency of the articlaa of confederation j and that the United States, for their
safety and happineaa, if not for their future eiiatonee, stood in need of a national gor-
enunent, clothed with the requisite soTcreign powers, such ae the confedeiatioii theo-
reticaUy contained, bat without poaaessing any 6t organs to receive them. Thii
letter is to be seen at large in the life of Alexander Hamilton, by hi* son, John
C. Hamilton, i. 284-30G, and in the Hamilton Papers, i 42S, edited by Di. Bawki.
The earlieat l^islatire anggestion of a couvention for the parpoae of refoimii^ the
governotent was the concomut reaolntiona of the two honaea o( the legiilatoie e(
Kew York, passed on the 20th and Slat of Jnly, 17S2. They were introdncfd into
the Senate by General Schuyler, and they stated, that " the radical sonroe of most of
our embarrastmenta waa the want of anfflcient* power in Coogreas ; that the confed-
eration waa dafectlTe in several eeseutial points, particularly iu not nating tht
fMeral goremment either with a power of prariding revenue for ibulf, or with
ascertained and prodnotive fauds ; that its defects conld not be repaired, nor th*
powers of Cougreas extended, by partial deliberatioDt of the states aeparatelj ; and
that It would be adviwble to propose to Congress to recommend, and to each state
to adopt the measure of assembling a general convention of the stately speciaUj
authorized to revise and amend the confederation." New York Journals of the
Senate and Assembly, Jul; 20 and 21, 1782.
There is no doubt of the justness of the inference drawn by hia son (life of Ham-
ilton, i. 405), that Colonel Hamilton, who was attending the l^pslatnre vben the
resoiutions passed, and who had an interview with a joint committee of t^e tm«
houses^ in his public character, under the superintendent of finance, and who was, at
the same tine, chosen a delegate in Congress, by the legislature, was the distin-
guished individual, who by hia wisdom suggested, and by hia influence promoted,
that earlieat anthoritative measure taken for a general convention of the statea.
[252]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. X.] THE DNITED STATES. * 219
p&triotiam of the suggeBtion, and recommended a convention
of delegates from the seTeral states, to revise, amend, and alter
the articles of confederation. All the states except Rhode
laland acceded to the proposal, and appointed delegates, who
assembled in a general convention in Philadelphia, in Ma;,
1787.
This vaa a crisis most solemn tuid eventful, in respect to our
futare fortune and prosperity. All the fruits of the Revolution,
and perhaps the final destiny of republican government, vere
staked on the experiment which was then to be made to reform
the system of our national compact. Happily for this country,
and probably as auspiciously for the general liberties of mankind,
the convention combined a very rare union of the best talents,
experience, information, patriotism, probity, and character which
the country afforded; and it commanded that universal public
confidence which such qualifications were calculated to inspire.
After several uLonths of tranquil deliberation, the conven-
tion agreed, with unprecedented unanimity, on the *plan *219
of government which now forms the Constitution of the
United States. This plan was directed to be submitted to a
convention of delegates, to be chosen by the people at large in
each state, for their assent and ratification. Such a measure
was laying the foundations of the fabric of our national polity,
where alone they ought to be laid, on the broad consent of the
people. The Constitution underwent a severe scrutiny and long
discussion, not only in public prints and private circles, but
solemnly and publicly, by the many illustrious statesmen who
composed these local conventions. Near a year elapsed before
it received the ratification of a requisite number of conventions
of delegates of the people of the states to give it a political
existence. New Hampshire was the ninth state which
the Conetitution, and thereby, according to one of its ai ^
was to become the government of , the states so ratifying ti
Her example was immediately followed by the powerful s
Vir^nia and New York; and on the 4th of March, 178^, ^
govemment was duly organized and put into operation. North
Carolina and Rhode Island withheld some time longer their as-
sent. Their scruples were, however, gradually overcome, and in
June, 1790, tiie Constitution had received the unanimous ratifica-
tion of the respective conventions of the people in every state.
[258]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 219 JURISPBUDBHCB OF [PAII E
The peaceable adoption of this govenunent, under all the cir-
oomstances which attended it, presented the caae of an effort of
deliberation, combined -wiiii a spirit of amit^ and of matnal con-
cession, which was without example. It must be a source of
just pride, and of the most grateful recollection, to every Amer-
ican, who reflects seriously on the difficulty of the experiment,
the manner in which it was conducted, the felicity of its iasne,
and Qxe fate of similar trials in other nations of the eartL
[264]
it it would
Vopt *'
)vGooi^lc
LECT. n.] THB DiriTEID STATES.
LECTUEB XL
OF CONOItES&
The power of making lavs is the Bupreme power in a state,
and the department in which it resides will naturally have such
a preponderance in the political system, and act with such
mi^^ force upon the public mind, that the line of separation
between that and the other branches of the goremment ought
to be marked very distinctly, and with the most careful pre-
cision. ^
The Constitution of the United States has effected this porpose
with great felicity of execution, and in a way well calculated to
preserve the equal balance of the government and the harmony
of its operations. It has not only made a general delegation of
the legislative power to one branch of the government, of the
executive to another, and of the judicial to the third, but it has
specially defined the general powers and duties of each of those
departments, (z) This is essential to peace and safety in any gov-
1 Huuu •. amith, S B. L 192, 117 ; dioMU by tha ligidattin ; u>d tlia ml
[Kilbonm ■. Thompaan, lOS U. S. IBS, ISO prime mlnfitm for moat pnrpoaea — the
It Kq.i\ pom, 02,0.1. Seci alto poet, S9fl, la&dBTof the Honwof ConunoDi— tlmcwt
n. 1; 231, u. I ; 828,11. 1. " Aooording to without azceptioit i« to." Ba^ehot on
the tnditioiul theory, u it eziite in all the Englith ConatitatioD, hoadoa, 18S7,
the hooka, thegoodDeaaof oarconatitntioii So, i. p. 12. "living acroaa the Atlan-
conaiat* in the entin aepaiatiDn of the He, and mialed by accepted dootriuea, the
I^ialatire and execatiTe authoridea ; bnt acute' bamera of the Federal Conatitntton,
in bnth ita m«rit oontiatt in their aingn- eren after the kaeneat attention, did not
lir a^roxlmatiou. The connectiDg link peroeiva the Prime Klnlater to be the
i« Ou eaUiui. By that new word wa principal axecQtiTe of the Britiah Conati-
BiMB a oommlttM of the legialative body tntion, and the aorereign a cog in tba
adectsd to be the exeentive body. . . . mwchanim." lb. No. It. p. 84.
Aa a nle^ the nominal [vinM miniater ia
{i) Tlie dntiei of the axecntiTe, leg- and ona of them cannot lawfoUy in&infa
iaktiTe, and Judicial departmeuta of the upon the proTino* of another. Thna the
it are oonttltntioDally diitinet, aation of the Saenttry of the Tteatary in
[266]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 221 JCBISPBUDENCE OP [PABT a.
ernmeDt, and especially in one clothed only with specific powers
for national purposes, and erected in the midst of nnmerouB state
govenunents retaining the exclusive control of their local con-
remitting panaltieB cannot be nTued by Congraan, u not > jndicud tribniul Md
tbe conrts. Uachaca v. United States, cannot detennina thi right* of 1ii» gsr-
26 Fed. Bap. 81G. So a Federal conrt emment or of the corporetiooB whoM if-
cannot control the diecretion of the post- bin it Ib to inreatigate. in n Pid5c
master general, under U. 3. Be*. StatB^ Bailwaj Commiwion, 12 Bawjer, U9.
3} 3929, 4011, to retnm regiitared letteia But Congnu may gnnt to the infuior
vhich he deems sent to persona ooaduct- courts of the United States jorisdietiiiB
ing a lottery and to forUd payment by in caaea where original jniisdictiaa ii
poetma«ter« of money orders to «ach per- rated in tit* Bafmoa Conrt by the Cod-
•one. Enterprise S. Ass'n v. Zumstein, stitntion. Ames v. Eansas, lit U. &. Hi.
61 Fed. Bep. S37. A statute (like 26 3t And the appellate juriadicCion of th« Sn-
st L. 124, S 9, 10) enabling the Secretary preme Court may b« extended to iacluds
of War to determine whether a bridge the jadicial action of all inferior eonrti
obetrncts tumgatbn, and if so, to require eetablished by CongnM, United States s.
ita alteration, is onconstitutional, being a Coe, ISfi U. S. 76. Suits against the
delegation to that officer of powen eido- United States in thur own eoOTts can
sively rested in Congress. United States only be authorized by Coagreas, and the
D. Rider, SO Fed. Bep. 106 ; United courte cannot go beyond the letter of it>
States n. Eeokn^ & H. Bridge Co., IS id. consent when given. Sohitlinger r.
178. So the system of improving a hsr- United States, 165 U. S. 168. .
bor lawfully adopted by Congress cannot be When land is taken for public tus nndti
changed or impeded by the Federal courts, t^e right of eminent domain the Pies-
Wisconnn v. Dnlnth, 96 U. S. 879. Cod- dent's ap[mTal of the price to be paid by
gren may constitationally protide for the the United States is not a jadicial set
exclusion of a certain clsas of aliens by Shoemaker v. United States, 117 U. S.
enacting that the decision of the inspect- 282. The judiciaiy may in eztisdition
ors of immigmtion against the right to proceedings review tbe action of the exec-
land shall be final and conclnsire unless ntive when an enor has dearly been corn-
appeal is taken to the superintendeot of mitted. Ex partt Brown, 28 Fed. Bep.
immigration, hie action being farther re- 058. And Congress may, wiUiont infring-
viewable by the Secretsry of the Treasury, ing upon the appointing power, impnse
Nishimun Ekin t>. United States, 142 new dntiM, germane to the ofBee, upon
U. 8. 661 ; Fong Yue Ting o. United officers previously appointed. Shoemaker
SUtes, US U. S. 688. v. United States, 117 U. 3. 288.
Congress cannot impose upon the courts A statnte which, as construed by the
fnnctions not judicial in their nature. Supreme Conrt of a State, allow* a nil-
See Resgan v. Farmere' Loan ft T. Co., road commission to estaUiah final ratee
1S4 U. 8. 362 ; Interetate Commerce Com- for railroads, without any inquiry or trial
missiou t>. Brimson, id. 117 ; Travellera' as to their reasonabtentti, and forbidB the
Ins. Co. V, Oswego, 69 Fed. Bep. 6g. It courts to control the comminion if their
cannot make the courts ita instruments in rstenare n^jnaC and unreasonable, deprivta
conducting purely l^^tlve investigs. the railroad corporationa of their right to
tions; a commission, like the PacJHc a judicial investigation by "due proceaa
Boilway Commission, created by act of of law." Chicago, H. & St. F. Ry. Co. t.
[256]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZI.] THE ONITED STATES. * 222
ceroB. It will be the object of this lecture to review the legiala-
tire department; and. I shall consider this great title in our
natiooal polity under the following heads: — (1.) The constit-
aent parts of Congress, and the mode of their appointment (2, )
Their joint and separate powers and privileges. (3.) Their
method of enacting laws, with the qualified negative of the
Preaident.
1. Of tli« DiviMon Into Two HonsM. — By the Constitu-
tion, (a) all the legislative powers therein * granted are * 222
vested in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
The division of the legislature into two separate and indepen-
dent branches is founded on such obvious principles of good
policy, and is so strongly recommended by the unequivocal lan-
guid of experience, that it has obtained the general appn^tion
(a) Art 1, no. 1.
HiniMBOtB, ISl U. S. 41S. Aathoiity to Ohio St. BS. The filing of a SUte is-
fix raaBooabl* ind jiut ntea for railro&d porter'a ulnj belongB to the l^iiktnra
■tion id tmgbt >nd punngen a and (hoald not ba delisted to the coaria.
■ power which the ItgiBUtaTe may del- Smith n. Strother, 68 Csl. 98. So leg-
igkte lo i«i}ro«d ccamDiauoneiB. StomE. iaUtive power canaot be delegated to an
PmMoola ft A. K. Co^ 29 Fla. 617. insnnuice comminiouer. Andenoa v.
If a dty charter nuke* the common Uinchrator F. A. Co. (Minn.), 63 N. W.
coDQcQ tlte jadge of the election and Bep. 3tt. The legislature of a State can-
quHficadcHu of its own raemben, their not reqnire ita highest court to give writ-
iktErmination that a cxTtain peraon is tan groonde for it» decigioni. Vaughn e.
elected, cannot properly be interfered Haip, 4S Ark. 160 ; or burden the jodi-
with by an injunction or mandamna is- ciary with new duties such aa tlie prepara-
nied apoQ his opponent's application, tion of the head notes for the reports.
Halloian v. Carter, 86 N. Y. State Rep. Griffin n. State, 119 Ind. G20 ; nor can it,
S84 ; a. c. 13 N. Y. Sup. 21i. unlesa so empowered by the constitution
The power to detertnine the adTimbility of the State, curtail or regulate the in-
of extending city limits may he conferred heient power of its contta to punish for
by the legislature npon the courts. Cal- contempt. Bnrle p. Territory (OH.), 37
len V. Junction City, 43 Kausaa, 627. Pae. Rep. 829.
Bat the extension by the legifiktnie of A court of equity u without jurisdiction
dty Umita to include additional territory to enjoin the Secretary of a State from
cannot be interfered with by the courts Issning notices of election under a etal-
on the ground that the added territory nte which the plaintiff elaimi to be nn-
will not h> benefited. People v. lUrei^ oonititntional, as this inTolvee politiesl
■ide, TOCaL 461. A State atatDte which andnot civil rights. Such a court cannot
empower* the Ooveraiw to remove pdice protect the dtiien'a right to vote or to
comniMionera does not oonfer upon him be voted for at an election. Fletcher v*
jodidal power. SUto v. Hawkina, 44 Tnttle, ISl lU. 41.
TOi-i.— 17 [257]
;abyG00<^lc
* 228 JDBispsuDEh'cti: of [part n.
of the people of this country. One great ohject of this separa-
tioD of the legislature into two houses, acting separately and
with co-ordinate powers, is to destroy the evil effects of sudden
and strong excitement, and of precipitate measures, springing
from passion, caprice, prejudice, personal influence, and party
intrigue, which have been found, by sad experience, to exercise
a potent and dangerous sway in single assemblies. A hasty de-
cision is not so likely to proceed to the solemnities of a law, when
it is to be arrested in its course, and made to undergo the delib-
eration, and probably the jealous and critical revision, of another
and a rival body of men, sitting in a different place, and under
better advantages to avoid the prepossessions and correct the
errors of the other branch.^ The legislatures of Pennsylvania
and Greoi^ia consisted originally of a single house. The insta-
bility and passion which marked their proceedings were very
visible at the time, and the subject of much public animadver-
sion; and in the subsequent reform of their constitutions, the
people were so sensible of this defect, and of the inconvenience
they had suffered from it, that in both states a senate was in-
troduced. No portion of the political history of mankind is
more full of Instructive lessons on this subject, or contains more
striking proof of the faction, instability, and misery of states
under the dominion of a single unchecked assembly, than that of
the Italian republics of the middle ages, which arose in great
numbers, and with dazzling but. transient splendor, in the intei^
val between the fall of the Western and iiie Eastern empire of
the Romans. They were all alike ill-constituted, with a
*228 single unbalanced assembly. 'They were alike miserable,
and all ended in similar disgrace, (a)
Many speculative writers and theoretical politicians about the
time of the commencement of the French revolution were struck
with the simplicity of a legislature with a single assembly, and
concluded that more than one house was useless and expensive.
This led the elder President Adams to write and publish his great
(o) Adanu'i Defence of the Americw Conttitatioiu, iiL SD2.
I Labonlije, Histdre del ji^ttta-UniB, stop all l^uUtion, and yet «ome legiib-
U. Douziime Lefon, 288. CoTttra, Uill tion may b« neceuarj." Bagebot on the
on Bepresentative GoTemment, c- 13. Eagliih Constitatian, No. v. p. 127. See
" The evil of two co^equl hooaes of du- also ili. 137, ud Pomeroy, Const Ia«.
tinct natures is obTJoaa. Each house can | 188 tt aeq.
[268]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XI.] TUi: UNITED BTATBS. * 224
work, entitled, " A Defence of the Constitutiona of GloTeniment
of the United States," in which he vindicates, with much learn-
ing and ability, the value and neceseit; of the diTision of the
legialature into two branches, and of the distribution of the
different powers of the government into distinct departments.
He reviewed the histor;, and examined the construction of all
mixed and free governmentB which had ever existed, from the
earliest records of time, in order to deduce, with more certainty
and force, his great practical truth, that single assemblies, with-
oat check or balance, or a government with all authority collected
into one centre, according to the notion of M. Turgot, were vision-
ary, violent, intriguing, corrupt, and tyrannical dominations of
majorities over minorities, and uniformly and rapidly terminated
their career in a profligate despotism.
This visionary notion of a single house of the legislature was
carried into the constitution which the French National Assenibly
adopted in 1791. The very nature of things, said the intemperate
.and crude politicians of that assembly, was adverse to every divi-
sion of the legislative body ; and that as the nation which was
represented was one, so the representative body ought to be one
also. The will of the nation was indivisible, and so ought to be
the voice which pronounced it. If there were two chambers,
with a veto upon the acts of each other, in some cases they would
be reduced to perfect inaction. By such reasoning, the National
Assembly of France, consisting of upwards of one thousand
members, * after a short and tumultuous debate, almost * 224
onanimously voted to reject the proposition of an upper
house, (a) The same false and vicious principle continued for
Borne time longer to prevail with the theorists of that country;
and a single house was likewise established in the plan of govern-
ment published by the French convention in 179S. The insta-
bility and violent measures of that convention, which continued
for some years to fill all Europe with astonishment and horror,
tended to display, in a most forcible and affecting light, the
miseries of a single unchecked body of men, clothed with all the
legislative powers of the state. It is very possible that the French
nation might have been hurried into the excesses of a revolution,
even under a better organization of their government; but if the
proposition of M. Lally Tolendal, to constitute a senate or uppex
(a) New Ann. B«g. for 17S1. Hist 49.
[259]
aqitizecibyGoQl^lc
* 225 JUBISFBDDEN'CE OF [PABT U.
houae, to be composed of members chosen for life, had prevailed,
the coufltitution would have had much more stability, and would
probably have been much better able to preserve the nation id
order and tranquillity. Their own sufferings taught the French
people to listen to that oracle of wisdom, the experience of other
countries and ages, and which for some years they had utterly dis-
I'egarded, amidst the hurry and the violence of those passiona by
which they were inflamed. No people, said M. Boissy d'Anglaa,
in 1795, can teatify to the world with more truth and sincerity
than Frenchmen can do, the dangers inherent in a single legisla-
tive assembly, and the point to which factions may mislead an
assembly without reins or connterpoise. We accordingly find
that in the next constitution, in 1795, there was a divisioa of
the legislature, and a council of ancienta was introduced, to give
stability and moderation to the government; and this idea of two
houses was never afterwards abandoned.
2. Of tha Sanate. — The Senate of the United States is com-
posed (6) of two senators from each stat«, chosen by the
* 225 legislature thereof, * for six years, and each senator has
one vote, (x) If vacancies in the Senate happen by resigna-
tion, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any State,
the executive thereof may make temporary appointmenta, until
the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such
vacanciea. (a) The Senate at present consists of sixty members,
representing the thirty states of the Union. (&) In this part of
the Constitution we readily perceive the features of the old con-
federation. Each state haa its equal voice and equal weight in
{b] Art 1, aec. 8.
(a) It wu uttlftd by the Senate of the Fnited States, in the cue of Landmn, in
182G, that the at«t« eiecative could Dot make an appointment Id the reoen of th<
state legulatnre, in anticipatian of an approaching vacancy. He must wait antil tbe
Tacaucy haa actually occarred before ha can conatitationally appoint.
(b) Id 1S40, it was enlarged from it to 67 members, hy the admission of Hiehigati
and Arkansas as states into the ITuion, in 1836, vide iafia, 384, and snbseqneDtly to SO
membeis, by the adoiission of Iowa, Florida, WiscoDsin, aod Texas as etatea into the
Union, vide in/ro, 38i. The members of tha English House of Lords are ahoat MO
in uamber.
(x) The choice of a senator fbr a fdU pass upon the election of a Unit«d State*
term belon{p to the late«t legislature that senator by the l^islaton or his app^t-
can perform the doty. Opinion of tha ment by the State execotin. State ».
Coart, 60 N. E. E8G. The Secretary of Crawford, SB Fla. Hi.
State or Supreme Court of a State cannot
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. n.] THE DKITED 8TATE& * 226
the Senate, vithoat an; regard to disparity of population, wealth,
or dimensioDB. This arrangemeDt miist liave been tbe result of
that spirit of amity and mutual concession which was rendered
indispensable by the peculiarity of our political condition. It is
grounded on the idea of sovereignty in the states ; and every
independent community, as we have already seen, is equal by the
law of nations, and has a perfect right to dictate its own terms,
before it enters into a social compact. On the principle of con-
solidation of the states, this organization would have been inad*
missible, for in that case each state would have been merged in
one single and entire governmenL At the time the articles of
confederation were preparing, it was attempted to allow the states
ta influence and power in Congress in a ratio to their numbers
kud wealth; but the idea of separate and independent states was
at that day so strongly cherished, that the proposition met with
no success, (c)
Tbe election of the Senate by the state legislatures is also a
recognition of their separate and independent existence, and ren-
ders them absolutely essential to the operation of the national
government. ((2) There were difficulties, some years ago, as to
the true construction of the Constitution in the choice of senators.
They were to be cJtoaen by the legiaUUures, and the legislature was
to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections
for senators, and Congress are authorized to make and alter such
r^fulations, except as to the place, (e) As the legislature may
prescribe the manner, it has been considered and settled, in New
York, that the legislature may prescribe that they shall be
chosen * by joint vote or ballot of the two houses, in case * 226
the two hoiises cannot separately concur in a choice, and
then the weight of the Senate is dissipated and lost in the more
nomoroas vote of the Assembly. This coustruction has become
too convenient, and has been too long settled by the recognition
of senators so elected, to be now disturbed ; though I should
think, if the question was a new one, that when the Constitution
directed that the senators should be chosen by tlte legislature, it
meant not tbe members of the legislature per capita, but tbe legis-
(e) Jonnula ofCtmgrem, iii 41S.
[d) It givei to t'he lUte goTemmenti, ra;a the Federalist, No. 62, aacti an tgeoc;
in tbe formatiaii of the redenl g3T«nuiiei)t m mnst wcore tbeir anthorit;.
(e) irt. 1, MC 4.
[2611
;abyG00<^lc
* 227 JUBIBPRUDENCE OF [PABT II.
lature in the true technical sense, being the two hoasea acting in
their separate and organized capacities, With the ordinary consti*
tutional right of negative on each other's proceedings. This was
a contemporary exposition of the clause in question, and was
particularly maintained in the well-known letters of the Federal
Farmer, (a) who surveyed the Constitution with a jealous and
scrutinizing eye.
The small numher and long duration of the Senate were in-
tended to render them a safeguard against the influence of those
paroxysms of heat and passion which prevail occasionally in the
moat enlightened communities, and enter into the deliberation of
popular asBembliee. In this point of view, a firm and independent
Senate is justly regarded as an anchor of safety amidst the storms
of political faction ; and for want of such a stable body, the repub-
lics of Athens and Florence were overturned by the fury of com-
motions, which the Senates of Sparta, Carthage, and Bome might
have been able to withstand. The characteristical qualities c^
the Senate, in the intendment of the Constitution, are wisdom
and stability. The legal presumption is, that the Senate will
entertain more enlarged views of public policy, will feel a higher
and juster sense of national character, and a greater regard for
stability in the administration of the government. These quali-
ties, it is true, may, in most cases, be equally found in the
* 227 other branch of the legislature, but *the constitutional
structure of the House is not equally calculated to produce
them ; for, as the House of Representatives comes more imme-
diately from the people and the members hold their seats for a
much shorter time, they are presumed to partake, with a quicker
sensibility, of the prevailing temper and irritable disposition of
the times, and to be in much more danger of adopting measuree
with precipitation, and of changing them with levity. A mutable
legislation is attended with a formidable train of mischiefs to the
community. It weakens the force and increases the intricacy of
tlie laws, hurts credit, lessens the value of property, and it is an
infirmity very incident to republican establishments, and has been
a constant source of anxiety and concern to their most enlight-
ened admirers, (a) A disposition to multiply and change lavs,
upon the spur of the occasion, and to be making constant and
restless experiments with the statute code, seems to be the natural
{a) utter 11 (a) Fedenliit, iL No. «2.
[262]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XI.] THB UNITED STATES. •227
disease of popular assemblies. In order, therefore, to counteract
such a dangerous propensity, and to maintain a due portion of
confidence in the goTernment, and to insure its safety and char*
acter at home and abroad, it is requisite that anotiier body of
men, coming likewise from the people, and equally responsible
for their conduct, but resting on a more permanent basis, and
constituted with stronger inducements to moderation in debate
and to tenacity of purpose, should be placed as a check upon the
iotemperance of the more popular department (6)' (x)
The Senate has been, from the first formation of the govern-
ment, divided into three classes; and the rotation of the classes
was originally determined by lot, and the seats of one class are
vacated at the expiration of the second year, and one third of
the Senate are chosen every second year, (c) This provision was
borrowed from a similar one in some of the state constitutions,
of which Virginia gave the first example ; and it is admirably
{() Tbe CoQKtitutiou of Rhode lalaiid, which wu organized and went into opera-
tion in 1S48, has constitDted ihe Senate of that state upon conseiratiTe principlra,
white the Honae of Bepreseulativea ia conatracted opon Uis baais of papulation, gir-
ing to each city and town a representation in a ratio to ita number of inhabitaate.
The Smate is composed of only one member from each eitj or town, so that the
legislative power cannot be wielded I7 overwhelming numbers in a few gre^t manu-
laetnriiig towns or cities, to the oppiestioii of the agricnltiml towns. It is • saln-
• taiT and piorideut check to the tjinnny of majorities over minoriUes.
<e) Constitntion of the United States, art 1, see. 3.
1 See i Am. Lsw B«v. 18.
(x) Sit Henry 8. Maine, in his" Popn- of the Honae of Lords hare nndei|ione
lar Oovemment" saya (p. 179, SiS); many changea since the days of the Oaria
" There appears to me to be no escaping Segil. Yet tbele are some mutters in rela-
fnna the fact that all inch institntioiis as tion to which ezclosive powers are claimed
a Senate, a Hoose of Peers, or a Second b; the HoDSe of Lords alone, or by the
Chamber, are founded on a denial or a House of Commons. Thus, bills affecting
doubt of the proposition that the voice of the righta of the peerage are, it seems, to
the people is the voice of Ood. ... It is be first introduced into the House of
not to be expected that all the hopes of Lords, and may be rejected but not
the founders of the Amehesn Constitntion smended in the House of Commons. 80
wonid be fulfilled. They do not seem to bills for restitntion in blood, after comip-
have been prepared for the rapid develop- tion, and for restitntion of honors, bills
ment of pMty, chiefly nader the inflnence of attainder, and bills of pains and penal-
of Thomas Jefferson, nor for the tborongh ties have usually been firat introduced
OTgasiiation with which the American par- into the House of Lords. See Pike's Con-
tias befem long provided thsmaelves," stitnttonsl History of the Hooite of Lords,
In SngUnd, the legislative hncCiana pp. 310, 33fi.
;abyG00<^lc
• 228 JDBI8PBUDENCB OP [PABT fl.
* 228 calculated, on the one hand, to infuse * into the Senate, .
bieoDiallj, renewed public confidence and rigor; and,
on the other, to retain a large portion of experienced membera,
duly initiated into the general principles of national policy,
and the forms and course of business in the House. The Vice-
President of the United States is President of the Senate, but
has no vote, unless they be equally divided, (a) It would seem
to be the better opinion, that he has authority as presidiiig officer,
virtute offieiij and without any special delegation of power by
tlie Senate, to preserve order; but from some scruples on thst
subject, the Senate, in 1828, established by rule that every ques-
tion of order should be decided by the President of the Senate
without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate, (fi)
The superior weight and delicacy of the trust confided to tbe
Senate, and which will be shown more fully hereafter, is a reason
why the Constitution {c) requires, not only that the senators
should be chosen for sis years, but that each senator shoald
be thirty years of age, and nine years a citizen of the United
States, and, at the time of his election, an inhabitant of the state
for which he is chosen.' The same age was also requisite for a
Roman senator, though in their executive offices no qualification
of age was required. Ne sBtas quidem distinguebatur quin prims
juventa consulatum ac dictaturas iuirenL (d) It has been also
deemed fit and proper, in a country which was colonized origi-
nally from several parts of Europe, and has been disposed to
adopt the most liberal policy towards the rest of mankind, that
a period of citizenship, sufficient to create an attachment to oor
government, and a knowledge of its principles, should render
an emigrant eligible to office. The English policy is not quite
so enlarged. No alien-born can become a member of Parliament
This disability was imposed by the act of settlement of 12 Wm.
III. c. 2; and no bill of naturalization can be received in either
House of Parliament, without such disabling clause in it
(a) Art. 1, aec 8. (A) StoTj, Comm. u. SIS, 213 [} 740).
(c) Art. 1, sec. 3. (tj) T>c. Ann. lib. 11, 2S. •
' For farther qnilificationa, as to pM- note (/) ia dinuBsed, uid the pwwdmB
p>tioa in tbe late rabdlion, see tbe collected in u article in 3 Amsricu I"
rteenth ameDdiuent of tbe CoEutitQ. Beriew, 410.
I, } 3. The question mentioned in
[264]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XI.] THE imiTED STATES. * 229
3. Of tbe Beow erf RoprawntaUvaa. — The House of Represent-
atives ie composed of members chosen every second year by the
people of the several states, who are qualified electors of the
most numerons branch of the legislature of the state to which
they belong. The legislature of each state prescribes the times,
places, and manner of holding elections for representatives, but
Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regu-
lations. («} {x) No person can be a representative until he has
attained the age of twenty-five years, and has been seven years
a citizen of the United States, and is, at the time of his election,
an inhabitant of the state in which he is chosen. (/ )
"The qualifications of electors of the assembly, or most *229
numerotis branch of the legislature, in the several state
governments, generally are, that they be of the age of twenty-
(() Alt. 1, lec. 1.
(/) Art 1, sec. 3. The qnetrtioD whether tbs individu&l statw can snpendd to,
or TUf the qnalificationi prescribed to the repiesentatiTe by the Coiutitntion of the
United Statte, u eiimined in Mr. Jiutic« Story's Commentuiea on ths Comtitn-
limi, iL 09-108. Bat (be o^ectioaa to the ezintence of anj Buch power appear to nw
to be too palpable and wei^ty to admit of an j discuMion. [3 Am. Lsw Bor. 410].
(») The Act <a Feb. 7, 16BI (26 St at 127 U. 8, 67. The governor and eoiiuoil
L. 785) proTided for the apportiomnent of of a State are not jodgei of the election
rvproentatives smotig the States, to take of representatives in Congnsi. Jiuticea'
effect from Mar. 3, 1808, nnder the cenenu Opinion, GS N. H. 621.
of 1890. Although this act may hare un- Aa Congreu is not empowered to regn-
jnatjy deprived, of the benefit of the re- lata the right of unfiage in the Stat«i,
appattioBment, antil the G2d Congreas, a the changes nude in the batds of snStsge
State entitled to increased representation, hj the Hisiissippi conetitDtbn of 1890 are
theqaestioniBpoliticalnitbertbinjndicial. not invalid becaoH they violate the act
StaU B. Boyd, 30 Neb. ISl. The manner of Congress of 1870 readmitting that State
of retoraing teetimony to be nFwd in casca into the Union. Spronle v. Fredericks,
of oontested electiona for Congress ia reg- 69 Hias. 898. Congress tua; reqnin
nlated \)j the a«t of Har. 2, 1887, ch. 818 State officers of elections to perform the
<24 St. at L. 446), amending Bev. State, dntiee defined bj State kwa as to Congrei-
1 127. As to ordering l>y a State legisla- sional elections, and make a failnre in this
tureaf a new election for a repreeeDtative regard an offence sgainet the UnitedStatea.
in Congress, »e«/«« Representative EJBc. In re Coy, 81 Fed. Eep. 794, CoDgreaa
tion, 17 R. 1. 820 ; Ee Congressional may enact laws to protect all voters in
Election, IS R. 1. 6fii. A member of national elections. The En-Elni Cases,
the honae is prima fiitU entitled to hia 110 U. S. 661. The Fedsral conrts have
■catand salary when he receiTM his certi- no jurisdiction of an offence against elec-
ficale of admission and is seated, though tion laws which does not affect the election
the seat is afterwards declared vacant, of a member of Congresa. United States
Page P. United States, 23 Ct, of CI. 4 ; v. Morrissey, 32 Fed. Rep. 147.
[265]
;abyGoO<^lc
" 229 JtmisPRUDENCE OF [part II.
one years and upwards, and free resident male citizens of the
state in which liiey vote ; and, in some of the states, they are
required to possess property, and in the most of tliem to be white,
as well as free citizens.^ The description is, almost everywhere,
80 large as to include all persons who are of competeat dis-
cretion, and are interested in the welfare of the government,
and liable to bear any of its duties or burdens. The House of
Representatives may, therefore, very fairly be said to represent
the whole body of the American people, (a) Some of the atate
(a) In klmott all the states, bo propertj qutlifloCioD vhtttATcr, not trren ptjing
tazei, or sarving in the militU, or being ntrmnnrd for and working on tha public hi^-
w»7, ia requimta for the exercise of the right of saSnge, &vay free male (and in a
majorit; ot the Itatea) white dtizen of the age of twenty-one yean, and who ihiU
have been a resident for some short given period, rMTiDg in those states from two
yeare to three months, is entitled to rote. In Illinois, it has been ccljadged that the
word initMtaiit, in the constitution of the state, meana all persona who have a fimi
permaneitt retutenee bona fide, and not one casual or temporary, and that a nndeiKS
of six months entitles sTery inhabitant to vote ; that under the ordinance of 1787,
and the oonstitntion of the state, and the statutes of 1819, 1S31, 1823, 1S29, and IS33,
aJinu, being residrate, are entitled to vote, thoagb the distinction between citizens ind
inhabitants is snstained for Tarious other purposes ; and that it belongs to ths sCUet
respectiTsly to pr«acribe the i^oaliflcatioDB of penona entitied to exercise the ri^t at
■afTnige, not only as to state, bat to congressional elections. Sprsgins v, HongfatHi,
2 Scammon, S77. This latitudinaiy extension of the right of soffrage to ilinu seenu
to be peculiar to some of the states formed oat of the Northwestern Territory, oDdsr
the ordinance of the ConfedetatioQ Congress in 1787- The State of Uichjgan sdoptcd
it ; so has Wisooniiin, by her constitution in ISM ; but in Ohio, by the set of ISSl, the
right of BoSrage is restricted to nataral-bom and natumliaed citizens, and so I think
it ought to be in all sound policy ; and the view taken of the satyect in the abon
cass, by one of the counsel who argoed the caose, is a masterly argnmeat. In the
state* of UaBsacbosetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Oeor^ (the woidi
of the constitatian of Georgia are, that the eleotois shall " have pud all taxes whtch
may have been required of them, and which they may have had an opportunity of
paying, agreeably to law, for the year preceding the election "), Ohio, and LoUKSoi,
the elector is required, in addition to age and Rsidence, to have been assessed snd
paid, or, in Ohio, c/iargtd with a state or coan'^ tax, or, in Connecticat, to hsve
served in the militia. The revised constitation of Pennsylvania, in 1S38, rvquim
the elector to have resided one year in the stste, snd ten days in the district, immedi-
ately preceding the election, snd having within two years, if of twenty-two jtais d
age, paid a tax, asaessed ten days before the election. And in the amended eoDiti-
tution of LoaisianB, in 1846, the qualification of having paid a tax is dropped, lud
the elector is only required to have been two yean a eitiien of the United Stales, or
1 See the fourteenth amendment of the abridged b; the ITnited States or hy soy
Constitution. By the fifteenth amend- state on aocoont of race, colv, or previous
ment, the right of citizens of the United condition of servitnde.
States to vote shall not be denied or
[266]
;abyGoO<^lc
User. ZI.3 THE UNITED STATEB. * 229
coDBtitutions have prescribed the same or higher qualifications
as to property, in the elected than in the electors, and some of
iMident in the itate for two otmaecutiTB jean n«it preceding the electioii, and ths
last jeu in the pmuh where he propoaet to rote, ud no pereon shall vote except in
Ilia own pariah or election precinct. In Bhode Island, New Hanpsbire, Tirgiuia,
and North Carolina, a qnalification aa to property i* atiU reqaidte. The Rhode laland
charter of ISflS prescribed no regulation ae to the right of snAige. The power of
adtnittii^ ftvemen wu exsrciaad bj the general aseembl;, nntU thej authorized Che
toimato adjuit AtMnen. In 1731 an act was passed by the geuend assembly, pro-
Tiding that DO pefsOD iboold be admitted a freeman, unlesB he owned t/rte/utd estate
of • certain value, or was the eldest son of SDch a freeholder. Such has been the
law «T«r aince, and the requisite value of the esUte is said to be |18i. But the new
oonstitation of Khode Island, which went into operation in May, 1S4S, has eetab-
Ushed and defined the property qnalification of eleetoia, being native citizens, as to
teal eatAte, to be of the valne of tl84, over and above all incumbrance^ and together
witih a previous residence and home in the state for one yeur, and of six months in
the city or town in which he votes ; or, without it, the elector must have had bis red-
dance and home in the state two years, and in the town or city in which be votes, six
moatha next preceding the election, and his nuns most be registered in the city or
toim before the end of December preceding the election, and he must have paid a
t>z erf' fl, or been enrolled in the militia, and done military service or duty therein.
No pauper shall be permitted to be registered or to vote. Naturalized citizena are
reqoirvd to have a Aeehold eatate of the value before required ; and no person can
vote to impose a tax, or to expend money, in any town or city, uulesa he shall have
paid a tax within the year preceding, upon property valued at least at tlZi. These
pcorisioDs, together with that relating to the jndicial tenure and compensation, men-
tioned infra, at p. 29G, render the aspect of the constitntion of that state mors wise
and conservative than any other etate constitution recently formed or amended.
Indeed, that conetitation seems to stand pre-eminent in value in the guards it
introdneee egainst one of the most alarming evils incident in large towns and cities to
oar decioctstical establishments. I mean the freudolent abuse of the right of suflfrage.
Tbo ptflvions residence of the elector in the town or ward where he offers hia vote,
and his ascertained qualifications, ought to be defined and registered, as abaolately
assaiitial to the order end purity of electiona. The legal provision on this sutgect in
Haaaachosetts is valuable. Every citizen must have resided within the state one
year, and within the town in which he may claim a right to vote, six months pre-
««diiig the elecldon. The selectmen of each town, ten days before the first Monday
in Maroh, and befoln the second Monday in November, annually, are to make ont a
oorTBct list of all qualified voters for ofBcen to be elected st thoee periods, and ten
daya before the elactiim to cause their lists to be pouted up in two public places in
tacli town. The seleotmen are also to meet in session within forty-eigbt houra next
p«c«ding the election, to receive evidence of the qualification of persons daiming'to
Tot«, and to correct the liata, and to meet for the like purpose for one hour on the
d«7 of election, and before the opening of it. The moderator at town meetings
reftaaei^ of conne, to receive the votes of persons not on the list. Mass, R, S. pp. 83,
M. The constitntion of the State of Florida, of 18B9, contains a wholesome pro-
viflioin on this subject, in declaring that the legislature should, at its first session,
pniride for the registration of all the qualified electors in each county, and there-
after, from time to time, of alt who may become such qualified electors, and that
[267]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 229 JUBISPBUDEHCB OP [PABT II.
them have required a retigiooa test. Bat the Constitution of the
United States requires no evidence of property in the represent-
evtry ft«e vbite male qnaliSsd elector, when he oSen to Tote, mmt be e citimt, ud
have had hii home, domicile, or pennausat abode in the Kate for two jean next pn-
ceding, and for the last lix montha is the connty in irhich he offen to toU>. ^[he
oouBtitntion of the Stat* of TexM, of 1S46, i* qnite latitndioary on the nibjeet, ud
all white male citiiena who hare resided in the state one jear, and eii montbi in the
district, count;, city, or tovn, an entitled to rote. The constitntion of lows, is
184S, goee much forther, and glres the li^t of saSrage to erery dtilen who tw
redded in the state six months, uid in the county thirt; days. In Virginia, tha
elector mnit he either a freeholder or owner of a leasehold estate, or a hoaseholdtr,
and have been aseesMd and paid tazee. Id North Cardina, the electors of tba Soi-
ate nin«t be freeholders, as was the case formerly in New York, and the electon e(
the HooM of CommoDi mnst have paid public tazea, and none hat freeholden an
be members of either houee of the legiilatnre. In Georgia, the conititQtioii of ITU
required a property qualification in the membera of the legialatuie, over and sbtne
the amount requisite to discharge their debts ; bnt thii qnalifieation was dropped is
the amended constitution of 1798. In New Hampshire, a state senator molt be sciud
of a freehold estate, in the state, io hia own right, of tbe value of £200, and a state
aaeembljman most have an ntate within hia district, of the ralue of iCIOO, one bilf
thereof to be a freebold. Rhode Island and New Jer*ey were the only atatea in tlM
Union that brought down their eoostitatioiu fmtn 1778 trinmphautly against tmj
aavnlt ; bnt the fanner of those etatea changed ita constitution in 1842, and the latttt
in 1S14. The progress and impulse of popular opinion is rapidly destroying emr
constitutional check, every conserrative element, intended by the sages, who fnmel
the earliest American conatitatiotu, a* sslcfpoards agBJust the abnsee of popolir
auSrsge. Thus, in Uaisachusetts, by the oonatitation of 1780, a defined portion ol
rtal or personal property was reqniaita in an eleotor, and that qnali&cation wu dis-
pensed with by the amended constitution of 1 821. By the practioe, under the chsrttn
of Bhode Island and Connectieut, a property qnaliBcatioQ was leqnititB to conMitDti
freemen and voters. Thia test is still oontinned in Bhode Island, but done away with
in Connecticut by tbeir constitution in ISIS. The New Tork constitntloD <^ 1777
leqnimd the electors of the Senate to be freeholder*, and of the Assembly to be athn
freeholders, or to hare rented a tenement of the yearly value of forty shillings. Hk
amended constitution of 1821 rednoed this qualification down to paymsDt of a tax, or
perfonnaoco of militia duty, or asseaament and work on the highways. But the con-
atftutiou, as agsir) ameDded in 1S26, swept away all these impedimenta to univa«l
suffrsge. In the further Kevised ConslJtQtioi) of New York, in 1840, art. S, sec S. i,
the Senate is divided into S2 senator districts, and each district to choose one senator.
So the members of assembly are to be divided into 128 aaeembly districts, and rsrh
district to chooss ons member. This appears to be a rsloable improvement on the
eleodoa of members of the l^islatnre. To entitle a person to rote in the electiw
districts, he must have been a dtizen for ten days, and an inhabitant of the stste ont
year next preceding the election, and for the last four months a resident of the comitj
where he may offer to vote, and he moat vote in the election district of which he dnll
be a r«sldent at the time, and for thirty days next preceding the election. The cw-
■titutioD further provides, that, for the pnrpoee of voting, no person should be deemed
to have gaimd or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while
employed in the ssrvios of the United Slates, nor whils engaged in the navigation tl
[268]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XI,] TBB UNTTBD STATES. • 229
ative, nor any declaration of religious belief. He is only re-
quired to be a citizen of the competent age, and free from any
uudue bias or dependence, by not holding any office under the
United States, {b} *
tlu ntsi* of the state, or of the United 8Uta», or of the high mu, nor while a ita-
dtDt in my MminaTj of learning, oor while kept at an; alnubouse or other a>f lam
« (lablic expenae, nor while oonflned in any publio prison. An. 2, eoc 1,3. Theae
prorinona are very good, if daly and bithfally construed and obserred. The coaiti-
tntion forther adds, »ec 4, that lawa ahall he made for ascertaining, by proper proofa,
Ibe ddiens who ahall be entitled to the right of auffrage. There waa the aame as
this lut proviaioD in the constitution of 1821, and the Iq^latnre in the year 1S40
carried the conatitntional proviaion into effect, according to ite spirit and meaning,
bj the act entitled, " An act to prevent ill^al roting in the city of New York, end
topnimote the convenienee of legal voters," 6Sd teas, c, 78, by diriding the city into
dection diatricta, and providing for a regittry of tht Ugal volen in each diatrict, to be
nude in each year, and the regiatry was made eonclntire evidence of the right of
penons ao roistered to vote. This act worked well, and was sdnirably calculated
to pTevent illegal voting and tanda in election, by which the right of soflVage in the
rity bad been grosaly perverted and abused. Bat the registry provision was repealed
ni tbe 28th Febraaty, 1642 (66th seea. c S6), and the aboaea, impotdtioiLs, and franda
attending the city elections left to reassuroe tbeii wonted miachiefa. The conatitn-
thwal proviaion of l&4tl, aa it stands, is therefore a delusive provision, unless wiser
ceonsels prevail in fUtoie legislatniea. In Harjland, by their constitution of 1776,
(leeton were to be freeholders, or posaessing property to i£30 ; but by l^ialative
uneBdniente in ISOl and 1809 (and amendments an allowed to be made in that state
by an ordinsir statnte, if aanfinned by the next ancceeding legislature), all property
qoalifieation was diaregarded. The constitotion of Virginia, in 177S, required elec-
tors to be fteeholders ; bnt the constitntion of 1830 reduced down the property
qnalijeation to that of being the owner of * leasehold estate, or a householder. In
Hiaaiasippi, by the constitution of 1817, electors were to hare been enrolled in the
niEtia, ca paid taxes ; bnt those impediments to nniversal anSi^p were removed by
the new conatitution of 1883. So the freehold qualification, raqnisite, in certain
eases, by the constitntion of Tennessee of 1796, is entirely discontinued by tbe con-
stitntion of 1SS5. All the states and constitntiona, fanned since ISOO, have omitted
to require any property qualifications in an elector, except what may be implied in
tbe requisition of having paid a state or county tax ; and even that is not in the con-
■titDtions more recently formed or amended, except in the Bhode Island conatitution
of 1843. In some of the states, as in New Hampahire, for instance, a property qoal-
ifkition is still required in the Elected, as governor or as members of the two houaea
ef the le^latnre. Snch a rapid coarse of destruction of tbe fanner conatitutional
checks (and of which further examples are hereallar noticed, vide infra, 29S, note) is
matter for grave reflection ; and to connteiact the dangerous tendency of each com-
(i) Art. I, tee. 8. [See the fourteenth amendment of tbe Constitution.]
* By the fifteenth amendment, the the United States, or by any atatei on
ri^t of citizens of the United States to account of lace, color, or ptevions oondi-
vote ahall not be denied or abridged by tion of servitude.
[269]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 280 JDRISFBUDGNCS OF [PAST II.
The term for which a representative is to serve ought not b>
be so short as to prevent him from obtainiDg a comprehenaive
acquaintance with the business to which he is deputed; nor bo
long as to make him foi^t the transitory nature of his seat, and
his state of dependence on the approbation of his constituents.
It ought also to be considered as a fact deeply interesting to the
character and utility of representative republics, that very fre-
quent elections have a tendency to render the office less important
than it ought to be deemed, and the people inattentive ia the
exercise of their right, or else to nourish restleBsness, instabilitf,
and factions; whilst, on the other hand, long intervals between
tiie elections are apt to make them produce too much excite-
ment, and consequently to render the periods of tbeir
* 230 * return a time of too much competition and conflict for
the public tranquillity. The Constitution has certainly
not deviated in this respect to the latter extreme in the establish-
ment of biennial elections. It has probably selected a medium,
which, considering the situation and extent of our country, com-
bines as many advantages, and avoids as many inconveniences,
as any other term which might have been inserted.
The representatives are directed to be apportioned among the
states, according to numbers, which is determined by adding to
the whole number of free persons, including those bound to ser-
vice for a term of years, and exclusive of Indians not .taxed,
three fifths of all other persons, {a) ^ The number of repre-
sentatives cannot exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each
state is entitled to have at least one representative. The actual
enumeration or census of the inhabitants of the United States is
to be made every ten years, and the representatives newly appor-
tioned upon the same, under a new ratio, according to the relative
increase of the population of the states, {b) The number Gxed
by the Constitution in the first instance, and until a census was
bin«d force* as nniTeTul mfftage, freqaent elccttoD^ all offices for gliort perioda, *U
offlcan elective, and an unchecked preaa ; tad to prevent tbem from racking and
dsatrojioK out political nwchiaea, the people mu&t have a lai^r iliaTa than aMul of
that wisdom which a Jlrvt pun, that ptattabU, gmtle, aitdauj/to bt tntrtated.
(a) Art. 1, sec. 2. (i) Art. J, aec 8.
> By the fourteenth amendment, repre- nambers, coonting the vhola DQinbei of
Mntativea shall be apportioned among the persons in each state, excluding Indiua
MVeial itatea according to their reapecti re not taxed ; but when, Jbc.
[270]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XI.] THE DHITED STATES. • 280 "
takeo, was sixty-five members. The apportionment under the
fourth censuB, by the act of CongresB of 7th March, 1822, was
to a ratio of one representative for every forty thousand persona
in each state, and it made the whole number of representatives
amount to two hundred and thirteen members. Under the fifth
census, completed in 1831, and which made the population of
the United States amount to twelve million eight hundred and
fifty -six thousand persons, the ratio of representation was enlarged
to one representative for every forty-seven thousand and seven
hundred persona, making, in the whole, two hundred and forty
members, (c) The rule of apportionment of the representatives
among the several states according to numbers has been attended
with great difficulties in the application, because the relative
nnmbers in each state do not, and never will, hear such an exact
proportion to the aggregate that a common divisor for all will
leave no fraction in any state. Every decennial apportionment
(e) Acto[Congf«8«, May 22, 1832, c. SI. Id 183S the temtoii«« of liicliigaii aud
Alttuuaa were *dmitt«d as etaUs into the UnioD. Fide in/ra, S84. And in 1845 the
temtories of lovrs and Florida were also admitted aa atates. Fide infra, SS4. .^nd
in 1846 the territory of Wisconsin, and in I84S the Republic of Teiaa. Id. By the
fltb eenmB, cotnpleted in 1841, the nnmber of peraoni in the United States waa
17,009,453, making an iuereaae, ever the cenaos of 1830, of 4,202,648 inhabitants, and
ahoving a gnin in n ratio excetwling 32} par cent for the last ten years ; and bj the act
of Congms of June 25, 1S42, e. 47, the nttio of representatiDn was enlarged to one
NpnaentatiTe for every 70,680 persons in each state, and one additional repreiientative
for «tch atate having a greater &«ction than one njoiet; of the said ratio. This ratio
reduced the number of the members of the House of Representatives, after the 3d
Harch, 1848, to 223 members, besidea a delegate from the three tenitoriu then exist-
ing. Bj this rednction, and w5th the addition of merabera from the new states, the
HoDH of Bepresentatives consisted, on the 1st January, 1847, of 230 members, and
repreeentBtion by delegates of cerbun territories bad Mssed. Tbe act of Congress last
mentioned also prescribed that the nnmber of representatives in each slate, under tbe
^■portionment, should be elected by dittrieU composed of contiguous territory, equal
in nnmber to the nnmher of representatives to which the state should be entitled ; and
that no one district should elect more than one representative. This direction was
anthorized by the provision in the Constitution (art. 1, sec 4), that "tbe times,
jdacea, and manner of holding elections for senators or representatives shall he pre-
scribed in esch state by the legislature thereof ; but the Congress may at any time, by
kw, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing senators." The
election of members of Congress b; districts had been heretofore adopted in some of
the states, and not in others. Uniformity on this subject was desirable, and the meas-
am itself was recommended hy tbe wisdom and jastice of giving, as far as possible, to
tha local mbdiviaions of tbe people of each state a due influence in the choice of repre-
SMttAtivea, so aa not to leave the aggregate minority of the people in a atate, though ap-
proaching perhaps to a majority, to be wholly overpowered by the combined action of
tbe namerical majority, without any voice whatever in the national councils.
[271]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 231 JUBIBFEUDENCE OF [PART II.
has raised and agitated tiie embarrassing question. As an abso-
lute, exact, relative equality is impossible, the principle wbich
has ultimately prevailed is the principle of approximation, by
making the apportionment among the several states according
to their numbers, as near as may he. This is done by allow-
ing to every state a member for every fraction of its numbers,
exceeding a moiety of the ratio, and rejecting all representations
of fractions less than a moiety, (d)
The rule of apportionment established by the Constitution is
exposed to the objection that three fifths of the slaves in the
southern states are computed in establishing the apportionment
of tiie representation. But this article was the result of
" 281 necessity, and grew out of the fact of the existence * of
domestic slavery in a portion of our country. ' The evil has
been of too long standing, and is too extensive and too deeply
rooted, to be speedily eradicated, or even to be discussed without
great judgment and discretion. But the same rule which appor-
tions the representatives extends to direct taxes; and the slaves
in the soutiiem states, while they give those states an increased
number of representatives, contribute, on the other hand, when
that mode of taxation is resorted to, equally to increase the
measure of their contributions, (a)
The number of the House of Representatives would seem to
be quite large enough, on its present computation ; and, unless
the ratio be hereafter enlarged from time to time, as the exi-
gency may require, the House would be in danger of increasing
too rapidly, and would probably become, in time, much too un-
(d) 3«e Story, Comm. on ths CnnititotioD, ii. pp. 141-171, whet« tlu (ntyect i*
fullj eiunined, and the opinion of Hr, Jeffenon on th« one side, and Mr. Wefasteri
nport in the Senate, in April, 1SS2, on Ibe other, are given at la^. Tfaew docnmenta
contain the snbatance of the ugamenta for and against the principle of apportionmaui,
ag adopted and settled bj Congress. The same difficolty arose in the Itgiatatme of
New York, in 1761, on the apportionment of the state representatiou, looording to
the census then recently taken, and the same piindpls of approiimation was adopted ;
and the auttior of this note wsa then one of the members of the House of Asseniblj
who concurred in that rule. (Jaanial of the Auemblj of New Trak for 1791. 20.)
But the constitution of New York gave greater facility to each a mle, for it directed
the senators in each district to be apportioned accoiding to the number of the qualified
electors, ca tuar a$ may be ; and this is the manner in which the •meoded eonttitiitioti
of 1S22 ezpreseee itself on the sabject.
(a) Fedenlist, iL Na M.
* Ante, IBS, n. 1 ; 230, n. L
[272]
;abyGoO<^lc
LKCT. XI.] THE UNITED STATES. ' 232
wieldy a body for convenience of debate and joint consultation.
A doe acquaintance with the local interests of every part of the
UnioD ought to be carried into the House, and a sufScient num-
her collected, for all the purposes of information, discussion, and
diffusive sympathy irith the vants and wishes of the people.
When these objects are obtained, any further increase neither
promotes deliberation nor increases the public safety. AH
numerous bodies of men, although selected with the greatest
care, are too much swayed by pfwsion, and too impatient of
protracted deliberation.
The United States, in their improvements upon the ezercise
of the right of representation, may, as we apprehend, claim pre-
eminence over all other governments, ancient and modern. Our
elections are held at stated seasons, established by law. The
people generally vote by ballot, in small districts, and public
officers preside over the elections, receive the votes, and main-
tain order and faimeaa. {b) Though the competition be-
tween candidates is active, and the zeal * of rival parties * 232
sufficiently excited, the elections are eveiywhere con-
diicted with tranquillity. The legislature of each state prescribes
the times, places, and manner of holding elections, subject, how-
ever, to the interference and control of Congress, which is per-
mitted them for the sake of their own preservation, and which,
it is to be presumed, they will not be disposed to exercise, except
when any state shall neglect or refuse to make adequate provi-
sioQ for the purpose. The privilege of voting, as we have already
seen, is conferred upon all persons who are of sufficient com-
petency by their age, and of sufficient ability to take care of
themselves. The ancient Greeks and Romans had not only very
imperfect notions of the value of representation, but the number
and power of their popular assemblies were so great, and they
were so liable to disorder, as to render it a very provident mea-
sure with them, to be guarded in diffusing the privileges of free
citizens. Not a tenth part of the people of Athens were admitted
(fi) Voting by ballot me introdnoed in the pnirinee of Hassacliiuetts in ISSl. In
New York, ths people roted viva voce, until after the BeroIutJos, and then Totiiig by
bdlot waa coDsdtntioiullr established. Electione in Tic^nia and Kentacky ue atill
>iM toee, and not by ballot, and thU provision it established by the existing constitn-
tiotu of thoae ttate*. In QeorRia, sIm, by the constitotion ot 17B0, alt elections by
the people were ly votea viva voct ; hot the lq;ia1atnre mi^t otbonriae direct ; and
Uh7 have dae« declared all deetioni to be by ballot
TOI.I.— 18 [278]
;abyG00<^lc
* 232 JtlBISPBUDEHCE OF [PIBT □.
to Uie privilege of voting in the aseemblies of the people ; and,
indeed, nine tenths of the inhabitants throughout all Greece were
slaves, (a) In Sparta, tiie number of votes was fixed at ten
thousand. In Rome, this privilege was for many ages confined
to the Pomceria of the city, {b) and it continued to be so con-
(a) Mitford'a Or«eM, L SC4, S67. In th« trettiw of Q. F. ScbonuuiD, ■ pfotoaid
Genrnin scbnlar, De Comitiii Atheniensium, publiihed ia Latin in 181S, uid tnnilited
into Englisb, tX Cuabridg«, in Enf^land, in 18SS, the democnitie«l Korcnimciit of
Atheni U discDisad with maateii; erudition. He sCatea that daring the vigor of Uw
AthGDlui democracy, BTer7 citizen of the age of eighteen htA * n^i to hold offing
and to give a vote at the anembliea of the people. That the moet crowded aaKtn-
bliea nrel; exceeded 8,000, though Attica contained 20,000 citiien< ; ppu 60, i%, VU.
That all were reckoned citizens whose parents were both sneh ; p. 66. To UKcaat
nnhwfnll]' the right* of a citizei^ was puuiehed by being sold into slkTeiy ; p. li.
The awembliea of the people were convened by magiatntea (Prylaiut and Slrotegi],
and the chainnen or preaidents (I^T/tana and Proedri) presided at them, and ptopoaeil
the sulJecU to he dlsciused, «nd had the bills, which had been previonaly pnpand
and sanctioned bj the senate {for the fundsnwntsl Iftw alh>«ed none other* to be on-
sidered), recited, and gave permission to the orators to speak, thon^ the libeitf of
addressing the people on the subject fVom the Bema wN open to all. The chaiman
also pat the qneAion to vote, whether to adopt or rqect the propoaition. "Hie M-
■evbly hkd the right to my or alter it ; pp. GS, 81, 90, 101, 104, 107, ISO, Sti.
The people genersUy voted by show of hands, and sometimes by ballot ; p. 127. They
voted by tribes (of which there were ten), bnt s majority of the whole asaenably, col-
lectively, decided.
The atiuctnre and history of the Athenian deniocrscy bu much to warn, and vny
little to console, the (riendi of freedom. From the incurable defect, among otheta, of
assembling the people to make laws in masses, and not by lepntentatiDD, and tnai
the want of a dne and well-defined sepatation of the powers of government into dis-
tinct departments, that celebrated republic became violent and profligate in its cantr,
and ended in despotism and slavery. The general assemblies of the people, withoot
any adequate checks, assumed and sxercised all the supreme powers of the statst
legislative, dzecntive, and judicial.
{b} Thirty-five tribe* voted in the comitia held in the city of Rome ; bat the dty
tribes (FUbi uriana) consisted only of four within the walls of the citr, and the LUerti
were inscribed in the city tribes. The other thirty-one tnbes were rand tribes, wbo
occupied the land* for a considerable district of country around the city, and they
were the ruling and influential body. See Lond. Q. Beview, So. 112, for Jnne, ISSA,
the Beview of Professor Drnmaii's History of Bouie. Bat the Bomsn slave* were not
represented, and Rome exercised the right of absolute aoveraignty over the dominions
of its auxiliaries. The Soman citiiena, who exclosively eieicised as voters the powers
of government, bore, tberofore, a very small proportion in nambera to the gioat
amount of the inhatritanta. The Bomao mode of passing laws, and voting in their
eomilia, was orderly, and andsr great ohecks, daring the best periods of the govern-
ment. When a law was proposed and diaoosaed, and the religioaa ritea dniy per-
formed, and no intercession made, the people ptooeeded to vote, and every citiiea was
ordered to repair to his oentoiy. The method of voting was originally trim xatt, bat
after the year of the city 614, it was by ballot by the Uga tateUaria, which a^Ued
[274]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. XI.J THE DNITBD STATES. * 2&S
fined, and to be tolerable in its operations, until the mem-
orable social -war " extended it to all the inhabitants of * 233
Italy, south of the Rubicon and the Amus. As no test of
property or character was required, and as the people assembled
within the walls of Kome in immense masses, and not merely to
Tote, but to make laws, this great innovation produced the at-
most anarchy and corruption, and has justly been regarded as
precipitating the fall of that commonwealth, (a)
The English nation, in common with the other feudal govern-
ments of Europe, anciently enjoyed the bleBBingn of popular
representation, and the knights, citizens, and bui^sses were
intended to represent the farmers, merchants, and manufacturers,
being the several orders and classes of people of which the nation
was composed, {b) But the mutations of time and commerce, in
tqiull; to the «leetioii of (oagistntea, to public tTuL^ and to making and repetling
l>w>. The people vera made to pass id order over some ninToir planks, called ponUt,
into the tepta, or anclDaurea, where certain officers delivered to averj voter tiro tablet*,
one for and one againit the pnipoaition, and eacb peiwn tbrev into a cheat which of
them be pleaaed, and they were pointed off, and the greateat number of points, either
way, determined the eenM of the century, and the greateet naiuber of centuries jiaseed
lor tbe Toice of the whole people, who either paaoed or Tweeted the law. See Heinec-
dni, Antiquit. Bom. Jur. lib. 1, tit. 2, sec. 8-11, Opera, iv., where the ancient learn-
ing ou the untgect u collected. And tee Booke*! Rom. Hist b. 1, c 7, sec. 4, note.
Gceni coudemnrd the secret rote by ballot, as being a cover for corrupt and hypo-
critical Totea. Hie object was to obtain or measure the moral valne of the Totea by a
eonaiderationofthe penoni who gave them. Cic de Legibna, b. 3. Mr. Bantham, tbe
tranetator of Cicero's traatiMa, De Bepnblica and De Lrgibua, in hii note to b. S, De
L^baa, learnedly discussea tbe superior value and safety of open voting by poll ; bat the
orderiy and apecifio mode of voting by ballot seems to render the latter preferable in that
point of view. [See at to notes (a) and (b) Fnstel de Goulangcs, La Cit4 Antique.}
(a) Honteaqnien's Eaprit dea Lois, L lib. 2, c. 2 ; Gtand. et Decad. des Bom. c 9,
Aagtutus allowed tbe Decariona, or privileged citiiens, in the provincial chartered
dtiea in Italy, to vote at home for Roman magistrates, and to send in writing tiuir bal-
left u»4«r tal to Ou polU at Rome. This, says Suetonius, was conferring upon them, in
a degrv^ the privileges and dignity of Boms itself. Sueton. Aog. c 46.
(6) 1 Black. Cnmm. 174 ) Millar on the English Constitution, b. 2, c 6, sec. 1. In
all tbe nortbem nations, aays Turner, in his learned History of England during the
Middle Agea, L 410, great councils were attached to the ruling chief, from their first
emerging from the woods of Oennany. The destruction of tbe Anglo-Saxon nobility,
in their revolts sgainst William the Conqueror, and the conflacation of their property
among bia Norman barana, bad annihilated the tnemben of their ancient witena-
Rrmnles, but did Dot terminate the institution. The Norman barona were aa inde-
[leiidvnt as the Saxon witeua, and they aurrounded the sovereign in a national council,
a^ well after the conquest a* before. But though tbe national uonocile, which were
comnion to the Celtic and Teutonic tribes, may have contained within them the genu
o( tba English Parliament, yet the moden antiquarians generally conclude that tbe
[275]
;abyG00<^lc
• 234 /DBIBPBDDENCE OP • [PABT II.
depopulating ancient boroughs, and in eatablishing nev cities
and great manufacturlDg eatablishments, without anv direct par-
liamentary representation, insensibly changed the structure of
the House of Commons, and rendered it, in theory at least, a very
inadequate and imperfect organ of the vill of the nation.
• 234 Archdeacon Paley obeerved, * many years ago, (a) that
about one half of the Commons were elected by the people,
and the other half came in by purchaae, or by the nomination of
single proprietors of great estates. So extremely unequal vas
the popular vote at elections in England, that less than seven
thousand voters returned nearly one half of the House of Com-
mons, (b) ' But notwithatandiog the great imperfection of the
AnglihSuon witenageaiote had do representation of the ceotls, or inrerior freemen.
It coiuisted of the moDftrch, the axiatocracj, and the rletj^, with very little of the
real liberty of deliberatioti uid rotiiig. Hatlam on the Middh Agei, c 8, pt. 1 ;
Tnmer'a Hist of the Aaglo-SaioDs, iii. ; Falgnve'a Hi«t. of Soj^d, L ; Sir Wm.
Betham'a Dignities, Feudal and Parliajnentuy. The latter writer concludes, from a
careful ezamioatiou of au inunense DiasB of ancient doeameota, that there existed no
deliberatire legislative assemblj in England prior to the reign of Henry III. Ulat
was the era of the establishment of mayna eharta, which declared that do taxatirai
(the three rsudal aida excepted) was to be imposed but hj Pturliameut, which vas to
conaiat of the higher clergy and nobility, and of the tenants in chief under the crown.
This was. the era of the introduction of popular representation in England, and of the
establiBhiDent of the Eouee of Commons in the time of Henry III. and Edward I.
Lauds held by feudal tenure were held on the couditiou of perfonning certain aa-
vices ; and being performed or rendered, the fendatory conld not lightfolty be assuaed
farther without his consent. The royal towns obtained diartera of privil^es b;
which they were relieved from arbitrary taxation on paying or rendering the stipu-
lated aaseasments. When the wants of the crown increased, and flirther aids wen
necessary, it was deemed expedient for the king and his council of peera to consult
the wishes, and take the consent of the amall conntiy freehaldsra, and the inhabitanb
of the cities and botvughs ; and knlghta, dtiieos, and buigMsee were aooofdingly
summoned to appear by representation in the great conncil or legislatore nnder the
feudal system. The first edict for the election of a representatioB of the commonalty
of the realm of knights, citizens, and burgesses, from counties, cities, and borongfas,
was issued under the usurpation of Simon Hontfort, in the 4Bth of Hen. 111. The
great council of the nation had hitbertA conaiated of the prelates and baroua, asnsted
by the officers of the state, sad the judges. [See Stubbs's Select Charters, Clarendon
ftesB, 1870. Freeman, Growth of the English Constitution].
(a) Moral Philosophy, Sea, ed. 1788.
[b) In 1831, it was asserted, that ont of six hundred and fifty-eight members, of
which the English Hoiue of Commons consisted, the number of four hundred and
eighty-seven were elected by one hundred and forty-foiiT peers, and one houdred and
twenty-three oommouera. In 1832, the Engliah Hoase of Commone was reformad
by three several statutes, pfssed to amend the rrpraenlatioji of tKe paopU oj Mitflaitd
1 Bee' Enays on Befonn (Maonillan & Co., 1867). App. SS7.
[276]
;abyGoO<^lc
VSCn. n,"] THE UNITED STATES. •284
constitution of the Eoglieh House of Commons, if it were to be
tested by the arithmetical accuracy of our own political Btandards,
neverthelesa, in all periods of English history, it felt strongly the
vigoT of the popular principle. While on the coutinent of Europe
the degeneracy of the feudal system, the inSuence of the papal
hierarchy, the political maxims of the imperial or civil law, and
the force of standing armies, extinguished the bold and irregular
freedom of the Gothic governments, and abolished the representa-
tion of the people, the English House of Commons continued to
be the asylum of European liberty ; and it maintained its station
against all the violence of the Plantagenet line of princes, the
hanghty race of the Tudors, and the unceasing spirit of despotism
in the house of Stuart. And when we take into consideration
the admirable plan of their judicial polity, and those two distin-
tmd Jfaki, Seollmid and IrvlMtd. Under the flrat of tbe«e Btatntea, fifty-riz Eagliiih
barougha were toUllj dUfnnchiied, ■nd thirty boroughs were reduced escb to the
right of ntnming DDl]r one meinber. Twentr-two new boroaghc were created, with
> light to each of retaming two member* ; end UKDcbeeter, Birmingbem, Leeds, uid
Sheffield were amoug the towne invested with that privilege. SiitMn other new
boTooghs were created, with the rif;ht to each of returning one member. Thirty-four
■hirea ware subdivided in respect to members of Parliament, so as to give an increase
of sizty-thMe kuighbs. The qualifieatiDDS of electors, consteting of freeholdere,
leasees, and copyholders, were altered, and the name of every voter required to be
pKvioiuly nigistered. The Dnmbet of membera of the reformed House of Commons
Gonnst* in the aggiq^ate of i6S, the same number as before the Tefotraed lall, Tiz.
117 membenfor England, 29 tor Wales, 68 forScotland, 106 for Ireland. By the Eng-
lish Beform Act of 2 ft S Wm. IV. e. 16, the qualificationiof electors of the commons
hooBC of PflfUament, for tntghU ofOuAint, were substantially as follows; That they
imut have a freehold or copyhold estate in poaaeaaion, or as leesee or assignee in
paaseasion of the unexpired letidae of a term of sixty yean, of the clear yearly value
in cither case of not less than £10, above all rents and chargea thereon ; or of the
nnexpired reridtie in poesesdon of a term of twenty yean, of the clear yearly vslae
of £50 above all rents and charges ; or be a tenant in occupatioD of lands, liable to
s yearly rent of £50. The elector must also have been duly regiitered, and, to be
entitled to the registry, he must have been in the actual possession of the house, or
of the rents and proHts thereof, for six months previous to the last day of July in each
year. The elector for cOixm and Wrgiutt must occupy, as owner or tenant, a house
or bnilding, either separately or jointly, with land within the borough, of the clear
yearly valne of £10, and i«ted to the poor-ratj^, and been duty registered, and a
r«rident for six moDthe |n«vions to the last day of July in each year. The regula-
tjoDS reapecting the registry and the revision of the lists are specific and minute, to
gOMd more effectaally against the destructive evil of frandolent and sporiona votes.
]To person is entitled to vote unless his name appears on the roister of electors, and
bin qnalifieationa cannot be questioned at the polls, except on three points; (1.) Hia
identity with the person registared ; (2.) as to having voted already at Uis election ;
(3. ) that he continnes to poeeen the registered qualification.
[277]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 285 JOBISPEUDENCE OF [PABT U.
guished guardians of civil liberty, trial by jury and the freedom
of the press, it is no longer a matter of astonishment that the
nation, in full posaession of those inestimable bleaainga, should
enjoy greater security of person and property than ever was
enjoyed in Athens or Sparta, Carthage or Bome, or in any of the
oommonwealths of Italy during the period of the middle ages.
I proceed neit to consider the privileges and powers of the
two houses of Congress, both a^regately and separately. The
Congress is to assemble at least once in every year, and such
meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they
by law appoint a different day. (e)
* 235 4. PrlvUesea of tha Two Honsea. — * Each house is made
the sole judge of the election return and qualificationE of
its members, (a) ' (a) The same power is vested in the British
House of Commons, and in the legislatures of the several states;
and there is no other body known to the Constitution, to which
such a power might safely be trusted. It is requisite to preserve
a pure and genuine representation, and to control the evils of
irregular, corrupt, and tumultuous elections; and as each house
~ acts in these cases in a judicial character, ita decisions, like'the
decisions of any other court of justice, ought to be regulated by
known principles of law, and strictly adhered to, for the sake of
(e) Art. I, u>c. 4.
(a) Art 1, tee. S. {Sm People ». Hall, SO N. Y. 117, m to th« efftetof » porar
giTBD to any other than a Isgiflatlre body to ba ths judgn of the election and qnali-
ficatioiu of its uieiuhera. — b.]
> 9ee the concnmnl leMlation of tbe wncalled Confederate 3tata to b« repn-
Honae of BeprsaentAtiTsa and Senate ap- aented in either honie, and the debate in
pointinft a joint committee to report an tbe Senate upon the aame, December II,
tbe right of the itatea which fonned the 186G.
(w) A member of parliament, who does statnte, of notiee ol petitiona hefoie ther
not believe in the existence of a Sapreme are presented to the legialatnre, has been
Being, and upon wliom an oath is binding held to iDterfere anlawfoll; with the pow-
□nly as a solemn promise, is incapable of er of each house to r^ulate its own pro-
taking the oath of allrgiance prescribed oeedinge. Justices' Opinion, S3N. H. 825.
by the English statnl^. Att.-Oen. v. The qualification and election of the
Bradlaugh, li Q. B. D. 667. The man- members of a ConititntioDsl conTentioB
ner of holding an election for Congreas duly convened are questions belanging, it
may be regulated by a State legislature, seems, ezclnsivelj to the convention and
but not qualifications. Stone v. Charles- not subject to the action of the courts by
town, 114 Mass. 227; 3 Am. UwRev. 410. prohibition or otherwiM. Sre *» Albuiy
Hie requirement, by a general Slate L. J. SSli 28 Am. L. Bev. MS.
[278]
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. XI.] THE UNITED STATES. * 285
uniformity and certainty. A majority of each house constitutes a
quorum to do buBiness, (z) but a smaller nmnber may adjourn from
day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in
such manner and under such penalties as each bouse may pro-
ride, (b) Each house, likewise, determines the rules of its
proceedings, and can punish its members for disorderly behavior;
and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member, (c)
Each house is likewise bound to keep a journal of its proceed-
ings, and from time to time publish such parts as do not require
secrecy, and to enter the yeas and nays on the journal, on any
question, when desired by one fifth of the members present, {d)
Neither house, during the session of Congress, can, without the
assent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any
other place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting, (e)
The members of both houses are likewise privileged from arrest
daring their attendance on Congress, and in going to and return-
ing from the same, except in cases of treason, felony, and breach
of the peace, (f) (y) These privileges of the two houses are obvi-
{&) In ths English House of Commons forty members ua reqoiaite to fonn »
qnonun for bnuDMa ; but in 1888, the requisite Dumber was reduced to tweuCy, ho
^r u rekted to the morning edttiDgs, appropnated to privtte businesi Mid petitiona.
Tbt HooM of Lordi duj proceed to busiDeu if only three loida be preaent.
[c) The power of expulsion is in it* nature discretionuy, tnd its exenise of a
Mon •nnunaij character than the power of judicial tribunals. Case of J. Smith,
1S07. The cases are nnmeroaa in which menibeis of the House of Common^in
England bare been called to acoount and punished bj admonition, impriaanment, or
e^inlsian, aa the case might t«qnii*, for offensive wonls or conduct before the House.
Ka^B Treatise on the Law of Parliament, 80.
id) An. I, sec 6. {e) Art 1, sec S.
{/) Art. 1, sec 6. This privilege ia confined to the members, and does not extend
to their servants, and it applies as well to arrests on execution as to arrests on mane
(z) If a quorum is present in the (y) In England, freedom from arteat, as
House, a4)ill maj be passed b; the rotes . « Parliamentary privilege, which was en-
of ■ majority of that quorum. United joyed by both Lords and Comurans, never
States V. Ballin, lil U. 3. 1. If the extended to criminal offences, and has
joomal of the Federal house of reprewnta- been so reduced by l^islation in civil
tives may properly be referred to, to aseer- actions ss now to be of little value. See
tain whetber a law was passed by a quorum Pihe's Constitutional History of the
orbf saffldent votes, itflcorrectueaicaunot House of Lords, p. S59.
be impeached by oral evidence. United The exemption of a member of Congress
Statu V. Ballin, 114 U. S. 1 ; see Somers from arrest when on his way to attend a
V. Stata (S. D.X S8 N. W. Bep. 80i ; session includes also the mere service of
Keld V. Claik, 148 IT. S. 649, efll, note, process, and ia not lost by a slight devis.
871; State V. Jones, 9 Wssh. St. 4G2. tion from the route or limited 1^ the
[279]
;abyG00<^lc
• 286 JDMSPKDDENCE OF [PABT H.
ousty necessary for their preserration and character; and what
is etill more important to the freedom of deliberation, no member
can be questioned out of the house for any speech or debate
therein, {g) ' (z)
There is no pover expressly given to either bouse of Con-
gress to punish for contempts, except when committed
•236 *by their own members; [x) but in the case of Anderson,
procMK. The urest u illegal and void, and after tiis cessation of the privilege, the
msm'ber ma; Im aneated it novo for the nme eanae. If elected a member vMU i»
ciulody, OD civil proceaa of aaj kind, hit privilege ai a member opetstea to eotille
him to his discharge during the continuance of the privilege. Tbia ia the EngUtb
parliamentar; law. Hay's Tnatiiie, &c., 63, 97. Bat b; serend statntes in tiw
reign of Oeoi^ III. (10 Oeo. HI., IG Geo. III., 47 Geo. III.), privilege ia no sU; of
proceedinp in civil anita, down to judgment and execution, with the erception o(
penoDal arreat utd impriaonment, nor doee the privilege eitend to commitments fir
contempts in coarta of justice. Wellealey'a Case and Charlton's Case, cited in Maj's
Treatise, &c. 108, 109.
(g) Art 1, sec. S. The queetion whether a senator or member of the Hoose of
Bepresentatives ia liable to impeachment for conduct in hia lagialative eapadtj, ii
couMdered b; Ur. Joatice Storj', in hia Commentaries, iL pp. 2S9-26S ; and the wei^t
of authority, and the reason and policy of the thing, are decidedly in the ntgativs,
and in favor of the principle that members of Congrees should be exempt tnm in-
peschment and puniabment for acta done in their collective or congressional capadty.
Though a member of Cangreaa is not reeponuble out of Congres* for word* spoken
there, though libellona upon indiridnala ; yet if he canasa his speech to be pabUihed,
he may ha punished as for a libel by action or indictment. Thia ia the Engliah and
the just law. The casea of Loid Abingdon and of Creevy, S Sap. 3S8, 1 Hanle 4
Bel. 276.
* However it may ha in caaa of the Stockdale e. Hansard, that an ocdar rf
publicalian of a separate speech, it U the House of Cammons would not pnt«t
now aettted that faithful reports in the the publication of matter not otherwiat
newspapeiB of parliamentary debates are privileged, for that would be allowing
privileged. Waaon v, Walter, L. B. 4 one btauch of the legialatuie to change
Q. B. 73. But this decirioa professed to the law.
leave unahalen the detennination in
shortest time required for the jonmey. on dvil pMoess. lliompaiHi'a Caae, 133
Miner e. Harkham, 28 Fed. Rep. S87 ; Uass. 428.
seeRhodeae. Walsh (Minn.), 23L.B. A. (>> Fair and accurate t^orta of the
6S2, and note. Contra, as to the ftnt proceedings of bodies oonatituted by the
point, Herritt v. Oiddingi, 4 HacArthnr, legislature, sach aa cmnly councils or a
E6. Council of Hedical EdneatioD and Regis-
An inhabttnnt of one State, gtong into tralion, are doubtless privil^ed. AUbott
another State voluntarily and aoldy to v. Qenerat Council, 33 Q. B. D. 400, 412.
appear and testify before a jtont com- (z) See Stewart n. Blaine,! HacArthnr,
mittee of the legialatare as to hU claim 468. A member of parliament is only
agunst the State, Is privileged fnm arrest liable to arrest for a contempt which, in its
[2801
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. H.] THE UNITED STATES. " 236
who was committed by order of the House of Representatives,
for a contempt of the EouBe, and taken into custody by the
sergeant-at-arms, an action of treapass was brought against the
officer, and the question on the power of the House to commit
for a contempt was carried by writ of error to the Supreme
Court of the United States, (a) The court decided that the
House bad that power, and that it was an implied power, and
of vital importance to the safety, character, and dignity of the
House. The necessity of its existence and exercise was fonnded
on the principle of self-preservation; and the power to punish
extends no further than imprisonment, and that will continue
no longer than the duration of the power that imprisons. The
imprisonment will terminate with the adjournment or dissolution
of Congress. (J) '
a) AndersoD v. Dnim, S Wheaton, SM.
{b) The dnratian of impriBoiinient for contempts termiiuteB also in Eogluid Dpon
tbe cloM of the existiiig sessioii of Parlinment. Stockdale c. Hanaaid, cited in May's
* Ab to tbc povert anil privilege ot ard e. Qosstit, 10 Q. B, 3S9, 411. See
file I^liameat of Great Britain, see How- also generally on commitment for con-
natim or I7 ita incidenta, is of a criminal or documents liefore it ; and althongh •
, not inelnding a refusal to be jury is not required by due process of law
li as a witness in bank- Id matWn of contempt, yet the final
rnptey proceedinga. /n r« Amutrong. determinatioii whether such witness can,
[1S92] 1 Q. B. 827. In England, the by fine or imprisonment, be compelled so
Crown may remit a sentence for contempt to act cannot be left solvly to tbe jndg-
of covrt. Bt A Special Reference, [1893] ment of a sabordinate or ezeCQtiTe triba-
A. C. 18S. nal. Interstate Commerce Commisaion e.
Tbe comnMn eotincil of a oit; has no Brimsoa, 1S4 U.' 8. 147-
jodidal power uid cannot be constitution- Congress can only compel the prodac-
allj empowered to commit and punish for tion of priTata papers in or by judicial
antODpt, without right of appeal or trial proceedings, and not for the purpose of
by jnr;. Whiteomb's Case, 120 Uass. uding an inrestigating committee. In rt
US. Am the oonrt* almie can pnnish for Padfie Railway Comniissioii, S2 Fed.
omtempt, a bo«rd of tax contmissionere, Bep. 241.
ereoted by the Iqfislatare with power to Congress may, it seems, require any
nunmon and examine witnessea, cannot witness to appear as a witness befbre its
be eonstilDtionally empowered to line and committee, even without paying the wit-
imprison for contempt. Langenberg c. ness his fees for attendance. Ulley tr.
Decker, 131 Itid. 471. The judicial power United States, 14 Ct. of CI. SSB.
el the United Statn extends to a petition Any member of Congress may now ad-
Gled in • Circnit Court under J 12 of the minister the oath to witnesses, under tbe
Interstate Commerce Act of I8S7, in sid of Act of June 2fl, 1S84, ch. 123 (23 St. at
ittinqames, tocompel awitness before the L. SO),
o testify or to produce books
[281]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 286 JUKISPBUDENCB OP [PAHT II.
The House of Repreaentatiyea has the exclusive right of origi-
nating all bills for raising revenue, and tnis is the only privilege
Treatiae on the PriTilegw of Ptrlument, 7G ; [9 Ad. & EL 1 ; 11 i4. * EL 2SS, SIS,
297 ; antt, 235, n. 2.] Ths decision of the Supreme C<iart, in the cue of Audenoa,
is accompanied with a coune of reasoning which would seem to be safficieDt U pisee
the authority of either house of Ccugreu to punUh eontempts and braMhet of prinltge)
on the most solid foundation, independent of the sbeoluto authority of the decision. Tbn
constitutional exercise of the uiiiie power by eauh honse (^ Parliament hH been npeaUdl;
vindicated in Westminster Hall in the most masterly manner. Lord Ch. J. De Orey, in
Bex D. Crosby, 3 Wils. 183 ; Lord ElUnborongh, in Bnrdettn. Abbott, li East, 1. Itis
a power inherent in *U legislatiTe aaaemblies, and iaeBsential to enable them tc execute
their great trusts with freedom and safety ; and it bai been frequently axerciaed, not
only in Congrew, but by the respective branches of the state legisUtam, and mty be
considered as indispntably acknowledged and settled. Story, Comm. ii. pp. 30S-3I7.
What acta tball amoant to a contempt of either house of Congress are QOl defined, and
must be left to Qth jodgiaeot and discretion of the house, under the circnmstancei of
each case. In England, libeli upon the chaiacter or proceedings of either honn of
Parliatoent, Or an; of its members, are regarded as breaches of privil^e, and punishsfale
as for contompt^ by imprisonment. Uay'a Treatise on the Law and PrivilegN of
Parliament, 63 ; Burdett v. Abbott, tupi'o. But with us suoh a course of redreea hu
not been adopted, and the house that was injured would probably, if tednat wai
Bougbt, direct a public prosecution by indictment. The act of Congress of I Jtli Jnlj,
1708, made it an indictable offence to libel the gOTeranent, Congreaik or Pitsidtnt
of the United SUtes, Fid* infra, ii. St.
tempt, the case of Femandei, S HorUt. House of RepreaentaCiTea can commit far
ft N. 717, and 10 C. B. h. b. 3. The contempt a pMttj who rerneea to stteml
l^;islatiTe assembliee of the British colo- as a witness and testify before a commit-
nies have, in the absence of express grant, tee of the House. Bat the Supnnit
no power to a<tjadiaite upon, or punish Court can inquire on habtat eorpiu inU
for, contempts committed beyond tiieir the propriety of the commitment Bent-
walls. Doyle ». Falconer, L. B. 1 P. C, ham o, Morrissey, Ii Gray, 22( ; State
328, 339 ; Eielle; s. Canon, A Moore, P. v. Mattbews, B7 N. H. 450. In Scuboni
C. 63 ; FcDton u. Hamptou, II Moore, P. v. Carleton, IS Gray, 309 ; a. c. 21 Uir
C. 347 ; In re Brown, 33 L. J. K. 8. Q. B. Rep. 7, it was held that the sergeaBt-at-
193, 5 Beat ft 3. 230. For, even for a arms of the ITnited Stabs Senate, having
contempt committed in tbelt presence a warrant to arrest a part? for contempt,
and by one of their members. The conld not delegate hia sutbority, and
right to remove for aelf-secnrity is one authorize an arrest by his deputy in
thing, tbe right to inflict punishment Massacbusetts. [In Kilbonm r. Thomp-
is another. The latter power is judicial, son, lOS [T. 3. 108, the power of the
ecessar; to the existence of s House of BepreaentativM to punish for
legislative osflembly. Doyle r. Falconer, contempt received elaborato dieeossion.
L. B. 1 P. C. 328, 340 (citing and seem- KUboum had been arrested and imprit-
ingly disapproving Ande^wn o. Dunn), oned h^ order of the Honse for refosing to
Wbeu a statute gives the power, see answer certain questions propounded and
Speaker of Leg. Ass. of Victoria v. Glass, to produce certain books and papen
L. R. 8 F. C. Geo. The Massachusetts called for bv a committee of the Hdum,
;abyG00<^lc
LECr. XI,] THE tTNITBD STATES. • 287
that house eDJoya in its legislative character, which is not shared
equally by the other; and even those bills are amendable by
the Senate in its discretion. (•;) The two houses are an entire
and perfect check upon each other, in all business appertaining
to legislation; and one of them cannot even adjourn, during
the session of Congress, for more than three days, without the
consent of the other, nor to any other place than that in which
the two houses shall be sitting, (d)
The powers of Congress extend generally to all subjects of
a national nature. Many of those powers will hereafter become
the subject of particular observation and criticism. At present,
it will be sufficient to observe, generally, that Congress are
authorized to provide for the common defence and general wel-
fare; and for that purpose, among other express grants,
they are authorized to lay and collect taxes, 'duties, *237
imposts, and excises; to borrow money on the credit of
the United States; to regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; to
declare war, and define and punish offences against the law of
nations ; to raise, maintain, and govern armies, and a navy ; to
organize, arm, and discipline the militia; and to give full
efiic&cy to all powers contained in the Constitution. Some of
these powers, as the levying of taxes, duties, and excises, are
(e) Art 1, lec. 7. (d) Art. 1, sec. $.
Be bnnight an utiim for falae impriioii- iuqoiry in wbicb the comniittee was en-
nent agdtiit ttie Ki^eant-at-anDS uid pged at the time of plaiutiO'i refusal to
tbt nemlwn of the committee at whose testify was beyond the powers of Coti-
inituics ths arrest wag ordered by tbs gttm, and that the poner to patiish for
Honae. In reviewing the Eogligh esses, contempt did not exist in the case, and
the coort pointed out that the power in hence that the order of the House was
PirlLsmeut araae originally from the char- no protection to the defeudfUlts. Ths
tcln of that body u a anirt, and not from reasoning of Acderson d. Dunn was dls-
itt chanuter as a legisktive body. That approved. It wu held, however, that
DO such chaiacter was given to Congress, those of the defendants who were mem-
st least eicapt in certain strictly limited bers of the Houss wsre protected by the
fsMs. It was held that at raoet the last clanee of uk. fl, al Art. I of the Con-
Hoose bad enly power to punish for stitation, "and for any speech or debate
eoatempt wben acting within these limits in either House they Khali not be quea-
in a judicial capacity ; and further, that tioned elsewhere ; " the words " speech ar
it was open to the court to inquire into debate" being held to cover everytljiug
the question wfaether the House was so said or done by a member as such. — B.J
acting in this case. It was held that the
[283]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 238 JUBISPEUDENCE OP [PABT II.
concurrent with Bimilar powers in the several states ; but in moet
cases, these powers are exclusive, because the concurrent exercise
of them by the states separately would disturb the general har-
mony and peace, and because they would be apt to be repugnant
to each other in practice, and lead to dangerons collisiona. The
powers which are conferred upon Congress, and the prohihitioDs
which are imposed upon the states, would seem, upon a fair and
just construction of them, to be indispensable to secure to this
country the inestimable blessings of union. The articles (^ con-
federation, digested during the American war, intended to cimfer
upon Congress powers nearly equal to those with which they are
now invested ; but that compact gave them none of the means
requisite to carry those powers into effect And if the sentiment
which has uniformly pervaded the minds of the people of tiiia
country be a just one, that the consolidated union of these states
is indispensable to our national prosperity and happiness, — and
if we do not wish to be once more guilly of the great absurdity
of proposing an end, and denying the means to attain it, — then
we must conclude that the powers conferred upon Congress are
not disproportionate to the magnitude of the trust confided te
the Union, and which the Union alone is competent to fulfil.
The rules of proceeding in each house are substantially the
same ; and though they are essential to the transaction of busi-
ness with order and safety, they are too minute to be
•288 treated at length in an elementary * survey of the con-
stitutional polity and general jurisprudence of the United
States. The House of Representatives choose their own Speaker,
but the Vice-President of the United States is, ex officio, Presi-
dent of the Senate, and gives the casting vote when they are
equally divided. The proceedings and discussions in the twe
houses are public. This affords the community early and authen-
tic information of the progress, reason, and policy of measures
pending before Congress, and it is likewise a powerful stimnlns
to industry, to research, and to the cultivation of talent and elo-
quence in debate. Though these advantages may be acquired at
the expense of much useless and ptptracted discussion, yet the
balance of utility is greatly in favor of open deliberation; and
it is certain, from the general opposition to the experiment
that was made and continued for some years by the Senate
of the United States, of sitting with closed doors, that such a
|;284]'
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XI.] THE UNITED STATES. "288
practice, b; any legialative body in this country, vould Dot be
endured.
s. Muuiar of pualiif z«wb. — The Ordinary mode of passing laws
is briefly as follows : (a) One day's notice of a motion for leave
(a) Sm the atanding rales and orders of the House of RejileaentatiTea, printed in
17K, by Fnncia Childi. The rnle* and fomu of proceeding in lef^sktiTe bodies m
uM mdj Mtentinl to ordsrlj and tree discussioii and delibention, bat tboee fonns
b«ome anbatance ; for the; openite as eBfegQuds of liberty, and a pnitectlou to the
minority against the violence and tyranny of the majority. It was an obserratiou
«tlh. OiuloiT, for many ymn Bpetktt of the Bnglish HonM of Commons, that he
hsd often heard old and experienced memben say, that nothtng tended more to throw
povar into the hand* of the administration, than a neglect of or departore from the
rales of proceeding. Hatael'a Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Comtoons,
•ad JelTenwn'i Manoal of PatUamentary Practice, and especially Hay's Treatise
upon the I^v, PriTJleges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, London, 1S44, and
Cuahing'i Soles of pToceeding and Debeite in DeliberatlTe Assemblies, Boston, 1846,
ought to be thoroughly studied by all leading and efficient mranben in legislatiTe
Among the rates of the House of ReprcBentatiTes, the eatsbUsbment of what is
teimed IA« prarioiu qutmim ii of great importance. It is nnderstood not to apply
when a bill or motion is under discnssion in a committee of the whole House, but
only when the sama is before the House, with the Speaker in the chair. The preTiona
question is admitted when demanded by a majority of the members present ; and it
enables a majority st any time to put in end i% the Hoaat to all discussion, and to
pat the minority to silence by a prtnopt and final rota on the main queation. It is
whether the question under debate shall now be put ; and, until it is decid«l, it pre-
cludes all amendment and debate of the main question, and all motions to amend,
eonnnit, or pootpcaie the main question. If the prerioua queation be decided aiBrm-
■tiyely, the main qneetion is to be pnt instantaneonsly, and no member is allowed
to amend or discnss it. The prerioos question has long been in use in the English
House of Commons ; and if it be carried in the affiraiative, no alteration can then
take place, no debate is suffend to luterrene, and the Speaker puts the main queation
immediately. Dwarria on Statates, ISSO, p. 291. Daring the period of the Conti-
neutal Congraas, nnUer the articles of confederation, the previous qaeation «M rt>-
giided rather as a preliminary inqniry into the propriety of the main question. ThU
waa also the case under the prment Constitntion of the United States, for man;
yean. Its object was to avoid decision on delicate qneations, as ineipedient, and
if it WBR decided that the main question be put, the main question was open to debate.
It was not until 1811 that the pravioua qneetion attained its present absolute sway.
The Hod. William Oaaton, a member of the House of Bepresentatives from North
Camlina, in 1816, made a ftnitless effort to expunge the prevbMU queation from the
mlea of the Hoose. His speech was a very able and well-informed discussion of
the merits of the rule, and be regarded it as a fonnidable instrament of tyranny
of majorities over minorities, and, to the extent to which It is carried, without ■
precedent in the annals of any free deliberative aaaembly.
Legialatien was a science cnltdvated with so much care and refinement among the
ancient Bomans, that they had lawi to instruct them how to make laws. The I^x
Udnift and Lex Bbutia, the Lex Cwcilia and Lex Didia, provided checks, that the
[286]
50byGoO>^lc
* 289 JDBISPBUDENCE OF [PAKT II.
to bring in a bill, in c&seB of a general nature, is reqnired. Every
bill must have three readings previous to its being passod, and
these readings most be on different days, and no bill can be
committed or amended until it has been twice read. Such little
checks in the forms of doing busineas are prudently intended to
guard against surprise or imposition. In the House of BepreseDt-
atives, bills, after being twice read, are committed to &
* 289 committee of the whole House, when the * Speaker leaveft
the chair, and takes a part in the debate as an ordinary
member, and a chairman is appointed to preside in his stead.
When a bill has passed one house, it is transmitted to the other,
and goes through a similar form; though in the Senate there is
less formality, and bills are often committed to a select committee,
chosen by ballot. If a bill be altered or amended in the hooae
to which it is transmitted, it is then returned to the house in
which it originated, and if the two houses cannot agree, they
appoint committees to confer together on the subject (o)
6. FrMideot'a Hsgatlv*. — When a bill is engro8a^d, and has
passed the sanction of both houses, it is transmitted to tiie Preai-
dent of the United States for his approbation. If he iq)proTeB
of the bill, he signs it. If be does not, it is returned, with his
objections, to the house in which it originated, and that home
enters the objections at large on its journals, and proceeds to i«-
consider the bilL (x) If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of
law ibonld not ttDintoDtioiiall; coubdu an; partlcnlar penooil t^rilegeB, or wnken
the force of former lawi, or be crowded with moltifuioiu matter. Qnviiu, De Ortn
at Pnigttara Jnria Cirilu, lib. 1, c 29.
<a] By the reviwd eonrtitatioD of Nev Tork, of 184e, it is declar»d that no faffl
•ball be puaad anleaa by the aaaent of a miqoiity of all the members elected to cwJi
Wanch of the legiilatare ; and the qoeatioii npon the final panage ahall be lakra
immediately upon its last reading, and the yeaa and nayi entered on the joninaL
(z) With reipect to the Preaident'e withont hii approval a hill pawed by
Teto power, and the contention tbat it both Bouses of Congress, with his oIj«-
shonld be limited, at it has not Rcently . tions tbereto, should be of a gnn ind
bMD, to cases where the bill Is not in Ms ssriooa character, and the meaanre itielf
jadgment within the constitational power of much public importance. Then I*-
of Congress, Mr. Jastice Hiller (on the U. mains to the Praident, in all isre, the
8. ConstitDtion, p. 176) saya : " Undoabt- altsraatiTe of declining to ugn, and liil-
•dly then ia a joit median on this anb- ing to vato a bill, and thus pennittjag it
jeot, and It is probable that a sound view by the lapee of ten days, withont uy
would be that the oocadon wUeh requires actioD on hi* part, to become a law of the
or jDstifiei the Pnaidsnt in Mtnming land npoD the sole mpondbilit; of its
;abyG00<^lc
LfCt. n.] THE UNITED BTATBS. * 240
that house should agree to pass the bill, it is sent, together with
the objectioDS, to the other house, by which it is likewise recoD-
Bidered, and, if approved by two thirds of that house, it becomes
a law. (b) But, in all such cases, the votes of both houses are
determiued b; yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting
for and against the bill are entered on the journals. If any bill
shall not be returned by the President, within ten days (Sundays
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same be-
comes a law, equally as if he had signed it, unless Congress, by
adjournment, in the mean time, prevents its return, and thee it
does not become a law. (e) ^ (y)
The practice in Congress, and especially in the second or last
session of each Coogress, of retaining most of their bills until
within the last ten days, is attended with the disadvantt^ of
shortening the time allowed to the President for perusal and
reflection upon them, and of placing within the power of the
President the absolute negative of every bill presented
within the last ten days preceding the 4th of * March ; * 240
and this he can effect merely by retaining them, without
being obliged to assign any reason whatever; for he is entitled
(i) Tlie Coiutihitian doea not etj whether the vote of tvo Uuidi of each honae
m the reconaidenitioa ot ■ biU returned by the PTaddant, with objectioiis, ihall be
two tbirde of the memhen elected, or only two thirdi of the memben prtMnt. It k
nadentood that the Utter ooiutrnctian hu been adopted in pnctioe.
(e) Art. 1, lec 7.
■ In Kew York, it haa been decided, aeBiioD, snd signed t^ him after it, but
iinder a rrimi]«p oonetitntiotud prorleioii, within ten daya of the time when it was
that A bill which peeand the eecond house «a presented to him, was a ralid Uw.
[■ad w«s preeented to the QoTernor for People v. Bowen, 21 N. Y, C17.
his BcUou T] the d*7 before the end of the
pass^B by the Senate and Eonsa of Bep- dsyi after its a^janniment for the winter
resentatives." See Hatt'e editbn of Ua- holidafs. See also 39 Cent. L. J. 68; 8
•on on the Veto Power (18B0) ; 4 HuTtrd Harrard L. Ber. 114 ; John V. Farwell
Ll Ker. 24S ; 3. H. Benton, Jr.'s pamphlet Co. v. Matheie, 48 Fed. Bep. S68 ; Bans
on the Vet« Power. v. Sewell, 48 Hina. 42E.
Hie mayor of a city may veto execn- The number of days within which a
tive as well as UgialatiTs action by its toll is t» be approved by the goremar
common council. People r. Fitohia, 76 of a Blate includes days when the legia-
Hnn, 80. latore is not in teesioD, if it has not finally
(y) In UnitedStatee v. Weil, 2B Ct. Q. adjonmed. JueUgsb' Opinion, 4S N.' H.
528, it was held thst the President can 607, SIO.
approve an act of Congress within ten
[287]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 241 JUBIBPEUDBNCB OP [PiBT II,
to ten d&jB to deliberate. Uost of the bills tli&t are presented to
the President iD the second sessioD of everj Congress were, a lew
years ago, presented to him irithin the last ten days, and gen-
erally witbin the last two days ; but the rules of Congress hare
latterly checked the evils and danger of such an accumulation <A
business on the last days of the session.
This qualified negative of the President upon the formation of
laws is, theoretically at least, some additional security against the
passage of improper laws, through prejudice or want of due reBec-
tion ; but It was principally intended to give to the President a
constitutional weapon to defend the executive department, as well
as the just balance of the Constitution gainst the usurpations of
the legislative power.^ To enact laws is a transcendent power;
and if the body that possesses it be a full and equal representation
of the people, there is danger of its pressing with destructive
weight upon all the other parts of the machinery of the govern-
ment. It has, therefore, been thought necessary, by the most
skilful and most experienced artists in the science of civil pol-
ity, that strong barriers should be erected for the protection
and security of the other necessary powers of the government
Nothing has been deemed more fit and expedient tor the par-
pose than the provision that the head of the executive depart-
ment should be so constituted as to secure a requisite share of
independence, and that he should have a negative upon the pass-
ing of laws ; and that the judiciary power, resting on a still more
permanent basis, should have the right of determining upon tiie
validity of laws by the standard of the Constitution. A qualified
negative answers all the salutary purposes of an absolute one, for
it is not to be presumed that two thirds of both houses of Con-
gress, on reconsideration, with the reasoning of the President in
opposition to the bill spread at large upon' their journals,
• 241 will ever concur in any unconstitutional • measure, (a)
In the English constitution, the king has an absolute nega-
tive; but it has not been necessary to exercise it since the time
> Anlt, 221, a. 1.
(a) This qualified native of the Preaidsnt hu, in ths prapvaa of the admiiiiita*-
tion of tbe goTenmiBnt, udcs the first publicatioD of theae Comment>ries, in 1B3G.
become a rsry gnre power, and tpplied, noder the otilinu; nkine of mIo, with ■
fiuniUarit]' which appear* not to hare been anticipated h; the generation which
adopted the Coostitntion.
[2881
)vGooi^lc
tECT. H.] THE UNITED BTATB8. " 241
of William HI. The influence of the crown has been exerted in
a more gentle manner, to clestro; any obnoxiouB measure in ita
pn^p-ess through the two houses of Parliament Charles I. stood
for a long time upon the strict and forbidding rights of his pre-
n^^tive ; but he was compelled, by the spirit and clamor of the
nation, to give his assent to bills which cut down that preroga-
tire, and placed the power of government in the hands of the
Parliament. The peremptory veto of the Roman tribunes, who
were placed at the door of the Senate, would not be recoucilable
with the spirit of deliberation and independence which distln-
goighes the councils of modern times. The French constitution
of 1791, a labored and costly fabric, on which the philosophers
and statesmen of France exhausted all their ingenuity, and which
was pnwtrated in the dust in the course of one year from its
existence, gave to the king a negative upon tiie acts of the legis-
latnre, with some very feeble limitations. Every bill was to be
presented to the king, who might refuse his assent; but if the
two following legislatures should successively present the same
bill in tlie same tenns, it was then to become a law. The con-
stitutional negative given to the President of the United States
appears to be more wisely digested than any of the examples
which have been mentioned, (b)
(ft) TliG orgBnizitioii of the two hoiura of Congmi, and the principlea on vhich it
nsto, won profonitdl; diaciiswd in the Federalist, trom No. G2 to No. [St,] inclnuvt.
lliere is no work on the subject of the Cooititation, and on republican and federal
gDvomment generally, that deiierrea to be more thoroughly itodted. The Fsdandist
mppemred originallj in a series of namben, published in the New York dailjr papers,
between October, 1787, and Jvae, 178B. The; were read with admiimtion and entba-
Busm tu they suceessirely appeared, and bj no penon more au than the anthor of
thi* note, who made a fWtlew attempt at the time to abridge them for the benefit at
a eODUtry villaga print. Ko oonatitntian of goTeniment ever raceiTed a more masterlj
•nd aoccesafol rindieation. I know not, indeed, of an; work on the principles of free
goTCTDtnent that is to be compared, in instrnction and intrinsic value, to this unall
and unpreteQdLog Totoine of the Fedenllst ; not even if we resort to Aristotle, Cicero,
ICachiarel, Montesquien, Hilton, Locke, or Bnrke. It is equally admirable in the
depth of its wisdom, the comioehentiTeneas of its ilewB, the sagtu^it7 of its reSectioiis,
and the fearleeanesa, patriotism, candor, simplicity, and elegance with which its truths
ara nttered and recomoiended. Ur. Justice Stor; acted wisely in making the Feder-
alist the basis of his Commentary ; sud as we had the experience of nearly fifty yeors
Mnce the Federalist was written, the work of Judge Story was enriched with the
naults of that experience, and it Is written in the same ties and liberal spirit, with
equal exactBeia of research and soondneaa of doctrine, and with great beanty and
«l^;M)ce of compoaition.
VOL. I. -19 r289T
;abyGoO<^lc
JCBISFBDDENCB OF [PABT U.
LECTURE Xn.
OP JUDTOAL COHSIBOCnONS OF THE POWEBS OF CONOEEBS.
I PBOCGED to consider the cases in which the powers of Con-
gress hare been made the subject of judicial investigatioD. {a)
1. Of Prloilty of PmTmant olaliiMd by tha United Statas. — Con-
gress have declared by law that the United States were entitled
to priority of payment over private creditors in cases of insol-
vency, and in the distribution of the estates of deceased debtors.
The act of Congress of 31st July, 1789, sec. 21, confined the
priority to custom-house bonds. The act of 4th Angnst, 1790,
c. S5, sec. 45, limited the priority in the same manner. The act
of 2d Alay, 1792, placed the surety in a custom-house bond, wbo
paid the debt, on the same footing, in respect to priority, as the
United States; and it confined the cases of insolvency mentioned
in the former law to those of a voluntary assignment, and of
attachments against absconding, concealed, or absent debtors.
(a) Hr. Juatico Stoij, in bii CommsntuieB on the Coiutitution of Uie United Stliit,
L pp. SS3-U2, has giren a very ratioDal view of the rules of interpretation appliciUe
to the CoDEtitatioa. I have couiitied mjaelf in thii lectnra to those anthoritatin
«xpoaitiona which hare lieen given to it b; the courts of the United State* ; and I agn>
entiiel; with that leanied commentator, that we are to look to the instrument iln1(
" aa a constitution of goTemmeut ordained and established by the people of the UnitM
SUtea." The tnatrnment fiirauhes naentially the means of ila own interpretatiaB ;
and to retort to it was the practice of the late Chief Justice Manfaall, u thoM clear
and admirable judicial views of the Conatitutiou which, no far as they go, Irave st
nothing more peKect to eipect or deaire. It is, at the auDe time, just and true, ttut
"the most unexceptionahle soorce of coUattral iuterpretation is from the piaelial
exposition of the government itself, in its various departments, upon particular qwt-
tioDS discussed, and settled upon it* own intrinsic merits. These approach ibe
nearest in their own nature to judicial eipoaitiona, and have the <aine general
recommendation that belongs to the latter. The; are decided upon solemn aigoment,
pit) re ttata, apon a doubt raised, upon a lit mala, upon a deep sense of their importann
and difficulty, in the face of the nation, with a view to present action, in the widst d
jealouB interesta, and by men capable of nr^ng or repelling the grounds of aignneDt,
from their exquisite geniua, their compTehensive learning, or their de«p meditalloa
npon tbs absorbing topic." Story's Coum. L 892. See also n^/Va, 818, to a. r.
[290]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. Xn.] THB UNITED STATES. * 244
The act of Sd Marcb, 1797, c. 74, sec. 5, went further, and gave
the United States a preference in all cases whatBoever, vhoever
might be the debtor, or however he might be indebted, in case
the debtor became insolvent, or the assets in the hands of his
representatives, after his death, vere insufficient to pay his debts.
This priority was declared to extend to cases in which the insol-
vent debtor had made a voluntary alignment of all his property,
or in which his effects had been attached as an absconding, con-
cealed, or absent debtor, or in which an act of legal bankruptcy
had been committed. Thi^is act applies and gives the preference
as against deceased debtors, whether the debt was contracted
before or after the passage of the act, provided there be only
general creditors, without any specific lien created, (b) The
act of March 2, 1799, c 128, sec. 65, provided, that in
like cases * of insolvency, or where any estate in the * 244
hauds' of executors, administrators, or ssstgnees should be
insufficient, debts due to the United States, on bonds taken
under the collection act, should have preference; and sureties in
such bonds, on paying the same, had the same preference as was
reserved to the United States, (a)
These were the legislative provisions, giving preference to
debts due to the United States ; and in United States v. Ftaher, {h)
the authority of Congress to pass such laws was drawn in question.
The point discussed in that case was, whether the United States,
as holdera of a protested bill of exchange, negotiated in the ordi-
nary course of trade, were to be preferred to the general credi-
tors, when the debtor becomes bankrupt The Supreme Court
decided that the acts of Congress, giving that general priority to
the United States, were constitutional. It was a power founded
(6) Commanirealtb v. Lewis, fl Binney, 246. [See Levis «. United States, 92 U. R.
«lSi BaTDB s. United States, 98 id. 012. The corresptnuling proTisioDof the BeTiaed
StstDtea (S 3466) does not apply to demands against su inaolvent national bank.
Cook Co. Nat. Bank «. Unlttti Stataa, 107 U. a 4*6. — b.]
{a) UnaUT e. Uoited States, G Peters, 17B. In the ewe of the United States v.
Coocb, C C. U. 8. New York, April Term, 1S41, it «as declared to hara been the
naTaried cooetmctiao of the SSth section of the act of March 2, I7S9, that the priotitj
therein given to the United States, to he paid ont of the estate of an inaolvent debtor,
takes effect on)j when the iosolrenc; is established by an assignment of all his prop-
erty, either bj his oirn act or by aut of law, and when such asaignment ia carried into
cxBcntioa by tha aasigneeit. Hnnt't Merchants' Uagazine, New York, Aognst, 1841,
18S : United States r. Wood k Ires, ib. 170, 8. F.
(ft) 2 Crancb, SG8.
[291]
;abyG00<^lc
• 244 JUBISPRCDENCE OF [PIBT II.
on the authority to make all laws vhich should be necessary and
proper to carry into effect the powers vested by the Constitution
in the government of the United States. Where the end wag
within the lawful powers of the government, Cougrees poBsesaed
the choice of the means, and were empowered to use any meaiu
which were in fact conducive to the exercise of the powers
granted. The government is to pay the debts of the Union, and
must be authorized to use the means most eligible to effect that
object. It has a right to make remittances, by bills or otherwise,
and to take those precautions which will render the transaction
safe. If this claim of priority interferes with the right of the
state sovereignties, respecting the dignity of debts, and defeats
the measures which they would otherwise have a right to adopt
to secure themselves, it is a necessary consequence of the su-
premacy of the laws of the Union, on all subjects to which the
legislative power of Congress extends, (x)
(x) So, in the L^il Tender Cue (Jnil- the rights of the United Bt^tta tgmiint tb«
liud t>. Oreenman), 110 U. S. 421,440, failing inretiei an the bond. At Chan, It
the court, relTiog in great put npm N. B. R 1S9, 1G7-
Cnited States v. Flaher, held that the 11 the Oorerninent's pTioritjr u bMnl
ponerof Congnaa " to make all laws which upon a statntory penalty, the debt arises
Bball be necesaary and proper far carrjiog when the penalty is incnired. Se Boeej,
into eieoution the foregoing powera," in- 6 Ben. B07.
clndes power to make the U. S. treasary Under the U. S. Her. Stats. H iW,
notes a legal tender in payoieiiC of priTate 3467, the priority of the United Stata
debts, in times of peace or war. extends to all claasea of debts whetfacr
Under the bankruptcy acts, the United liquidated or tmliquidatad, joint or ser-
States might pro'e their claim and assert eral, legal or equitable ; and when tlie
their priority, but was not obliged BO to do, insolvent debtor hss made a voluntary
sa not being sSectad by the proceedings, genera! assignment, or committed an act
United States d. Barnes, 31 Fed. Bep. 705, of bankruptcy, such priorit? eitandi to
70S ; In rt Huddell, 47 id. SOS ; United all his estate which come* to the hands at
States D. Lewis, 13 M. B. K. 3S. The his assignee. The asaignee becomes *
equity rule, recognised by the bankrupt trustee for tbe United States, and is
law, that the creditors of a bankrupt part- bonnd to pay their debt first oat of the
neiship were to be paid from the firm's proceeds of the debtor'a property. United
assets, and individnal ctedlton from the States v. Barnes, !4 Blatch. 4es, 46) ; ate
individual assets, did not apply to the Bush v. United States, 14 Fed. Bep. SU ;
United States, which could enfoice its United SUte* b. Uriswold, 8 id. 4M ; Cot-
priority against both sets of assets. Lewis trell t>. Pierson, IS id. 805.
V. United States, 14 K. B. B. 64 ; B2 U. The United States, when sniag in
S. 61S. A penon who pays the duty on aqnity as a creditor to set aside in a fed*-
imported goods, in order to take them out ml murt a fraudulent conTeyasce b7 its
of the bonded warehonae, ia subrogn'etl to debtor, nn boimd I? the prindidea which
[292]
;abyGoO<^lc
LBCT. ZII.] THE tWTTBD STATES. * 245
Tbe principle was here settled, that the United States
are 'entitled to Bflcure to tliemselTes the exclusive privi-"245
lege of being preferred as creditors to private citizens, and
even to the state authorities, in all cases of the insolvency or
bankruptcy of their debtor. But the court oleerved, that no
lien was created by the statutes giving the preference. No bona
fide transfer of property, in the ordinary course of business, was
overreached. It was only a priority of payment, which, under
different modifications, was a regulation in common nse ; and a
iojta fide alienation of property, before the right of priority at-
tached, was admitted to be good.
The next case that brought into discussion this question of
priority was that of the United States v. ffoee. (a) It was there
held that the priority to which the United States were entitled
did not partake of the character of a lien on tbe property of
public debtors. Tbe United States, in the mere character of
creditor, have no lien on the real estate of their debtor. If the
priority existed from the time the debt was contracted, and
the debtor should continue to transact business vith the world,
the inconvenience would be immense. The priority only applied
to cases where the debtor had become actually and notoriously
insolvent, and, being unable to pay his debts, had made a volun-
tary assignment of all his property, or having absconded or
absented himself, his property bad been attached by process of
law. A. bona fide conveyance of part of the property of the
debtor, not for the fraudulent purpose of evading the law, but to
secure a fair creditor, is not a case within the act of Congress
giving priority, (b)
{a) 3 Cnnch, 7S.
(b) United'Statn v, Hooa, nipra ; Uuitsd StatM v. Cluk, 1 Paine, 629 ; United
Sbtea V. Monroe, G Mmoq, G73 ; Cnited States o. Hawkins, 18 Martin (La.), S17.
In England, a proviaional anipimant in baiikraptc]^ will defeat the king's extent, if
it pnoedea the teat of the writ. Eing v. Crump, Parker, 126 ; Lord Eldan, 14 Teeejr,
88. In the case of the United States «. McLelUa, S Sumner, 315, it wai held that a
coDTeyaoM, by a known iuaolvent debtor, of all hia property to one or more crediters,
in discharge of their debta, not exceeding the tmonnt due, and not for the bsneQt of
any other creditors, was not a rolnntary assignment within the act of 1799, so as to
be aflteted hf the priority of tbe United States.
oontrol an indiridnal in inch a enit. ite intereets are involved, tbe nme piinci-
United Stales r. IngBte, 48 Fed. Bep. plea apply ns in the case of an indiTidnsl.
211. And in general, when the govern- United States c. Beebe«, 17 Fed. Hep. SA;
iB3it Tolnntaiily sppean in ft snit in which United States e. McElroj, ££ id. 804.
;abyG00<^lc
• 247 JUBI8PB0DENCE OP [PiET 11.
In this case of the United Statet t. Booe^ a collector of
the revenae had mortgaged part of his property to hU
"246 surety iu his official bond, to 'indemnify him from his
responsibility as surety, and to secure him from his ex-
isting and future indorsements for the mortg^or at bank ; and
the mortgage was held valid i^ainst the claim of the United
States, ftlthou^ the collector was, in point of fact, unable to
pay all his debts at the time the mortgage was given; and
although the mortgagee knew, when he took the mortgage, that
the mortgagor was largely indebted to the United States.
Afterwards, in Harriaon v. Sterrt/, (a) it was held that in the
distribution of a bankrupt's effects, the United States were enti-
tled to their preference, although the debt was contracted by a
foreigner in a foreign country, and the United States had proved
their debt under a commiaaion of bankruptcy. Though the lav
of the place where the contract is made be, generally speaking,
the law of the contract, yet the right of priority forms no part
of the contract. The iuHoIvency which was to entitle the United
States to a preference was declared, in Prince v. BartUtt, {b) to
mean a legal and known insolvency, manifested by some notori-
ous act of the debtor, pursuant to law. This was giving to the
world some reasonable and definite test by which to ascertain
the existence of the latent and dangerous preference given by
law to the United States. In this last case, the effects of an
insolvent debtor, duly attached in June, were considered not to
be liable to the claim of the United States, on a custom-house
bond given prior to the attachment, and put in suit in August
following. ' The private creditor had acquired a lien by his
attachment, which could not be devested by process on the part
of the United States subsequently issued. Nor will the lien of
a judgment creditor, duly perfected, be displaced by the mere
priority of the United States. The word "insolvency," in the
acts of Congress of 1790, 1797, and 1799, means a legal insol-
vency; and a mere state of insolvency, or inability in a
• 247 debtor to pay all his • debta, gives no right of preference
to the Uniteti States, unless it be accompanied by a volun-
tary assignment of all the property, for the benefit of creditors, or
by some legal act of insolvency. If, before the right of preference
(a) e Cnsch, 189.
\b) 8 Crtnch, 4S1 ; 8. r. United States *. Caiul Bknk, 8 Storj, Tft.
[294]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. xn.] THE UNITED STATES. * 247
has accrued, the debtor hag made a bona Jide oonveyance of his
estate to a third person, or has mortgaged the same to secure a
debt, or if the property has been seized under an execution, the
property is devested from the debtor, and cannot be made liable
to the ITuited States, (a)
(a) ThelanDn r. Smith, S Wheatoii, 3H ; Conird v. The AtUntlc laniruice Com- '
pkn;, 1 Piten, 886 ; BreDt v. Baok of Wuhinfttou, 10 Peten, 6S6. The prioritj of
the United Statet does not affect tny Itat, general or Bpecific, aziitiiig wbea the event
took place, which gave the United Statet a claim of priority, uor prevent the trans-
miaaion of the property to aaaigneea, executors, and adminigtratote sahject to the
lien. lb. In England, ia the caae of Giles v. Orover, hefbre the Houec of Lords (0
Bing. 128), it waa decided, after a most elaborate diacossion, in conforiDity with the
opiuions of a m^ority of the twelve judges, that the goods of a debtor, already seized
Dnder a JL Jo. at the suit of a iulject, but not sold, might be taken under a writ of
extent for a debt of the crown, and which writ of extent was tested after the seizure
under the fi. fa. The saiiDre under the fi, fa. was considered as not devesting the
debtor of his general property in the goods seized, or in any manner altering the
property, and that no property was theraby acqtiired therein by the execution creditor,
or by the sheriff. The claims of the crowti and the subject on the goods vera held
to Bland in equal degree, and the two eiecutionB to be in efTect concurrent ; and in
tntch cases the king's prerogative had the preference. Quando jus Domini Begis et
sabditi iuBimol coDCurrunt jus regis pnefarri debet. (9 Co. 129, h.) The sheriff had
the legal cuxtody of the goods, and a special property in them by virtue of the seizure,
for the purpose of protection and sale ; but until the sale, which was the dividing lijie
*• [to] the ownership of the goods, the absolute property of the debtor was not altered
or devested. Tbe priority of the government claims in this country is not carried to
that extent, according to the opinion of Judge Washington, in Thelusson v. Smith ;
but it is to be obaarved, that the observation of Judge Washington was a mfre dietwrn,
and not a turning-point in the case. Tbe same remark applies to what was said by
the jndge who delivered the opinion of the court in Canard v. The Atlantic Insurance
Company ; for the didtan was quoted in the coarse of the opinion incidentally, and
without any criticism upon it, or particular attention to it In Hoke u. Henderson,
I Dev. (N. C.) 17, Jndge Ruffin considered the prerogative of tbe .sovereign as to
priority equally applicable here as in England, and that it went to the extent claimed
in tbe above case of Giles v. Grover. On tbe other hand, in Wilcoobs v. Wain, 10
Serg. & Rawle, 3S0, and in United States v. Mechanics' Bank, Gilpin, fil, it was held
that the priority of the United States gave no lien on proper^ tittd under a fieri
faeiaa, when the lien accrued, for the debtor was devested of the property. A very
contested qnestion haa been raised and discussed in tbe courts in this country, on
the conflicting claims of a judgment or attaching creditor under state laws, and tbe
asaignee under the bankrupt law of the United States. It wis declared and adjudged
by Mr. Justice Story, in the Circuit Court of tbe United States, in Haasachusettn,
and by Hr. Justice Ware, in the District Court of Maine, that an attachment under
a state law was not an absolute lien, but a contingent one, dependent upon a subse-
quent judgment in the attaching snit ; and that a bankrupt's dischatge upon apetition
in bankruptcy, filed after the attachment and during the process of such suit, would
be a bar to the recovery of any judgment thereon, and that the lien oreated by the
attachment must give way and becomes avoided, and the debt also, by the tviteiitwitt
[295]
sObyGoOl^lc
■ 247 JDBISPBDDENCE OP [PABT n.
The United States have, accordingly, a preference as creditors,
to the extent above declared, in four cases, viz. : (1.) In the
case of the death of the debtor without sufficient assets; (2.)
bankruptcy, or legal insolvency, manifested by some act pursuant
to law; (3.) a voluntary assignment by the insolvent of all bis
decree \aA discha^e in boukraptcy. £e parte Foster, 2 Story, 131 ; In tha Hatter
of Cook, 2 Story, 376 ; Id the Hatter of Ballows and Feck, 3 Stoiy, 428 ; Scnith v.
Gordon, 6 I^w Beporter, 818 ; Everett v. Stone, 3 Story, 417. The conrU of tb«
United States, and •everal of the state courts, maintain a different doctrine. Tba
doctrine is, that a creditor, by his suit in equity, CDnmonly called a cteditor'* InU, on
his uusatisfted jadgment, thereby acquire* an equitable lien, and which operates is
an ettaclwDent of property, and createa a right to priority of payment b« against the
assignee of a bankrupt, under a petition in bankmptcy n^KqiutUl]/ made. That Each
a lien was not derested by a decree in bankruptcy, upon a petition filed subsequent
to the commencement of a chancery suit, or (hs levy of ths attachment. That the
assignee in such a case takes the debtor's property sulyect to the creditor's lien, stcd
independent of the pro'riso in the bsnkrapt act, and upon general prindplM ap^dicaUe
to insalvency and bankruptcy in thia country and in England. That the assignee of
the bankrupt or insolvent takes only such rights, and sntgect to such equitie* u
belonged to the bankrupt himself at the time of the bankruptcy. That tlie judgment
creditor had also a lien, upon Che true conatmctiou of the proviso in the 2d section of
the bankrupt Ian, panmooDt to the claim of the assignee, and as strong upon this
proviso as upon general principles of law, for the word leeurilia reaches all mor^agu
and liens, and they may be enforced in the state courts. The attactunent is a lien,
and the creditor's bill a lien within the proviso, and the property of the bankrupt was
not devested until the decree in bankruptcy. The decisions in the circuit courts of
the United States in Vermont, New Jersey, and Feniisylvaiiia, and of the district
courts of Vermont, of ITortherD New York, and of several of the state courts, an all
oited in support of this doctrine, by the Ass't V. -Ch. of New ToA, in tiis oass <d
Storm V. Waddell, 3 N. Y. Legal Observer, 3S7, s. c. 3 Sandf. Ch. 494, and wUch
ease is distinguished (or its learning and ability, and its logical vindication of ths doc-
trine. The two csaes of Kittredge t>. f7arr«Q and of Kittndge v, Emeraon, decided
in the Supreme Court of New Hamfishire, in the year 1844, and in which ths jadgntent
of the court was delivered by Ur. Ch. Justice Parker, are equally worthy of qieciil
notice for their lesroed research, and powerful, if not irreaiatible, deductiMU.' See
also, Doremus n. Wslker, 8 Ala. 194, and Habry v. Hemdon, ib. 848, to the a. r., and
in favor of the right of the state eovait to inquire into the validity of a discbarge upon
the allegation that the bankrupt did not render a true inventory of his [oopsrty, bat
fraudulently concealed tlie same.
1 14N. H. SOS; 15 N. R. 227. The same is then attached on mMue piweM,
doctrine of the New Hampshire conrt* and the iMignment diseolree any such
was that finally established in the So- attachment made within fonrmooths next
pretOB Court of the United States. Peck preceding the commencement of the pn>-
«. Jenness, 7How. 012; Colby V. Leddsn, eeedings. It may be further renuAed
ib. S2S. But by the Bankrupt I^w of here, that under the wne law, { SB, tbe
March 2, 1367, } 14, the assignee takee United Stale* have a [oefereDce as ered-
the property of the hankrapt, although tb* iton.
[296]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. ZIL] THE UNITED STATES. * 248
property to pay hia debts; (4.) in die caae of an abseat, con-
cealed, or absconding debtor, whose effects are attached by pro-
cess of lav. The priority was intended to operate only where,
by law, or by the act of the debtor, his property was sequestered
for the use of his creditors ; and it is proper that this prerogative
right of the United States should be strictly construed and pre-
cisely defined, for it is in der<^tion of the general rights of
creditors. (6)
The government was a privileged creditor, under the Roman
law, and entitled to priority in the payment of debts. The cettio
honorum was made subject to this priority. This is generally
the case, in all modem bankrupt and insolvent laws. In £ng-
lan4, the king's claim is preferred to that of a subject, provided
the king's process was commenced before the subject had ob-
tained judgment (c) As to the fiscal lien of the govern-
ment of the United States, it*was held in farrts v. i>efi-*248
•tie, (a) that the government had a lien on goods imported,
for the payment of duties accruing on them, and not secured by
bond; and that the United States were entitled to the custody
(t) WatkiuBB. Otu, 2 Pick. 103. The priority given by Uw to the United SUtas
doM Dot extend to the red esCate, or the proceeds of thu real estate, belonging to or
rated in the hein of tb« debtor. The priority does not attach tu agaimt Hit hnr, bnt
mlj when the reml eetate, or tbe proceeda tbereor, panes to, or is Tested by law in
the bands of, an aadgnee of an insolveat debtor, or his execators or administraton.
United States n. Craoksbanlc, I Edw. Ch. S33. It does not extend so sa to take the
property of a partner in partnership ef arts, to pay the Separate debt of «nch partner,
•hen the partnership effects are not safficient to satisfy the creditors of the partner-
■hip. Unitfd atatea v. Hack, S Peten, 271. It doea not extend eo aa t« reach the
sHowance made by tbe jndge of probate to the widow of the deceased debtor, under
the law of distribution of intestates' estates. Foatmaater-Genenl n. Bobbing Ware,
ICfi. It does not extend to a anrety to a caatam-bonse bond, so aa to entitle him,
sftar paying the debt, to be anbrt^ted to the righta of the United States aa sgainet
his oo-snrety, or to gire bis demand for cfintribntion a preference over other cred-
itors. Pollock V. Pratt, 2 Wash. 490 ; Bank d. Adf[er, 2 Hill, Ch. [8. C.) SflQ. But
this priority, as Riven by tbe Btatuta of 17B7, applies to equUabU sa well as legal
debts. Howe v. Sheppard, 5 Samner, ISS. IE was further held, in BeaetODi'. Farmers'
Bank of Delaware, 13 Peters, 102, that no lien waa erected [created] by the statute
of March 3, 17B7, and that the priority established by it conld never attach, while the
debtCB' continnps the owner and in poasesaion of the property, though he be uuable
10 pay his debts, — that no evidence of hia inMlvency can be received, nntil be baa
been devested of hia property ; and when thns devested, the penou who take* the
title becomee a trustee for the United States. See Conkling's TreatiBe, 2d ed.
4S(M^fl, for a condensed view of the statntes and jodicial dedsious on this question
of priority aaaerted by the United Statea.
(c) Stat. Hen. Till. G. S9. (a) S Peten. 292.
[297]
^cibyGoQl^lc
* 248 JDBISPBUDENCE 07 [PABT 11.
of the goods antil the duties vera paid or Becared; aod aaj
attachment of the goods under state process, during such custody,
was void. On the other hand, it Tas held that the government
had no general lien on the goods of the importer, for duties due
by him upon other importations, {b)
(b) la MiryUnd, b^ statnti, pMted in 1778, tlw oomiiUDe«ment <€ • luit ly 0*
tlaU tgunit a public debtor created a lien on tha landa itftha debtor, tadtftt&uam
over all other creditors, who had not, prior to tfa« oommNUWOMiit of the rait, Mcond
a lien by jadgamt, mortgige, or othenriaa. Daridaon v. Clajland, 1 Hair. & Johni.
MO. The preference in payment of debts was a branch of government prerogalin
at common law, and it was introdncad as such into Maryland. It is the Isw still,
where the property of the debtor lemains in hand, and there ia no lien standing in
the way. State of Harjland v. Bank of Maiyland, 8 Oill ft John. 206. In CoaDec^
icut, the state has a priority of claim against tha estate of an inaolrent debtor ; sad
state inretieB paying the delit hare the same priTilq;«. Bented StatatM of CoiUMct-
icat, 1820, 212. The state reference rests, is this oonntry, npcm statntoa; and the
ooinmon law gives none over oUier cnditois. The State b. Harris, 3 Bailaj, S. C.
B98. KeoUey v. Keekley, 2 HiU, Ch. (8. C.) SH. The common-law prMgativi of
tiie king, to be paid in preferettoe to all other creditors, ia therefore not nniversally
adopted in this country. It prevails in the govemment of the Utiited States, and in
HaryUnd, North Carolina, ludiana, Coaneoticat, Ac., bfet not in 3onth Carolina. Ia
Georgia, state tales have preference over all iDenmbrancei whataoever. State r.
Pembertou, Dudley, IG. In Indiana, the itate has preference of all other ereditms)
and real and personal estate is bnund on behalf of the state from the taste of the flnt
process. Bev. Stats. 1838, 283.
As to the lien of jndgments obtsined by ludividnals in the federal ooart% it ms
decided in the Circnit Court of the United States, in New ToA, In November, 1BS9,
In the case of Konig v. Bayard, that judgments in the drcnit and district coort* ia
New York were a lien npon lands a« against snbaeqnent parehassta, final the time
they wete regularly docketed, according to the practice of those courOi, and that the
asage of docketing those jodgments had prevailed since 1795. The n»e doebin*
was ssnuned in reference to judgmenU in the federal courts in Pennsylvania, ia the
case of Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co., I Peten, 880 ; and the principlea eraitained in
this Ust case were reviewed and confirmed in Conard v. TSicdU, i Peten, 291. The
same rule as to jndgmeata in the Circuit Court of the United Sutes in Ohio. Sellen
V. Corwin, 5 Ohio, 400. There is no act of Congresi wking judgments in the
United States courts a lien on lands. Such a lien depends upon the local Ian of th*
state where the land lies. Tayloe n. Thomson, G Peters, 358. In New York, there,
fore, a judgment in one of the federal conrts within that state is a lien upon the lands
of the debtor within the state, for the term of ten yeara from the docketing of the
judgment. The U&tihatttn Company «. Svertaon, 0 Paige, 4G7. Indeed, in evety
state, the judgments of the federal conrts have the same lien, to the extent (rfils
jnrisdiction, as the jodgments of the highest court of the state. Den «. Ivuta,
2 McLean, 78, 83.i
Debtors to the United States for moneys received, their ezecntors and administK-
> The lien of judgments and decrees adoption of the state laws upon that sab-
la die federal coorts arises ont of the jsct, and the lien may be contideTed a
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XII.] THE UNITED STATES. * 248
2. Power to lDo<»potmt« a Bank. — The next case vhich called
forth a construction from every part ot the government as to the
implied povers of Congress, vaa, vhether Congress had power
ton, kc, Dinittiiig, on dno notica, to rendar to the Auditor of the Treunry tlidi
ucotmta uid Tonch«ra for the ezpenditnn of aocb moners, ue to be aaed under the
dinctioD of the Comptroller o[ the Treasary, uid ore to be sal^ect to the coctc and
cbugHi of iDoh luita, vihtther tKe ulUmaU dteitien be in IAmt /anor or ofairut Ifiem.
(Act of Coogren, Uarch B, 176G, c US.) So nceiTets ot public maneya, includinf; all
pnUie offlean, who ihall &il to account aod pay over the lame, they and their ■oratiea
may bt pneetded agaiiut /MtAutitA by UMrnaU of dittrttl,'' and have their goods and
ehatteli aeiied and lold, and if not luflicieDt, they may be impriaoned. The amount
due it » Uen on the real satate from the time of the levy of the diitroa warrant ; and
br want of sufficient goods and ehatt«Ia, the lands may be sold on three weeka' notice,
and ■ eonTeyance executed to the parohaaer by the marahal. (Act of CongrcBS, ntpro,
nc S, and act of Hay IG, 1S20, «ec. 3, S. ) Any penon aggrieved by the distresa
may apply by hill to the district judge for relief under the proceaa of injanctioD, and
luU of property and rale of decision nn- alty decree m^erxntofn for the payment of
dtt the thirty-toni^ Motion of the Jodi- a sum of money was a lien, in a state by
dary Act Clements v. Berry, 11 How. ' wheae laws a decree in equity bad that
308, 111 ; piM, 3*3, D. I. Bnt the fUta effeoL But equity will protect the inter-
lawK, it is Hid, are adopted, not by the est of a party in land which he has con-
emta, but by the acts of Congress regu- veyed under duress, against the general
lating the jnoceea of the courts of the lien of judgment creditors of the l^al
United States, (x) Brown v. Pierce, 7 owner. Brown b. Pierce, m.pra.
Wall 206, 217 ; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 > This t»«viaioD is constitntionaL
Black, 130, iiielKq. On these principles Hurray v. Hoboken L ft L Co., 18 How.
it wia held in the last case that an admir- 272. (y)
(r) Federal judgments and decrees, in distinction between legal and equitable
Iht ahKnce of federal legialation, are rights and remedies, which, in proced-
)(onmed by State laws. Perkins p. Brier- ore, nniformly prevails thoughout thoae
field Iron t Coal Co., 77 Ala. 408. They courts. Holland r. Challen, 110 U. 8.
ue liens to the same extent as similar IS: United States s. Wilson, IIS U.S. 86.
judgments and decrees of the State conrta (y) See also ss to what ia " dne pro-
of general jurisdiction, and by U. 8. Bev. cess of law," Davidson v. New Orleans,
Suts. S S67, they caaaa to be liens " in the »« U. S. 97 ; Springer p. United SUte*,
MDeuianner and at like periods." Brown 10217. S. 686 ; Hurtado e. Cal., 110 U. S.
V. K«n», 7 Wall. 217 ; Myers ». Tywin, 616 ; Spencer p. Merchant, 186 U. S,
IS Blalch. 2i2 ; U. S. Stat of Aug. I, S4S ; 18 Am. L. Rev. 169 ; Lent v. Till-
1SS8, eh. 729 (9G St. at I.. 367) ; see 18 son, 110 U. S. 316 ; Conery v. New Or-
Am. L. Eev, 261. When a local statute leans W. Co., 112 U. 8. 79 [ New York o.
girts a remedy in equity to remove a Sqnire, IIG U. 3. 176 ; Baker v. Eilgore,
<l«id apoD the Ic^ tiUe, without re- id. 187 ; Yesler p. Washington H. L.
quiring tbs complainant to obtain prior Com'ts, 146 U. S. fllD ; HcNnlty «. Cali-
poMsBon, that remedy may be utminis- fomia, 149 U. B. 616 ; Bamaej e. People,
tend in appropriate cases by the Federal 142 111. 880 ; tupra, 221, n. (x) ; mfra,
ODurts, without, however, affecting the 391 n. (x).
[299J
sObyGoOl^lc
* 249 JDBIBPBnDENCB OP [faBT II.
to incorporate a bank. Id the year 1791, tlie Secretary of the
Treasury had recommended the institution of a national bank,
as being of primary importance to the prosperous administraticm
of the finances, and of the greatest utility in the operations cod-
nected with the support of public credit But the bill for estab*
lishing a bank was opposed in the House of Representatives, as
not authorized by the Constitution. It was conteoded
* 249 that the government of the United * States was limited
to the exercise of the enumerated powers, and that the
power to incorporate a bank was not one of them, and, if rested
in the government, it must be an implied power; and it vu
contended, that the power given to Congress to pass all laws
necessary and proper to execute the 'specified powers must be
limited to means necessary to the end, and incident to the nature
of the specified powers. On the other hand, it was ni^ed in
favor of the bill, that incidental, as well as express powers, nec>
esaarily belonged to every government, and that when a power
was delegated to effect particular objects, all the known and
usual means of effecting them passed as incidental to them; and
it was insisted that a bank was a known and usual instrument,
by which several of the enumerated powers of government were
if Btill nnredresMd, he may appeal to the Circnit Court. (Act of CongreBa, 15th Utj,
1820, eec 4, 6.) He may also, if in priMD, be idieved apon habeat carpal by tht
Circuit Coart of the United Stetes. (Onited State* v. Nourse, 9 Peten, 8 ; ib. 12,
note.) The doctrinea of the govanuoent and cooita of the United States are qnite
Mringent in respect to the obligation of importera of gooda. The import duty >•
held to be a peraoual debt chargeable upon the importer, aa well u a lien on the
goods tbemBelrea, and that the penonal debt continues, though the gooda be depeatid
with a bond giren for the datiee, and the goods be lost or deatrojred. Herad^ r-
United States, 13 Peters, 48S, 464. Another part of that CMe wears the ssnu for-
bidding aspect. The enforcement of fines, penalties, or rorfeiturea, nnder the irrenM
laws of the United States, is extremely striot and rigoraua ; hut the set of Congrea
id Usrch S, 1767, sec. 1, made perpetaal by act of Feb. 11, ISOO, anthoriiM the
Secretary of the Treasury, on application, to mitigate or remit the penaltin of tbcae
laws, when, tram the fact* of the case, first judicially ascertained, he sbonld be of
opinion that such penalties hare been incurred wiUuiivt viilfid ntgligenai, or ang Mm-
tiM of fraud, (i)
(i) The right to duties on Imported founded upon any permanent pnUiepidiey,
goods accrues ou their aRira] at the port they are eoDstraed in fanr of the tai-
of destination, with intent to nnlade. payer and moat strongl; against the ger-
HoAndrew e. Robertson, 2B Fed. Bep. enimenL American Nat k Twine Co. *.
S4Q ; McLean v. Hagv, 81 id. S02. As Worthington, 141 U. a 4«8 ; Bice a.
revenue statntes are not remedial, or United States, 58 Fed. Bep. 910.
[800]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XII.3 THE UNITED STATES. • 260
exercised. After the bill had passed the two houses of Gougreas,
the question touching its constitutionality was agitated with
equal ability and ardor in the executive cabinet. The Secretary
of Stat« and the Attorney-General conceived that Congress had
transcended their powers, but the Secretary of the Treasury
maintained the opposite opinion. Their respective opinions were
founded on a tmSn of reasoning, denoting great investigation of
all the leading and fundamental principles of the Constitution,
and they were submitted to the consideration of the President
of the United States. It was argued against the constitutionality
of the act, that the power to incorporate a bank was not among
the enumerated powers, and to take a single step beyond the
boundaries specially drawn aronnd the powers of Congress
would be to take possession of an undefined and undefinable
field of power ; that though Congress were authorized to make
alt laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
enumerated powera, they were confined to those means which
were necessary, and not merely convenient. It meant those
means without which the grant of the power would be nugatory,
and that if such a latitude of construction were allowed, as to
give to Cougrees any implied power on the ground of con-
venience, *it vonid swallow up all the list of enumerated *260
powerB, and reduce the. whole to one phrase. On the
other hand, it was contended that every power vested in a gov-
ernment was, in its nature, sovereign, and gave a right to employ
all the means fairly applicable to the attainment of the end of
the power, and not specially precluded by specified exceptions,
nor contrary to the essential ends of political society ; that though
the government of the United States was one of limited and
specified powers, it was sovereign with regard to its proper
objects, and to its declared purposes and trusts; that it was
incident to sovereign power to erect corporations, and, conse-
quently, it was incident to the United States to erect one, in
relation to the objects intrusted to its management ; that implied
powers are as completely delegated as those which are expressed,
and the power of erecting a corporation may as well be implied
as any other instrument or means of carrying into execution any
of the specified powers ; that the exercise of the power in that
case had a natural relation to the lawful ends of the government,
and it was incident to the sovereign power to regulate, and to
[801]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 261 JUBISraUDEHCB OF [PlfiT IL
employ all the means vhich apply vitli the best advaoti^ to
tiiat regulation; that the word neceitary, in the Constitution,
ought not to be confined to those means, without vfaich the
grant of power would be nugatory, and it often means no more
than needful, requisite, useful, or conducive to, and that wu
the true aense in which the word was used in the Constitution.
The relation between the measure and the end was the criterioQ
of constitutionality, and not whether there was a greater or less
necessity or utility. The infinite variety, extent, and complexity
of national exigencies necessarily required great latitude of dis-
cretion in the selection and application of means; and the an-_
thority intrusted to government ought and must be exercised on
principles of liberal construction.
President Washington gave these arguments of bis cab-
*251 inet a deliberate and profound consideration, and it'ter-
minated in a conviction, that the incorporation of a bank
was a measure authorized by the Constitution, and the bill passed
into a law.
This same question came before the Supreme Court of the
United States, in 1819, in the case of M' Cviloeh v. The StaU of
■MaTylaiid, (a) io reference to the Bank of the United States,
which was incorporated in 1816, and upon which the legislature
of Maryland had imposed a tax. Notwithstanding the question
arising on the construction of the powers of Congress had been
settled, BO far aa an act of Congress could settle it, in 1791, and
again in 1816, it was thought worthy of a renewed discussion in
that case. The Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of the
court, observed, that the qneation could scarcely be considered
an open one, after the principle had been so early introduced
and recognized by many successive legislatures, and had been
acted upon by the judicial department, as a law of undoubted obli-
gation. He admitted that it belonged to the Supreme Court
alone to make a linal decision in the case, and that the question
involved a consideration of the Constitution in its most interest-
ing and vital parts.
It was admitted that the government of the United States was
one of enumerated powers, and that it could exercise only the
powers granted to it; but though limited in its powers, it was
supreme within its sphere of action. It was the government of
(a) i WhMtOD, sie.
[302]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. lU.] THE UNITED STATES. * 252
the people of the TTaited States, and emanated from them. Ita
powers were delegated by all, and it represented all, and acted
for all. In respect to those subjects on which it can act, it must
necessarily bind its component parts ; and thia was the express
language of the Constitution, when it declared th'at the Constitu-
tion, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, were the supreme
law of the land and required all the officers of the state govern*
ments to take an oath of fidelity to it There was nothing
"in the Constitution which excluded incidental or implied *252
powers. The articles of the confederation gave nothing to
the United States but what was expressly granted ; but the new
Constitution dropped the word expreuly, and left the question
whether a particular power was granted, to depend on a fair con-
struction of the whole instrument. No conBtitution can contain
an accurate detail of all the subdivisionB of its powers, and of all
the means by which they might be carried into execution. It
would render it too prolix. Its nature requires that only the
great outlines should bo marked, and its important objects desig-
nated, and all the minor ingredients left to be deduced from the
nature of those objects. The sword and the purse, all the ex-
ternal relations, and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of
the nation, were intrusted to the general government; and a
government intrusted with such ample powers, on the due exe-
cution of which the happiness and prosperity of the nation vitally
depended, must also be intrusted with ample means for their ex-
ecntion. Unless the words imperiously require it, we ought not
to adopt a construction which would impute to the framers of
the Constitution, when granting great powers for the public
good, the intention of impeding their exercise, by withholding
a choice of means.
The powers given to the government imply the ordinary means
of execution ; and the government, in all sound reason and fair
interpretation, must have the choice of the means which it deems
the most convenient and appropriate to the execution of the
power. The power of creating a corporation, though appertain-
ing to sovereignty, was not a great, substantive, and independent
power, but merely a means by which other objects were accom-
plished ; in like manner as no seminary of learning is instituted
in order to be incorporated, but the corporate charter is conferred
to subserve the purposes of education. The power of creating a
;abyGoO<^lc
* 254 JURISPRUDENCE OP [PART II.
corporation is never uaed for its own sake, bat for the puipoee
of effecting something else. It is nothing but ordia&r;
*253 "means to attain some public and useful end. The Con-
stitution has not left the right of Congrees to employ the
necessary means for the execution of its powers to general rea-
soning. It is expressly authorized to employ such means; and
ftecetaary means, in the sense of the Goustitutiou, does not import
an absolute physical necesaity, ao atrong that one thing cannot
exist without the other. It stands for any means calculated to
produce the end. The word " necessary " admits of all degrees of
comparison. A thing may be necessary, or very necessary, or
absolutely and indispensably necrasary. The word is used in
various senses, and in ita construction, the subject, Uie context,
the intention, are all to be taken into view. The powers of the
government were given for the welfare of the nation. They
were intended to endure for ages to come, and to be adapted ia
the various crises of human affairs. To prescribe the specific
means by which government should in all future time execute
its power, and to confine the choice of means to such narrov
limits as should not leave it in the power of Congress to adopt
any which might be appropriate and conducive to the end,
would be moat unwise and pernicious, because it would be an
attempt to provide by immutable rules for exigencies which, if
foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and would deprive
the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, or to
exercise its reason, and accommodate its legislation to circum-
stances.
If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Con-
stitution, all meana which are appropriate and plainly adapted
to thia end, and which are not prohibited, are lawful ; and a
corporation was a means not leaa usual, nor of higher dignity,
nor more requiring a particular specification, than other means.
A national bank waa a convenient, a useful, and esaential inatru-
ment in the prosecution of the fiscal operations of the govem-
meuL It was clearly an appropriate measure; and while the
Supreme Court declared it to be within its power and its
•254 duty to maintain that an act * of Congress exceeding its
power waa not the law of the land, yet if a law was not
prohibited by the Constitution and was really calculated to effect
an object intrusted to the government, the court did not pretend
[804]
sObyGoOl^lc
LEGT. Xn.] THE UNITED STATES. •254
to the pover to inqlMre into the degree of its aecessitj. That
wonid be passiug the line which- circumscribes the judicial de-
partment, and be treading on legislative ground.
The court therefore decided, that the law creating the Bank
of the United States was one made in pursuance of the Gonstitu-
tion; and that the branches of the national bank, proceeding
from the same stock, and being conducive to the complete
accomplishment of the object, were equally constitutional.
The Supreme Court were afterwards led, in some degree, to
review this decision, in the case of Oibom v. The United States
Sank ; (a) and thej there admitted that Congreea could not
create a corporation for its own sake, or for private purposes.
The whole opinion of the court in the case of M^ Cullock v. The
State of Maryland was founded on, and sustained by, the idea
that the bank was an instrument which was necessar; and proper
for carrying into effect the powers vested in the government.
It was created for national purposes only, though it was ondoubt-
edlj capable of transacting private as well as public business ;
and while it was the great instrument by which the fiscal opera-
tions of the government were effected, it wtu also trading with
individuals for its own advantage. The bank, on any rational
calculation, could not effect its object, unless it was endowed
with the faculty of lending and dealing in money. This faculty
was necessary to render the bank competent to the purposes of
government, and, therefore, it was constitutionally and rightfully
engrafted on the institution, {l) ^ (x)
(a) B Wlieaton, SSQ. 860.
(fi) It Is worthy it DotiM that tha povar ot Congnta to estkblish ■ nttioiial bukk,
trraa onder the articles of coofederatioti, aeemg not, at the tune, to have been mncb.
qa«Btioned ; and Congreaa did actnallj approve of snch a propoeition on the S6th of
Hay, 1781 ; and on tha Slat of December following, tbej proceeded b; oidiiuuiM to
iaatjtute uid inoorporate the Bank of North Amerioa. Jonmals of Congress, Tii, 37,
197- The coDstitntionalit; and validity of thia ordinance were ably enforced \>j Judge
1 Zegal Tender CaMi. — The most im- of United States notee, and enacted that
portsnt discnanon of the implied powaiB they abonld be lawfnl money and a legil
of Congras that haa ever taJten place, tender in payment of all debts, pnblic
luu ariaeD oa the question of the const!- and private, within the United States,
tationality of the legal tender acts. The with certain eicepttone. After a large
acta of 18S2 and ISS3 anthorized the iaane number of tha state conrta had decided
(i) The same reaeoDlng makes the Farmers' Nat Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S.
Batioiial hank act of 1S64 cosatitotionaL 29.
VOL.1. — » [805]
;abyG00<^lc
jmtlSPBDDENCE OF [PABT h.
-The construction of the powers of Confess
relative to taxation vaa brought before the Snpreme Court, in
Wibon. See Wilson's Work^ iii. 8S7, ud sse lupra, 312, n. Thg fiimt and Uh
second bsnki of the Uaited 9t«tea were eitsblisbed b; «t>tnt«* which newTtd the
■pprobation of Preudente Waahington and Hadiaon, and the coDititiitioiiaUtj at
the ettabliehment of thoM h«[ik« being repeated); declared h; the Supreme Coart of
the United States, it was cotuidered as * settled qnestion, not open for fnrtlier di»-
duaioQ. The Constitntioii declared that "all tegitUtlivt powen tbeteia granted aboold
be Tested in the Congrese of the United State*; "and that " the exteature p>iotr thoaii
be vested io a President of the Umted States ; " and that "the judidat potev of the
United States shonld be vested in one Supreme Court, and in sneh inferior ooort* u
the CoogMU might from time to time ordain and establish ; " and that " Mc judicial
power Aould admd to all come hi law and tqiiilj/ anting muUr (As OaiutilvtiaK.'
(Art. 1, sec 1 ; Art. 2, sec. 1 ; Art S, sec. 1, £.) This aimpleand betntifal diatribn-
Hon of power would eeem to be too clear to be mistaken, and too sacred to be invaded.
The oath to support the ConstitDtioa neceesarll; indode^ in it* meaning and efficae;,
the support of this distribution of power, and of the judidal cogninnM of all ones
atisijig under the Coustitntion. That cogmzance extends, of coune, to the question
whether Congress have the constitutional power to IncorpwatA a national faaak. It
t* a »tt ariting under At OnuliitUitm ; and the decisions of the Soprenie Court were
in bvor of the eziateuee of such a power, and of the valid exet«iae of it in the «ttal>-
lishment of s national bank. The words neeanry and jiroptr in the CoDstitutioa
were not to be confined to means that were tiuJtipcMsatli in the exercise i£ anj expms
power ; but extended to sli means that Congrees should deem ixpedieM and Mc/itl,
and conducive to the end proposed in the execution of any express power. That con-
straction is binding and conclo^ve, as well upon the other departments of the govern-
ment as apou the nation at large. The Congress, in whom is vested the legislatiTe
power, and the President, in whom is vested the executive power, are T«*pectivrlj
bound to receive and obey that eon*tnictic«i of the Constitution which has been duly
settied by the judicial power. See, further, infra, (49, 466, note b.
that these enactments were within the lifiation of contracts, taking private ^aop-
power* of Congress, the question whether erty for public use without oompetMatioa,
the act of 1862 was oonititutional as to Ac. Hepburn v. Qritwold, B Wall. SOL
debts coutncted and doe before its pas- Some other argnmeots of a mo>« tedini*
sage came before the Supreme Court of cally legiX chsimcter were called oat by
the United States. The court, consisting this decision. A letter to the Americu
of eight judges, was not unanimous, and Law Revisw may be specially referred to,
decided against the act by a bare major- iv. 7S8. The question ia not whether the
ity. The argnmeuu of the Chief Justice Constitution prohiUt* the exaidae of the
in iavor of the decision, and of Ur. Jus- power lu qaestion, but whether it grants
tice Miller for the dissenting members, it ; of course, a power as to which Qu
both went very much on the question Constitution is silent, may be given by
whether the act was a "necessary and implication ss a nsceasary or proper means
proper " means of carrying out some of of carrying out other powen which am
the powers expressly given to CoDgrasi. expressly conferred ; but it is hsid to se*
The furtiisr ground was adverted to that how a limited poww which is expressly
the set was inconsiftMit with the " spirit given, and which does aot come up to a
of the Constitotioa," is impdilng the ob- desired height, can b« enlarged sa an i»-
[306]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. XII.j THE UNITED STATES. * 255
1796, in the case of ffylton v. The United States, (c) By
the act of *5th June, 1794, Congretts laid a duty upon* 255
carriages for the conveyance of personB, and the question
was whether this waa a direct tax, vithin the meaning of the
Congtitntion. If it vas not a direct tax, it was admitted to be
rightly laid, under that part of the Constitution which declares
tliat all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform thronghoat
the United States ; but if it was a direct tax, it was not con-
stitutionally laid, for it must then be laid according to the census,
under that part of the Constitution which declares that direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the several states according to
numbers. The Circuit Court in Virginia was divided in opinion
on the question; but on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was
decided, that the tax on carriages was not a direct tax, within
the letter or meaning of the Constitution, and was therefore con-
stitutionally laid.
(e) S Ddlu, 171.
ddent to mue othar ezpran power ; ui that it ma Dot improper under the dream-
«xprMi gnat teeau to exdade implico- stancea, but devote themselves mora to
tioTu ; the power to " coin mone; " means showing that it ms not inconsistent with
to strike off metallic medals (eoin), and to the spirit of the Constitution and to over-
make those medals legal tender (flton^y) ; throwing the argnment stated abore. Hr.
if the Constitation nja sxpresal; that Jnatice Strong suggests, m an answer.
Congress shall bare power to make metal- that the grant of power to punish conntar-
lic legal tender, bow can it be taken to feiting, treaaou, Ac., has been held not to
say I^ impliostton that Congress shall exclude an implied power lb make other
have power to make paper legal tender t offences poniahable (riting United Stats*
7 Am. Law Ber. lis. e. Marigold, 9 How. 5«0). See alao
In December, 1670, the inject waa Dnited States t>. Hewitt, 9 WalL 41, 14,
Imnght once more beTote the Supreme pcil, 489, n. 1. The implied power.
Court, the compositioD of which had been moieoTer, need not be deduced fhmi any
changed in the mean time by the reugua* one of those expressl; granted, but may
tion of oao judge and the appointment of be inferred from the sam of all the powers
two otheti, and the whole matter waa al- which make the United Btates a natjon,
lowed to be reargued. The eourt took and the fact that whatever power there is
ooncideTable time to deliberate, and at over the currency is vested in Congress,
hmgth ovntruled their former deciaioD, Field, J., in his able dissenting opinion,
and affinnsd the oonstitntionality of the inUr alia, reproduces the argument stated
acta, both aa to contracts made before and above, with greet force. 12 WalL MB,
after the iiassage. by a majority of fire to 066. See Trebilcwk v. Wilson, pott, 326,
four. Legal Tender Cases, Enoz c. Lee ; u. 1 ; Railroad Co. «. Johnson, 16 Wall.
Parker v. Davis, 12 Wall 467. The 196. [See especially Legal Tender Cas^
majority do not go liirtber into the ex- 110 IT. S. 421.]
pediency of the tneamie than to shnr
rsoij
sObyGoOl^lc
• 256 JUBI8PEDDBNCE OF [PAET 11.
The question waa deemed of ver; great importance, and was
elaborately argued. It wae held that a general power was giTeu
to Congress to lay and collect taxes of every kind or nature,
without any restraint. They had plenary power over every
species of taxable property, except exports. But there were two
rules prescribed for their government : the rule of uniformity,
and the rule of apportionment. Three kinds of taxes, viz. duties,
imposts, and excises, were to be laid by the first rule; and
capitation, and other direct taxes, by the second rule. If there
were any other species of taxes, as the court seemed to suppose
there might be, that were not direct, and not included within
the words "duties, imposts, or esciseB," they were to be laid by
the rule of uniformity or not, as Congress should think proper
and reasonable.
The Constitution contemplated no taxes as direct taxes, but
such as Congress could lay in proportion to the census; and the
rule of apportionment could not reasonably apply to a tax on
carriages, nor could the tax on carriages be laid by that rule,
without very great inequality and injustice. If two states, equal
in census, were each to pay 8,000 dollars, fay a tax on
" 256 carrii^s, * and in one state there were 100 carriages,
and in another 1,000, the tax on each carriage would be
ten times as much in one state as in the other. While A., in the
one state, would pay for his carriage eight dollars, B., in the
other state, would pay for his carriage eighty dollars. Id this
way, it was shown by the court, that the notion that a tax on
carriages was a direct tax, within the purview of the Constitu-
tion, and to be apportioned according to the census, would lead
to the grossest abuse and oppression. This argument was con-
clusive against the construction set up, and the tax on carriages
was considered as included within the power to lay duties; and
the better opinion seemed to be, that the direct taxes contem-
plated by the Constitution were only two, viz., a capitation,
or poll tax, and a tax on land.' (z) The court concluded that
' TMb i» anatained bj the langqige of property b; gmmtl Talnation and u>es»-
tbe Sapreme Coort in kt«r ca«ea, with mint of the vuiont de«criptton« poBaemd
the possible nddition of taiee oa peraoaal within the sevenJ rtates. Chief Jnatioe
(x) See Springer v. United States, 103 12B. The Federal inoome tax of ISM
n.S.SSS; Schaleyii.Bew, 2SWaU. 881; npon penonal "gtina, [sofitii ud in-
Minot a. WiDthrop, ISl Haas. 118, US, come," ii
[808]
;abyG00<^lc
LGCT. XII.] THE UNITED STATES. * 256
the tax on carriages was an indirect tax on ezpenee or con-
sumption, and, therefore, properly laid, purenant to the rale of
uniformity.
Id Loughborough t. Blake, (a) the power of taxation waa again
brought under judicial discuaaion. The question vas immedi-
, attily of a. local nature, and it was, whether Congreaa had the
right to impose a direct tax upon the unrepresented District of
Columbia; but there were principlea iavolred in the decision
(a) 6 WhutoD, 317.
Chue intinutM th»t the definitioDS of banks of state bonk noUa Is lield not to
direct taxes )tj political sconomists can- be diivct. Teuie Bonk v. Fenno, 8 WaU.
not be naed eatisractdrily for the purpose fiSS, Gil, Ut ; and so of • tax on income*
of canatniing the phrase in the Conatitn- of insnranca companiei. Pacific Ins. Co.
tion. Thoa, a tax on the drcolation bj v. Sonle, 7 Wall ISS.
dimct tax. PoUock b. Fanners' Loan & not i]1<^, the remedy of the taz-peTsc
Trust Co., 1G7 U. 8. i29 ; 1S8 U. S. 601. being, aflor pajmsnt, to ene for re-pay-
See 29 Am-L-Ber. CSO; SHair. L. Ber. ment. State Bailwa; Tax Cases, 92 U.S.
IBS. SaccessioD taxes and taxes upon 618, S17 ; TrnDfueee v. Sneed, W tJ. S.
the franclusss of oorporatioas are now SB ; Padfie Express Co. v. Seibert, 44
naually held to be excises, and not direct Fed. Bep. SIO ; 142 U. a 830 ; HcTwig-
taxes. See Uinot R. Wintbrop, 102 Hau. gan d. Hunter {R I.), 30 Atl. Bep.
1 18, IIS, 120, 138, and cm« there dted. 902 ; Odiin d. Woodni^ 81 Fla. 100 ; 22
Adif«ettaxapon]aod*daeanot,of itwlf, L. B. A. 499, note. A State statute, which
CK«te any lialnlity on the part of the prorides a remedy b; Iqjnnction against
Stataa lo pay'tbe tax. United Slatw v. the collectioD of an illegal tax, may be
Lonisiaiia, 123 U. S. S3. enforeed by a Federal ooart in the State,
Statntea which impose taxes, thongh not altliongh the statute also prorides for
mandatory in terms, are to be to regarded recovering back the tax when paid, by an
when necessary for the tax-payer's pro- action at law. Me;en p. Shields, 61 Fed.
t«ctiou- Erhardt v. Schroedei, I6G U. S. Rep. 71S.
124. A suit against a State officer to KStrain
The proTiaion of the U. 3. Bev. Stata. the aaseeement or eoIleetioD of a State
J 3224, that "no snit for the purpose of tax, is not a suit against the State,
restraining the assessment or collection though it is named as a party, and it
of any tax ihall be maintained in any may he prosecuted in the Federal Gonrta.
ooart," sppliee not only to valid assess- Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. 3. 270 ;
mcmtai, bnt also to any tax which the goT- Secor «. Singleton, SG Fed. Bep. 376. If
eminent daimii to be constitntionallyTsKd. a State officer seizes for taxea, and re-
Snyder d. Harka, 109 D. 8. 189 ; Kensett fnsea to inrrender, property in the hands
K. Stivna, 18 Blatch. 897 ; Uiles b. John- of the receiTsr of a Federal conrt, a pro-
sou, 69 Fed. B«p. 86 ; Alkan v. Bean, 8 ceeding for contempt for that caase is
Bias. 83. The same principle shonld also^ not a snit sgainat the State. Ex parte
it seems, be applied to nnjnat taxation by l^ler, 149 IT. 8. 164 ; see iitfra, 297,
a StAte, eapedally whan the entire tax is note*.
;abyG00<^lc
• 257 juEisPBnDENCE OP [part h.
which had an ezteDaive and important relation to the whole
United States.
It was declared that the power to tax extended equally to all
places over which the govemment extended. It extended as
well to the District of Columbia, and to the territories which
were not represented in GongreBB, an to the rest of the United
States. Though duties were to be uniform, and taxes were to be
apportioned according to numbers, the power was coextensive
with the empire. The inhabitants of the then territories of
Michigan, and of Florida, and Arkansas, for instance, as veil as
the District of Columbia, though without any representa-
•257tion in Congress, were subject to the *fuU operation of
the power of taxation, equally as the people of New York
or Massachusetts. But the court held that Congress are not
bound, though they may, in their discretion, extend a direct
tax to the territories as well as to the states. A direct tax, if
laid at all, must be laid on every state conformably to the census,
and therefore Congress has no power to exempt any state from
its due share of the burden. But it was understood that Con-
gress were under no necessity of extending a tax to the unrepre-
sented District of Columbia, and to the territories; though it
they be taxed, then the Constitution gives the rule of assessment
This construction was admitted to be most convenient, for the
expense of assessing and collecting a tax in a territory, as the
Northwest Territory, for instance, then existed, might exceed
the amount of the tax. Here was an anomalous case in our
government, in which representation and taxation are not
inseparable, though the principle that the power of taxation
could not rightfully exist without representation was a funda-
mental ground of our Revolution. The court did not consider a
departure from a general principle, in this case, to be very mate-
rial or important, becauae the case was that of territories which
in a state of infancy, advancing to manhood, and looking
rd to complete equality, as soon as that state of manhood
i be attained. It was the case, also, of the District of
abia, which had voluntarily relinquished the right of rep-
tation, and adopted the whole body of Congress for its
mate government.
>T«-Maption of lodian Landa. — Congress have the exclusive
of pre-emption to all Indian lands lying within the territo-
[310]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. Zn.] THE UNITED STATES. * 258
ries of tbe United States. This was bo decided in the case of
Jbhnton V. Mcintosh, (a) Upon the doctrine of the court iD
that case, and in that of IPletcher v. Peck, (b) the United States
own the soil as well as the jurisdiction of the immense tracts
of unpatented lands included within their territories, and
of *all the productive funds which those lauds may here- *258
after create. The title is in the United States by the
treaty of peace with Great Britain, and by subsequent cessions
from France and Spain, and by cessiouB from the individual
states ; and the Indians have only a right of occupancy, and the
United States possess the legal title, subject to that occupancy,
and with an absolute and exclusive right to extinguish the
Indian title of occupancy, either by conquest or purchase, (x) The
title of the European nations, and which passed to the United
States, to this immense territorial empire, was founded on dis-
covery and conquest; and, by the European customary law of
nations, prior discovery gave tliis title to the soil, subject to the
possessory right of the natives, and which occupancy was all
the right that European conquerors and discoverers, and which
the United States, as succeeding to their title, would admit to
reside in the native Indians. The principle is, that the Indians
are to be considered merely as occupants, to be protected while
in peace in the possession of their lands, but to be deemed in-
capable of transferring the absolute title to any other than the
sovereign of the country. The Constitution (a) gave to Congress
the power to dispose of, and to make all needful rules and regu-
lations respecting the territory or other property belonging to
the United States, and to admit new states into the Union.
Since the Constitution was formed, the value and efficacy of this
power have been magnified to an incalculable extent, by the pnr-
(a) S Wlieaton, MS. (b) 6 Cnmdi, 142, 14S. (a) Art «, mc. 8.
(z) The tJoitad SUtsi, hsTing the DodwD, 82 id. 806. But Uuds which are
oomplets control of the fee of Uod* n- rcMired froin sale, Ac., until the Presi-
MTVed bf tn$tj for lodiaa occupatioii, dent decidaa npoa their being ut aaide ■<
conrejt both title uid right of posuvion n Indi&a Teaerratiaii, cuiDot pasa bj a
when it makea nich a grant as a railroad nilroad grant prior to hie decision. No.
right of way, which necevaril; iuvolvci Pac £. Co. v. HacUy, 01 Fed. Bep. GE4.
po— tarion. Hiawnri, K. & T. Kj. Co. t>. A State legiaUturs cannot anthorize leasea
Bobnte, 152 U. 8. 114 ; Me Bntti v. No. on Indian Iuid& BaSalo, &e. B. Co. «.
Pm. B. Co., IIB U. B. fiS ; ITnited Statea l*mj, 27 N. T. S. 44S.
«. Ordwigr, 30 Fed. Bep. 80 ; Denny «.
[811]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 259 JDSISPBUOBKCE OF [PART II.
chase of Louisiana and Florida; aad, nnder the doctrine con-
tained in the cases I have referred to, CongresB have a large and
magnificent portion of territory under their absolute control and
dispoeal. Thie immeDse property has become national and pro-
ductive stock, and Congress, in the administration of this stock,
have erected temporary govemments ander the provisions of the
ordinance of the Congress under the confederation, and under
the constitutional power; and they have appointed the officers
to each territory, and allowed delegates in Congress b>
* 269 be chosen by the * inhabitants every second year, and
with a right to debate, but not to vote, in the House of Rep-
resentatives, (a)
The unpatented lands belonging to the United States, within
the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and the territory
of Wisconsin, arose from cessions from the states of Virginia,
Massachu setts, Connecticut, and New York, before the adop-
tion of the present Constitution of the United States, (i) North
(a) Ordinance of CongreM of ISth July, 1787. Act* of CoDgr«n of Aogurt 7,
17SS ; JanuaT7l4, 1806; March 3, 1817 ; February IS, 1819; April S4,18W; Hud)
SO, tS2S. Th« acqniution of the foreign territoriM of Lonidan* and Florida (7 Hh
Uoited Statei, by puichaae, was to be lupportod only by a yetj liberal and latilndi-
nuy coiuitractioii of the incidental power* of the goTHnment under the CoaMitD-
tion. The objection! to each a conatrnction, which were urged at the tima, ue
atatcd in S Story'i Carom. 1G0-1S1. But the eonititntionality of the acqnisitioii irf
foreign territory ia vindicated, eatabliahed, and aettled by the Sapreme Conrt, u one
neMSsarily flowing from the power of the Union to make tieatie*. Anericui lu.
Co, V. Canter, 1 Peters, &11. It belongs, therefore, upon that principle excloaiTel;
to the Preddent, with the adrice and conaent of two-thirda of the memher* of tht
Benate present to make the acquiaitioti. But in 1846, Congreae , by joint leaotatiao,
under the power in the Conititntion (arL 4, aec 3), that "new states may be admitted
by the Congress into this Union," admitted the foieign and independent state of
Texas into the Union as a •eparate stats, upon terms to which Tsias afterwaidl
acceded. Besolntion of Congress of March 1, 1S46. This was giving a new le^
lative construction, of enormous efflcaey and extent, to the constitutional power to
acquire foreign atataa, and would appear to be contrary to the principle of oonstiui;-
tion recognized by the Snpiem* Court, that the anneiatioD of foreign «tate«, oat if
the limits of the United States, moat bs ths act of the treaty-making power.
ib) That of New York was made Hareh 1, 1781, under ths authority of the act rf
the legislature of that state, of the 19th Fsbraary, 17S0. That of Vi^inia was mads
March I, 1784, under the authority of an act of the SOth December, 1783. That of
MaasachusetU, on the 19th of April, 1736, under the authority of the acta of that
state, of 13th November, 1784, and 17th March, 17SG ; and that of Connecticat on
the 14th September, 1786, under the anthoritj of ao act of that state of May, ITS!
That of South Carolina, in August, 1787. The title to the lands belon^ng to llu
United States vxtt aflKc JUttinippi is supported by treaties made with Oreat Britais,
[S12]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XII.3 THE UWITED STATES. • 260
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia made similar cessions of
their uDpateDt«d lauds, and which now compose the states of
Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. The lands so ceded were
intended to be, and were considered, as constituting a common
fund, for tlie benefit of the Union ; and when the states in which
the lands are now situated were admitted into the Union, the
proprietary right of the United States to those unimproved and
unsold lands was recognized. Those lands belong to the United
States, as part of their public domain, subject to the Indian right
and title of occupancy, in all cases in which the same has not
been lawfully extinguished. It is not to be concealed, however,
that the title of the United States to the unappropriated lands
lying within the limits of the separate states has been seriously
questioned by some of them, as by MisaisBippi, Illinois, and
Indiana. The latter state, in January, 1829, advanced a claim
to the exclusive right to the soil and eminent domain of all the
unappropriated lands within her acknowledgd boundaries; and
in 1830, Mississippi put forth a similar claim. But the cessions
of the territorial claims of the separate states to the western
country were called for by the resolutions of Congress of the 6th
September and 10th of October, 17S0, and were made upon Uie
basis that they were to be " disposed of for the common benefit
of the United States." (c) It was stipulated by Congress, in the
last resolution, that the lands to be ceded should be disposed
of for the common benefit of the United States ; be settled and
formed into distinct republican states, with a suitable extent of
territory ; become members of the American Union, and have the
same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as
the other states. It was likewise provided by* the ordi-*260
nance of July 18, 1787, for tht govemmtnt of the terri-
tory of ike United State* northfeeit of the river Ohio, that the
legislatures of the districts or new states to be erected therein
should "never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by
the United States, in Congress assembled, nor with any regula-
in 1783, 1S18, 1837, uid with Framee, in 1803, ud with Spain, in IS20, uid with Msz-
ieo, in 1881. FvU Elliott'i AmoricaD Diplomatic Code, Wuhington, 18S4, 2 toIb.,
which ii B mott Taloable coTnpilatioD of all the tieatiga down to that date. Id which
the Unitad Statae have any iotcreat.
(e) JotuiwI* of the Confod. CongnM, tl laS, 147; riiL US, SCO; iz. 47; x. H;
xL leO; zii. 02.
[818]
sObyGoOl^lc
■ 260 JDBISPRUDENCE OF [PiKT 11.
tioas Congress may find necessary for securing the title in snch
soil to the bona fide purchaser, (a)
5. Bffeot of Stata Jnagmenta. — By the Constitution of the United
States, Congress were, by general laws, to prescribe the manner
in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every state should be proved, and the effect thereof id every
other state, (a;) In pursuance of this power, Congress, by the act
(a) For dispoung of the landi of tbe United States, nnmennu land offioca ban
been e»tabliahed by ads of CoDgrei* in tbe Etates of Obio^ Indiana, Dliiioiit Miiuori,
LoniiiBna, Miioiaiii^i, tin ham a, MicbigaD, and Arkansas, and in tbe territorJM of
Witconetn, Iowa, and Florida. See Goidai], Digecrt of the laws of the United States,
1837, S21-3S9, in which all tbe statute providons relative to tbe diapoutioii of the
pnblic domain of the United States are collected, and clearl; and neatlj' imngHl and
digeB(«d. By the act of CoDgreas of September i, 1841, c IS, ten per cent of the
net proceeds of the sales of the public landa, to be made anbeequent to the Slatef
December, ISll, within the limits of the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, AUbuu,
Hiaaoori, Hiasiisippi, Lonisiana, Arkansas, and Michigan, wen to be paid to those
states respectively ; and the residue of those net proceeds, subject to certain ptorlni,
sboald be divided, half-yearly, among the twenty-six atatea of the Union, and tbe
District of Columbia, and the territories of WiBconsin, Iowa, and Florida, according
to their respective federal representative population, aa ascertained by Oie last cen-
sus, to be applied bj the le^alaturea of the said states to such purpoee* aa tbs;
should direct,
(z) Tbe constitutional provision applies State, although an original judgment there
equallyto the State courts snd to the courts entered in that form would be invalid,
of the several territories. Susenbach v. Eenaud v. Abbott, llfl U. S. 277 ; Stevart
Wagner, 41 Minn. lOS. The implication d. Stewart, 27 W. Va. 167 ; Bitter r.
from this requirement is that ths public Hoffman, S5 Kansas, £16; Simmona (.
acts of each State are to be given the aame aark, Gfl 111. Bfl ; but see VQbur f. Ah-
effect by the oourta o[ other jurisdictions bott, 60 N. H. 40. Such a judgmwt
that they have by law and ussf^ at home ; differs from a judgment recovered in i
and for this purpose the law of such State foreign country in no other respect than
must be proved an a fact. Chicago ft in not being re-eiaminable on its merits,
Alton Railroad v. Wi>rgins Ferry Co. 119 not inpeachable for fraud in obtainiiiil i>.
U. 3. ei6. But in the Federal courts, if rendered by a court having jurisdiction
tbe Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court of the cause and of tbe partiea. Hanley
on appeal or error therefrom, late judi- v. Donoghue, llfl U, S. 1, *; Wisconsin
cial notice of the laws of every Swte in v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 285, 294.
the Union, as domestic laws. Hanley D. Tbe decrees of State probate roniticui-
Donoghue, llfl U. S. 1, 6 ; Fourth Nat. not, if they have jorisdiction, be collate-
Bank v. Francklpi, ISO U. S. 747, 7S1 ; rally attacked io the courts of other Statsa
liverpool Steam Co. v. Phenii Ins. Co., or of the United atatea Horon v. Dster,
129 U. a 897, 44B. As to snita. the 120 U. S. 464 ; Voacb t.. Rice, 181 U. 3.
tnie view appears to be that a judgment 293 i Simmons v. Saul, 13S U. S. 43$ ;
in one Stat«, entered according to its laws Holmea e. Or^on A Cal. R. Co., 9 Fed.
and valid there, may be enforced in another Rep. 229 ; Mooneye. Hind^ ISO Usis-
[314]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. HI.] THE UNITED STATES. * 260
of May 26, 1790, provided the mode by which records and ju-
dicial proceedings should be authenticated, and then declared
469 ; Loriog e. Arnold, IG B. I. tZ8 ; SUte, ezcapt in bonkniptc; matUn. See
Dnke p. Curtia, SS Uo. 9U. Chipman n. Brewer, 11* U. S. 158; Snr-
"The forbeuance -which coarls of eo- geat d. Helton, IIS U. B. 348 ; HemBley
ordJnaU joriadietioD, •dmiDiatered nnder v. Mjere, 45 Fed. Rep. 333 ; New YoA
> single ■vBtem, exerdte towardi each & N £. B. Co. n. WoodnilT, 42 id. 468 ;
other, wherabj eooflicl* «re (Toided, by TnchmMi a. Welch, id. 548; Dillon e.
aToiding interference with the proceu of Eansaa City 8. B. Sj. Co., 4S id. 100 ;
etch other, is a principle or comity, with Gilbert r. Quimby, 1 id. Ill ; Bridges v.
perhaps no higher aanction than the ntil- Shaldon, 18 Blatch. 517. And aa the
tty wbicb comes b^)TI1 concord ; bat be. csum of action ia not changed by the
tween St&te coarta and thoee of the United judgment, the merger of the original
Stalea it is aomething more. It is a piin- demand in the judgment does not pre-
dple of right and of law, and, therefore, of dude the couite of another State, in
Mceatity." Coretl ir. Heyman, 111 U. S. which the judgment ia aued on, from look-
ITS, 182 I Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. ing into the nature of the orij^al claim
341, 352. A judgment rendered in one to ascertain whether the court rendering
State can hare elsewhere no greater credit the judgment was authoriied to enforce
than it Ikaa there, and if it can there be at- the claim. Wisconsin v. Pelican Int. Co.,
ticked for want of jurisdiction, it can be so 137 U. S. 2S6 ; Huntiagton v. Attrill,
attacked also in another State. First Nat 1 46 U. 8. 6S7. Such a judgment, so far
Baokv. Cnnningbam, 4S Fed. Bep. 510; aait aanimes to decide f matter not cor-
Sharon «. Hill, 26 id. 337, SSI ; Van ered by the pleadings, nor within the
Cleaf B. Buma, 118 N. T. G48. The issue, ia a nullity. Beynolda v. Stockton,
jedgmenta and decree* of a IT. S. drcnit 43 N. J. Eq. 311. The judgment of a
tODTt in one Slate are to be there aocorded State court nisy be collatersJIy attacked
the same effect in all respects aa, nnder in the Federal courts for want of jurtadic-
like cirenmstuicea, would be aeconled to tion. Swifl v. Meyers, 37 Fed. Rep. 37 ;
a State tribunal of equal authority ; and Southern Ins. Co. v. Wolrerton Hardware
it is a Federal question whether the State Co. (Texas), 19 8. W. Rep. 616. And it ia
court baa thna allowed to them dne effect now Kttledin those courts that want of jur-
Creaeent City L. S. Co. t>. Butchers' isdiction tobiud the personmay be ahowo
Union, ISO U. 8. 141 ; Dapaoenr v. in an action upon tbejudgnieDtagaicist the
Sochemtu, 21 Wall. 130. A judgment person, notwithstanding therecitalsofthe
IK j/trmtam rendered againat a corpora- recon) as to service or appearance. Thomp-
tiou in the Federal court of one State is eon v. Whitmsn. 18 Wall. 457 ; Eaovles
couclniire on the merits, as a canse of v. QaallghtCo., 19 Wall. 58 ; Hall «. L«n-
■rtion, in every other State. Chicago A ning, 61 U. S. 160 ; Omham v. Spencer,
A. Bridge Co. B. Angto-Americao Pack- 14 Fed. Rep. SOS ; Downs o. Allen, 23 id.
iDK Co., 46 Fed. Bep. 584. An action of 805; aeealeo 74 Am. Dec 6G3 ; GibMn t>.
replevin cannot he maintained in a State Hannfaoturers' Firelna.Co., 144 Haas. 81 ;
court to recover property attached under Bothrock k. Dwelling-Houselna. Co., 161
process of a Federal court. Erippendorf Morn. 433. The weight of authority in
V. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276 ; Tub v. Cerriere, the State conits is now, and ahould ■be,
IIT U.' S. 201. By the O. S. Sev. Stats., to the same effect, aa the decisione of the
I 730, the Federal oonrta are forbidden U. S. Supreme Court npon a provision of
to enjoin proceediDgt in any court of a the Federal Constitution are binding upon
[315]
MbyGoOl^lc
* 260 JDEISPBDDENCB OP [PABT IL
that the; should have such faith aud credit giveo to them in
every court within the United States as they had by lav or usage
them. Eliot v. McComdck, 144 Mms. Judgment by derault cannot be c^ktir-
10; Hoffman it. Newell, 21 If . Y. 3.912; ally attacked. Pendeztero. Cole (N. H.|,
20 id. *82 ; Teel v. Yost, 128 N. Y. 887 ; 20 AtL Rsr. 331. 8o an onnrened
Uartiu v. Centnl Vermont R. Co., CO jadgmnnt ordecreeof a Doort oToneSt^e
Han, S47 ; Renier o. Hnrlbut, 81 Wia. will not be tenned b; the coorti at an-
24 ; Webster v. Hanter, SO Iowa, 215 ; other State Tor fisod, miarepreMOtatioii,
frothiagtuun e. BamM, 9 B, I. 474 ; or negligence and mutake on the defend-
Wnod a. Wood, 78 Ky. 624 ; CnainUah v. ant'e part Christmu v. Biinell, 6 WaU.
Central Imp. Co., S8 W. Va. 3»0; Mor- 2M ; Moone; b. Hindu, ISO Han. 49»;
gan V. Hoigan, 1 Texas Civil App. S16 ; Ambler r. Whipple, 181 la S11 ; m
Henry v. Allen, 82 Texas, SG ; HaU o. White v. Beid, 24 N. Y. 8. 290. U *a
Mackay, 78 id. 248; Napton .a Leaton, appeal from the jnd^ment does not atij
71 Ho. SG8 : Brown d. Eaton, 98 Ind. S91 ; it iu the domestic uonrt, the prndenc? al
Hitobell «. Ferris, 6 Honst (Del.) 84; an appeal does not bar a suit nn the jodg-
Price e. SbaelTer, 161 Penn. St. 630 ; ment in another SUte. ClaA d. Child,
Onthrie v. Lowry, 84 Penn. St. 63S ; 186 Mass. 344 ; Dow v. Blake, 148 DL
Aultman r. Milla, S Wash. 88 ; Sammis 76 ; Qain«a's SnccMdon, 4S La. Ann.
v.Wightinan,SIFla.10;Semplet>. Olenn, 12S7. A peraonal jadgment obtained in
91 Ala. 245 ; Jardine v. Beichert, 89 K. one State by pablication and mailinfidoM
J. L. 16S ; Bowler v. Hneton, SO Oratt. not bind the defendant personally, be
2SS i see also 74 Am. Dec. SE2 ; Bigelow being and rimaining in another State,
on Estoppel (4tli ed.}, eh. S. Fr«eman o. Alderson, 110 tJ. S. 136 ; New
When the personal liability of the stock- York Life Ins. Co. n. Aitkin, 125 K. T.
holders in a corporation hss been attjndged 860.
and fixed by the courts of the State which If property is seised I^ attachment,
CT«ated the corporation, and a snit is the court Gnt aoqtiiring jnriadietion ont
brought on such a jadgment in another it may retain it in its custody until final
State, foil faith and credit an to be given judgment or even nntil the jadgmcot ji
to the jadgment c^ the domestio State, sstisBed. CoTel «. Heynun, 111 U- S.
and the U. S. Sapreme Court may reriew 17S ; Eeidritter v. Elizabeth M-Clatli
the judgment of the second court when Co., 112 D. 8. 294 ; Gates >. Backi, it
that court refdses to enforce the first judg- Fed. Bep. 961; Porter t. Davidson, S2
ment on the ground that it was rendered id. 626 ; Lockhart e. Locke, 4S Aik. 17 ;
without jurisdiction, or that it was founded Whiting r. Burger, 78 Maine, 287.
on a penalty. Uisaouri v. Andriano, 13S The pendency of an actioa in one jnris-
U. S. 466 ; Huntington b. Attrill, 146 U. diction does not bar or abate another lott
S. 667 ; Glenn *. Oarth, 147 U. S. 360 ; between the saoM parUea, involving the
see Bicknell v. Comstock, 118 U. S. 149 ; same issnes, in a conrt of oo-ordinala jii>
Chicago & Alton R. Co. ■>. Wiggins Ferry isdiction, when its jurisdiction is enr-
Co., 119 U. S. 616. dsed by personal service and not br •
The presumption is in bvor of the jm^ seizure of ^troperty. Slnnton r. Emhny,
isdiction of a foreign court of record ren- 98 U. S. G48, G64 ; Loring r. Manh, 3
daring judgment. Bailey v. Hartin, 110 Cliff. 811, 322 i Brooks d. Hills Coan^,
Ind. 108 ; Oonn v. Peakea, 36 Uinn. 177. 4 Dillon, 624 ; Pierce v. Feagana, 39 Fed.
When the court has juriediction ot the Bep. G87 ; Liggett t>. Glenn, 61 id. SSI ;
subject -matter and of the defendant, a Dwight v. Central Vermont R. Co., 10
[316]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XII.] THE UNITln) STATES. * 261
in the conrte of the state from vheDCO the records were taken.
Under this act it was decided, in the case of Millt t. Drtryee, (J>)
that If a judgmeiit, duly authenticated, had, in the state court
from whence it was taken, the faith and credit of the highest
nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and
credit in every other court It was declaring the effect of the
record, to declare the faith and credit that were to be given to
it The Constitution intended something more than to make the
jadgments of state courts prima faeie evidence only. It con-
temptated a power in Coi^;resB to give a conclusive effect to snch
judgments. A judgment is, therefore, conclusive in every other
state, if 8 court of the particular state where it was rendered
would hold it conclusive. Ml debet is not a good plea in a suit
on a judgment in another state, because not a good plea in snch
state. Njtl tiel record is the proper plea in such a case. The
same decision was followed in Sampton v. At Connel, (c)
and the doctrine contained * in it may now be considered * 261
as the settled law of the land. It is not, however, to be
understood that nul tiel record, is, in all cases, the necessary
plea ; but any special plea may be pleaded which would be good to
avoid the judgment in the state where it was pronounced, {a)
And in Mayhtw v. TKateheTy {b) the court would seem to imply
<») 7 Craneh, 4S1.
(e) S WhntoD, SSI ; uid in Weniirag v. Pawling, G Qill & Johiu. GOO.
(a) Shmnwm; v. Stillinui, 4 Cowen, 292.
\b) 8 Wbeafam, 129. — In Thnrber e. Blsckbonme, 1 N. H. S12, it ma held tluC
nil dd)ti wia a good plea to dabt on a jndgoient of aoother atite when it did not >ppMkT
bf the record that the defendant had notice of the anit. And in Spencer n. Brock-
wKf, lOhio, 2fig ; Holt s. Allowaj, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) lOS, andHoziee. Wright, 2 Yer-
mont, 268, the jadgment of another state, n^larly obtained, when the defendant had
heeo aerred with pioceas, or had otherwite appeared, was held to be concluaive evi-
dmce of the debt. Bnt the defendant must have had dan notice to appear, and be
intiject to the jnrisdictian of the conrt, or if a foreigner or non-reeident, be mnit
have actnallj appeared to the auit, or the judgment of another state will not he
deemed of any raltdity. Thia ia a plain principle of jnatice, which per*ade« the
jartBpndeDee of thia and of all other coQntrie*. EillbuTn v. Woodwoith, C Johna. 37 ;
Aldrich V. Kinney, i Conn. SSO ; Bisaell v. Brigga, 9 Haaa. 482 ; Fiaher r. Lane,
3 Will. 2S7 ; Bnchanan v. Rncker, 9 Eut, 192 ; Dougloa v. Foirert, 4 Bing. 683, 702 ;
Becqnet s. HacCarthy, 2 Ban. & Adot. 9S1 ; Brace r. Wait, 1 Hano. & Or. 1 ; Paw-
ling V. Bird, 13 Johna. 199 ; EarthmaD v. Jonei, 2 Terger, 481 ; Miller v. Hilter,
1 Bailey (8. C], 343 ; Benton o. Bnigot, 10 Serg. & Kawle, 240 ; Bogtn «. Coleman,
Blateh. 200; Oay «. Brierfield Coal Co., Co., 103 111. 449; Holliater v. Stewart,
94 Ala. 803 ; Ku^(ger v. Indiaoapolia B. Ill N. Y. 944.
[317]
;abyG00<^lc
* 262 JDBISFBDDENGE OP [PABI a.
that a judgment in one state, founded on an attachment in rem,
trould not be concluBive evidence of the debt in other
* 262 states, if the defendant * had not personal notice of tiie
suit, BO aa to have enabled him to defend it^
Hardin, 413 ; Borden e>. Fitch, IS John*. ISl ; Hall v. WiUiatni, aP{ck.8S3; BitMi.
DeUvui, 5 Piige, SOS ; Bradsluw v. Heath, 13 Wendell, 4Q7. See lito infia, SL ItB.
The doctrine in Ifills v. Dnrjee it to "he taken witb the qualificatioD that to iQ
JnrtanoeB the joiisdiction of the conrt rendering the jndgmant majr be inquired aOe,
and the plea of nU dAet will allow the defendant to ahow that the court had no jorii-
diction orsr hia peraon. It is only when the jariadiction of the oonrt in another data
is not impeached, either aa to the aotgect-matter ot the person, that the record of the
judgment is entitled to fall Uth and credit The court muat have had jniiadictM^
not onlj of the anue, but of the parties, and in that case the jadgmmt is final and c<a-
dauTe. If the sait ia another stale wm commenced b; the attachment of fttypatj,
the defendant maj plead in bar, that no proceai waa served on him, and that he nenr
appeared, either in peraon or bj attome;. Slarbuck c. Hurray, fi Wendell, 118 ;
Shomway u. Stillman, 6 Wendell, U7 ; Wilaon o. Nilea, 2 Hall (N. Y.}, 3S8 ; Glnaon
e, Dodd, 4 Metcalf, SSS ; Story, Comm. on theConflictof Law8,St GBS-SW ; Baa^
V. Webster, 11 N. H. 299. But an important distinction ia here to be obeerred, thit
a proceeding by foreign attachment, and against garnishees to judgment and eieco-
tion, if binding in the state, ia eoncluaiTe ereryvhere sji a proceeding in ma apinit
movable property and debia attached or garnished ; bnt the judgment ia of no Ana
against the penan of the debtor who bad Dot been aerred with proceas, or appeaitd in
the foreign attachment, nor against his property in another jurisdiction. Cochnn ■■
Fitch, 1 Sandf. Ch. 142. The process by attachment of property of, and of debts doe
to non-reddeats, or of penons absent from the jnriadiction, will sutgeot the proper^
attached to execution upon the judgment or decree founded on the ^iroccn ; but it b
considend aa a mere proceeding m rtm, and not personally binding or having any
extra-territOTial force or obligation. Story, Comm. on the Conflict of Laws,' ( GtS ;
Chew V. Bandolph, Walker (Hiss.), 1; Overstreet ir. Shannon, 1 Ho. SSS p7E el
republication]. A special plea in bar of a snit on a judgment in tnotiier state, ta
be valid, mnst dMiy, by positive averments, every fact which woold go t« ahaw that
the conrt in another state had juriadictian ot the person, or of the luliject-mattet.
Harrod v. Batretto, 1 Hall (^. Y.), 165. [A judgment of another state maybe
, claimed to be nsed in one of the following ways : (1.) As evidence. (3.) Asthe
foaodation of a tight giving a cause of action. (3.) Ae a bar to an action. (4.) A>
a judgment on which ezscation is claimed. It may, in fact, be used in any of the
first three ways, bnt not in the fourth. (See notea, supra.) Burnley v. Btevenami, 34
Ohio St. 474 ! Turley v. Dreyfus, SS I*. Ann. 885 B.]
1 Judgmentt of other 3latet. — Aatothe founded its jurisdiction, the parties sie
necessity of notice mentioned in the note said to be at liberty to show that jnrisdic-
(i) of the last page, aee D'Arcj «. Ket- tion had not been acquired. Wilooi e.
cbnm, 11 How. 106 i Christmas v. Russell, Eanick, 3 Uich. 165; Coit r. Haven, 30
6 Wall. 200, 806. As to sppellata pro- Conn. 190, 198- Although if tbs eoort it
ceedinga, see Nations v, Johnson, 24 How, one of genenil jurisdictjon, the ptesnnp-
IBS. tion is in favor of the validity of its pro-
It the record doea not redte the facta ceedinp. Dunbar d. Hallowell, 34 IIL ISS;
on which the conrt of the other state Folgsr v. Columbian Ins. Co., 09 Hue.
[818]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XII.] THE UNITED STATES. " 262
& Power of Coofrmm over ttaa BClUtia. — Congress have anthorit;
to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the lave of the
307, 273 ; Bnfiom b. StimpKin, 6 Allen, Starbuck v. Murray, fi Wend. 148 ; Carle-
691 ; Jarris >. BoUuaon, 21 WU. G2S. ton d. Bickford, IS Gray, 661 ; Folgar <r.
8m Miller ». Unitad Statu, 11 Wall 288, CalnmbiaD Ina. Co., 9S Maas. 207, 27S ;
299. Bat Me Wuren v. HeCarthy, 26 Keir v. Ken', *1 N. Y. 272, 276 ; Noyn
HI. 9K, 108 ; Smith «. HnUiken, 2 Hion. v. BnUer, S Barb. 618 ; HoKnau n. Hoff-
SI 9. Except in caae of a ipeoial «Utn- man, 40 N. Y. SO ; Norwood D.^Cobb, 24
tory authority, with r^ard to which auch Texas, SGI ; Coit ff. Haven, SO Conn. ISO,
oonKa itand on the wne looting with 198 ; [ChriBtmaa c. Russell, 6 Wall. 290,
eoBTta of limited jaiisdiction. Wyatt r. S06 ; but lee Cheerer v. Wilaoa, 9 Wall
Bunbo, S9 Ala. GIO, 621, 622 ; CommoD- 108, ISS ;] &*pei'.Heaton,e Wia.328. In
wealth o. Blood, 97 Mass. 638 ; Folgei n. Hendriek «. Whittemore, IDS Hasi. 28,
ColnmbiAii lo*. Co.,B9Maas. 267; AUenf. 28, Caileton v. Bickfofd is dted, and it
Blant, I Blatchf. 480 ; [Qalpin n. Pagt, ia there said that the raason domeatic
18 WalL SC.] So, if the reootd recite* an ' judgments cannot be thus impeached col-
^peannc* by attomsy, these esses gener- latenlly by the parties thereto, is becanaa
ally allow the attorney's authority lo be the lemedy by review or writ of error ia
diaprored. Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 168, held to be more appropriate.
180 ; Hanhey v. Blackmarr, 20 Iowa, Other essea to the point that judgments
101, i;S; Kerr c. Eerr, 41 K. Y. 272, obtained after an attachment of a non-
S7S ; Lawrence v. Jarvia, 82 111. S04. resident defendant's property, but with-
OmUra, Wanen v. Lusk, 16 Mo. 102 ; out peraoasl service or appearance by
Baker v. Stonebreaker, 84 Ho. 172. him, are not binding tn pattauim in other
But when the record recites facts states, ate Easterly u. Goodwin, 8E Conn.
nffideDt to ^vs the court jorisdiction, 273 ; HcTfcker «. Seedy, 31 He. 311.
inchiding such matters ■« service of p^- SeeWrigbttt. Boynton, S7N. H. 9; Cooper
ceea on the deteuduit or his personal ap- v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308, 318 ; [Eastman
peannoe, the batter opinion seems to be «. Wadleigh, 86 Me. 361.] The statement
that those facts cannot be eontiorertcd in these cases, and tupra, 261, n. (S),
by the parties in another itate. Field that the atjachment operates aa a proceed-
«. Gibba, Peters, C. C. 16t>; Wilcox v, ing I'n rem, must be taken with great
ir«««ii-fc, 2 Hich. IBS ; Lincoln v. Tower, cs.Dtion. Bold Bucclengh, 7 Moore, P. C.
2 McLewi, 473 ; Thompson v. Emmert, 4 267, 282; Hi^ee v. Beirae, 89 Penn. St
HeL.96; PritcheHii.Cl>rk,4Har.(Del.] 60. [In Windsor v. UcVeigh, 93 U. a
SSO ; WcKKitt V. Brown, IS Ind. SS ; 274, it wu held that the jurisdiction
Lawrence v. Jarris, 32 IIL S04 ; Lepham gained by a wnple seizure of property fw
«. Brigg*, 27 Tt. 20 ; Wilson tr. Jackson, onndemnation is only sufScient to bold
10 Ho. 829, 884 ; Sheltone. TilBn, OHow. the same until the owner is notified and
MS, 186. [Joat aa eiuular neitals in the allowed to appear and defend, and that a
TCcord of a domeatic court ol limited flnai judgment without such notificatiaB
Jnriadiction would be concluiiTe. Shel- and allowance ia void. — B.]
don e. Wright, 1 Seld. (SN.Y.) 497, 618; But in « suit on a judgment obtained
Wyatt r. Rambo, 29 Ala. 610. Conlra, in another state, although the jurisdiction
Sean e. Terry, 26 Conn. 272 . Although and notice to the defendant may be in>
there are weighty deciaiona and dicta quired into, it cannot be set up that the
that the jurisdiction of the court of another judgment wss obtained by fraud. Christ-
state may be inquired into in aU cases, mas e. Russell, lupra. In this casc^ alto^
[319]
50byGoO>^lc
* 262 JDBIBPBUDENCE OP [PART It.
UiiioD, snppress insarrectioDB and repel mvasions ; and to provide
for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for gov-
erning such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States ; reserving to the States, respectively, the appoint-
ment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia,
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, (a) The Presi-
dent of the United States is to be the commander of the militia,
when called into actual service. The act of 28th of February,
1795, authorized the President, in case of invasion, or of inuni-
nent danger of it, to call forth such number of militia most con-
venient to the scene of action as he might judge necessary. The
militia bo called out are made subject to the rules of war; and
the law imposes a fine upon every delinquent, to be adjudged by
a court-martial composed of militia officers only. These militia
courte-martial are to be held and conducted in the manner pre-
scribed by the articles of war; and the act of 18th of April, 1814,
prescribes the manner of holding them.
During the war of 1812, the authority of the President of the
United States over the militia became a subject of doubt and
difficulty, and of a collision of opinion between the general gov-
ernment and the governments of some of the states. It was the
opinion of the government of Connecticut that the militia could
not be called out, upon the requisition of the general government,
except in a case declared and founded upon the existence of one
(a) CoDst «rt 1, aec 8.
• itata law which in Bubatauce proTided HcOUtti; v. Atotj, SO Yt. 688 ; Child
that judgments racovend in other atate* v. Enreka Powder Works, 46 N. H. 647 ;
•gainrt citizens of that itate sboold not ba North Bank v. Brown, SO H«. 311;
enforced in the coorts of the latter, if the [Harryman v. Boberta, G2 Hd. 04. Aa
OBOBC of action which was the foundation to the effect given to state judgments bj
of the judgment wonld have been barred the Dnitad States ooorta, see St. Clair >.
in her courts bj her etatatei of limita- Cox, lOB U. 8. SEO ; Pennojer v. IteS.
tions, was held unconstitutiontiJ, for like 96n.S.714; Uohr«. Haniene, 101 U.S.
reMons. But states maf prescribe rea- 417. — v.] Althoogh an appeal ia pend-
■onahle periods of limita^on to actions iag. Bank of North America v. Wheeln,
on jndgments obtained in other state*. 28 Conn. 4B8. The eonstitntional pro-
lb. 800; Bank of AkUuna r. Dalton, vision applies to a decree of dirorce which
B How. G23 ; pint, 410, n. 1. is valid and effectual by the laws of the
It results from the general doctrine state where it was obtained. Chearer r.
that a jndgment recovered in another Wilson, 9 Wall. 108 ; poU, iL 117, n. 1-
■tste is a bar to an action for the eune As to foreign jadgmenta, see iL 130, n. 1.
eante and between the same parties.
[820]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECr. xn.] THE UNITED STATES. • 264
of the specified exigencies ; that, when called out, they could not
be taken from under the command of the officers duly appointed
by the states, or placed under the immediate command of an
officer of the army of the United States. Xor could the United
States lawfully detach a portion of the privates from the body
of the company to which they belonged, and which
*wa8 oi^nized with proper officers. This would, in the *268
opinion of the government of Connecticut, impair, and
eventually destroy, the state militia. When the militia are
duly called into the service of the United States, they must be
called as militia, furnished with proper officers by the state.
Similar difficulties arose between the government of the United
States and the State of Massachusetts, on the power of the national
government overthe militia. Both those states refused to furnish
detachments of militia for the maritime frontier, on an exposition
of the Constitution, which they deemed sound and just.
In Connecticut, the claim of the governor, to judge whether the
exigency existed, authorizing a call of the militia of that state, or
any portion of it, into the service of the Union, and the claim on
the part of that state to retain the command of the militia, when
duly ordered out, as against any subordinate officer of the army
of the United States, were submitted to, and received the strong
and decided sanction, not only of the governor and council of that
state, but of the legislature itself, (a) In Massachusetts, the gov-
ernor consulted the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court as to
the true construction of the Constitution on these very interesting
points. The judges of the Supreme Court were of opinion that it
belonged to the governors of the several states to determine when
any of the exigencies contemplated by the Constitution of the
United States existed, so as to require them to place the
militia, or any part • of it, in the service of the Union, and • 264
under the command of the President It was observed,
that the Constitution of the United States did not give that right,
by an; express term, to the President or Congress, and that the
(a) See Offldsl DocaaenU of ths State of Conneeticat, Augnnt, lfil2. The jeal-
0017 oT tbe exerciie of unj power (other than that of the local ganrntnants) orer the
miUtM wae itxj rtrongly maii]feat«^ hy the l^islatnre and people of Connecticut, oa
M1I7 sa IflSS, when they fsarleselj and mcceaafnlly reeistad the olaitn of Ooveinor
netcher, of New York, restiDg on a conuniuioii for that porpoto, from the Ung, to
ttia exclaiiTe commBnd of the mflitU of Connectioiit. 1 Troinball'B Bitt 410-414.
-vol- I— 21 [821]
;abyG00<^]c
* 264 JDBISPBDDENCE OP [PART IL
power to determine when the exigency existed was not prohibited
to the statee, and that it was, therefore, as of course, reserved to
the states. A different construction would place all the militia in
effect at the will of Congress,, and produce a military consolida-
tion of these states. The act of 28th of February, 1795, vested
in the President the power of calling forth the militia when any
one of the exigencies existed, and if to that be superadded the
power of determining when the caautfeederia occurred, the militia
would, in fact, be under the President's control.
As to the question how the militia were to be commanded,
when duly called out, the judges were of opinion that the Preaident
alone, of all the officers acting under the United States, was
authorized to command them, and that he must command them,
as they were organized under officers appointed by the states, (z)
The militia could not be placed under the command of any officer
not of the militia, except that officer be the President of the
United States. But the judges did not determine how the militia
were to be commanded, in case of the absence of the President,
{x) Coagnm, nuder iti coiutitotiond atitution, a SUt« dwj, by ita Uw% conud
powu " to mftin rulei for the gorerament and R^pkte all milituf oigapUatiniw
and RgnUtioii of the laud and naval othat than those aathorued b; the F<d-
forcea " oumot impair the constitntional eral militia lawa { IT. S. Bav. Stati. Titlt
anthority of the FreaideDtaa Commander- Id). Preaaer n. lUinoii, lie IlL 262. A
in-chief, nor on the President evade the State law providing that the goventn
legislative regulalioni b; military orders, shall, before sapprradng a riot, i«qiKft
Swaim t>. United SUtes, 28 Ct. CI. 178. the local authorities so to do, does BOt
The Preaident may plane the militia onder limit power conferred apon him \>j lbs
the command of an officer and require its State Conatitution to call oat the mihtit
aervice in any part of the coantry. High- to at once eiecDle the laws wheo the
smith It. Ussery, 25 Texas, Sup. lOS ; see 2 danger of riot is imminent. CbapEn v.
Story on Const 91197; Dwigbt's History Ferry, 3 Wash. St. S84; see Lewis >,
of the Hartford Convention, p. 346 ei ttq. Levelling, 53 Kansas, 301.
By the U. S. Bev. Stats. $§ 5298, 62», it Under the U. S. Constitntion, Alt 1,
is made lawful for the Prtsident, and also § 8, and U. 8. Rkt. State. ) ISSO, a State
hi* duty, to eecnte the enforcement of b^fisUtnre or governor may pnride for
Federal laws, when obstructed by insnr- dishending organized militia cotnpania
Tactions or unlawful comtdnations, to am- while in the serrice of the United States-
ploy the militia or the Und and naval People v. Hill, ISS N. Y. 4»7 ; IS S. Y.
forces of the United Statee. S. ISS, 6S7 ; see Praetor p. Stone, 1 AUm.
A State cannot prohibitits people ^m 103. In the ElRh Amendment the woidi
ao keeping and bearing arms as to deprive " when in actual service in time of war w
the United States of their rightfnl re- pnUic danger" apply to the miima miIj.
Boaices, for maintaining public security ; Johnson «. Sayn^ 1S8 U. S. 109.
but when not restrained by its own Con-
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. ZIl.] THE UNITED STATES. * 266
and of a union of militia with troops of the United States ; and
whether they were to act under their separate officers, and in con-
cert as allied forces, or whether the officer present who was highest
in rank, be he of the militia or of the federal troops, was to com-
mand the whole, was a difficult and perplexing question, which
the judges did not undertake to decide, (a)
The President of the United States declared that these
constructiobs of the constitutional powers of the general gov-
ernment over the militia were novel and unfortunate,
"and he was evidently and decidedly of a different* 265
opinion. He observed, in his message to Congress on the
4th November, 1812, that if the authority of the United States
to call into service and to command the militia could be thus
fmstrated, we were not one nation, for the purpose most of all
requiring it These embarrassing questions, and the high
authority by. which each side of the argument was supported,
remained unsettled by the proper and final decision of the tribunal
that is competent to put them to rest, until the case of Martin
v, Mott, (a) in 1827. In that case it was decided and settled by
the Supreme Court of the United States, that it belonged exclu-
sively to the President to judge when the exigency arises, in which
he had authority under the Constitution to call forth the militia,
and that his decision was conclusive upon all other persons.
The case of Houiton v. Moore (i) settled some important ques-
tions arising upon the national authority over the militia. The
acts of Congress already referred to, and the act of 8th March,
1792, for establishing a uniform militia, were considered as cov-
ering the whole grou&d of congressional legislation over the
Bnbject. The manner in which the militia were to be organized,
armed, disciplined, and governed was fully prescribed ; provision
was made for drafting, detaching, and calling forth the state
quotas, when requested by the President. His orders were to
be given to the chief executive magistrate, or to any militia
officer he might think proper. Neglect or refusal to obey his
orders was declared to be a public offence, and subjected the
offender to trial and punishment, to be adjudged by a court-
martial, and the mode of proceeding was perspicuously detailed.
<a) 8 UiBs. 648. (a) IS Whemton, fs. {h) G Wbeatcm, 1. («)
(z) Upon tbis d«eiiioii ms CUflin k. Hoii*nimld, S8 U. B. 130, U\.
[323]
;abyG00<^lc
• 267 JDBISPRUDEXCE OP [PABT II.
The question before the Supreme Court of the United States
was, whether it vas competent for a court-martial, deriving ita
jurisdiction under state authority, to try and punish militia-
men, drafted, detached, and called forth by the Preai-
* 266 dent * into the serrice of the United States, and who
had refused or neglected to obey the call. The court decided ;
that the militia, when called into the service of the United ;
States, were not to be considered as being in that service, or in |
the character of national militia, until they were mustered at the
place of rendezvous, and that until then the state retained a
right, concurrent with the government of the United States, to
punish their delinquency. But after the militia had been called
forth, and had entered into the service of the United States,
their character changed from state to national militia, and the
authority of the general goverament over such detachments was
exclusive. Actual service was considered by Gongreaa as the
criterion of national militia, and the place of rendezvous was
the terminiu a quo the service, the pay, and subjection to the
articles of war were to commence. And if the militia, when
called into the service of the United States, refuse to obey the
order, they remain within the military jurisdiction of the state,
and it is competent for the state to provide for trying and pun-
ishing them by a state court-martial, to the extent and in the
manner preacribed by the act of Congress. The act of Pennsyl-
vania, of 1814, provided for punishing, by a state court>martial,
delinquent militia-men, who were called into the service of the
United States, and neglected or refused to serve ; and they were
to be punished by the infliction of the penalties prescribed by the
act of Congress, and such an act was held not to be repugnant
to the Conatitutiou and laws of the United States. It was the
lawful exercise of concurrent power, and could be concurrently
exercised by the national and state courtB<martiaI, as it was
authorized by the laws of the State, and not prohibited by those
of the United States. It would remain to be so exercised, imtil
Congress should vest the power exclusively elsewhere, ar until
the states should devest their courts-martial of such a jurisdiction.
This was the decision, in the first instance, of the Supreme
* 267 * Court of Pennsylvania ; (a) and it was affirmed, on appeal,
by the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States.
(a) HnoK D. Haiutoii, S Sei^. k Rawls, 169.
[824]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XII.} THE UNITED STATES. * 268
7. Power of ConcraM ■• to InUnial Improraments. — The au-
thority of GoQgreBB to appropriate public moneys for internal
improTements has been much discussed on public occaBions,
and between the legislatiye and executive branches of the gov-
ernment; but the point has never been brought under judicial
consideration.
It has been contended, that, under the power to establish
post-offices and post-roads, and to regulate commerce among the
states, and to raise moneys to provide for the general welfare,
and as incident thereto. Congress have the power to set apart
funds for internal improvements in the states, with their assent,
by means of roads and canals. Such a power has been exer-
cised to a certain extent. It has been the conetant practice to
allow to the new states a certain proportion of the proceeds
arising from the sale of public lauds, to be laid out in the con-
struction of roads and canals within those states, or leading
thereto. In 1806, Congress authorized a road to be opened from
Nashville, in Tennessee, to Xatchez; and in 1809, they author-
ized the canal of Caroudelet, leading from Lake Pontchartrain,
to be extended to the river Mississippi. So late as the 8th of
August, 1846, Congress granted lands to aid in the improvement
of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers, and to conned the same hy a
eanaly in the State of Wisconsin. The Cumberland road was
coDstmcted under the act of March 29, 1806, and this road
had been made under a covenant with the State of Ohio, by the
act of April 30, 1802, that a portion of the proceeds of lands
lying within that state should be applied to the opening of the
roads leading to that state, with the consent of the states through
which the road might pass. But the expenditures on that road
far exceeded the proceeds of sales of public lands in Ohio, and,
in 1817, the President of the United States objected to a bill, on
the ground that the Constitution did not extend to making roads
and canals, and improving watercourses through the different
states; nor could, the assent of those states confer the power.
Afterwards, in 18^2, the President objected to a bill appro*
priating money for repairing the Cumberland road, and estab-
lishing gates and tolls on it
On these and other occasions there has been a great
*and decided difference of opinion between Congress and *268
the President on the constitutional question. President
[325]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 268 JUBISPKUDKNCB OF [PABT I[.
JefferBoo, in his meBsage of December 2, 1806, and Preaident
Madison, in his mesBage of December 8, 1816, equally denied
any such power in CongresB. On tbe other hand, it appears
that Congress claim the power to laj oat, construct, and improve
post-roads, with the assent of the states through which they
pass. They also claim the power to open, construct, and improve
military roads on the like terms, and the right to cut canals
through the several states, with their assent, for promoting and
securing internal commerce, and for the more safe and economical
transportation of military stores in time of war; and leaving, in
all these cases, the jurisdictional right over the soil in the respec-
tive states, (a)
(a) In the caaa of Dicks; v. TnnipikB Bold Co., 7 Duu, 118, the Eentnek; Ccmt
or Appeals d«cid«d that the power fpTen to CongieM by the Constitutioii to olabliA
poat-roade, enabled them to make, repair, ktep apcR, mtd nnfinnK post-ioftd^ when the;
ihould deem the eierciaa of the power expedient. Bat in the eierciae of the tif^t id
eminent domain on this mbject, the United Statee have no right to adopt and nie
roada, bridges, and feniea, constmcted and owned b; statai, oorporationi, or iodi-
riduala, without their consent, or withont making to the partiet concerned just eom-
pensation. If the United States elect to o«e snch Kcotninodationa, without the
perfonuance of such a pranooa condition, they stand upon the same footing, and are
aul^ect to the sim^ tolls and ragulationB as private iodinduAla. This important
deoisioD waa well suppjtted by eoaud reaDoniDg.fx)
(t) Railroads and the streets naed by enable the poatmuter general to bind
letter-carrtere are both "poitt- roads." the government by leaaing a post.offica
Pensacola TeL Co. «. Weetem Union TeL for twenty yeui when there is no ajqm-
Co., 96 U. 3. 1; Blackham v. Oreeh&m, prUtioD therefor. Chase d. United States,
IS Fed. Bep. SOS; United States v. Eas- IfiS U. 3. 4S» ; U Fed. Rep. 7S3. The
Bon, IS id. 500. Such roada cannot be general government may aae to Ofjain
conetracted by the general government obatrnctioiw to hi^myi used in inter-
withoot the State's consent, but it may state commerM and in transporting tbe
establish sach a road on a highway con- mails. In re Debs, 1GS U. S. Gflt. The
itnicted by tha State. Cleveland B. Co. U. S. Rev. Statl. { SMi, making rail-
Ei. Fraoklin Canst Co., 1 Pitts, L. Joum. roads post-ioads, and { G2S1, allowing
112. Under its coustitotioDal power to telegraph companiea to use matariab fnin
establish poet-offlcca and posl-roads, Con> public lands, do not appropriate, toe the
grass may r^nlste the entire poatal aer> promotion of oommeree, sobmeifted tide-
vice of the conntry. Bx parU Jackson, lands over which the railroad or telegrafA
99 v. 8. 727. Such power carries with it is conetnicted. Bomsey v. New Toric 4
as incident the power, to be exercised at the N. E. B. Co., St Hon, 200; IS7N.Y.S63.
discretion of Congress, to prohibit the use Under the power to regulate commMte
of the nuils for nutter need in disseminat- among the States, Congress can construct,
ing crime, immonJity, or lotteries : /» or empower individnale or coTpor«tiani to
n Rapier, 14S U. S. 110; Homer b. eonitract, railroads across the Stales and
United States, id. 207 ; bat it does oot Teiritotiea of the United States. Caliltat-
[326]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. Xll.] THE UNITED STATES. * 268 '
In the inangural address of PresideDt Adams, on the 4th of
Harch, 1825, he alluded to this question, and his opinion seemed
to be in favor of the constitutionai right, and of the policy and
nU It. Centnl Pui&o R. Co., 127 U. S. 1. oaart-housn, lamcka, hoapitala, post-
It nuLy likewiae CTMta k corporstioD to offices, etc Vui Brocklin e. TennesKr,
Inild a bridge uroM iiaTigible w»ter 117 IT. S. IGl, 154 ; Decker v. BBltimore
between two States, ud to take priTate A N. Y. B. Co., SO Fad. Rep. 723 ; Haw-
land* therefor, meJiing jnat compeniation. kina Point Light- house, 39 id. 77; Jn rt
Lnzton n. Noith fiiver Bridge Co., 158 Secretary of the Treauiry, tb id. 3S8. If
n. 8. 525. the general goTemment aciiuire* such laod
lo Older to regnlata oomiuerce, Con- by pnrchaaa with the consent of the State
grcM IIM7 emploj, as instrumeDts, corpoi- legislature, it has exclosive jurisdiction
atlouB craated bj itself or b; the States, there ; if otherwise acquired, it is subject
and it can grant • right of way to a rail- to excloaiTe Federal jurisdiction onlj with
Toad oorporation for a nilroad, telegraph, respect to the part nsed far i)nbljc pnr-
•nd telephone line. Cherokee Nation v. poeae. Fort LeaTenworth R. Co. v. Lowe,
Sentbem Eanaaa By. Co., 1S5 U. 8. Ml. Ill V. S. fi2S ; Chicago & Pac. Ky. Co.
A lock and dam belongiug to a corpora- r. McOlinn, id. 642; Benson v. United
tion chartered by a State can be con- States, 14S U. S. S25 ; United SUtes v.
aenmed by the United States only under Bateman, 34 Fed. Bep. 84 ; Id A. G. Op.
the power to regulate foreign and inter- 592. When land is Urns acquired from a
state eammerce. Uonougahela NaT, Co. State by an Act of cesMon, the United
K United SUtea, 148 U. B. 312. Stataa holds it only as prescribed in such
If joit oompensatlan is provided for, it Act ; hence at Fortress Monroe, which was
may thus authdrize the property of a ri- thus ceded by the State of Virginia, the
pariau proprietor to be taken in order to ciril laws of that State aie in force, so far
bcUitatenaTiga^onandcomraeree between as they do not eooBicC with the Federal
the States, and lor this parpose proceed- laws or miUtoiy occupation. lUd,; Crook
inp may be had In either the State or v. Old Point Comfort Hotel Co., 64 Fed.
Federal conrta. Jb United States Petition, Bep. 804. The proriuona of the Fifth
>t N. Y. 2S7 ; Great Falls Uannf. Co. v. and Fourtesnth Amendmenta that private
United States, 16 Ct. CL ISO ; 112 U. S. property shall not he taken foe pnblic use
445 ; Fort Leavenworth B.Ca c. Lowe, 114 without just compensation, or without due
V. 8. 626 ; United States v. Irwin, 127 process of law, apply to eminent domain
U. S. 126 ; /n re Montgomery, 48 Fed. proceedings by the Uuited States, but not
Bep. 8H ; 17 A. O. Op. 109, 137, 279, to thoaa taken hy a State. In re Sawyer,
tfS. 455 ; M id. 84, 60, 481, 481 ; see 35 124 U. S. 200, 219 ; Wilson v. Bdtimore
U. S. at L. 357 ; Eimberly & Clark Co. * P. B. Co., S Del. Ch. 424.
*. Hewitt, 79 Wis. 834 ; Dunnington v. ■ The claim for compenaatioii uises out
United States, 17 Wash. L. R. 844. of an implied contract, so as to be also
The United States, upon making jort with the jurisdiction of the Court of
oompeiiMtion, may by eminent domuu Claims. United States «. Great Falls
take real estate in any State, with or Manuf. Co., 112 U. S. S4E. The Act of
without a concnrrent act of such State, Congress of July 15, 1882, authorizing
whenever needed for it* nw in the ezecu- snch compensation to be determined by
tioB of any of its powers, as for anenali, the Court of CUims withoat a jury is ctm-
fortifieatiotM, lif^t-hoose^ castom-honse*, aritutional, although not requiring pay>
[827]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 268 JURISPBDDENCE OP [PABT II.
wisdom of the liberal application of the national reaourcea to the
internal improvement of the country. He intimated that apecn-
lative scruples on this subject would probably be solved by the
practical blessings resulting from the application of the power,
and tiie estent and limitations of the general government, in
relation to this important interest, settled and acknowledged to
the satisfaction of all. This declaration may be considered as
withdrawing the infiueace of the official authority of the Presi-
dent from the side on which it has hitherto pressed, and adding
meut before the taking. Gnxt Fall* U7 U. S. 288 i United StetM e. Coofa,
Huiaf. Co. V. Garluid, 36 F«d. B«p. G21 ; 20 D. C. 104.
121 U. 8. 681. Tlie Doited States cannot Tlie power of tlie rsipectire StitM to
be Boed, as npon an implied contract, for engt^ in woriu of internal frnproruDnit
l&nd devoted tJ3 the pablio use when the ia alto limited. Thus a State legiilatnie
plaintiS'B title hu never bean acknowl- cannot empower a mnnidpal oorpontkn
edged ; it bae not, b; Katnte, made itaelf to bay and sell to its inhabitMitl wood
liable for tarti committed by its offieen ; and coal for foeL Jostioei' Opinion, 156
and the settled nile tliat it is net so liable Mus. 608. So a law aDthoriiing the con-
cannot be sTaded bjr claiming npon an strnetion of an elevator, and the canTiij;
implied contract. Hill n. United States, on, by means thereof, of the boBncsi ti
14B U. S. S93 ; German Bank v. United storing and selling grain ia in eonftict
Sbttes, 14S C. 8. 671 1 Me United StttUs with the Coustitution of Hinusaoti, which
V. Schwalby, 87 Texas 601 ; Heniam «. prohibits tbe State from ever contiactiiig
United States, 29 Ct. CI. 260 ; Schilliuger debts for works of internal improvement,oc
V. United States, 166 U. S. 168. Im- being a party in carrying ont snch WDcki.
provements in navigable watera which Bippe e. Becker, 66 Minn. lOO. Tbe
leasBD the navigable character of a river police power of a State inclade« the lioeoi-
bnt do not take private property, though ing of intonciitiiig liqaon : Rock Conit^
impairing the nsefalnesa of a wharf, con- «. Edgerton (Wis.), 68 N. W. Rep. 291 ;
stiCute atort for which damages cannot be and nnder the police poirer the State em
recovered in the Conrt of Claims. Gibson assume the entire maoagenKDt of the »le
V. United Stste^ 29 Ct. CI. 18. of intoxicating liquon within itt limit*.
The national government may also as being dangerous to the peace, order,
delegate to a State trihnnal the power to morals, health, and welfiue of it* ati-
6k Che compensation that sboald be paid, sens, though it provides for puhihasee and
United States n. Jones, 109 U. S. 613. sales only through public agents. State
A State statute, which is defective m to b. Aiken, 13 S. C. 323 ; overttding Uc-
providing compensation for • oational Calloiigh r. Brown, 11 B. C. S30; see
improvement, may be cored by Congress. Donald e. Scott, 67 Fed. Rep. 861. A
Green Bay Cuial Co, v. Eankanna W. B. telegraph corporation, which a mnnidpal
Co., 70 Wis. 686. corporation permits to nae its street^ is
As Congress has both politicsl and still, nnder tbe police power, latiiect to
mnnicipal authority over the District of later State laws regnlating bnt set sub-
Columbia, it can there condemn land for a stantialty impairing its rights. Psople *•
public park. Shoemaker v. United Statei, Squire, 146 V. S. 17S.
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XII.j THE UNITED BTATES, * 268
it to the sapport of the preponderating opinion in favor of the
competenc; of the pover claimed b; Congress, (h)
(b) In Febnary, 1SS7, sftar tn uiinuted debate, the Hona« of BepmaantativM,
hj a Tote at 101 to 67, Totail to eppropiUte 130,000 for ths continnatioii of snrveja
of TontOB for roads and eaiialt. In April, 1830, on ths bill, in the Hotue of Bepre-
■entatlTes, to constmct a load from Buffalo, in New York, throogh Waihington to
New Orieau, gnat objection ww mule to the constitutionality of the power, and the
Honae, bj a rote of 106 to 88, rejected the bill, though probaUy the rote wu gOT>
emed, in part, b; other considflratioDs ; for other bills, for aiding the making roadi
and canals, paesod into laws daring that session, and their avowed purpose was the
great abject of internal improTement. Preudent Jackson, in 1830, declared himself
to b« of opinion, that Coogreas did not possess the constituUonsl power to constract
loads and canals, or appropriate money for improrementi of a loeal duairaeUr ; but ho
admitted that the right to make appropriations for such as were of a national charaeUr
had been so gencmllj acted upon, and so long acquiesced in, as to justify the exercise
of it OD the ground of continued usage. He objected, upon that distinotioa, to the
bills antboiuing anbscriptions to the HayaTille and fiockville Boad Companiea, aa
not being within the legitimate powers of Congrcos. The great queitioQ conceniing
tike power of Congress to appropriate moneys for internal improTementa within the
statea remained still as unsettled ae ever, as late as the 8d of August, 1848 ; for on
that day President Polk ol^ected to and defeated the bill, which had passed both
honaee of Congnte, for appropristiiig $1,378,460, for tepamte and distinct olqects of
interna] improTemrnt, in certaiu harbore, rivers, and lakes in various parts of the
United States. The President denied the existence of a constitutioiial power in the
federal government to construct works of iutcmal improvement within the states, or
to appropiiata moneys from the treasury far that purpose. He cansidered the
■beence of each ■ power to be * principle of construction weU settled, and that tiia
inexpediency of the power was demonstrated in the eieroise of it in that case ; tor
the bill contained appropriations of moneys for mora than twenty oliiiecta of internal
improTement, called, in the , bill, harbors, at ptscca which have never been declared
by law either ports of entry or delivery, and at which there has never been an arrival
of foreign merchandise, and from which there has never been s vessel cleared tor a
foreign country. The constitutional acruplea of the Praddent went, in thNr applica-
tion in this case, to interdict the necessary, and, in my opinion, the elearly consti-
tntional jurisdiction and discretion of Congress, " to regulate commerce with foreign
nations end among the several states," ss to the improvement of the navigatiou of
the Buuiy rivers, harbors, and great lakes within the United 9tstea, and on which
waters la carried sn immenssl; valuable commerce. This strict oonstraction of the
Constitntion is in striking contrast to that large constmction which has been given
to the Constitution, in autborizing Congreea to admit new states into the Union, and
to which we hive already alluded in a preceding note. See ante, 2C9. The rightful
power of the general government to direct the improvement of the oaviption of the
internal waters of the United States for the commercial use of the Union, and to
apply the revenues thereof for that purpose, appears to me to result from a sound
construction of the Constitution. It is one of its great and esaentjal olgecta. The
Hiaeisnppi. for instsnoe, with its millions of inhabitanta, and great dliea and
towns on its banks, calls loudly for means to clear and rentore ofaatractions to s safe
navifptioD. The states cannot do it, and the improvement must oome, if it comes
at all, tmta the general government. The whole Union is drsplj interested in the
[829]
;abyGoO<^lc
• 268 JCHlflPBUDENCE OF [PABT n.
Mfe and eatj navigatioD of the great riTen and lakea within tba limito of the Uuitad
States, and bordering an two or more itatea. It makes no difleranoe in reaaon or
polic]r in the neoeaaary application of the power, whether the riven or lake* are
divided by two or more states. It is sufficient for the power, if the improvement to
he called for he genaral in its ol^ect, and for national pnrpoMa, and for tlie t«gnU-
tion, isfety, and Stcilit; of commeroe. All navigahle waters, not land-locked within
a state, whetlier tbaj be rivers, harbors, gulfs, baya, lakes, or coasts of the ocean,
are, and were intended to be, and ought to be, sutaervient to the power to r^nlata
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states. The? fall within the
congressional power, and are subject to the regnktian it the United States, and thej
are entitled to the patronage, protection, and pecuniary anpport of the genetal gov-
ernment, ^lia power is joitly to be applied to the erection of light-hoosea, hooys,
piers, IxMkwsten, hatbon, and for clearing obetmctions, and deepening and widen-
ing liavigable waters. The United States have the exclnaive command of the rave-
nnes derived tram commerce and navigation, and the reason, jostioe, and poUej o(
holding tbii power to exist in Congress, and that it should be libeiaUy and largely
applied, strike me with obvious and dedsive force. The gnuit of commercial power
to Congress is general, and moat v[r]e8t essentially in its application in the discretion
of Congress, and in its judgment M to the Importance of this sierciia ot the power -
to the promotion and security of commerce among the states and with foreign
nations. There does not appear to be any jost gronitd for construing the power
strictly and witkin straight and narrow lines. A. grant of general power for grtst
national objecta ought t« be liberally construed to be made adequate to all fntnre
exigencies within the scope of this power. There does not appear to be any color
in the Constitution for prescribing arbitrary linee and limits to the power to regulate
Hr. Justioe Story, in his Commentoiiw on the Constitution of the United States
ii. pp. 129-410, and again, pp. S19-S88, has staled, at Uige, the aigumenta for and
against the proposition, that Congress have a constitutional authority to lay taica
and to apply the power to regulate commerce, as a means directly to enoonrage and
protect domestic manufacturea ; and, without giving any opinion of his own on that
contested doctrine, he has left the reader to draw bis own conclndons. I should
think, however, from a view of the arguments as stated, that every mind which has
taken no part in the discusaiona, and felt no pr^udice or tertitotial or party bias on
sillier side of the question, would deem the arguments in favor of the congisssiona]
power vastly superior. The learned commentator I should apprehend to be decidedly
of that way of tliinking. Be says, " that the commercial system of the United States
has been employed sometimes for the purpose of nveDue ; sometimes for the puTpose
of prohibition ; sometimes for the purpose of retaliation and cemmendal redpmdty ;
sometimes to lay embargoes; sometimes to encotuage domestic navigation, and the
shipping and mercantile interest, by bounties, by discriminating dntieB, and by special
preferences and privileges ; and sometimeB to rcfpilate interconiw, with a view to
mere political objects, such as to repel aggressions, inorease the pressure of war, or
vindicate the rights of neutral sovereignty. In all these esses, the rig^t and duty
have been conceded to the national government by the unequivocal voice of the
people^" Mr. Hamilton, in his argument in the cabinet in February, 1791, on the
national bank, considered the reflation of policiee of insurance, of salvage upon
_ goods found at sea, the regulation of pilots and of foreign bills of exchange, as ■vaninfl
within the power to regulate commerce. lb. G19, note. [Pod, 439, n. 1.]
;abyG00<^lc
2Mrt. mi.] XHB UNITED STATES.
LECTURE Xm.
OP THE PRESIDENT.
The title of the preseat leotnre may conveDiently be oxamined
io the foUowiog order: 1. The unity of this depaitmeat 2. The
qualifications required by the Constitution for the office of Presi-
dent. 8. The mode of his appointment. 4. His duration. 5. His
support. 6. His powers.
By the Constitution, it is ordained th&t the execatiTe power
shall he vested in a President, (a)
1. Unl^ of the Ottoe. — The object of this department is the
execution of the law ; and good policy dictates that it should
be organized in the mode best calculated to attain that end
with precision and fidelity. Consultation is necessary in the
making of laws. The defect or grievance they are intended to
remove must be distinctly perceived, and the operation of the
remedy upon the intereste, the morals, and the opinion of the
community profoundly considered. A oomprebensive knowledge
of the great interests of the nation, in all their complicated rela*
tions and practical details, seems to be required in sound legis-
lation ; and it shows the necessity of a free, full, and perfect
representation of the people, in the body intrusted with the legis-
lative power. But when laws are duly made and promulgated,
they only remaii^ to be executed. No discretion is submitted to
the executive officer. It is not for him to deliberate and decide
upon the wisdom or expediency of the law. What has been
once declared to be law, under all the cautious forms of delili- '
eration prescribed by the Constitution, ought to receive prompt
obedience. The characteristical qualities i-equired in the
* executive department are promptitude, decision, and ' 272
force-, and these qualities are most likely to exist when
&e executive authority is limited to a single person, moving by
(a) An. 2, MC. 1.
[831]
;abyG00<^lc
* ^73 JtTBISPRDDENCB OF [PABT IL
the UDit7 of a single will. Division, indecision, uid delay are
exceedingly unfavorable to that steady and vigorous administrv
tion of the law which is necessary to secure tranquillity at home,
and command the confidence of foreign nations. Every goveru-
ment, ancient and modem, which has been constituted on different
principles, and adopted a compound executive, has suffered th«
evils of it ; and the public interest has been sacrificed, or it has
languished under the iuconveniences of an imbecile or irregular
admiuistration. In those states which have tried the project of
executive councib, the weakness of them has been strongly felt
and strikingly displayed ; and in some instances in which they
have been tried (as in PeonBylvania and Geoi^a), they were soon
abandoned, and a single executive magistrate created, in accord-
ance with the light afforded by their own experience, aa well u
by the inatitutions of their neighbors.'
Unity increases not only the efficacy, but the responsibility, of
the exeoQtive power. Every act can be immediately traced and
brought borne to the proper agent. There can be no concealment
of the real author, nor, generally, of the motives of public meas-
ures, when there are no associates to divide or to mask responsi-
bility. There will be much less temptation to depart from dnty,
and much greater solicitude for reputation, when there are no
partners to share the odium, or to communicate confidence by
their example. The eyes of the people will be constantly
directed to a single conspicuous object ; and, for these reasonii.
De Lolme (a) considered it to be a sound axiom of policy, that
the executive power was more easily confined when it was one.
" If the execution of the laws," he observea, " be intrusted to a
number of hands, the true cause of public eviU is bidden.
* 273 * Tyranny, In such states, does not always beat down the
fences that are set around it, but it leap^ over them. It
mocks the efforts of the people, not because it is invincible, but
because it is unknown." The justness of these reflections might
' be illustrated and confirmed by a review of the proceedings of
the former council of appointment in New York, under the Con-
stitution of 1777. All efficient responsibility was there lost, by
reason of the constant change of the members, and the difficulty
(a) Conn. of En^ud, 111. [Book 2, c 3]
> Ante, 221, □. 1.
[382 3
;abyG00<^lc
LECr. XIU.] THE UNITED STATES. " 274
of ascertaining the individual to whom the origin of a bad appoint'
ment was to be attributed.
3. QnaimoBtioiM. — Ttie CouBtitution requires (a) that the Presi-
dent shall be a natural-boru citizen, or a citizen of the United
States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that be
shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have
l>eeQ fourteen years a resident within the United States. Con-
sidering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the
ultimately efScient executive power in government, these restric-
tions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the
President is required to be a native citizen of the United States,
ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the quali-
fication of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to
corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and
fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Crermany and Poland,
as well as the pontificate at Rome. The ^e of the President is
sufficient to have formed his pablio and private character ; and
his previous domestic residence is intended to afford to his fellow-
citizens the opportunity to attfuu a correct knowledge of his prin-
ciples and capacity, and to have enabled him to acquire habits of
attachment and obedience to the laws, and of devotion to the
public welfare.
3. Mod« of Elaotloii. — The mode of his appointment presented
one of the most difficult and momentous questions that occupied
the deliberations of the assembly which framed the Constitution ;
and if ever the tranquillity of this nation is to be dis-
turbed, " and its liberties endangered by a struggle for • 274
power, it will be upon this very subject of the choice of a
President. This is the question that is eventually to test the
goodness and try the strength of the Constitution ; and if we shall
be able, for half a century hereafter, to continue to elect the
chief magistrate of the Union with discretion, moderation, and
integrity, we shall undoubtedly stamp the highest value on our
national character, and recommend our republican institutions,
if not to the imitation, yet certainly to the ei^teera and admira-
tion, of the more enlightened part of mankind. The experience
of ancient and modem Europe has been unfavorable to the prac-
ticability of a fair and peaceable popular election of the executive
head of a great nation. It has been found impossible to guard
sObyGoOl^lc
' 275 JURISPRUDENCE OP [pABT U.
the election from the mischief of foreign intrigue and domes-
tic turbulence, from violence or corruption ; and mankiDd have
generally taken refuge from the evils of popular elections in
hereditary executives, as being the least evil of the two. The
most recent and remarkable change of this kind occurred in
France, in 1804, when the legislative body changed their elective
into an hereditary monarchy, on the avowed ground that the
competition of popular elections led to corruption and violence.
And it is a curious fact in European history, that on the first par-
tition of Poland, in 1773, when the partitioning powera thought
it expedient to foster and confirm all the defects of its wretched
government, they st^aciously demanded of the Polish diet thut
the crown should continue elective, (a) This was done for tlie
very purpose of keeping the door open for foreign intrigue and
influence. Mr. Paley (A) condemns all elective monarchies, and
he thinks nothing is gained by a popular choice, worth the die-
uensions, tumults, and interruptions of regular industry, with
which it is inseparably attended. I am not called upon to
• 275 question the wisdom 'or policy of preferring hereditary
to elective monarchies among the great nations of Europe,
where different orders and ranks of society are established, atbl
large masses of property accumulated in the hands of single in-
dividuals, and where ignorance and poverty are widely diffuse'^,
and standing armies are necessary to preserve the stability of ihe
government. The state of society and of property in this coun-
try, and OUT moral and political habits, have enabled us to adopt
the repiibhcan principle, and to maintain it hitherto with illus-
trious success. It remains to be seen whether the checks which
the Constitution has provided against the dangerous propensiUes
of our system will ultimately prove effectual. The election of a
supreme executive magistrate for a whole nation affects so many
interests, addresses itself so strongly to popular passions, and
holds out such powerful temptations to ambition, that it neces-
sarily becomes a strong trial to public virtue, and even hazardous
to the public tranquillity. The Constitution, from an enlightened
view of all the difficulties that attend the subject, has not
thought it safe or prudent to refer the election of a President
directly and immediately to the people ; but it has confided the
(d) Cox's Travels In round, Roralt. Jtc., i.
a) PiicdpleB of Moral mad Political PhiloMphr, 816.
[884]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZIII.] THE UNITED bTATl:;^. ' 2tS
power to a Bmall body of electors, appointed in each state, under
the direction of the legislature ; and to close the opportunity as
much as possible against negotiation, intrigue, and corruption,
it has declared that Congress may determine the time of choosing
the electors, and the day on which they shall vote, and that the
day of election shall be the same in every state, (a) This secu-
rity has been still further extended by the act of Congress (b)
directing the electors to be appointed in each state within thirty-
four days of the day of election, (x)
The Constitution (c) directs that the number of electors in
each state shall be equal to the whole number of senators and
representatives which the state is entitled to send to Con-
gress ; and, according to the apportionment of Congress
• in 1882, the President was to be elected by a majority " 276
of 294 electors ; and in 1844 the number of electors was
reduced to 275. (a) And to prevent the person in office, at the
time of the election, from having any improper influence on his
re-election, by his ordinary agency in the government, it is pro-
vided, that no member of Congress, nor any person holding an
office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be an elec-
tor ; and the Constitution has in no other respects defined the
qualifications of the electors, (b) These electors meet in their
respective states, at a place appointed by the legislature thereof,
(a) Art. 2, wc. 1. By tbe act of CoagresB of January 28, 1S46, c. I, a uniform
time for holding electiona for electors of President snd Vice-PresideDt in all the states
waa prescribed. It was to be on tbe Taesdajr next after tbe first Monday in the
month of November of tbe year in whidi they are to be appointed.
(») Aet of lit Msrch, 1792. (c) AH. 2, sec. 1.
(a) This arose from the eolargenieDt of the ratio of representation from 47,700 to
70,080 persona, for a member of the House of Bepreseiitati*e« ; b; which proTision
the DDmber of the Hooee was reduced from US to 22S memben. Act of Congrees
, of Jane 25, 1S42, c. 47. t^) Art 3, sec 1.
(z) Thesecondcl*iueorArt.n.ortbe election, /n re Green, 134X7.8.877. The
CoEutitatioQWU not amended by the foDr- power of a State to change its mode of
terath and fifteenth smendmenta, and choouDg presidential electors h»« not been
under it the State legislatniea h«Te excln- taken away by thefoortesnth and Bfteenth
aire power to direct the manner in which amendmenta, or by the onstora which has
the electors of Preddeot and Vice-Preai- gradnally been adopted of electing them
dent aball be appointed. HcPherson n. popularly 1^ general ticket, althoagb the
Blacker, U6 U. K. 1, sffirmiag b. C. S2 expectation of the fmmers of the Consti-
Miob. 877. As Presidential electors are tation as to the independence of the elec-
(tate oCBcent the respective states can tors may thereby hare been frosbated.
alone pnuiah ftandnlent voting in their HcPherson v^ Blacker, ntpra.
[836]
50byGoO>^lc
• 277 JUaiSPRODENCE OF [PAKT II,
on the firat Wedneaday in December in every fourth year Bnc-
ceeding the last election, and vote by ballot for President and
Vice-President (for this last officer is elected in the same man-
ner and for the same period as the President), and one of whom,
at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with the
electors. They name in their ballots the person voted for as
President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-
President; and they make distinct lists of all persons voted for
as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and
of the number of votes for each, which lista they sign and certify,
and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the United
States, directed to tlie President of the Senate. The act of Con-
gress of 1st of March, 1792, sec. 2, directs, that the certificate of
the votes shall be delivered to the President of the Senate before
the firat Wednesday of January next ensuing the election. The
President of the Senate, on the second Wednesday in February
succeeding every meeting of the electors, in the presence of both
houses of Cont^ress, opens all the certificates, and the votes are
then to be counted. The Constitution does not expressly declare
by whom the votes are to be counted and the result declared. In
the case of questionable votes, and a closely contested election,
this power may be all-important; and I presume, in the absence
of all legislative provision on the subject, that the Presi-
*277 dent of the Senate counts the votes, and 'determines the
result, and that the two houses are present only as specta-
tors, to witness the fairness and accuracy of the transaction,
and to act only if no choice be made hy the electors, (a) The
(a) In detsrniiniDg the remit of the elsctiou for Preriiient, in 1811, it wu dsclirad,
I7 joint resolution of the two house* of CoogreBB, that one person he appointed teller
on the part of the Senate, uid two on the port of the Hooae of RepnaentstiTes, wbo
were, in the presence of the two hooaea, to make a liat of the votes at they shoald \x-
declared, and the regnlt declared to the Preaideot of the Senate, who was to be the
preriding officer, and to announce to the two houses the state of the rote and the per-
SODB elected. The Vice-President, in that case, broke the seals of the enTelopes of
t^ TotsB, and delirered the same over to the l«llen to be coauted. The tellera having
read, coanted, and made duplicate lists of the votes, they wera delivered over to the
Vice-President, end read, end he then declared the Ksnlt, aad dissolred the joint
meeting of the two houses.
[CouiUing Ou VoUt far Praidrnt. (z) — The weakness of this p«rt of the Consti-
(x) The counting of votes for President lated by Che Act of Feb. S, '.887 (94 St at
and Vioe-PnsideDt, and the decision of L, 873), as amended l^thg Act of Oct.
^nestioiu arising thereon, are now regn- 19, 1SS8 (25 St. at L. 618).
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. Xni.] THE UNITED BTATES. * 277
House of BepresentatiTes, in each case, are to chooee imme-
diateljf^ though the ConstitutioQ holds their choice to be valid,
if made before the fourth day of March following. And in
the cases of the elections in 1801 and 1826, as no choice was
made, the House of Kepresentatives retired and voted, and
the Senate were admitted to be present as spectators. The
person having the greatest number of votes of the electors for
President, is President, if such number be a majority of the
whole number of electors appointed ; but if no person have such
a majority, then, from the persons having the highest number,
not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President,
the House of Representatives shall choose immediat«ly, by ballot,
the President But in choosing the President, the votes shall
be taken by states, the representation from each state having
cue vote. A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member
or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all
the states shall be necessary to a choice. If the House of Rep-
tation was forcibly Oliutntod by tba electioD of 1S77. The vote at the polls hul been
close, sud the result tnraed apoa the votes at Florida, Lonieiaiia, sud Soath Csroliu.
The Rgnlarly appointed rctaming boards had glVflU these states to the Bepablicaoe,
but it iras olaimed by the Democrats that these returns were ^ndnlent, and they de-
manded an InvestigBtion. The Repnblicans claimed that tlie retoTDS, having been
dnly made, -were conatasiT& The President of the Senate was Republican, but the
Democrata had a m^ority on a joint ballot of the two houses. The qnestion by whom
the votes were to be counted was therefore vital, and the difficulty of KiNing it bade
bir for a time to strain the Constitution. The difficulty ms finally avoided t? the
passsgD of the Electoral Commission Bill. This act was mads to apply only to the
daction in contmversy. Under it the returns ware to be opened by the President of
the Senate, and handed to tellers previonaly appointed by the Senate and Bouse re-
spectively, who were to read the some. If there was only one return or purported
letnm ^om a state, the President was to call for objectionB, if any. If any objections
wera made in the form prescribed, they were to be sabmitted to the hoosei of Congress
sepsntely, and no return waa to be n^eoted without the eoncnrreuce of both houses.
If more than one return from a state had been received, they were to be opened and
read as in case of a single return, and otijectiona in writing to each return received ;
and then the question of which was the eomct and legal retnm was to be referred to a
commisriim composed of five repreaentativeB to be chosen I^ the House of Repreauila-
tives, five senstors to be choseD by the Senate, and Ave judges of the United States
Snptemfl Court, fonr of whom were designated, and power conferred upon them to
ehooaa the fifth. 19 Stat at Lai^, 2S7- More than one purported return had been
received from each of the three states mentionsd above, an^ these were all referred to
the oomnission. The comnission decided, by a vote of eight to seven, that they
could not go behind the rqtulsr rstnms, and the votes of those states were sccordin^y
1 for the Bepnblicana. Since that lime efforts have been niade to provide a
B satis&ctory mode of connting the votes, but as yet without success. — b.]
VOI„ 1.— 22 [887]
;abyG00<^lc
* 278 JDBIBFRUDENCK OP [PAST IL
resentBtives shall not choose a President, whenever the ri(^t of
choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth daf of March
next following, then the Vice-President shall act as Presideat, as
in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the
President {h)
The person having the greatest number of votes as Yice-Presi-
dent, is Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole
nomber of electors appointed ; and if no person have a majority,
then from the two highest numbers on the list the Senate shall
choose the Yice-PreBident ; a quorum for the purpose shall con-
sist of two thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority
of the whole number is necessary to a choice; and no
•278 person constitutionally ineligible • to the oflSce of Presi-
dent shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States, (a) The Constitution does not speci&cally pre-
scribe when or where the Senate is to choose a Vice-President,
if no choice bo made by the electors; and, I presume, the
Senate may elect by themselves, at any time before the fourth
day of March following.
The President and Vice-President are equally to be chosen
for the same term of four years ; (b) and it is provided by law, (<;)
that the term shall, in all cases, commence on the fourtli day of
March next succeeding the day on which the votes of the elec*
tors shall have been given.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his
death, resignation, or inability to dischai^ the powers and duties
of the office, the same devolve on the Vice-President; and except
in cases in which the President is enabled to reassume the office,
the Vice-President acts as President during the remainder of the
term for which the President was elected. Congress are author-
ized to provide by law for the case of removal, ^eath, resignation,
or inability, hotli of the President and Vice-President, declaring
what officer should then act as President ; (x) and the officer so
designated is to act until the disability he removed, or a Presi-
{b) Ameadmentii to tha Conatitittioti, art IS. (A) ConatitDtuiu, ut. 2, ««c 1.
(a) Itnd. (£) Act of CongMM, Hardt 1, 17K.
(z) TheutorCoDgreaof Jan. 19, ISSe deot, the Seoietery of State, or ntbo-
(34 St kt L. 1), proTid«d that, la eue of memher of the CaUnet, shaU act to
tha Tomiml, death, ndgiutfoi], or inaUl- ily u Praudenu
ity of both the Preaideiit and Tice-PrM-
[888]
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. un.] THE UNITED STATES. ■ 279
dent shall be elected, aod who is in that case to be elected on
the first Wednesday of the ensuing December, if time will admit
of it, and if not, then on the same day in the ensuing year, (i)
In pursuance of this constitutional provision, the act of Congress
of March 1, 1792, sec. 9, declared, that in case of a vscancy in
the office, both of President and Vice-President, the President
of the Senate pro tempore, and in case there should be no Presi-
dent of the Senate, then the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives for the time being, should act as President until the vacancy
was supplied. The evidence of a refusal to accept, or of a resig-
nation of the office of President and Vice-President is declared,
by the same act of Congress, sec. 11, to be a declaration in writ-
ing, fil^d in the office of the Secretary of State. And if the
office should, by the course of events, devolve 'on the Speaker,
after the Congress for which the last Speaker was chosea had
expired, and before the next meeting of Congress, it might
be a question who is to serve, *and whether the Speaker* 279
of the House of Representatives, then extinct, coald be
deemed the person intended.
The mode of electing the President appears to be well calcu-
lated to secure a discreet choice, and to avoid all those evils
which the partisans of monarchy have described, and the ezperi*
ence of other nations and past ages have too clearly shown to be
the consequence of popular elections. Had the choice of Presi-
dent been referred at once, and directly, to the people at large,
as one single community, there might have been reason to appre-
hend, and such no doubt was the sense of the convention, that
it would have produced too violent a contest, and have been
trying the experiment on too extended a scale for the public
Tirtue, tranquillity, and happinesH. Had we imitated the practice
of most of the southern states, in respect to their state executives,
and referred the choice of the President to Congress, this would
have rendered him too dependent upon the immediate authors
of his elevation to comport with the requisite energy of his own
department; and it would have laid him under temptation to
indulge in improper intrigue, or to form a dangerous coalition
with the legislative body, in order to secure his continuance in
office. All elections by the representative body are peculiarly
liable to produce combinations for sinister purposes. The Con-
(d) CoDttitntioD, ut 2, Kc 1 ; act of Cougi-eBs, March 1, 1792.
;abyG00<^lc
* 280 JUBISFBDDENCE OF [PABt D.
stitution lias avoided all these objections, b; conGding the pover
of election to a small number of select iudiTiduals in each state,
chosen only a fev days before the election, and solely for that
purpose. This vonld seem, prima fade, to be as wise a
* 280 provision as the wisdom of man could have 'devised, to
avoid all opportunity for foreign or domestic intrigue.
These electors assemble in separate and distantly detached bodies,
and they are constituted in a manner best calculated to preserve
them free from all inducements to disorder, bias, or corruption.
There is no other mode of appointing the chief magistrate, under
all the circumstances peculiar to our political condition, which
appears to unite in itself so many unalloyed advantages. It
must not be pronounced to be a perfect scheme of election, for
it has not been sufficiently tried. The election of 1801 threat-
ened the tranquillity of the Union; and the difficulty that oc-
curred in that case, in producing a constitutional choice, led to
the amendment of the Constitution on this very subject; but
whether the amendment be for the better or for the worse may
be well doubted, and remains yet to be settled by the lights of
experience. The Constitution says, that each state is to appoint
electors in such a manner as the legislature may direct ; and in
some of the states the electors have been chosen by the legis-
lature itself, in the mode prescribed by law. Bot it is to be
presumed that there would be less opportunity for dangerous
coalitions and combinations for party, or ambitions or selfish
purposes, if the choice of electors was referred to the people at
large; and this seems now to be* the sense and expression of
public opinion and the general practice.
4. Dnration of Offlo*. — The President, thus elected, holds his
office for the term of four years, (a) a period, perhapa, reason-
ably long for the purpose of making him feel firm and indepen-
dent in the dischai^ of his trust, and to give stability and some
degree of maturity to his system of administration. It is cer-
tainly short enough to place him under a due sense of dependence
on the public approbation. The President is re-eligible for
successive terms, but in practice he has never consented to be
a candidate for a third election, and this usage has indirectly
established, by the force of public opinion, a salutary limitation
to his capacity of continuance in office.
(a) ConstitDtion, ut. 3, mc 1.
[840]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZIU.] THE UNITED STATES. * 282
s. Sapport — The support of the Preaideot ia secured
by a provision * in the Constitution, which declares, (a) * 281
that he shall, at stated times, receive for his services a
compensation that shall neither be increased nor diminished
during the period for which be shall have been elected ; and
that he shall not receive, within that time, any other emolument
from the United States, or any of them. This provision is in-
tended to preserve the due independence and energy of the
executive department. It would be in vain to declare that the
different departments of government should be kept separate and
distinct, while the legislature possessed a discretionary control
over the salaries of the executive and judicial officers. This
would be to disregard the voice of experience and the operation
of invariable principles of human conduct. A control over a
man's living is, in moat cases, a control over hia actions. The
Gonstitntion of Virginia considered it as a fundamental axiom of
government, that the three great and primary departments should
be kept separate and distinct, so that neither of them exercised
the powers properly belonging to the other. But without taking
any precautions to preserve this principle in practice, it made
the governor dependent on the legislature for his annual exist-
ence and his annual support. The result was, as Mr. Jefferson
has told OS, (&) that during the whole session of the legislature,
the direction of the executive was habitual and familiar. The
Cdnatitution of Massachufletta discovered more wisdom, and it
set the lirst example in this country, of a constitutional provision
for the support of the executive magistrate, by declaring that
the governor should have a salary of a fixed and permanent value,
amply sufficient, and established by standing laws. Those state
constitutions which have been made or amended since the estab-
lishment of the Constitution of the United States have generally
followed the example which it has happily set them, in this and
in many other instances ; and we may consider it as one of
the moat signal blessings bestowed on " this country, that * 282
we have such a wise fabric of government as the Constitu-
tion of the United States constantly before our eyes, not only
for our national protection and obedience, but for onr local imi-
tation and example.
6. Fow«». — Having thus considered the manner in which the
(a) Art. a, •ee. 1. <*) Notts on Viiginia, 127.
1341]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 288 JUBIBPBDDENCB OF [PABT n.
President is constituted, it only remains for us to renew tbe
powers with which he ia inTested.
He is commander-in-chief of the* army ajid nary of Hie United
States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into
the service of the Union, (a) The command and application of
the public force to execute law, maintain peace, and resist foreign
invasion, are powers so obviously of an executive nature, and
require the exercise of qualities bo characteristic of this depart'
ment, that they have always been exclusively appropriated to
it, in every well-organized government apon earth, (b) Id no
instance, perhaps, did the enlightened understanding of Hume
discover less acquaintance with the practical science of govern-
ment, than when he gave the direction of tbe army and navy, as
well ag all the other execntive powers, to one hundred senators,
in his plan of a perfect commonwealth, (c) That of Milton was
equally chimerical and absurd, when, in his " Ready and Easy
Way to establish a Free Commonwealth," he deposited the whole
executive, as well as legislative power, in a single and permanent
council of senators. That of Locke was equally unwise, for, in
his plan of legislation for Carolina, he gave the whole authority,
legislative and executive, to a small oligarchical asBem-
*283bly. (d) Such specimens* as these well justify the obser-
vation of President Adams, (a) "that a philosopher may
be perfect master of Descartes and Leibnitz, may pursue his own
inquiries into metaphysics to any length he pleases, may enter
into the inmost recesses of the human mind, and make the noblest
discoveries for the benefit of his species ; nay, he may defend the
principles of liberty, and the rights of mankind, with great abili-
ties and success, and, after all, when called upon to produce a plan
of legislation,he may astonish the world with a signal absurdity. "
(a) Art. 2, tec. 2.
(b) Hr. Doer, in hu Treitiae an Iniannca, L SGfl, intinuta that, in time of mr,
a apecisl ambargo for a deSnita period might be ilecUrad b? ths sola anthoritj of tha
Preaident, I do not perc«iva any anfficient gTODnd for that opinion in rapaet to tlw
lagal Gierciaa of aaoh a power.
(c) Hnme'a Eem.y^ i. 635.
(d) Mr. Locke'a rery rjim plicated achema ofKOTerniDent, nnder the title of Fasdi-
meDtol Constitutioaa of Carolina, ia inserted at Urge in Locke'a Works, iiL 665-878.
Those legielative labors of tliat great and excellent man praiihed Dnheeded and an-
regratted b; all portiaa, after an experieuoe of twenty-tbree yean had prored them to
l>e,io the words of Mr. Grahams, the histiirian, " ntterl; worthless aod impnctieahle.'
(a) Defence of the American CoBsUtations, L Letter B4.
[842]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. znt.] THE UNITED BTi.TE8. * 288
The President has also the power to grant reprieves and par-
dons for ofFencea against the United States, except in cases of
impeachment (x) The Harquis Becoaria has contended that the
(z) Tbs Freudant's conatitntional power
of pardon ii Dot inTaded bj the eatablishtd
practiM whereby other offloen m«7 nmit
pecanUi7 pen«Itiea uid forfntiues. The
Imi% 114 U. S. 411.
A pardon maj be conatnictiTe ; ea when
tb« Prendent uanes e new oonunisnoD to
a militaiy officai condemned bj ooort-
BurtiaL See e A. 0. Op. 13S. So the
gorerftor'i mgnatnre to a State statute
which remite the lentence in a criminal
caae, amounts to a panlon. People v.
Stewart, 1 Idi^ N. 8. 640.
Additional pnniahment for a lacond of-
feno* cannot be inflicted after p*idon for
the firat offence. Edvardi v. Com'th, 7S
Ta. se. Bat the distinct recital in e par-
don of one offence, each as conspiracj to
defraod the revenue, doee not affect a judg-
ment of forfeiture for f^sad upon the
Rvenne. Re parlt Weimer, 8 Bies. S21 ;
United Sutes e. Collerton, id. 166. A
pardon doee not, it eeeow, remit forfeit-
tirea if the right! of third pereone have
interrened. Kirk v. Lewie, i Woods, 100 ;
•M Fischel e. Hills, GS Ark., 344 ; IG L.
IL A. SS5, and note. An nuconditional
pardon does away with a statutory right
to disbar an attorney upon conviction of a
felony. Scott ». State (Teiaa), 26 3. W.
Bep. S37. A qui lam action bronght by
* private proeecntor to Tecover the dam-
pen and forfeiture allowed by Inw ia
under bia control and cannot be compro-
mlaed or released by the government to
faia injury. United SUtee v. Oriswold,
24 Fed. Rep. 301.
A contract for legal services to secure a
pardon ia lawfol. Hoyer v. Cantieny, 41
Minn. S42.
A Ronstitutional grant to the governor
of the State of eiclnaive power to reprieve
and pardon doea not invalidate a statute
snaUing the courts to suspend sentence
dnring the convict's good behavior.
People D. Conn of Sessions, 141 N. T.
IS8; see People d. Cnmminga, (Mich.)
14 L. B. A. 28G, and note. A convict
who is released upon a conditional pardon
cannot be remanded to suffer bis original
impriaonment on the mere order of the
governor who pardoned him, but is en-
titled to a hearing in court upon the qass-
tion of performance or legal excuse, and
also to a jnry trial, limited, however, to
the issue of his identity. State >. Wolfer,
G8 Hinn. 13G ; see Huff v. Dyer, 4 Ohio
Cir. Ct. G6G. As to conditiooal pordona,
see also Peaple v. Hoore, 63 Hich. 496 ;
Sx parte Kennedy, ISG Mass. 48 ; Ex
parU Marks, 64 CaL 39 ; United States «.
Hinz, SG Fed. Bop. 272 ; People e>. Bums,
28 N. Y. Sup. 300 i In n Wbalen, 19
id. 91G ; State n. Barnes, 82 S. C. 14.
The Secretary of the Treumry may remit
pecnniary forfeitniea. The Loor*, 114
U. S. 411 i 19 Blatch. 682. An uncon-
ditional pardon remits all penalties and
forfeitures ; it restores the convict's com-
petency «s a witness. Boyd o. United
Sutes, 142 U. B. 460 ; Logan v. United
States, 144 U. B. 263 ; Slate d. Dodson,
18 S. C. 468 ; Hester e. Com'th, 86 Penn.
St. tse ; see State ■. Kitshner, 20 Uo.
App. 849 ; 26 L. J. 123 ; Hartin v. State,
21 Tex. App. 1 ; or as a juror, Puiyear s.
Comth, 8S Va. Gl ; the right of eufirege.
Cowan 0. Prowee, 98 Ky. 1S6; or dis-
qaaliftcatioD to carry on certain kinds
of busineaa. Hay v. Justices, 24 Q. B.
D. 661. So a fine paid to the sheriff',
but not paid into the county treasury,
^onld be refunded. Fischel v. Mills, 66
Ark. 8*4. See McKay ». Woodruff. 77
Iowa, 413. So the removal of disabilities
by pardon or amnesty may revest the
power to dispose of the reversion of a con-
fiscated estate, if suspended during th«
[848]
„Gooi^lc
* 284 JDBISPBDDENCE OF [PAST II.
power of p&rdon does not exist under a perfect adminigtration
of law, and that the admisBion of the power is a tacit acknowl-
edgment of the infirmity of the courts of justice. And where is
the administration of justice, it may be asked, that is free from
infirmity? Were it possible, in every Instance, to maintain a
just proportion between the crime and the penalty, and were the
rules of testimony and the mode of trial so perfect as to preclude
every possibility of mistake or injustice, there would be some
color for the admission of this plausible theory. But, even in Uut
case, policy would sometimes require a remission of a punish-
ment strictly due, for a crime certainly ascertained. The very
notion of mercy implies the accuracy of the claims of justice.
An inexorable government, says Mr. Yorke, in his Considerations
on the Law of Forfeiture, (6) will not only carry justice in some
instances to the height of injury, but with respect to itself it will
be dangerously juat. The clemency of Massachusetts, in 1786,
after an unprovoked and wanton rebellion, in not inflicting a
single capital punishment, contributed, by the judicious manner
in which its clemency was applied, to the more firm
* 284 * establishment of their government And this power of
pardon will appear to be more essential when we consider
(6) Yorke dd Foifaitnie, 101.
disability. lUinois Cenbvl B. Co. b. Stab., S 81S0, confer npon the Court d
BoBworth, 133 C. 8. S2. But an office Claimi jniisdictionof the pardoned'onte-
forfeited or a fine paid into the gavem- bellnm cltim agtiust the goTemoieiit
ment treamiy will not be restored. Hart n. United States, 118 U. S.SS. The
Oabom v. United St&tes, 91 U. S. 171 ; governor cannot revoke a pudon after in
Knots tr. United States, BG U. S. IIB ; 10 delivery and acceptance, bnt a pudan pro-
Ct CI. 3B7 ; B A. Q. Op. 381. Thus, cnred h; fraad or imposition preetised
after a aentence of dismiwal fixim the ser- upon the eiecntive will, it seems, be held
vioe againat a military officer is carried totally void by the conrta. fiosson *,
into effect, the President cannot reinstate State, S3 Tex. App. 287 ; Ex pttrU Bos-
hiiD, thnngh be may remit the penalties son, 24 id. 22fl ; Honnicott b. State, )8
inflicted by conrt-martiaL VaaderBLice v. id. 198 ; Knspp «. Thomas, 39 Ohio St
United States, 19 Ct. 01. 480. The Free- 877 ; Ex parte Powell, 78 Ala. 617- The
ident's proclamation of general amnesty in person pardoned may be rearrested for
1B3S did not do away with the necessity the coats.' Ex parte Boyd, 81 EanMu,
of proof of loyalty in fact dnring the war G70 ; see Smith ■>. State, 6 Le* {Teun.)
of the Rebellion, when such loyalty is S37. The disatnlity of a person who has
made a necessary element of proof in a served his foil term of imprisonment msf
special Act. Aastin d. United States, 26 he removed by a pardon. Eaaterwood r.
Ct. a. 187. A pardon for participation in State (Teios), 81 8. W. Bep. S94.
the Rebellion does not, nuder U. 8. Bev.
[844]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. IIIl] the UNITED STATES. * 284
that, under the most correct adminiBtration of the lav, men vill
sometimes f&U a prey to the vindictiveneBB of aocuaera, the inac-
curacy of testimony, and the fallibility of jurors. Notwithstand-
ing tbJB power lb clearly supported oa principles of policy, if not
of justice, English lawyers, of the first class and highest reputa-
tion, (a) have strangely concluded that it cannot exist in a repub-
lic, because nothing higher is acknowledged than the magistrate.
Instead of falling into such an erroneous conclusion, it might
fairly be insisted, that the power may exist witli greater safety
in free states than in any other forme of government; because
abuses otthe discretion unavoidably confided to the magistrate in
gnmting pardons are much better guarded against by the sense
of responsibility under which he acts. The power of pardon
vested in the President is without any limitation except in the
single case of impeachmentB. (h) ^ He is checked in that case
(a) Yorke on Jorfeiture, 100 ; Blackat Comm. It. 897-
(1) There ii no doubt that the power of jnrdoa conferred on the Preeident inelndM
tLe poirer to pardon sb«olnt«ly or conditdonally. Op. Att.-Qen. L 260 ; ii. 10S4. The
PntidcDt maj umez a amdUioa to the pardon — aa, for instance, that the gnilty p«r-
mh dunld quit the United States, or join the nary — and if he does not comply with
the condition, or breaka it, the pardon becomes null and void. If the cnlprit has not
complied with the condition on which it was granted and accepted, he may be sab-
jtcted to the operation of the origina] conviction and jadgment. In England the king
hai the power, by the common law, to grant conditional pardons. The power of the
Goreraor of New York to giant a conditional pttrdon, and the power of a criminal
jniiedlction of the same, or of a higher degree, ti> arrest the party who has Inoken the
nodition wUfally, and to sentence and remand him to execotion and paoishment, on
ddy ascertaining hia identity, was latgely discnsaed in the caae of the People v.
Potter, in the Tint Circnit of New York. The New York L^ Ohaerver for Hay,
I8«, 177 [1 Parker Cr. H. *7), The Revised Constitution of Now York, of 1 848, art. *,
Kc G, gianta this conditional power of pardon to the goTenior.
' Ptmioiu.^To 'the mme effect as 1863, f 1, (U. S. Rer. Stuts. f SSSO). II
noU lb) ate Beparte Wells, 18 How. 307, Op. Att-Qsn. GG.
and opinions of Sir A. Cockbnm, Sir E. The power to pardon may, it aeeuis,
Betbell, and othera, Forsyth's Cases & be ezerdeed at any time after the com-
Op. on Const. Law, e. 3, pp. 7S, 70 ; c. mission of an offence, as well before l^al
17, [1. 459 ; Greatboiue'i <W, 3 Abbott, proceedings are taken, or while the; are
IT. S.3S2; [Osbnm b. United States, 91 pending as after conviction and jndgmeut.
IT. S. 474 i United States v. Bii Lots of Ex paiie Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 3S0.
Groond, 1 Voods, 234 ; Arthur v. Craig, A pardon is not complete withont de>
48 Iowa, 264.} A partial pardon is livery ; and if not complete may be re-
aDtborinMl, in esse of sentences to two Toked by the snccensor of the President
kinds of pmiishment, the one pecuniary by whom ft was Rianted. It baa been
and the other oorporal, by act of Feb. SO, held that a pardon was still revocable
[346]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 284 JUBISPItUDEKCE OP [PABT H
from screening public officers, with whom he mi^t possibly baTe
formed a dangerous or corrupt coalition, or who might be his
pai'ticular favorites and dependants.
The President has also tlie power, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of
the senators present concur, (c)
Writers on government have differed in opinion as to the nature
of this pover, and whether it be properly, in the natural distribu-
tion of power, of legislative or executive cognizanca (z) As
(c) Art 3, BK. 2.
vken in tlie IwndB of the mnnhal Inn pablie debtor. II Op. Att.-Qa].lS2,124.
De Pny, 8 Benedict, 307, 10 Int. R. Bee Neither can he, altei prize hu been Dm-
S4 ; i Am. Law Rev. 18S. See Comm. v. demned for breanh of blockade, remit tlu
HaUoway, U Penn. St SlOj 11 Op. Att.- forfeiture. 10 Op. Att.-Gen. Hi; 11 id.
Gen. 36. [I*peyre n. United 8tate«, 17 4*6.
Wall. 191, held that a proclamation bj As to the ^ed of a pardon, it nt
the Preeident relieTing from certain pen- aaid in A: ^orte Garland, lujini, to ralew
alties took effect from time of rigning and the petitioner from excliuion fmm offia
aaaling, and not from the time of publica- for the acta eoverad b; it, and so to ren.
tion. Fonrof tbejoeticeBdiasented. — B.] der it anneceamy for him to lake ■ tvt
The pardoning power is eaid to be co- oath that he had not committed than
eiteneiTe with the pnniehing power, and offence*. A pardon has been farther bttl
to be applicable to the remimion of Snea, to relieve ^m forfeiture nnder the cou'
piuialtiea, and forfeitnna, which ate im- fiication act of Aug. 6, 18S1, eo mnch of
posed b; law aa punishment for offences, the property as wonld hare aocroed to tbe
12 Op. Att-Gen. SI ; but not to embrace United Statee. Armstrong's Foundry,
forfeitures not imposed as soch pnnish- 6 Wall. 7M ; United Statee e. Fadelford,
tiient, 11 Op. An.-aen. 122. The Free- SWaU. 6S1. See UnitedStatei *. AthoM
ident cannot remit a jndgment against Armory, 36 Qi. ZU ; St. Louii Stmt
an iadividnal not as a criminal, bat as a Foundry, S Wall. 770, a case artnng dd-
{x) Under the U. S. Constitution, tree- tJ. S. BBS ; Williams r. The Welhaimi.
ties as well as statutes are the law of the G6 Fed. Rep. 80 ; North Oerman Uojd S.
land, and abrogate earlier State or Federal Co. v. Heddeo, IS id. 17. To have soeli
laws inconsistent therewith. 6 A. O. Op. an effect, the statute most admit of ne
291 ; 13 id. 35i : The Cherokee Tobacco other reasonable oonatrnctian. AcChinA
Case, 11 Wall. 816; KuU e. Kull, 37 Hun, On, 18 Fed. Rep. EO0. But if the gDverE-
476. Even An Indian treaty is part of ment sees 6t to disregard a treaty, it can.
the law of the land. Leightou a. United not be enforced as a judicial question by
States, 29 Ct CI. 2SB. An act of Congress the Federal Courts. BotUler p. DominKud,
prevails over a prior treaty, if it conBicts 130 U. S. 93S ; Chae Chan Ping v. United
therxwitb. Edye ■. Robertson, 112 U. S. States, 130 U. 8. 681. Nor can tht
680 ; Whitney d. Robertson, 124 U. 8. coarts inquire whether a tnaty was duly
190 ; Kelly v. Heilden, id. 190 ; flor- ezeented or procured by undue influenn.
ner r. United States, 143 U. S. 670; 1.«ighlon o. United States, 29 CL CI. !SE.
Fang Yue Tin); v. United States, 149 In England, Orders in Connml must bi
[346]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XIII.] ' THE UNITED STATES. * 284
treatiea are declared hj the Constitution to be a. part of the su-
preme taw of the land, and as bj means of them new relations are
formed and obligations contracted, it might seem to be more con-
tli« other liaiid, wlnii one who hu com-
mitted cRTtain offences >gaiiut the United
States ia forbidden to vote by the state
constitDtian, his pardon by the President
will not restore Mio to the franchise.
Kidley v. Sherbrook, 3 Coldw. (Teun.)
680. But see S Op. Att.-Gen. ITS.
The policy of illowing such a power to
be exerdsed in the present oienaer ia stiU
a subject of discnssian. Stephen, Criu.
Law, c 6, 234, 230 ; 'Lord Penzauoe's
speech, and articles thereon. Times, April
6, 1870 ; Spectator, 1870, p. K9 ; Han-
sard, cc. 1147.
efftetiTe when ratified by the Preddent
Mid Senate, does not take effect until
signed by the Prseident, though pre-
vioosly ratified by the Senate and accepted
hy the Indians. Shepatd o. Nartbwesteni
Life Ins. Co., 40 Fed. Bep, 8*1.
A treaty is not wholly revoked by *
later and murawer one which states that
it is revoked " as all its prorlbions ara
incorporated " in the Utter. In rt Ross,
140 U. S. 463, 4S6 ; 44 Fed. Rep. 185.
But a new treaty which covers the en-
tire anbject-mstlw of an earlier treaty,
impliedly repeals the latter. La Repnb-
liqne Francaise b. Schaltz, G7 Fed. Bep.
37. The Creek nation, by entering into
■ treaty with the Coufederate government
and engaging in war with the United
States, abrogated its treaty with that na-
tion made in ISGB, and the obligation of
the United States to individual Creeks
was thereby terminated. Connor's Case,
19 Ct. CI. 675.
The C. S. Bev. Stats. 5 BB18, reUting to
ooDBpiracies to deprive persons of the equal
protections of the taws, is unconstitational
as a provision for the punishment of a
conspiracy, within a State, to deprive an
alLeQ of rights guaranteed to him therein
[8471
dir the President's amnesty of Dec. 6,
IStS. Also Dciited States v. Klein, 18
WUL 128 i 6 Am. L. T. 218. [But a
fudon does uot give any right to reclaim
nMmey which haa been paid into the treas-
uy 01 to third persona. Knots v. United
States, 85 U. S. 140 ; Bngg e. Lorio,
1 Woods, 209. Comp. United SUtes e.
ThouuuMn, 4 Biaa. SSfl. See generally,
at Id pudons, Blair v. The Common-
wealth, 25 Grat. SGO i Commonwealth «.
Loekwoed, 100 Uass. 323 i State n. Foley,
15 Ksv. S4. As to reprieve, see Sterling
■. Drake, 29 Ohio SL 457. —b.] Od
cMctensiva with, and limited by the
treaty, so that the mnnicipal legislature
nsy not be at variance with the terms
upon which the two conntriee have agreed.
Queen d. Wilson, 3 Q. B. D. 42.
A treaty is evidence of amity, but not
omclasive. Valk v. United States, 29
Cl CI. sa ; Leighton v. Same, id. 288.
The construction of a treat; by the exec-
utive is followed by the conrts when con-
liiteDt with the treaty itself. Castro v.
De Uriarte, IS Fed. Rep. 9S.
If negotiations between the same par-
tisi nsult in two treaties concluded on
the same day. they are in effect one in-
■trumeut. Gray s. United States, 21 Ct.
CI, 340 ; Gushing v. United States, 22
id. 1.
Upon latiltcation a treaty takes effect
by relation from the date of signing as to
the nation's right". United States o.
Bridleoian, 7 Fed. Rep. 894, 002; United
Sute* V. Uartiu, 14 id. 817, 320. Contra,
u to individual rights. Bnsh v. United
Stutes, 29 Ct. CI. 144. A treaty made
by the PrMident, but not ratified by a
two-thirds vote of the Senate has no effect.
United States «- Frolinghuysen, 2 Hackey,
!9t. An Indian treaty which is to be
;abyG00<^lc
• 285 JURISPRUDENCE OP [PAET H.
sonant to the principles of repoblicaD goTemment to cou-
*28d sider the right of concluding 'specific terms of peace aa d
legislative jurisdiction. This has generally been the case
in free governments. The determinations respecting peace, as
well as war, were made in the public assemblies of the nation at
Athens and Rome, and in all the Gothic governments of Europe,
when they first arose out of the rude institutions of the ancieut
Oermans. On the other band, the preliminary negotiationa
which may be required, the secrecy and despatch proper to take
advantage of the sudden and favorable turn of public affaire,
seem to render it expedient to place this power in the hands of the
executive department. The Constitution of the United States has
been influencfed by the latter more than by the former considera-
tions, for it has placed this power with the President, under the
advice and control of the Senate, who are to be considered, for this
purpose, in the light of an executive council. The President is
the constitutional organ of communication with foreign powers,
and the efficient agent in the conclusion of treaties ; but the con-
sent of two thirds of the senators present is essential to give valid-
ity to his negotiations. To have required the acquiescence of
a more numerous body would have been productive of delay, dis-
order, imbecility, and probably, in the end, a direct breach of the
Constitution. The history of Holland shows the danger and folly
b; B treaty of the United Stat«a. Bald- eoDBtitutions which cnrtul snch light in
win D. Franks, 120 U. S. 67S. void as an interfemiM with the treaty-
Vested rights of property gnanutteed b; maldng power. Baker c. Pottland, 3 Fed.
treaty .cannot be taken away hy act of Cai. 473 ; In re Ilbarcio Patrott, 1 Fed.
CoDgreM or the political departments of Kep. 4S1.
the Qovernment. Eastern Cherokee*' A treaty provision that the dtiuM of
Oaee, 20 Ct. CI. i49. the foreign country shall enjoy hem the
The United States is not liable on an same protection as native citizens witl
implied osanrnpsit for money had and re- nspect to labels and trade-marks, giresDO
ceived nnder a treaty in its sovereiga right here to a foreign citizen to a trade-
capacity, as indemnity, from another sov- mark which he has acquired in his own
ereign power, as in the ease of the Ala- country. Richter v. Reynolds, SB Fed.
bema cUims. United States v. Weld, Rep. (77.
127 U. S. 61 ; Great Western Ins. Co. r. By the treaty of 1BS7 with Bwsia,
United SUtes, 19 Ct Q. 206 ; Eingsbury ceding Alaska to the United SUtes, the
V. Mattocks, 81 Maine, SIO. latter acquired the immovable bmldings
The right given 1^ treaty for foreignera, erected by the Ruanan- American Com-
sQcb an the Chinese, to live in the United pany upon land there owned by tlie Ri»-
States carries with it the implied right to siaa government. Kinkead v. tTnitid
labor here for a. living, and State Uws oi Stetes, 150 U. S. MS.
[848]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIII.] THE UNITED STATES. * 286
of placing too much limitation on the exercise of the treaty-
making power. By the fuudameotal charter of the United Pro-
vinces peace could not be made without the unanimous conseut of
the provinces; and jet, without multiplying instances, it is suffi-
cient to observe, that the immensely important and fundamental
treat; of Munster, in 1648, was made when Zealand was opposed
to it ; and the peace of 1661, when Utrecht was opposed. So
feeble are mere limitations upon paper, — mere parchment bar-
riers, when standing in opposition to the strong force of public
exigency.
The Senate of the United States is a body of men most wisely
selected for the deposit of this power. They are easily
assembled, are governed by steady, systematic * views, feel ' 286
a due sense of national character, and can act with promp-
titude and firmness.
The question whether a treaty, constitutionally made, was ob-
ligatory upon Congress, equally as any other national engagement
would be, if fairly made by the competent authority, or whether
Congress had any discretionary power to carry into effect a treaty
requiring the appropriation of money, or other act to be done on
their part, or to refuse it their sanction, was greatly discussed
in Congress in the year 1796, and again in 1816. The House of
Bepresentatives, at the fonner period, declared by resolution, that
when a treaty depended for the execution of any of its stipulations
on an act of Congress, it was the right and duty of the House
to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of carrying
such treaty into effect. It cannot be mentioned at this day,
without equal regret and astonishment, that such a resolution
passed the House of Representatives on the 7th of April, 1796,
But it was a naked abstract claim of right, never acted upon ;
and Congress shortly afterwards passed a law to carry into
effect the very treaty with Great Britain which gave rise to
that resolution. President Washington, in his message to the
House of Representatives of the SOth of March, 1796, explicitly
denied the existence of any such power in Congress; and he
insisted that every treaty duly made by the President and
Senate, and promulgated, thenceforward became the law of the
land.
If a treaty be the law of the land, it is as much obligatory upon
Congress as upon any other branch of the government, or upon
P49]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 287 JDEI8PE0DENCB OP [PIBT IL
the people at large, so long as it continaes in force and unre-
pealed. The House of Bepresentatives are not above the lav,
and they have no dispensing power. They have a right to make
and repeal lavs, provided the Senate and P/^Bideot concur; bnt
vithout such concurrence, a law in the shape of a treaty is as
binding upon them as if it were in the shape of an act of Con-
gress, or of an article of tbu Constitution, or of a, contract made
by authority of law. The ai^unent in favor of the bind-
• 287 ing and conclusive efficacy • of every treaty made by the
President and Senate is so clear and palpable, that it h&s
probably carried very general conviction throughout the com-
munity ; and tiiis may now be considered as the decided sense of
public opinion. This was the sense of the House of Represent-
atives, in 1816, and the resolution of 1796 would not now be
repeated, (a) i
The President is the efficient power in the appointment of the
officers c^ government. He ia to nominate, and, with the advice
and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, or public
ministers and consuls, the judges of the Supreme Court, and all
other officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for
in the Constitution ; bnt Congress may vest the appointment of
(a) The traaty-nuking pcnrer ii DBcaauil; ud obrioaal; NboidiiMt* to tht
fnniUnieiital Uwi and Miutitntion ot the itaita, uid It omnnot changB tha form </ the
goTannnent, or umihil>t« its coiutitatioiul poiraig. Storj, Oomm. oa tha Cmuti-
tntioo, iii. 1 1S02.
> Jndge McLeu) «m of » difTsnut Wmll, 6 WkIL S3, BS. Ontheothnhud,
optnidn ftom ths authar, Turner v. Anar- the oonrta o( tha United State* caimot
oan BaptUt Hiaa. Vaion, G HcLaan, 844, qneatioa the power of the other pM^ to
and the point U itill open and debated a tnaty to do certain acta when be hai
between the two hanaea of Congnet. been treated u having the piTWei bj* the
Congieaa may npwl a treaty ao far aa Praident and Senate. Doe b. Bradm,
ft U mnnicipat law, proTidad it* milijei^ IS How. 086 ; Fellow* v. Blacknnith, 1*
matter is within the l^UlatiTe power of How. Sflfi ; aee p. SSO, n. 1.
CSongresa. Taylor v. Uorton, 2 CnrL State laws, inoonaatent witb a treatf
Ui ; The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 WalL MinititDtionally oonclnded and ntified,
SIS, S21 ; Ropea v. Clinch, 8 BUtchf. are thereby abrogated. 6 Op. AtL-Gan.
SOi. But Congren ha* no power, it is 2B1 ; 8 Op. Att.-Otni. 411 ; Hamiltan >.
laid, to wttle the rfghti under treatiea, Eaton, Martin, N. C. 3d part, 1 U. S.
eioept in caaea purely pcditieaL The C. C. 179S ; [Hanenatein e. Lynham, 100
MDstructioD of them i* the peeoliar pror- U. S. 183 ; Patrott's Chfoese Caae, S Saw.
ince of the jndldary, when a caae ahall S4S,] See, as to the BaetiGo* of print*
arise between IndiTiduala. Wilion v. righta hj treaty, aafe, 1S7.
[850]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Xm.] THE UNITED BTA1X8. * 2S7
inferior officers in the President alone, in the coorta of law, or in
the heads of departments, {b)
The appoiDtment of the subordinate officers of goTemment
concerned in the administration of the laws belongs, with great
propriety, to the President, who ia bound to see that the laws are
faiijifully executed, and who is generally charged with the powers
and responflibility of the executive department, (x) The assoeia-
(6) Art. % uc. S. [B; statnto of Jtn. le, 1S8S (2G St. at L. 408), proriBioii ia
atkda for the appoistmeat of three oiTil lerTice commuaioneia. It u nuda the
datjr of Micb ooamiaaioiien to aid the Preaident, aa he may ivqneot, in preparing
rnlea pntvidisg for "open competitin examinatiotiB for teedcig the fitneaa of ap-
plieuita for tbe public aerrice now claitlGed, or to be claaaiGed bn^nuder." All
affioas ao eUanfied are to he fiUed "by aelecdons according to grade from among
tho«e graded highest m the Teanlts of Mich competttiTe examinations." Appoint-
menta m« t« be apportioned among the state* and territoriee and the District of
GoInmUa, MCOTding to populatioo. There is to be > period of probation before any
appmntnMDt becomes abeolnte. It ia made the dnty of heads of depaitmenta and
td heads of offices, on reqneat by the Fretideiit, to datdtj the officea over which
tbey are heads, in a manner prescribed in the act. It is fnrtber provided that, aftar
six months &om the paasage of the act, all appointments and promotionB, with
specified exeeptdona, within said classes, shall be bj means of snch competitiTe
<z) The President's ocnstitiitional duty ment, doea not conflict with the diplomatls
to aee that the laws be faiththlly executed, antbority vested in the Preeident by tha
Inelodea the power, through the attorney Coostitntion. United Statsa v. La Abn
goneral, to direct- a U.S.manhal to attend 8. M. Co. 29 Ct. CI. 4S2.
and protest from threatened injury « judge In general, Eqnity will not interftee bj
of tbe U. 8. Supreme Conrt while dis- injunction or mandsmns with any govern.
chaTKing his official dotiea. /» rs Nsagle, mental mattera, snch at tbe lawTnl ezerdas
ISS U. S. L of the police power by monicipal officer^
Tb* Preaident may act throDgb tbe or the pablic duties of any department of
beads of the executive departments, who are the government. New Orleans u. Paine,
his anthorized aasistants in the perform- 117 U. S. 2S1 ; Chicago P. S. Exchange
asce of his executive duties, and their v. HcClanghry, 118 lU. 372 ; Eilligoaa v.
ofDciaJ acta, promulgated in tbe regular Oriualade, 32 111 App. 4G. Handamu*
eonrae of businesa, have always been held lie* to compel an executive officer of the
to be pieaumably bis acts. Buukle v. govetumeut to perfonn a ministerial duty,
United States, 122 U. S. B4S, G57 ; United but be will not be thns interfered with in
States «. Badean, 31 Fed. Bap. 697, AM. tbe exercise of his ordinary official duties.
So long as the control of tbe subject- even whan those dntiea require an inter-
matter bas not been parted witb by the pretatlon of tbe law. United States ».
political department, tbe judiciary will not Black, I2S U. S. 40 i see Bayard v. nnit«d
compel it to act. UnitedStatee v. Blaine, States, 127 U. B. SiS ; United SUtes e.
1S» V. 8. 3QS. A claimant's biU in tbe Ranm, ISfi U. S. 200 j /« t« Fenn. Co.,
natnre of interpleader, or to quiet Htle to 187 U. S, 4G1 ; United SUtea v. Brown,
an intematioDal award held by tbe govern- U Fed. Bep. 481 ; pott, p. 321. Wbers
[361]
50byGoO>^lc
• 288 JDBISPEnDENCK OF - [PART U.
tion of the Senate with the President, in the exercise of this power,
is an exception to the general delegation of executive authority;
and if he were not expressly iuvested with the exclusive right of
nomination in the instances before us, the organization of this
department would he very unskilful, and the government degen-
erate into a system of cabal, favoritism, and intrigue. But the
power of nomination is, for all the useful purposes of restraint,
equivalent to the power of appointment. It imposes upon the
President the same lively sense of responsibility, and the same
indispensable necessity of meeting the public approbation or
censure. This, indeed, forms the ultimate secority that men in
public stations will dismiss interested considerations, and
*288 act with a steady, zealous, and * undivided regard for the
public welfare. The advice and consent of the Senate,
which are requisite to render the nomination effectual, cannot be
attended, in the nature of the case, with very mischievous effects.
Having n{> ^;ency in the nomination, nothing but simple consent
or refusal, the spirit of personal intrigue and personal attachment
must be pretty much extinguished, from a want of means to
gratify it. On the other hand, the advice of so respectable a
body of men will add still further inducements to a coolly re-
flected conduct in the President, and will be at all times a check
on his own misinformation or error, (a) ^
{a) It was settled, in the cue of Marbury b. Mulisoo, 1 Cnnch, 1S7, tlut when t
petsoD hu been nominated to the Senate for office, by the PrasideDt, tml the Pns-
> See, aa to the power of temoTal, pod, 311, n. 1.
the ezecDtire has not ezbanstad its power. United Ststea v. Califoniia k Ongon Land
M in the case of withholding paynieDt of Co., 118 U. S. 31, 43 ; United Slalsa v.
a claim made under a treaty, pending an Lamont, S A|>p. D. C. G82. State offidali.
inveatigation of ^nd aa to the claim, acting under aiicoiiitatatioiial state legis-
which involves the exercise of judgment lation, may be controlled by injunetian or
and discretion, maudamna cannot issue to mandamus. In rt Ayers, IS3 U. S. 113 ;
compel action by the head of a depart- see Yale College v. Sanger, S3 Fed. Rrp.
raent. Frelinghuyaen v. Eey, 110 U. S. 177. But a Federal court cannot inquire
83 ; United States b. Blaine, 139 XJ. S. into the legal adoption of a duly decltmi
321. Wbeii * Federal statute delegates to amendment nf the State constitution.
«n officer ortnbnual full jurisdiction over Smith v. Good, 34 Fed. Kep. 304.
a subject in vhich the Unitpd States The U. S. Rer. Stata., | 1788, eicepti
are interested, the exercise of authority or judges of the U. 9. courts from the pawn
discretion within the power thus conferred thereby conferred upon the Pnndent to
la conclosiTe, in the absence of fniud. suspend civil officers appointed wi& the
[352]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. Xin.] THE UNITED STATES. * 288
The remaining duties of the President consist in giving infor-
mation to Congress of the Btate of the Union, and in recommend-
ing to their consideration such measures as he shall judge neces-
sary or expedient, (x) He is to convene both houses of Congress,
or either of them, on extraordinary occasions, and he may adjourn
them, in case of disagreement. He is to SlI up all vacancies
that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting
commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next ses-
sion. (&) He IS to receive ambassadors and other public minis-
ters, to commission all the officers of the United States, and to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed, (c)
ident hu leceived the adrice and C0DS«tit of the Senate to tba sppointment, tud
iku aigiiBd the uommiBaioD, the appointment is final and complete, and the person
appointed ii entitled to tlie poueuion of the conuniMioD, and to hold the office nuli]
conatitntionallj removed. The principle settled in that case was, that the official
acte of the heads of the eiecntiTe department, is argane of the Preddent, which are
<^ a political natnre, and reat, under the Conatitation and laws, in execntive discretion,
are not within judicial cf^ninnce. Bat when datiea are impoeed upon such hesda,
•fleeting the righte of indiTidoals, and which the President cannot lawfully forbid, —
ai, tar instance, to record a patent, or fumiah the copy of a record, -- the penon, in
that case, is the officer of the law, and amenable thereto in the ordinary course of
jortice. lb. 170, 171.*
(i) In the official opinion given by Hr. Wirt, as Attorney-General of the United
States, to the President, in 1828, he conBider»d that, according to the reason and
spirit of the Conetitntion, the Preddent has the rightful power to snpply vacancies
in offloe existing when the sppointment Is mode during the rece«s of the Senate,
though the vacancy did happtn before the adjournment of the Senate. The inetancea
he gives of the neceanty of such a oonstmction and power u« thoee in which it was
nearly or quite impossible to have tent in a nomination before the ai^oommeut of
the Senate. Op. Att.-Gen. i. 47S.
(«) Art 2, sec. 2, 8. It was considered, in the message of President Jackson to
Congress, of the 2lEt December, 1886, in relation to Texas, to be an unsettled question
to whom, under the government of the United States, strictly belonged the power of
* Pod, 822, n. 1.
conaent of the Senate ; but this exception him of the fact tlut the edicts of certain
doM not apply to the courte of the territo- natione hae been eo revoked or modified
Ties or of Aliska. McAllister v. United that they did not riolate the uentral cam-
States, 141 XJ. S. 174; 22 Ct. CI. 318 ; merce of the United States. " The same
Wingard e. United Btate^ Ul U. S. 201. principle would apply in the case of the
Aa to his power to remove territorial enspension of au act upon a contingency
judges, see also 24 Am. L. Rev. SS6. to be ascertained by the Prexident, and
(z) It appears to be competent for made known by his proclamatiun." Har-
Coi^ress to msbe the revival of a statute Ian, J., in Field v. Clark, 148 U. S. 049,
depend upon the proclamstton of the OSS, citing The Brig Aurora, 7 Craueh,
Preaideat, showing the ascertainment by 882.
TOL. I. — 28 [363]
;abyG00<^lc
* 289 JUEISPRODENCE OF [PART IL
The propriety and simplicity of these duties speak for them*
selves. The power of receiving foreign ministers includea in it
the power to dismiss them, since he aloue is the organ of com*
raunicatioQ with them, the represeutative of the people in all
diplomatic negotiations, and accountable to the community not
only for the execution of the law, but for the competeot qualifica-
tions and conduct of foreign agents.
7. His RuponslbUitT. — In addition to all the precautionsVhich
have been mentioned to prevent abuse of the executive trust in
the mode of the President's appointment, his term of offioe,
*289 and the * precise and definite limitations imposed upon the
exercise of his power, the Gonstitutiou has also rendered
him directly amenable by law for mal-administration. The invio*
lability of any officer of government is incompatible witli the
republican theory, as well as with the principles of retributive
justice. The President, Vice-President, aud.all civil officers of
the United States may be impeached by the House of Repre-
sentatives for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and mie-
demeanors, and upon conviction by the Senate removed from
office, (a) If, then, neither the sense of duty, the force of
public opinion, nor the transitory nature of the seat, are suf-
ficient to secure a faithful dischai^ of tiie executive trust, but
the President will use the authority of his station to violate the
Constitution or law of tiie land, the House of Representatives
con arrest him in his career, by resorting to the power of im-
peachment.^ (a:)
I have now finished a general survey of the office of President
of the United States; and, considering the nature and extent (rf
original!? recogmzliig a tie* sUte. It vu either neiMMrily iiiTolT«d in aonifl of &t
great powen givin to CougreBS, or in that giTcii to the President and SeniLte, to form
treatLes with foreign powen, and to appoint ambaaaadon and other pnblic miniiter^
or in that coofsmd npon the Pregident to nceivB mioUten from forugn natjona. It
ma admitted to he moat expedient, that the recognition of the independence of a
newly asinmed atate shoald he left to the deciaion of Congieie, and eipecially wha
the exercise of the power *onId probably lead to war.
(a) [Art 1, sec. 2, fi, aec. 8, a, and] art. 2, kc. 1.
I Poit, Bi3, n. 1.
(i) In England, an impeachment by or by the prorogatioD or disMlntioii of
the Commons in Parliament cannot be Parliament. See T^ke'a Corutitatiosal
defeated by the pardon of the wrereigD, History of the House of Lorda, p. 233.
[354]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Xm.] THE UNITED BTATB8. * 289
the powers neceBaaril; incident to that station, it vas difficult to
constitute the office in such a manner as to render it equally safe
and useful, by combining in the structure of its powers a due
proportion of energy and responsibility. The first is necessary
to maintain a firm administration of the law; the second is
equally requisite, to preserve inviolate the liberties of the people.
The authors of the Constitution appear to have surveyed the two
objects with profound discernment, and to have ot^nized the
executive department with consummate skill.
[866]
sObyGoOl^
JDEISFBU1>£N'CE OF \ViSI U,
LECTURE XIV.
OF THE JITDICUBT DEPARTMENT.
As the judiciary power is intrusted with the administratioD of
justice, it interferes more visibly and uniformly than any other
part of goverament with all the interesting oonceros of social
life. Personal security and private property rest entirely upon
the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of
justice. In the survey which is to be taken of the judiciaiy
eatablishmeat of the United States, we will in the present lec-
ure consider, (1.) The judges, in relation to their appointment,
the tenure of their office, and their support and rettpousibility ;
(2.) The structure, powers, and officers of the several courts.
1. Of tbe Appoiotmuit, Tenure, and Sopport of the Jadgee. —
j The Constitution (a) declares that " the judicial power of the
United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in
such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish." In this respect it is mandatory upon the
legislature tu establish courts of justice commensurate with the
judicial power of the Union. Congress have no discretion in
the case, (fi) They were bound to vest the whole judicial
power, in an original or appellate form, in the courts mentioned
and contemplated in the Constitution, and to provide courts
inferior to the Supreme Court, in which the judicial power,
unabsorbed by the Supreme Court, might be placed. Tbe judi-
cial power of the United States is, in point of origin and
■ 291 title, equal " with tbe other powers of the government, and
is as exclusively \'eHted in the courts created by or in pur-
suance of the Constitution, as the legblative power is vested in
Congress, or tlie executive power in the President, (a) The
(a) Art 8. wc 1.
(b) Mutin B. Himter, 1 WheatoD, 328-337.
(a) Story, Comin. lii. pp. 4411-iuO.
[356]
;abyGoO<^lc
I£CI. XIT.J THE UNITED STATES. " 292
Pteeident is to nominate, and, by and with the advice and con-
Bent of the Senate, to appoint " jadges of the Supreme Court,
and all other officers whose appointments are not therein other-
wise provided for, and which shall be establUhed by law. But
Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior
officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the
courts of law, or in the heads of departments." (i) It has never
been judicially settled, but it has been very authoritatively and
very wbely settled by the uniform practice of the government,
that the judges of the District Courts are not inferior officers,
whose appointments might be withdrawn by law from the Presi-
dent and Senate, and placed in other bands. ~
The advantages of the mode of appointment of pubUc officers
by the President and Senate have been already considered. The
mode is peculiarly fit and proper in respect to the judiciaiy depart-
ment. The just and vigorous investigation and punishment of
every species of fraud and violence, and the exercise of the power
of compelling every man to the punctual performance of his
contracts, are grave duties, not of the most popular character,
though the faithful dischai^e of them will certainly command
the calm approbation of the judicious observer. The fittest men
would probably have too much reservedness of manners, and
severity of morals, to secure an election resting on universal
Bufiage. Kor can the mode of appointment by a large delibera-
tive assembly be entitled to unqualified approbation. There are
too many occasions, and too mucli temptation for intrigue, party
prejudice, and local interest, to permit such a body of men to
act, in respect to such appointments, with a sufficiently
single and steady regard for the general welfare. * In * 292
ancient Rome, the prtetor was annually chosen by the
people, but it was in the comitia by centuries, and the choice was
confined to peraous belonging to the patrician order, until the
close of the fourth century of the city, when the office was
rendered aoceaaible to the plebeians ; and when they became
licentious, says Montesquieu, (a) the office became corrupt. The
popular elections did very well, as he observes, so long as the
people were free, and mf^nanimous, and virtuous, and the pub-
lic was without corruption. But all plane of government which
Buppose the people will always act with wisdom and integrity are
(6) Const. >rt. 2, lec. 2. (a) Esprit <lci Lois. liv. Tiii. c. 12.
[357]
sObyGoOl^lc
"298 JOBISPBUDENCE OP [PABT IL
plainly Utopiao, and contrary to oniform experience. OoTem-
ment must be framed for man aa he ia, and not for man as he
would be if he were free from vice. Without referring to
those cases in our own country, where judges have been annually
elected by a popular assembly, we may take the less invidious
case of Sweden. During the diets which preceded the revolution
of 1772, the states of the kingdom sometimes appointed conunis-
siouers to act as judges. The strongest patty, says Cattean, (i)
prevailed in the tri^s that came before them, and persons oon-
demned by one tribunal were acquitted by another.
f'^ By the Constitution of the United States, (c) " the judges,
both of the Supreme and inferior courts, are to hold their offices
during good behavior ; and they are, at stated times, to receive
for their services a oompensarion which shall not be -diminisbed
during their continuance in office." The tenure of the office,
by rendering the judges independent both of the government
and people, is admirably fitted to produce the fi-ee exercise of
tjudgment in the dischai^eof their truBt.v This principle, which
has been the subject of so much deserved eulogy, was derived
from the English constitution. ((2) The English judges
* 293 anciently held their seats ' at the pleasure of the king,
and so does the lord chancellor to this day. It is easy
to perceive what a dangerous influence this must have given to
the king in the administration of justice, in cases where the
claims or pretensions of the crown were brought to bear upon
the rights of a private individual. But, in the time of Lord
Coke, (a) the barons of the exchequer were created during good
behavior, and so ran the comnuBsions of the common-law judges
at the restoration of Charles II. (b') It was still, however, at the
(i) View of Sweden, c. 8. (t) Art. 3, see. 1.
(ct) The high Judicial ofBcer in the ftndent kingdom of Angon, called the Jna-
tida. ftnd Appointed bj (he king, hsTing repeatedly and boldl; protected priT&t*
indiTldoBli from the persecutioni of the crowo, wu, in more than one InaUnoe.
removed from office at the instance of the king. To guard i^gainat the like prottim-
tion of the independent discharge of duty, it was prorided. by a statute of Alfonao
v., In 1442, that the Justice should continue in office during life. nmembU amlg «n
$affieiaa anat by the king and the carttt milad. Preacott's HisL of Ferdinand and laa-
bella, 1. InL 108. This was tlie most andent precedent in favor of the establishment
of an bidepetident judiciary, and it did great credit to the wisdom and spirit of the
free st«tes of Aragon.
(a) 4 lost 117.
lb) 1 Sid. 2. Cbarle* I., in his message to Parliament, Jnlj C, 1641, btfondiiK
[868]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XIV ,3 THE UNITED STATES. " 294
pleasure of the crown to prescribe the form of the commisBioti,
until the Act of Settlement of 12 .aod 13 Wm. III. o. 2, which
waa in the nature of a fundamental charter, imposing further
limitations upon the crown, and adding freuh securities to the
Protestant succession, and the rights and hberties of the subject.
It established that the commissions of the judges be made quamdiu
te bene getaerint, though they were still to be removable upon the
address of both houses of Parliament. (<;} The excellence of this
provision has recommended the adoption of it tiy other nations
of Europe. It was incorporated into one of the modem reforms
of the constitution of Sweden, (if) and it was an article in the
French constitution of 1791, -and in the French constitution of
1795, and it was inserted in the coustitutional charter of Louis
XVIII. The same stable tenure of the judges was contained in
a provision in the Dutch constitution of 1814, and it is a principle
which likewise prevails in most of our state constitutions, and.
in some of them, under modifications more or leas extensive and
injurious.
In monarchical governments, the independence of the
■judiciary is essential to guard the rights of the subject • 294
from the injustice- oi the crown ; but iu republics it is
equally salutary, in protecting the Constitution and laws from
the encroachments and the tyranny of faction. Laws, however
wholesome or necessary, are frequently the object of temporary
aversion, and sometimes of popular resistance. It is requisite
that the courts of justice should be able, at all times, to present
a determined countenance gainst all licentious acts ; and to deal
impartially and truly, according to law, between suitors of every
description, whether the cause, the question, or the party be
popular or unpopular. To give them the courage and the firm-
ness to do it, the judges ought to be confident of the security of
them of haTiDg ligned the bill for »boU«hing the High CoramiMlon Court and the
Star Chamber, added. b1»o, tlmt he bad granted that the judges should thereafter
hold their plnpe* tfuamdia te bent gataint. Hume, in hi» History of England, »i. 428,
am,j*, that thU grant of the judges' patents daring good behaTior was made at the
request of the ParliamenL
(e) The English judges, notwithstanding the form of their commiHinni, continued
to consider that the demise of the crom vacated their eeats. But thi« imperfection,
U one reaUj existed, was remoTsd by the statute of 1 Geo, III„ enacted at the recom-
mendatkin of the Idog.
id) Cattean'a View of Sweden, c. &.
[359]
^cibyGoQl^lc
■ 295 JUBISPBUDEKCE OF [PABI IL
their salaries and station. Nor U an independent jadiciary less
useful aa a check upon the legislatiTe power, which is sometimes
disposed, from the force of party, or the temptations of interest, to
make a sacrifice of constitutional rights ; and it is a wise and nec-
essary principle of our gOTomment, as will be shown hereafter in
the course of these lectures, that legislative acts are subject to the
severe scrutiny and impartial interpretation of the courts of jus-
tice, who are bound to regard the Coustitntion as the paramount
law, and the highest evidence of the will of the people, (a)
The provision for the permanent support of the judges is well
calculated, in addition to the tenure of their office, to give them
the requisite independence. It tends, also, to secure a succession
of learned men on the bench, who, in consequence of a certain
undiminished support, ase enabled and induced to quit the lucra-
tive piirsuits of private business for the duties of that important
station. The Constitution of the United States, on this subject,
was an improvement upon all our previously existing oonstitu-
tioDS. By the BngUsh Act of Settiement of 12 & 13 Wil-
liam ni., it was declared that the salaries of the judges should
be ascertained and ettahlwhed; but by the statute of 1 Geo. III.,
the salaries of the judges were absolutely secured to them during
the continuance of their commissions. The constitution of Mass^
cbusetts followed the declaration in the English statute of Wil-
liam, and provided that permaDent and honorable salaries
• 295 should be eetablished by law for the judges ; but • this was
not Bofficiently precise and definite to guard agunst all
evasion ; and the more certain provision in the Constitution of
the United States has been wisely followed, in the subsequent
constitutions of most of the individual states. In Pennsylvania,
the judges of the Supreme Court, and the president judges of the
courts of common pleas, by the constitution of that state, are to
receive, at stated times, an adequate compensation for their
services, " to be fixed by law, and not to be diminished during
their continuance of office." The le^slature, by act, in 1848,
repealed the act of 1839, which had increased the salaries of the
(n) The protection of law «nd libertj frora the eDcroBchnienti of the torerelgD
WBB an KToved purpow oi the inilitutiDn of the JaUida In the Ara^neae conetitii-
don, DB quid ftutem damui deCrimenliTe lege* kut libert«te« noatrs pAtiantnr, jndez
quidam mediiu adesto ad queni ■ rege pravocare, «i aliqnein lieaerit, injuriaaqn*
arcere li quai fonan reipub. intuleric, jiu fasque eato. Blancai, Commentarii, 26,
cited in 1 PreKott, Ferdinand and bab«Ua, Int. 107, a. 59
[360]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECr. nv.] THE DNTPED STATES. • 296
judges ; and they also, by act of 1841, assessed upon the salaries
of the ju<^es a tax of two per cent, which the state treasurer
retaiDed. The invalidity of the statutes reducing the salaries and
assessing a tax thereon was afterwards adjudged as being un-
coDstitutionai, and a peremptory mandamut was awarded to the
state treasurer to pay the salary so retained, free of the reduction
and of the taxation. Commonwealth ex rdat. Hepburn v. Mann,
5 Watts & Sei^. 408. The authority of the constitutional pro-
vision and the void nature of the statutes were illustrated and
enforced in the opinion of the Supreme Court, as given by Mr.
Justice Rogers. But the decision of the court has been ques-
tioned, on the ground that the increased salary was subject to
legislative control, under the restriction, however, that the allow-
ance was not to be lessened in respect to the judges, or any of
them, below that point at which it stood when tliey respectively
came into office. This last construction is supported by the
Federalist, No. 79, and by Mr. Justice Story in his Commentaries,
in the remarks on a similar constitutional provision under the
United States. The constitution of New York, as amended in
1821, is an exception to this remark, and it left the judiciary
department in a more dependent condition, and under greater
disabilities, than it found it, and greater than in any of those
states in the Union, or in any of those governments in Europe,
whose constitutions had been recently reformed, (jt)
{a) By the cotutltntioiu of HMMcboietU, Delftwu«, Marjland, Virginia, Ken>
tacky, Hortli CaroIlnB, Sonth Cuoliiu, Florida, MiMonri, and IU!do!i, tlie Judges of
the Supreme Courti hold their offlcei daring good beharjor. Thit was tlie caie in
PeDnajlrania under the coDititution at 1790; bat by the amended conititutiDn of
1638, the toinre □( the judgei, ai to the term, ira« reduced ; that of the Jndgei nf the
Supreme Conrt to fifteen jean, and of the preiideut Judgea to ten jeart, and of the
auocLite jadges to fire jean. Thii wai alio the case in Loaiaiana, hdUI the new
comtitntioii of that itate, in 1845, which reduced the term of office to eight year*. In
the ftMte* of Maine, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, thej hold during good bebavior,
or until terentj jean of age, and in Miuouri unlit aixtj-five, and In New York, until
lately, for [until] ilxty jeart of age. In Tenneuee, the judgei of the Supreme Court
hold tb^ office* (or twelt e yeart, and of the inferior courta for eight yeara. In
Arkanaai, the Judgea of the Supreme Cotirt hold their office* for eight yean, and the
jndge* of the Circuit Courti for four jean ; in the itatea of New Jertey, Ohio, Hlcb-
igan, and Indiana, thej hold for the term of leven yean; in Alabama, Misniesippi,
and TexM, lix jeart ; and in Iowa, for four jeara. In Vermont and Kliode Islaod,
thej are annually elected. In Georgia, the judges nf the Supreme Court for Ihe Cor-
rection of Errors are to be elected for a term of yean, to be preacribed by law, and
the judge* of the Superior Court for the term of fouryeara. The judge* of tba
Supreme Conrt coiuUt of three, and by alatute are elected for aiz yeara. The new
[861 J
sObyGoOl^lc
* 296 JOBISPBDDENCE OF [PABT II.
[ Bat though the Constitutioii of the United States has rendered
the courts of justice independent of undue influence from the
coDBtitutioii of Kbode laUnd, which wu mdopled in 1342, iDd went into opentiaa in
Mkf, 1843, improved the tenure of the judiciil office, hj declmrmg that the jodgei <it
the Supreme Court ^otild be elected bj the legulsmre, and hold their tOat
reipectivelj until the place of the judge be declared -racant bj a reaolutioa of iIk
legitlature paued hj a majority of all the membera elected to each house, at ^
annual teuion for the election of public officer*. Bj the ordinance of Congrtm at
July, 1787, for the goTemment of the Nortfawnt Territorf, the commiasioni of ihc
judges were to continue in force during good behavior. But the aubiequent coiud-
tDtiouB of Ohio and Indiana cut down that permanent tenure to one for MTen jean.
The couBtitntioa of Alabama, in 1S18, eatabliahed the judicial temire to bedarii^
good behavior ; but the couttltation hat been aince ipedallj killed in that paitira-
lar, 10 a« to change the teuure to the term of ilx jeai*. And hy the flnt coiutitiitioa
of the State of Miaiiuippi, in 1607, the jndgee held their office! during good behivitv,
or until tlztj-flve jean of age, and were appointed bf tlie joint vote of the two bauM
of the legulatnre, given viva voce, and recorded. But bj the conititnUon, ai tnxaAei
and reordained in 1833, everj officer in the gOTemment, — legiilative, ezecntlTe, lad
judicial, — ii elected bj the univenal inflrageof the people; that ii, bj eveij fnc
white male citizen of twentj-one yean of age, who haa reaided within the Male tor
one year preoeding, and for the lait four monthi within the county, dtj, or town in
which he oOen to vote. The judge* of the Supreme Court of Erron and AppetU
are thoa choeen by dlatricta for ax year*. The chancellor 1b elected for nx jean ij
the elector! of the whole state. The judges of the Circuit Courts are elected in dif.
tricts for four years. The judges of probate* and clerks of courts are elected for tm
years, Ac This was carrying the democratic principle bejond all precedent tha«-
t«fore in this country. In all the other states of the Cnion (at least undl very
recently) the judges of the higher court* of law aud eqnitj received their appoisi-
menti either from the governor and council, or governor and senate, — as in Miine,
Haisachuaetts, New Hampsliire, New Tork, New Jersey, Maryland, Kentucky, In^-
ana, Louisiana. Missouri, and Michigan ; or from the governor alone, — as in Fran-
sjlvania and Delaware ; or from the legislature, — as in Vermont, Rhode Island.
Connecticut, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennenee, Ohio,
Illinois, Iowa, Alabama, and Arkansas. In Indiana, there Is a peculiar qnaliflcstion
in the judicial appointments ; for the Supreme Court is appointed by the gorenor
■ and senate, the presidents of the Circuit Conrts by the legislature, and the assodsu
circuit Judges are eltdtd by the people. By the revised constitnlion of New Tork of
1816, a momentous revolution wai effected in the mode of appointment, orguin.
tion, and tenure of the Judicial department, as well as in the appointment of ofllcen
generally. It was ordained that there should be a Coyrt of AppaiU, composed of
eight Judges, of whom four, to be elected by the electon of the state, for d^t ynn,
and four selected from the class of Justices of the Supreme Court having the sbortni
time to 'serve ; and the J udges were to be so classlfled, that one should be elecltd
every second year. There was to be a Suprrme t^urt, having general Juiisdictloo io
law and equity. The state was to be divided into eigAt judicial dittrietM, and to hsvt '
Jburjutlieeso/lhe Supreme Court in each diilrtcl, and to be SO cUssifled, that one of the
Justice* of each district ihalt go out of office at the end of eveiy two years ; and aftrr
the ezpiratioD of their term* under such classification, the tenn of their office ihsll
be eight years. One or more of the judges of the Supreme Court, who is not a judge
ot the Court of Appeals, to be duly designated to preside at the general terms of tlis
[862]
sObyGoOl^lc
tBCT. 117.] THE UNITED STATES, • 295
other departments, it has made them amenable from any corrupt
violation of their trust. Tbe Hoiiae of Repredentatives, as we
■lid eonrta to be held in tbe terenl diitrlctt, and uiy three or more of the Juiticet
(the pieiiding judge to daignated to be one) to hold such geoenU term*. Aaj oDe
or more of Ihem may hold ipecial termi and C'l'mul Cmtrti, and preaide in court* of
Oyr owt Termata in any county. The judges of tbe Conn of Appeals and JuaticM
otibe Sapreme Court are to have a compemaUoa (or their aerTlcei, not to be increased
CO' dimiaiihed during their continuance in office. They are not to hold any other
oflke or pabiic trust, nor exercise tm; power of appointment to pahlic office. TIk
jullces of the Snpreme Court and judges of Uie Court of AppeaU may be remoTed
bf cDDcnrrent resolntions of tno'thirds of all the memben elected to the assembly,
ind a majority of all the member* elected to the senate. All other Judicial officers
iDd jniEice* of the peace may be retnoved by the senate, on the recotntnendation of
tbe iDTeraor. The judges of the Court of Appeals to be elected by tbe electors of
(lie itste, and the justice* of the Supreme Court by the electors of the several
judicial districts. One anaiti/ jvdgt to be elected in each of the counties of the state,
Hcept the dty of New Tork, to hold his office for four years, and to hold the County
Coon, and perform the duties of surrogate. Tbe County Court to have no original
dril joriidiction, except in special prescribed cases. But tbe county Judge and two
jmicei of the peace to hold CoarU of Seaions, with criminal Jurisdiction ; and he is
to iTceive an annual salary, to be flzed by the board of supervisors, and to be neither
increased nor diminished during his continuance in office. Justices of the peace, for
service* in Courts of Seesiona, to be paid a per diem allowance out of the county
treanuy. The legislature may provido for the election of a surrogate in counties
whett the population exceeds 40,000; and they may confer equity jurisdiction, in
•peciil cases, upon the county judge, and establish Inferior local courts, of civil and
niminal jurisdiction, in cides. Justices of the peace are to be elected in each town
St ttustr annual town meeting, whose term of office is to be four years, and they may
be removed in a due manner by the county, city, or state courts, as prescribed. The
clerk of the Court of Appeals is to be ex officio clerk of the Supreme Court, and to be
cbosan by the elector* of the state, and to hold his office for three years, snd to be
paid out of the public treaaury. No Judicial t^cer, except justices of tbe peace, shall
receive any fees or perquisites of office.
This is the substance of the new judicial system, under the revised constitution of
Ne* Tork, snd its very democratic character pervades the whole instrument The
wntral appointing power, with the extensive patronage which, under the prior con-
■tilaiioni of 1TT7 and 1821, existed In the governor and senate, iabroken up and
diffused through every part of the body politic. All offices of any moment now
ml on popular election. Besides the judicial officers already mentioned, the Secre-
tary of State, Comptroller, Treasurer, Attorney-General, a State Engineer and Sur-
veyor, tbe Canal Commisaionen, tbe Inspectors of State Prisoni, the Clerk of the
Court of Appeals, Sheriffs, Clerks of CounUe*, the Segister and Clerk of the city
of Xew Tork, District Attorneys, and generally all local officers, are to be chosen by
popular election.
Tbe revised constitution of New Tork of 1646 Is more democratic than any of the
•late cimstitntions in the Union, and it contains more specific retlrictlons and limita-
tion* on the exercise of legislative power than are anywhere to be met with The
convention seem to have moat anxiously guarded agaiaH[,lhe influences of gclflsliness,
inlilgne, favoritism, and corruption, which have been supposed to have heretofore
affected the action of tbe legislative departtuenl. All depends non upon the discreet
[8681
;abyGoO<^lc
* 295 JDBI8PBCDEHCE OP [PABT IL
have alxeadf seeii, is inveBted with the power of impeachment,
and the judges may, by that process, be held to answer be-
fore the Senate, and, if convicted, they may be removed from
office.
3. ItB 0«naTai FowerB. — The federal judiciary being thos esteb-
lished on principles which are essential to maintain that deport-
ment in a proper state of independence, and to secure the pure
and vigorous administration of the law, the Constitution proceeded
to designate, with comprehensive precision, the objects of its juris-
diction. The judicial power extends (£) ' to all cases in law and
equity arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the
Union ; to all oases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers,
and consuls ; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ;
to controversies to which the United States shall be a parly;
exerciie of the right of BuSrage ; utd u the conrenlion, ia their drcoUr ■ddrea*.
truly obaerred, " the happine«a and progreu of the people of thii state will, toAtt
God, be in their own band*." Perhaps the most Dowlse feature in the reriied ccoitt-
tntinn U the election, by untTeraal anflrage, and for companttiTely ihort periodi, of
all judicial officer). The convention have diiregarded, in this reepect, the letMm
taught by the former conatitiitioni of 1777 and 1821, ai well ai the wiadom of ilw
Constitution of the United States. The organization of the judicial departiDent ii
not so essential as the supply of inteUigent, learned, and honest judges to admiiusieT
the laws. The danger to be apprebeaded, as all past history teaches us, in gOTon-
ments resting in all their parte on uniTerial gufiVage, it the spirit of faction, aod the
influence of actire, ambitious, reckless, and nnprinclpled demagogues, cotcbimDf,
controlling, and abusing the popular Toice for their own selflsh purposes. Much
more grievous would be such results when applied to the election of judges, for thu
would tend to break down and destroy the independence and Integrity of the admia-
Ittration of justice.
The constitutional prorision for making judges elective for short periods, by imt'
Tetsal suffrage, is contagions, and every new constitutional reform or ettaUiihuHDl
tends that way. To the conslitntion of Wisconsiu, established in 1846, the judge* ol
the highest courts were Co be elected for five years only.
In respect to the compensation of the judges of the Superior Courts, the constiti-
tlODS of the stales of Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Vir
ginla, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Ohio, Indiana, IlliiMU,
Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi. Arkansas, and Louisiana either establish or direct
the salsries to be fixed by law, and Chat they shall not be diminished daring the con-
tinuance of the judges in office. In New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Kaituckv,
adequate and permanent, or fixed salaries, are directed to be provided by taw. b
other states (and New York ia one of them) the compensation of the judges, and Ibe
duration of it, rest entirely in legislative discretion; for though the statute (sain
New York) may declare that the Judges shall have a specified annual salary, tbt
statute la liable, at any future time, to legislative repeal.
(6) Art 8, sec. 2. Amendments to the ConatJtution, art 11.
' Port, 326, n. 1.
[3«4]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XIV.] THE UNITED STATES. "296
to controversies between two or more states; to controversies
between a state, when plaintiff, and citizens of another state, or
foreign citizens or subjects ; to controversies between citizens of
different states, and between citizens of the same state, claiming
lands under grants of different states; and between a
state or citizens * thereof, and foreign states; and between *296
citizens and foreigners. The propriety and fitness of these
jadicial powers seem to result, as a necessary consequence, from
the union of these states in one national government, and they
may be considered as requisite to its existence. The judicial
power in every government must be coextensive with the power
of legislation. It follows, as a consequence, that the judicial
department of the United States is, in the last resort, the final
expositer of the Constitution, as to all questions of a judicial
nature, (a) ^ {x) Were there no power to interpret, pronounce, and
(a) The ?edenIiBt, ffo«. 38, S9, BO ; Store's Comm. on the Conat. i. pp. 860, 962,
3S3, notes ; Manhall, C. J., in Coheni v. Vii^inio, 6 Wbeaton, 2S1, 384. The whole
qnestioD K fully eiBmined, and all the contempotar; diBcuaaionB ui relation to it
placed in a atriking view, in Story on the Conat i. pp. 814-3S2.
' Bat the judicial pover seems to be for allowed. If . . . the Preddent corn-
limited aa against a co-ordinate branch of plies with the order of the court, and
the goremraent. For wheD an lojauctioD lefaeee to eiecnte the actx of Congress,
wu Boagbt to restrain the President from . . . may not the House of Kepresentatives
curying ont the Keconstruction Acts on impeach the FrMident for saoh refneal T "
the groond of their Alleged nnconstita- Hieaiseippi v. Johnaon, t Wall. 476, 600 ;
tionality, Chase, C J., said : " Suppose pori, S38, n. 1 ; anU, 2G4, n. (6).
the bill filed, and the injunction prayed
(x) The conrta ore not given an im- nitimate and supreme fonction of courts.
mediate and general snparriiion of the It is legitimate only in the last resort,
constitationalit; of the acts of the legists- and as a necessity in the detenninstion of
ian. In Chicago & Grand Tmnk Hy. Co. real, earnest and vital controversy between
>. Wellmaa, 143 U. S. 3SS, 345, Brewer^ individuals. It never was the thonght
J., said : " Whenever, in pnranance of an that, by means of a friendly suit, a portf
honest and aetnal antagonistic assertion beaten in the lepalatnre could transfer io
ofrighta by oneindividual against another, the courts an inqairy aa to the constitn-
tbeni is presented a qnestion iuvoWing the tionality of the Ipgialstive act."
validity of any act of any legislature, The giving of advisory opinions " is
State or Federal, and the decision neees- not the exercise of the judicisl function at
■arilj rests on the competency of the leg- all, and the opinions thus given have not
islatore to so enact, the court must, In the quality of jndicial authority." Prof.
the exercise of its solemn duties, deter- Jamea B.Tbajer, in a learned article upon
niina whether the Act be constitutional or The Origin and Scope of the American
not ; hot such an exercise of power Is the Doctrine of Constitntional Law (7 Hsi>
;abyG00<^lc
* 297 JDBISPBUDENCE OF [PAKT II.
execute the lav, the goTemmest would either perish through its
own imbecility, as was the oaae with the articles of confederation,
or other powers must be assumed by the legislative body, to the
destruction of liberty. That the interpretatnon of treaties, and
the cases of foreign ministers and maritime matters, are properly
confided to the federal courts, appears from the close connection
those cases have with the peace of the Union, the confusion that
different proceedings in the separate states would tend to produce,
and the responsibility which the United States are under to for-
eign nations for the conduct of all its members. The other cases
of enumerated jurisdiction are evidently of national concern, and
they constitute one of the principal motives to union, and one of
t^e principal cases of its necessity, which was the insorance of
(Jhe domestic tranquillity .< The want of a federal judiciary to em-
brace these important subjects was once severely felt in the Ger-
man confederacy, and disorder, license, and desolation reigned
in that unhappy country, until the establishment of the im-
perial ehamber by the Emperor Maximilian, near the close of
the fifteenth century; and that juriqdictioa was afterwards the
great source c^ order and tranquillity in the Germanic body, {b)
T' The judicial power, as it originally stood, extended to suits
prosecuted againtt one of the United States by citizens of another
state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state ; but the states
were not willing to submit to be arraigned as defendants
*297 before the federal courts, at the instance *of private per-
sons, be the cause of action what it might The decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of ChUktHm
v. The State of Georgia, (dL^lecided in 179S, in which itwu
(t) Bobertson'ii Chnlei V. i. 1SS, iit, 3S7. (<i}J IMIm^ flsT
Tud L. Rer. 129, 16S| ; which «rtide itentUry CommiKiQiien, (Col) 3fi P»i!-
■tgnea that the poirer nf ths eoarU to Rep. 916, the Siipi«me Court of Cdonda
declare IrginlatiTe Acta conatitatioiMll; in- declined to give each «n opiiiioti a fvU,
valid, baa been tanuned by the coarta and Kspecting a cantroreiiy which had alicady
'v^ only inferentiiJly, and not eipreaaly, aiieen, under a atatnta already eoaetri,
derivable from the State coDititationa. eapeciallyasprimterif^htaweralibelytoba
Seeiko 2S Am. L. Bev. 014 ; 2B id. 711. involTedbyliti^lionanaingthererram,lnl
Adviaory opiniona to the legiektnre obaerred that the giving or withholdiDg
are treated ai addremad to the jndget in- of «neh opinion* did not vhoUy depad
dividnaUy and not aa a conrt, and ae n- spon the Tact whether objpctiona were or
quinnfc an individual anawer. See Joe- vere not made. See aUo /a rt Univeiii^
ticea* Opinion, 160 Hua. 693. In Rt Pen- Fond, (Col.) SS Id. 416.
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. ZIT.] THE DNITGD STATES. * 29T
adjudged that a state was suable bj citizens of aootber state, gave
much dissatisfaction, and the legislature of Georgia carried their
opposition to au open defiance of the judicitil authority. The
inexpediency of the power appeared so great, that Congress, in
1794, proposed to the states an amendment to that part of the
Constitution, and it was subsequently amended in this particular,
under the provision in the fifth article. It was declared by the
amendment, (b) that the judicial power of the United States
should not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign
state, (e) The inhibition applies only to citizens or subjects, and
does not extend to suits by a state, or by foreign states or
powers (d) They retain the capacity to sue a atate as it was
originally granted by the Constitution; and the Supreme Court
has original jurisdiction in the case of suits by a foreign state
against one of the members of the Union, (e) ' (x)
(£) Amendnwnta, art. li-
fe) Aa the United 3tatei luve no czutenee, u ■ politiod idMl being, except andor
Ihe OTgftnizatioQ of the CoiutitalioD uid laws ot the United States, it ii BBiumed as ■
principle flowing from the BDvereigntf of the United States, that the officert of the
KOTemment are not eabject to aaits for acta in th> regnlar diachaige ot their official
dntiee. Opinions of the Attorneys- General, i. ICT.
(J) The Cherokee Nation o. Qeorgia, S Peters, I ; New Jeraej if. New York, ib.
284. A tnmidantNt i> unit within the meaning of the Conatitotion, for it i* a litigation
of a right in a eonrt of JDStice, ae«1cing & danston. Weston d. City Council of
ChwleotOD, 2 Peters, 449 ; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 id. 564.
(f) Blair, J., and Ciuhinft J., in Chisholmn. State of Georgia, 2 Dallae, 419. That
»■ foreign prince or state ma; sue in our own aa well aa in the English conrts of law
■nd eqait;, see Eing of Spain v. Oliver, 1 Peteni C. C. 276 ; The Colombiaji OoTera-
1 As to the word " snit," see Bx parte Aoetria from mftking notes purporting to
HilligaD, 4 Wall, i, 112 d leq.; patt, 328, be receiTable ae money in Hungary, and
n. 1. to be guaranteed by that state, although
A foreign sorereign may sue to pre- they were not imitations of any uotee
vent injury to property of himself or bis then onrrent. Emperor of Austria v. Day
■nbjecta. On this ground Kosanth was ftKoe«ath,8DeO., F. ft J. 217. SeeHnl-
eigoined at the suit of the Emperor of lett v. Eing of Spain, 1 Dow & C 169 ;
(x) A suit ties by a foreign lOTernign in 127 U. B. 266, 290; Eing of Prussia d.
either a Federal or State Court to protect Enepper, 2S Mo. fi(>3. A foreign sorer-
the property of hia nation ; and such suit eign may be required, as a non-resident
ia not abated by bis death or deposition plaintiff, to give security for Mats when
while it ia pending. The Sapphire, 11 SQitigoponscommercisI transaction. The
Wall 1S4 ; Wiacondn *. Pelican Ins. Co., Beatrice, 36 L. J. Adm. 10 ; Bepablio of
rS67]
sobyGoOi^lc
• 297 JUBISPEDDENCE OF [PiRT n.
With these general remarks on the constitutional principles
of the judiciary department and the objects of its authority, ire
meat e. Botluchild, 1 Sim. 104 ; Eing of Spain v. UubKlo, i Bius. 2SS ; 1 Dsw,
P. C. N. B. IflG, 8. 0. No direct suit cui be mainUiued agaiiut the UitUed Sktiet,
without the aathoii^ of an act of Congtesa, nor can an; direct jadgment be awudai
against them for coats. Harahall, C. J., in Cohena ». Viigiiiia, S Wheaton, 411, 412 ;
Uaited States v. Clark^ 8 Peten, 444 ; United SUtea v. Baniej, Diat. C. Uary-
lanil, 3 Hall, L. J. 128 ; United States ». Wells, 2 Waah. ISl ; Op. Att.-Oen. iL M7,
BflS. But if au action be brought by the United Stales to recoTsr money in the hand*
of a parly, he maj, bj way of defence, aet ap any legal or equitable claim be hu
against the United States, and need not, in sncll case, be tamed round to an ^ipli-
cation to Congreaa. Act of Congress Hareh S, 1797, c. 74, sec 8, 4 ; tJaitcd
States V. Wilkins, S WJieaton, ISE, 148 ; Walton n. United States, 9 Wheaton, Ml ;
United States v. Hacdaniel, 7 Peters, IS ; United States o. Ringgold, S Peten, 163 ;
United States v. aarke, ib. 486 ; United SUtes v. Bobeaon, 9 Peters, S10 ; Suae >.
Uawkina, 10 Peters, ISfi ; Same v. Bank of the Matropolia, 15 Peters, 377. In th«
United States v. Prioleau, S H. A M. 6GS. man Bank, 1 H. & H. 605. Companfiir.
And a (aniign republic, which has been ther, Smith v. Wegnelin, L. B. 8 Ei).
recogniied by a govemmHnt, may sne in 19B; Oladatone f. Huannu Bey, 1 H. t
the oourta of tbe latter in ito own name, M. 4SS ; Penn. Uw J. Dee. 1847, pL 97.
and withont joining any party as plaintiff [Suite may be maintained by foreign nr-
who can be compelled to give discorery. ereigns in the United States courts wber-
Unlted States of America v, Wagner, L. ever they have a cauaa of action of a diil
B. 2 Ch. fiS2 ; RepobUc of Mexico v. De nature. The Sapphire, 11 Well. 164.
Arangoia, G Duer, 634. But a foreign See furtfaer, Republic of Pern r.Wegnelin,
eoreteign cannot iue, it seema, to restrain 20 L. R. Eq. 140; CoataBicav. l^lioger,
acts which only violate hii political priri- 1 Ch. D. 171. In general, a aorereipi
leges, Kossuth's Caae, tupnt ; and he can- cannot be sned in the courts of a foreign
not be sned in England for an act done jurisdiction ; but if tbe sovereign aoei in
in bis aovereign character in his own snch courts, the defendant miy Ble >
country, Duke of Bmnswick r. Eing of counterclaim or set-off. And such sarer-
HanoTcr, 2 U. L. C. 1 ; Gladatonep. Otto- sign may be joined as defendant in a mit
Costa Rica t>. Erianger, S Ch. D. 62. In former president of a foreign lepuUk can-
New York, a foreign indapendrnt gov- not be sued here, for aovereign acts of hif
emmeat, which niee as a plaintiff them, government. Hatch v. Ban, 7 Hun, SK
may be required to give secnrity for But a Court of Chancery may idminitter
costs as a non-resident, under the Code a trust fund in its cnslodj, although *
of Civil Proc % 3268. Repubiio of Hon- foreign eovereign who is interested In il
dutas t>. Soto, 112 N. Y. 310; fiepublic may not think fit to come bsforA tbe Cmrt
of Meiioow. De Amingoig, 3Abb. Pr. 470. in a suit relating thereto. ^Morgan •.
As to the status of the Pope as s foreign Laririire, L, B. 7 H. L. 423 ; L. R 7
sovereign, see 21 Journal du Droit Int. Ch. 560. The eziatence of the tnirt
835. must not be in dispute; for if this i>
A foreigngOTemmentcannotbecoarced denied with respect to ftanda inthapoa-
by suing its minister or agent Manning session of an agent of the foreign govern-
V. Nicaragna, 14 How. Pr. 517. And the ment within the jarisdictiDn, tbe soil
[Sfi8]
;abyGoO<^lc
LBCT. IIV.] THE UNITED STATES. •297
proceed to a particalar examination of the several courta of the
United States, aa ordained b; law.
OMe of the late B«nk of the United 3t&t«e, who clumed dunagw bj way of wt-off
OD a pretested bill drawn bj ihe Coited Statte, the Attomey-General, in an elaborate
official opiaioD, held that the set-off conld not be allowed in a salt bj the United
States against the bank, tar divideada dne the United States, and withheld. Op.
Att-Gen. iL Wi, 932. But in the eame case of the Bank of the United SUtee o. The
United States, in 2 How. 711, the United States soed the bank for dividends withheld ;
and the bank, by way of Mt-off, claimed Ifi per cent damigea, nnder the law of Harf-
land (which <m this point wa« the law at the city of Washington), on a protested bill
dnwn bj the government of the United States on Fnnce, and taken by the bank aa
first indorsee, and presented at Paris for payment, and protested for non-payment,
and taken np fay • banking-honse in Paris, tupra protttt, for the honor of the Bank of
the United States, which was the Gnt iDdoiser. It was held, by a m^ority of the
eoDit, that the bank, on satisfying the banking-honse in Paris, became the lawful
bolder of the bill, and as inch holder entitled t« the damages by way of set.off against
to obtain property in the jorisdiction of United States. Hill v. United States, 0
the eooT^ on which both plaintiif and the How. 3S6 ; United States v. HcLemore,
foRJgn eoTerdgn hare chums. Stroasberg 4 How. SS8 ; The Siren, T Wall. 153, 2B1 ;
V. Cost* lUca, a L. T. IBS. The prop- Case ». Tetrell, II WaU. 199 ; ilL 171,
erty of a foreign somreign is also exempt n. 1. And a state may withdraw its cou-
from molestation, with certain eiceptiooa. sent after a suit baa been begun against
VaTaasenr v. Kmpp, 9 Ch. D. SSI ; The it. BesTs n. Arkansas, SO How. G27. [i^
Chaikieh, 42 L. J. Adm. 17. — b.] Carr t.. United States. 98 U. S. 433 ;
As to snits to which a state is a party, United States i>. Lee, lOS U. S. 19S. In
see pb 100 and notes. this last case, it is held, in an elsborate
It is not oncommoQ in modem times opinion by Hr. Justice Miller, that an
for sorerelgn powers to allow proceedings action of qectment will lie sgMnst offi-
■gainat themselves in their own courts, oers of the government in possession of
Bot in the absence of ststnte, the old prin- property uaed for public parposcs, and
dple has bsen held applicable to the held only for the United States, and
cannot proceed in the absence of sacb gov- The only excsptions to the mle that a
etnment. Wright v. Mills, 63 L. T. ISS. foreign sovereign or State cannot be saed
See Gladstone v. Ottoman Bank, 1 H. Jt in the English courts, are: {l)Whsn he
H. 505 i Twyoroes v. Dreyfoa, G Ch. D. sues as plaintiff, he is liable, when just,
((05. The negotiation by a government to respond upon the defendant's counter*
of a loan in a foreign country does not claim or cross-action ; (2) notice may be
introdnce into the oontraot the peooliar orderad to him of a salt against ftinds in
UwBofsnchconntry. Smith n. Weguelin, the hands of third parties within the jar-
L. R. 8 £q. 212 ; Goodwin v. Robart^ 1 isdictlDn. Strousberg v. Republic of Costa
App. Gas. 476 ; L. K. 10 Ex. 76, 337. A Bica, 44 L. T. {n. s.) 199. The proper^
suit cannot bs maintained in England upon of a foreign sovereign cannot be reached
the bonds of a foreign govemmenL Ibid.; by asnit in rem. The Cunstitution, 4 P.
Croach v. Credit Fonoier of England, L. D. 39 ; The Parlement Beige, 6 P. D. 197.
B. 8 Q. B. 874 ; Twyoross r. Dreyfus, fi In The ChsrHeh, L. R. 4 Adm. A See.
Ch. B. 605. CB, it was said that a sovereign who aa'
VOI-I. — 24 [8691
;abyG00<^lc
* 298 rDBtSFBUDGNCE OP < [PABT IL
*298 3. Jnttodlotloii of tb« Snpram* Gonit. — *The Supreme
Court was InBtituted bj the Constitution, which ordained
the United Sbtea •■ drawer, in like mumo' u my indindiial bolder of aproteatadUIl
vould be. Ht. Ch. J. Taney, who wm the Attomey-Oenenl that gave the oioiiiofi
alluded to in the fonner part of thia note, added a new opinion lonnded on the ipcdi]
ciicmnitancea of the case, against the aUowaoce of the sat-off, denpng tbst the United
States wen bonnd, either in law or equity, to pay, or the hwik entitled to claim, the
contested damagea. Independent of anything special in the case, the genenl doctrine
of the dedaion waa sound and unqneatioiitble. To entitle the party to his aet-oS^
hi* claim mnat luive been prerionaly snbmitted to the aeconnting offleert tJ tin
treasury and been disallowed, or he mnst reasonably accooiit for the omiasion. See
sec S and t of the act aforesaid. In tlie case Ex parit Hadiuzo, 7 Paters, S3T, a
subject of the King of Spain filed a Itliel in the admiralty against the SlaU of Oeirjit,
alleging tliat the state was in possession of moneys, being the proceeds (^ certun
property belonging to him, and claiming a right to institate a nit in the adminl^
far the same, and that the 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United Statai
did not take away the jaiisdiction of the conrts of the United States in suits in
admiraUy against a stAte. But on appeal from the decants of the Circuit Conrt, xu-
taining the libel, to the Supreme Court of the United States, it was held that the
proceeding in qnestion was a mere pertooal snit against a state, t« reoorer properly
; and that a private person could not commence such a snit ; and
hence that the court had jurisdictiou to jurisdiction. ChcMpeake, Ac., B. R. Ca
determine the validity of the title of the v. Killer, 10 W. Va. 408. The consent
United States. An equally elaborate dis- must be by the legislatnre. Goldsmith
senting ojdnion was delivered by Ur. e. Revenne Oatter, 0 Oreg. 250. The
Justice Gray, and concnrred in by Jus- immunity may be waived. Claih v.
ticea Woods and Bradley, and Wait^ Bamanl, 108 U. S. 436. — B. )
C. J., holding that the court had no such Court of Clainu. (z) — It was not nntil
somes the character of a trader, waivea asamned name. A certificate fnm the
his privilege ; but this view wUl not be Foreign or Colonial office, as tbe case may
taken is the Courte of the government be, is conclnsive as to such aorerngn's
against which the snit is bronght. Troy status. Highell v. SnlUn of Jobol^
ft QreenSeld Railroad n. Commonwealth, [1S94] 1 Q. B. 149 ; see SI Jonmal do
127 Uass. 4S ; United States s. Clsrk% Droit Int. 57S ; Hettihew^e Siman Appa
8 Pet. 4S6 ; Cnrran n, Arkansas, 15 How. v. Queen's Advocate, 9 App. Caa. C71, US.
S04:The Davis, 10 Wall. 16 ; Csrr d. (x) By the"BowmanAet" (3S SL at
United States, 98 U. S. 433 ; Long v. The L. 485) claims pending in Congress, which
Tampico, 13 Fed. Bep. 4S1. An aseign- involve the investigation of facts, sad
ment of a claim against a foreign govern- claims or matters pending in any eiecutite
ment, made before it is established, will department which may involve eontn-
be upheld in Equity. Pengh b. Porter, verted qneetions of law or bet, may be
112 U. S. 737- transmitted to the Court of Claims ftr
A fbrugn sovereign, residing in Eng- sdjustment. See Taylor >. United Stata^
land, cannot be sued there against his 2S Ct C1.7S ; Hook v. United States id.
will for breach of a contract of marriage 82 ; Canard v. United States, id. 433.
which he has there entered into under an The " Tucker Act" (Uar. S, 1887. S4 Sl
[870]
aqitizecibyGoQl^lc
LECT. HT.] THE UNITED 9TATB8. •298
that "the judicial power of the United States sbonld be vested
in one Supreme Court, aud in Buch inferior courtB aa Congress
that it «u not a caw wA«r< tht property vxu la £A< auUdif of a wurt qf admirally, or
inujtU miiJu* ilt jiarudielion, and I'w pomnitm of any priaaU jxnon. The jorudictioii
voidd tern to have been impliedly admitted in the ktter case. A state cannot be
■aed in its oth courts withoat its cooMtit Hicbigao State Bank v. Hutings,
Walker, Oi. (Mich.) 9. This io-an attrifaote of sovereignty and of nnivenal law. Bnt
a Tonign sovareign may volnntarilj become • party to a suit in the tribunals ot another
coontt;, and bare bis rights asserted and enforced. And it was declared in the case
otThe Exchange, 7 Cianch, IIS, that all persona and property within the territorial
jnrialiction of any sorereign were amenable to the local jniisdiotion, with aoch eicep-
tiaiia only as common naage and pablic policy had allowed. The result ia, (I.)
That no citiien of any ot the United States, or sul^ect of a foreign state, can sae a
state. {!.) That a foreign state may sne one of the United State* before the Snpteioe
Court of the United Stetes, and there only. (S.) That the United SUtea cannot be
ued. (1 ) That the United States may sne a state, and pertiaps they may, as a b<ma
JuU amignee of an individnal creditor of a state, and petbapa an indindoal state, or
a foreign state, a« such asngnee, may do it. See Hamilton's lieport on Pablic Credit
lltO, p. 9. This last point ia without any judicial support that I am aware of ; and
it may be qneationed how far voluntary assignmenta, made and accepted for the sake
of the nmedy, would be available.
IB55 that stepe wen taken to remedy this claims foanded upon any law of Congreaa,
Ulnre of justice, and the act of Feb. 21 or upon an; regulation of an eiecative
(10 U. S. St. at L. 612, c 132) eetab- department, or upon any contntct, eKpreee
Gahed a court for the investigation of cer- or implied, with the government of tlie
tain claims against the United Statea. United States, which may be suggested to
Tfaia board, however, bad no power to it by s petition filed thereiti ; and also all
claims which may be referred to aaid court
than to make a favorable or advetee re- ' by either honse of Coogress ; and it can-
pert to Congress. And it was only by not qualify its jarisdiction by mles.
tlw act of March 8, 18SS (12 U. S. St. at Clyde e. Uoited States, 13 Wsll. 88. The
L c 93, p. 7<5), that it became an inde- act of 1863, { 2, provides that petitions,
{indent ooart. It stall has the juriadic- jbc., for tbs satisfaction of surJi privste
tioo given fay the earlier statute over all claims against the government shall be
at L. GOO) defines the jnrisdiction of this After the decieion in Bonner v. United
court See this set fnlly annotated in States, 9 WslL 156, that the Court of
Gould A Tucker's Note* on the U. 8. Claims had no jnrisdictian of a suit
Statute*, p. 868. See also United Statee founded npon equitable consideratione,
V. Tinaley, 88 Fed. Rep. i3S ; Cole v. the Act ot Mar. 3, ISST (24 St. at L.
United Statn, 39 Ct d. «7. The French COS) was passed, allowing suits sgainat the
Spoliation Claims were referred to this government in that court either at law, in
eontt by 28 St. at L. 2S3 ; also claims for equity, or admiialty, and alao allowing
depredatioQB of friendly Indians, by 26 suits on such claims, if not exceeding
St at 1^ SSI. The cliums of the Potta- (1,000 in value forthe district noaite, and
watomie Indiana were also referred to the $10,000 in value for the circuit conrts.
Court of Claim* by 28 Stat, at L. S72 ; 20 to be brought in the diatrict where the
id- 1031. claimaiit nodes. See Jones v. United
[871]
D.qilizMbyG00>^IC
*298 JDBISPBUDEHCE^OF [PAKT Q.
might from time to time ordain and establish." (a) (x) But it
received its present organization from Congress, for the Conati-
(») Art. 8, lec. 1.
tranaiDitted to the oomt nnlua it li other- ford, 8 WkIL 4$4 (citing De Onot ■■
wise reflolTed by the hoiue in which they Umttd Stttee, 5 Wall. 419, 43!) ; Wit-
nre prewut«d. Seetioa S gire* additioiul kiiu v. Cnited BtUw, S WmU. 76S.
jorisdictioii of ill Mb-oCb, connter-clainiB, The jariadictioa of the court ii cX'
&C., OD the part of the goTemment (gaiiiBt tended to claims of ownen of propeit;
the claimant, and the court may give abandoned or oaptorad during the rebel'
judgment in faror of the govenimetit for lion, by act of March 12, ISflS (12 U. S.
the balance foond dne to it, if any. {Sm Bt. at L. c 120, p. 8!0). It bu ben
Allen D. United States, 17 WalL 307. tbongbt to be ezdusiFB. Elgee v. Lorell,
The provision is not rendered void by the 1 Woolw. lOS, 117. Compare Hsil Go. «.
•eventh amendment to the Couetitntion. Flanders, 12 WalL 180, 13G. And held
HcElrath v. United States, 102 U. S. not to be subject to appeal b; the clsiin-
426. ~B.] It msy be mentioned that ant Pargond'a Appeal, 4 Ct of CI. MS.
the mle ii otherwise when the United It is not to include claims groiring oat of
States is plaiLtlff ; for under the statntea destnictiDn or appropriation o^ or dsmige
allowing a set-off in that case, no jndg- to, property by the army or navy dtmsg
ment can be rendered against the goTem- the war. Jnly 4, 1804 (19 U. S. St st L
ment, although a balance be shown in the c. 240, p. Sfil] ; Filor b. United State*,
defendanf B favor. United SUtee v. Eck- S WalL 4E ; United States «. Buaell, It
States, IS Sawyer, S*l, Bifl ; Uuited tract : United States ». Betdan, F. H.
States V. Jonee, 181 U. S. 1 ; Southern Co., 150 U. S. 562 ; or upon a treaty with
Fac R. Co. V. United SUtee, S8 Fed. a foreign nation : Great Western Ins. Co.
Bep. R5 ; Johnson v. United States, 6 v. United States, 112 U. S. 193 ; Alliig
Utah, lOS. The findings of this oourt v. United States, 114 U. S. CS4 ; Bartbe
qpon matters referred to it by a depart- v. Denis, 1S3 U. 8. E14 ; The Ganges, 2S
ment under the Act of 1337, j 13, with Ct, 01. 110 ; not iudoding, however, i
the claimant's consent, is merely advisory, claim originally based upon s tiesty bat
and not entgect, as a jodgment. under 9 9> really fonnded, aa in the Alabama Cltinu,
to review by the Supreme Conrt In re npon as appropriation made by CongRsi
Sanborn, 148 U. S. 222 ; 27 Ct. CL 4Bfi ; in punuance thereof : United State* t.
See Armitrong e. United States, 29 id. Weld, 127 U. S. S6 ; WiUiams >. Hesid,
148 ; Cotton f. United States, id. 207. 1*0 U. a 587. As to claims npoo " im-
The Conrt of Clsimg cannot entertain plied contract," see United States o. Oill.
a suit against the government foonded 20 WalL 617 ; United States b. Pslner,
9pon a tort ; SohUlinger V. United States, 128 U. S. 262; Holliatar v. Benedirt
155 U. B. IBS ; United States c. Palmer, Hannf. Co., IIS U. S. 59, S7 ; HcAIeer t.
128 U. S. 262; Carpenter c. United United SUtee, 26 Ct CI. S38; Gill r.
States, 46 Fed. Eep. 341 ; or upon the United States, id. 416 ; Centnl PadGc
infringement of a patent, apart ttota eon. B. Co. ir. United States, 2S id. 437 ;
(r) Upon the history of tha U. 8. Su- enay of Mr. Westd W. WlUoo^by (J<An
preme Court, see Vr. H. L. Carson's His- Hopkins' series),
tory Id the Centennial volnm^ and the
[872]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. UY.] THE UKITED STATES. • 298
tutioD had only declared, in general terms, that Uiere should be
a Sapreme Comt, with certain original and appellate powers.
Vr'klL S28 ; Pngh v. United SUtes, ib. 12 Ct. of CL 8S8. See Eaote n. Uoitad
ti33 ; Uoitod States v. EimboU, ib. 036. States, 66 U. S. 140, 166. See further.
The Sapreme Court baa determined that aa to claima imder rereDoe laws. United
theCoartofClaiauhMnotjuriBdictionof States v. Kanfman, SS U. 3. 567; s. a.
claima agaiiut the goTemment founded 11 Ct of CI. 6GEI ; Campbell v. United
in fact on the nnautborized torts of its States, 12Ct of CI, 170; Ramsejv. United
agenta, although in form on an implied States, 14 id. S67. — B.]
contract. Gibbona d. United States, S When sec li of Che act of 18S8 was in
Vail. SSB. [Langford «. United States, force, it was oi»iatnied to gire the Seem-
101 U. 3. S41.] Nor of suite founded on tary of the Treasury poirer to reviae all
merely equitable cozudderationa. Bonner the dedaiona of the Court of Claims ra.
4>. United States, 9 Wall. 156. Persons quiring payment of money. This waa
complaining of exactions undei the reve- held to take away the judicial character
noe lawe are couGaed to the remediee of the court, and to make an appeal to
which those atatutes furnish. Nichola v. the Supreme Court of the United Stalea
United States, 7 WaU. 122. [Where the impoasible. Poll, S26, n. 1 ; Gordon e.
snit is to recover money which the United United States, I Nott & H. xiiiii, note,
Sutes has obtained by fraud of its agents, 2 Wall. 561. The aection was repealed
the court has jurisdiction. United States alter the rendering of the above decision,
V. Sute Bank, BO U. S. 30 ; Boughton d. by the act of March 17, 1866, 11 U. S. St.
United States, 12 Ct of CL 330. As to at L. 9, and a claimant haa now an sp-
its equitable, jurisdiction, see Burke v. pesl as of right when the omoont in con-
United States, 13 Ct. of CI. 331. The troveny exceeds $3,000. United SUtei
jurisdiction does not extend to clunu v. Adams, 6 WalL 101 ; Ex parte Zellner,
under treaties Sz parte Atocha, 17 9 WalL 244.
WaU. 489 ; I«ngfonl v. United Statea, An appeal ia given on behalf of the
HcArthur e. United States, 29 id. 191 ; Warder v. United SUtea, id. 1E9. The
Merriam «. United Sutes, id. 2G0; Fore- CourtofClairasoHy, within two yeanalter
hand v. United States, IT Wash. L. R. ST. its judgment, grant a new trial. Belknap
The Act of Mar. B, 1887, ch. 359 (24 St. «. United SUtes, 160 U. S. 688. The
at L. 605) allows suite to be brought proeecntion of claims against the United
•gainst the United States upon express or States in the Court of CUims, or the Su-
implied contmcts, and the United States prerae Court, is wholly dependent upon
may file set-offs or counterclaims in such the acta of Congress. United SUtw i:
suits. AstointereatDponclaimsappealed Oleeson, 124 U. S. 266. Technical otgee-
to the Supreme Court, see 26 St at L. tions to the plesdinga are not hrored in
687 ; Harvey t. United SUtes, 113 U. S. this court See United States o. Behan.
248 ; United States d. Jones, 131 U. 8. 110 U. S. 338 ; United States s. Old Sel-
1 ; White v. Arthur, 10 Fed. Rep. 88, 87. tiers, 148 U. 3. 427 ; Cbappell B. United
The limitation as to claims against the States, 84 Fed. Bep. 673. A State may
United States is six years. Sea 34 St. at prosecnteinlheConrtotClaimaitsdemand
L. SOS ; Ford «. United States, 116 U. S. sgainst the United States, if founded upon
218; Finn ». United Slates, 123 U.S. 227j a Federri law. United States r. Louiai.
United States t>. Loujsians, 127 U. S. 182 ; ana, 128 U. S. 82.
Buck V. United Sistee, 26 Ct. CI. 120 ;
[878]
;abyGoO<^lc
* 298 JUBISPBUDENCE OF [PIBT It.
It coDsists of a chief justice and ei(^t associate justices, any five
of whom make a quorum ; and it holds one term annually, at the
seat of gorermnent, commencing on the first Monday in Decern*
ber, and contiQued at diBcretion. (b) But though five of the
judges are requisite for business in general, yet any one or more
of them may make all necessary orders in a suit, preparatory to
the hearing or trial, and continue the court from day to day, in
the absence of a quorum; and the judge of the fourth circuit
attends at the city of Washington, on the first Monday of August,
annually, for interlocutory matters.
The Supreme Court haa exclusive jurisdiction of all controver-
sies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, ^ except betveen
a state as de/etidant and its citizens ; and except, alao, between a
state as defendant, and citizens of other states or aliens, in which
cases it has no jurisdiction ; but in all these casea where a state
is plaintiff, it has original but not exclusive jurisdiction, (y) It
has, also, exclusively, all such jurisdiction of suits, or proceed-
ings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their
(A) Acta of Congma of April 29, 1802 ; Febnury S4, 1B07, sec C ; H*7 4, ms ;
JU11U17 21, 1829 [e. 12] ; Much 8, 1887, e. 34 ; and of 17tli June, 18U, c »6.
Uaiud States from all final jndgmenU 27, 1S68, c. 276, } 2, IS C. S. St at L.
adrerse to tha United States. Act of 243. A Britiah subject in not preTEOlel
Jnne 26, 1868, IS U. fi. St. at L. c. 71, p. from Baing by this act, United Slatta 9.
7G, { 1. O'Keefe, 11 Wall 178 ; nor a Fnudu,
Only nicli aliena a« are dtuens or sub- Brawn's Caae, G Ct of CL fi71 ) nv a
jecti of a goTemment which accords to French, Botluchild's Case, 6 Ct of CL
citizens of the United States the right to 204 ; nor a Spaniih, Molina's Case, 6 Ct
prosecute claims against such government of CI. SB9 ; nor a Swiss, LobsigeT's Caie,
in its courts can aueinth« Court of Claims 6 Ct. of CI. 687.
under the abaodotied and eaptai«d prop- ' POil, 82S, n, 1.
erty acts before mentioned. Act of Jolj
(y) The originsi jurisdiction of the jurisdiction ; and in a suit between 1 8tit«
Supreme Court wss intended to be extt- and dtisNls of another State the partiei'
oieed sparingly, and not to he extended I7 character is the vital consideratioo, the
construction. Califomia v. So. Pac. By. addition pf a Federal question being im.
Co., 157 U.S. 229. In the constitutional material. Ibid. Under that conedtutjonsl
grant to it (Art III., nee. 2) of judicial provision this court may entertain an
power in " all cases, in law and equity, original suit by the United States againat
arising under this constitution," &c., the a slate to settle the boondary between a
clauses providing for esses where a State is State and a Territory. United StilM ■•
a party, only distribute the jurisdiction un- Texas, 113 U. S. 621.
der the Snt clause and do not add to such
[874]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKCT. IIT.] THE UNITED 8TATB8. • 299
domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or
exercise, coDsisteutl; with the law of Datione ; and original but
not ezcluBive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors or
other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul shall
be a party, (c) ^ The Supreme Court was also clothed by the
Constitution ((i) "with appellate jurisdiction, both as to
law and fact, * with such exceptions and under such regu- * 299
lations as Congress should make;" and, by the Judiciary
Act of 1789, appeals lie to this court from the circuit courts, and
the courts of the several states, (x) Final judgments and decrees,
in civil actions and suits in equity, in the circuit courts of the
United States, whether brought there by original process, or
removed there from the state courts, or by appeal from the district
courts, in cases where Hie matter in dispute exceeds two thousand
dollars, exclusive of costs, may be re-examined by writ of error,
and reversed or affirmed, in the Supreme Court (a) ^ Final judg-
(e) Act of CoDgKM, September 24, 1739, sec 13.
{d) Art. 8, wc 2.
<a) Act of Congrew ot September 24, 17t!e, sec. 22. In the osei of Goidon v.
(^plaD, and Smith v. Hoaey, S Peters, 33, 4S9, it wu decided, that whatever may
hiTe been the amonut claimed bj the plaintiff in the conit below, if the judgment in
Us ttror be less than ^000, and the writ of error haa been sued out bj the d^endanl
beloir, the court baa not jnri«dictioD ; but if the writ of error be brought by the plain-
Uf below, and the amonnt claimed in his declaration exceeded 12,000, the court has
jnriidiotian, because, if the jodgmeut be reveraed, be may recover what he claims,
{Knapp V. Bulks, 3 How. 78 ; Bennett v. Butterworth, S How. Hi.]
■ Putt, S14, and note. 31, 1344. See Dnited SUtes n. Carr, 8
' StvietD of DteitiMU of Circuit Courtt. How. 1. Or in any case under the copy-
— A judgment of the Circuit Court may right or patent laws. Act of J«1y S,
be Kviewed without regard to the sum in 1S70, 10 U. 3. St. mt L. 193, c 2S0, {} 56,
diqwte in civil actions brought hf the 107 ; Philips v. Nock, IS Wall. ISB. Or
Uniled State* for the enforcement of the in any civil action against a collector or
nrenoe laws, or the collection of duties other officer of the revenue for oCBcial
on merclumdise imported. Act of Hay acts or money eiscled by bim and pttid
^> Under the Act of Mar. 3, 1837, note. The appellate power* of this court
■Qtborizing soitsagainst the United States are granted by the Constitntion, bat an
in the lower courts, the Supreme Court regulated and defined by the Acta of Con-
nriews caaea at law on writ of error, and grass. NaL Ei. Bank v. Peters, 144 U.
equity and adminlty eases on appeal. 8. 570. Tbey extend over the judicial
Chase v. Uniled States, 156 U. 8. 489. acts of all inferior courts established by
The sets relating to the jurisdiction of Congress under the Constitatioii. United
the Sapreme Cooit an collected in the States v. Coe, ICC V. S. 76.
t ta U. 8. B«v. Stats, p. 901,
[876]
^cibyGoQl^lc
•299 JOBISPEDDENCE OP [PiBT n
ments and decrees in the circuit courts, in cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction, and of prize or no prize, where tlie
into the United SUtai treuniy. Aet of By the ume tt&tnte, th« unDont dmo-
M&rch 27, ISes, c. 34, IS U. S. St. at L aatj in uiy'casa to give t riglit to bite
41. Or ia any suit or prosecatioD, civil the action of the Cin^t Court reviewed
or crimiiisl, commenced in a state court, ii increawd from |2,000 to $G,000. In
for any wrong done or act amitted during ertinuttiiig th» amount nacemary to gin
the tebellioD nnder color of tmy antbori^ the Supreme Court joriadictiati on appeal,
from the Preudcnt ot an; act of CougnM, distinct jadgmeDts in favor of diffennt
such suit, &c., having been removed to the plaintifls camiot be added together. £c
Circuit Court. Act ofHarch S, 1S6S, c. parit Baltimore A Ohio B. Co., IM U.
81, 16, 12 U. S-St atL. 7E7. See SOS, B. 6,and caaeacited;The Coniieman,10I
n. 1. Or in qnettiona of law, under the U. 8. 7S4. Bee fnrther, Town of Elgin «.
ClrUBighU Bill of April 9, 1660. The MarahAU, 106 V. S. 67S, 682; Whitiitt
Ed-KIdz Act of April 20, 1871, c 22, S li v. B. H. Co., 103 U. S. 770. Ai to the
17 D. S. St at L. 13, give* the same power of the Supreme Court to review de-
rights of appeal, Ac, aa the Civil Bjghta cimoni of the Circuit Court on queatuia
Bill. Bnt DDder the Bankrupt Aet of of fact wliere there has been a waiver o(i
March 2, 1867, S 9, the matter in diapnte jory trial, eee Boogher v. Ins. Co., lOS
most exceed $2,000. U. 8. 90 ; Sopenriaora «. Kenuicott, ih
As to the mode in which a criminal GG4.
case can bd taken from the Circuit to the By statute of March 3, 1875 (18 St st
Supreme Court, sea 386, n. iL Ex parte L. 470), a right of review by the Sapnnie
Gordon, 1 Black, SOS. As to Aoleaa arrpu». Court is given In case of an order of the
eee 801, n. 1. [The act of Feb. IS, 187B Circuit Court diamiagiiig a anit for want of
(IS St atL. 31G), provided that thedrcuit jurisdiction, or reminding a auit which
courts dtting iu adminlt; shall make sep- has been removed from a ctate eooit
arate findings on the law and on the lacla, Ayers v. Chicago, 101 (T. 3. 184. A li^t
and the right of trial by jury upon the of reviev vas given in all cmci vnia
beta is given. Since the passage of this the Civil Rights Act (18 St. at L. 335) ;
act the Supivme Court has treated the bnt the act itself baa been declared nn-
flndingi of fact in the lower court as con- constitutional. The CHvil Ri^la Can^
closiTe. (y) The Abbotsrotd, 06 U. E 109 IT. S. 3.
440; The Benefactor, 102 IT. S. 214. The Supreme Court reviews pneeed-
(y) See Alexandre v. Machan, 147 U. to questions involving the jurisdiction ot
8. 72. Upon an appeal in admiralty on those courts. See Ambler v. Ei^ii^v,
the insluee aide the Cirenlt Court is 187 U. S. 180.
to state the law and the bets Beparately. Under { G of the judiciary act of Msr.
The Oszalle, 183 V. S. 474. Whatever S, 1861, the Supreme Court cannot take
was matter of fact in a State court, whose jurisdiction of an appeal or writ of error
action is reviewed by this court, ia matter from a district or circuit court, in which
of fact therF. Lloyd u. Matthews, 1 GS T. the juriidictian is the only issue, without
S. 222. By the Act of Feb. 25, 1889 (26 the certificate of the lower court prtaent-
St at L. 6S3) to appeals and writs of error ing that question for its deteraiinstiaii.
from the circuit and district eoorta where Haynard u. Hrcht 161 U. S. S24 ; Colvin
the amount involved is len than 95,000, «. Jacksonville, 1G7 U. S. 3S8 ; Hadaan r,
the review tg' the Supreme Court is limited PaAer, 156 U. S. 277; aee tit/hi, S80, b. (i)
[876]
;abyG00<^lc
LKCT. nV.] THE UNITED STATES. •299
matter in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars, exclusive of costs,
may be reviewed on appeal in the Supreme Court : (5) and in
admiralty and prize cases new evidence is admitted to be receiv-
able on appeal in the Supreme Court (c) This admission is con-
(i) ThOD^ aaamen n)«7 sne jointly for wages in the admiralty, under eliippiDg
articles for the same Toyage, their MUtracti are treated bs distinct : and thnugh
teTeiat claimi of this descriptian, contained in one xuit, amount in the aggregate to
more than (3,000, that ia not aufficient to give jnriBdiction on appeal to tba Snpreme
Court. Oliver D. Alexander, S Petera, US; Con Ming's Treatiw (2ded.),82; [Bich d.
Lunbert, 12 How. S17 ; compare Shield* «. Thomas, 17 How. S.J
(e) Act of Congress, March S, 1S03, [c 40J sec 2. It was decided, in United State*
V. Goodwin, 7 Ctanch, 108, that in civil casen at law, the judgment of the Circuit
Conrt ia final, where the canae ia ramoved by laril of aror from the DMrM Court, and
no writ of error lies thnefrom in anch cases to the Supieae Coart of the United Stale*.
See 2 Wheaton, 3S5 ; 12 Frten, HS, s. p. Bnt by the act of Congrese of July i,
IStO, c. 43, sec. 3, thia distinction was sboluhed, and writs of error now lie to the
Snprems Conrt from all jodgments of a circnit conrt in casta bronght there b; wrils
of oTor from tlie District Court, in like manner as if the suit had been uriginaUy
taooght in the Circnit Conrt.
inp of iDferior United States courts on there was none. Hecht v. Bonghton, lOS
liabaa* ayrjms to the extent only of deter- U. 8. 2SS. By act oF Feb. 2S, 1S79 (20
miftiitg whether such conrta had jniisdiO' SL at L. 820), the amount necessary to
tion. Bx parte CarU, lOS U. 8. G21 ; £e give Supreme Conrt a right to review de-
fnrte Haaon, 105 U. S. 6941 ; £x parte cisions of Supreme Court of District of
Virginia, 100 U. S. 889 ; Ei parU Lsnge, Columbia ia increased from $2,000 to
18 Wall 163 ; £e parte Parks, 98 U. S. 13.500, and this appUed to cases then
18 ; 7* n Stnpp, 12 Blatch. GOl. — b.] pending. DeoniBou v. Alexander, 108
Beulete of DttAnota of oQner V-nitid U. S. 622. — b.]
Blait* Courtt. — See, aa to appeala from See, as to what are final judgments,
tiie Court of Claims, anU, S97, d. 1. ^last, 816, n. 1.
Writs of error and appeals ftum the Appnls from the district courts in
final decisions of the supreme courts of prize causes lie directly to the Supreme
the territories in like manner as from the Court, when the amount in controversy
circuit courts, are given by the acta exceeds $2,000, and in other cases when
orgmiang the territoriee. Freeborn c. thejndge certifles that a question of gen-
Smith, 2 WalL ISO. And see set of June entl importance is involved. Act of June
12, 1858, { IS. So from the Supreme 80, 18fll, c. 174, S 13, 13 C. S. St at L.
Court of the District of Columbia. Act 806. See The Alicia, 7 Wall, 671.
of Harcb 8, 1863, % 11. Bee Campbell v. The United States may take appeals.
Bead, 2 Wall. 198; Brown e. Wiley, 4 &c., to the United Sutes Supreme and
Wall. 16G ; Gamett v. United Statrn, 11 Circuit Conrta without giving security for
Wall. 256; Ex parte De Oroot, 3 Wall. cost*. Acts of Feb. 21. 1863, c. GO, 12
*97. [By statute of April 7, 1874 (18 St. St at L. 867 ; July 27, 1868, c 266, 16
at L. 27), the appellate jurisdiction of the St. at L. 226. Aa to time within which
Supreme Court over territorisl courts is to writs of error and appeals mnst he taken,
be exendscd by writ of error where there see act of Jane 1, 1872, j 3.
* a trial by jury, and ty appeal when
[ST7]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 300 , JDBISPRUDEHCE OP [PABT IL
formable to the doctrine and usage of appellate coarts of admir-
altj, permittiDg the parties, upon the appeal, to introduce nev
allegations and nev proofs, and to add new counts to the libel, (d)
So, also, a final judgment or decree, in any euit in the highest
court of law or equity of a state, may be brought up on error in
point of law, to the Supreme Court of the United States, pro-
vided the validity of a treaty, or statute of, or authority exercieed
under, the United States, was drawn in question in the state coart,
and the decision was against that validity ; or provided the validity
of any state authority was drawn in question, on the ground of
its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the
Unit«d States, and the decision was iu favor of its validity; or
provided the construction of any clause of the Constitution, or
of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under &e United
States, was drawn in question, and the decision was against
* 300 the title, right, privilege, or * exemption, specially claimed
under the authority of the Union, (a) < Upon error from
a decision in a state court, no other error can be assigned or
regarded than such as appears upon the face of the record, and
immediately respects the questions of validity, or construction of
the Constitution, treaties, (x) statutes, commissions, or authori-
ties in dispute.
The Supreme Court is also armed with that superintending
authority over the inferior courts which ought to be deposited in
the highest tribunal and dernier resort of the people of the Unit«d
id) The Muiuiiut Flan, 11 WhokWn, I, 38 ; FotUr c. Gudiner, C. C. H**.
Amer- Jar. ii. SI.
(a) Act of CoDgrew of September 24, 1780, eec 25.
' See the rery Bimilar act of Feb. 6, privilege, or iuunanit; apedaUy nt np ot
1867, U C. a. St. at L. SSfl, c. 2S, | 2, clumed hj either part; under auch Ooc-
which eitends to casea " where any title, etitution," to. But this does not ip(i]<r
right, privilege, or itmnnnity U claimed to the case of any person in milituy cm-
nnder the Constitution, or any treaty or tody charged with a military offUKS or
statute oT, or commiaaion held, or author- with hiiTitig aided or abetted rebeUioo.
ity exercised under, the United States, and Vide po^ S29, u. 1, SIO, u.l,fbimM
the decixion is against the title, righ^ qoestions under this aot.
(z) Qneationa relstiDg to the righia of Illinois, 123 U. S. 131. The appdlatf
parties nnder a foreign treaty cannot be jurisdiction does not eziit in a Hlit ba •
first raised in the U. S, Supreme Court, share o{ an award nnder a treaty, iti ««■
when the rpoord doe* not ihow that they atruotion or validity not being invoh-J.
VOM t«iMd in the court below. Sjaes p. Boi^mever v. Idler, 1C9 U. 9. ifi%.
[S78J
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. UT.] THE UNITED STATES. * 801
States. It has power to iBBue writs of prohibition to the district
courts, when proceedJDg as courts of admiralty aod maritime
jurisdiction, and to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warraoted
hy the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or
persons holding office under the authority of the United States, (b)
This court, aud each of its judges, have power to grant writs of
ne exeat and of injunctioa ; but the former writ cannot be granted
unless a suit in equity be commenced, and satisfactory proof he
made that the party designs quickly to leave the United States ;
and no injunction can be granted to stay proceedings in a state
court, nor in any case, without reasonable notice to the adverse
party, {c) All the courts of the United States have power to
issue writs of tcire facias, habeas corpus, aud all other writs not
specially provided by statute, which may be necessary for the
exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable
to the principles and usages of law. (<2) * So the judges * 301
|i) Act or September 24, 1789, »«c. 13.
(c) Act of CDngress, March 2, I7B3, [c. 67,] sec 5.
|<J) Act of September 24, 1789, sec. 14 ; United States t>. Hamilton, 3 Dallas, IT ;
j& partt Bollman, 4 Craneh, 76 ; £c parte Keomey, 7 Wheaton, 88 ; Kc parU Wat.
tins, 7 Peten, SeS. The prineiplei and taaget of law here mean thoee general princi-
ples and xaagea which are to be roatid, not in tbe legiaUtiTe acts of anj particular
itate, bat in that generally recognized and loDg-estahlished law, which formi the sub-
itratumofthe laws ot every state. HarshaU, Cb. J., in United States c. Burr. Ths
Jodioary Act of 1789, see. 17, gave to the courts of the United States power to pnniali,
bj Bns or imprieonment, at the discretion of tbe conrta, all eonttmpU of aatUority, in
an; caoM or hearing, before the matt. Bat the act of Congress of Msrch 2, ISSl, c.
n, limited and defined this power, by declaring that the power to isane attacbmente
•nd inflict eummary paniahmeDta, for coatenipt of court, ehall not be construed to ei-
tead to any caeea except tbe miebehavior of any person in the presence ot the court, or
•0 near thereto as to obstruct tbe admin ittratiou of justice ; and the misbehavior of
any of the offlcere of the eaid courts in their official ttanaactionB ; and the disobedience
or resistance, by any officer of tbe said courts, party, juror, witness, or any other par-
Boa, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of tbe said conrta.
The provisions of this set of Congress have been adopted in Tenuessee by statute, in
18S1, and in Ohio by statute, in 1884, with even some impediment thrown in the
way of the prompt execution of the power ; for tbe statute in the latter slate declares
that the cbaige is to be stated in writing, and the accused ehall be heard in his de-
fence by himsslf or cODUsel. The power of the English courts is more extensive.
Thai, where severBl penona were to be tried successively for the same treasonable set,
the Court of Oyer and Terminer prohibited publication of any of the proceedings,
nntil the whole of the trials had been bronght to a oonclnsion ; and it waa held that a
puUintion, diar^arding this order, was a contempt punishable by fine and imprison-
neot; and that a party disregarding a summons to appear and answer for the contempt,
might be fined in bis nUpnrr. The King v. Clement, i B. ft Aid. 218 ; II Price, 08,
;abyGoO<^lc
* 801 JUBIBPBDDENCE OF [PABT U.
of the Snprenae Court, as well as the judgee of the district
courts, may, by habeai corpus, relieve the citizens from all man-
Der of unjust imprisonment occurring under or by color of the
& c. [8e« In re Cheltenham & Swuisea RaOwa; Carriage ft Wa^D Co., L. R. S Bq.
CBO.} The fair and importisl admiaistntiiMi ot justice in attch cases woold Mem to it'
qqire the existeuce and exerdae of such a power. The act of Congnaa, howenr,
imchea and prohibits all interference by atUchment and suininary pnnuhnMit for
contempts committ«d oat ot the presence ot the cotut, bjr libels apon the oo«rt ud
the parties, and pending canses; and it is a verj conddarable, if not injndidtn^
abridgment of the immemomll} eiercbed discretion ot the c«utU in respect to mi-
tempts. £nt in the " System of Penal Law, prepared for the State of Looiiiani," ill
liiA, by Edward LiTingston, Ksq., the courts were stripped of aimoat all power to
pieserre themseWes from insult. The code provided for contempts in (As pntaia ij
tlu oauri, b; word, clamor, noise, or disobedience to l^a] orders, or nolence, or threali.
It provided, also, for contempts by using verbally, iu court, or in any pleading ot
writing, addntied to the judga, in any cause ptmiing, any indecorona, conUmptooni,
or insulting expression, to or of the jadgas, with intent to insnlt. Bat bow did it
provide ? Contempts were to be tried on indictment (which may be at another sts-
tion), and the jniy were to pass upon the intent, and whether the words were indeoaroiu,
contemptuous, or insulting. There is no provision at al! for insultiuK gestnrei or
looks. Code, tit E. c U. The New York Bevised Statutes, ii. 278, have dealt with
the subject of cootempts more temperately and judiciously, and with a wiser regard
for the honor and dignity ol the courts, so essentia] to the orderly, pure, independuti,
and impartial ■dministration of justice. They provide that every conrt of record mij
punish snmmarily dUorderly, eoniemptvoja, or iiuoUnt bthavior, committed in the iiO'
mediate preMuce of the court, and tending to interrupt its proceedings and impair the
respect dne to its authority ; and for breaches of the peace, noises, and dittnibinces
tending directly to interrupt its proceedings ; and for wilful disobedience or resislucs
to lawful orders ; tod/orthepatilitmiion of faltt er grottly uuKBurate TtporUof itijm-
etedmgt. The fxrmmiationen appoinUd to rnrwe the eiril code of Petn^iylvania, by tbcir
report, in January, 1885, fallowed the substance of the Pennsylvania act of 1809, so
the snl^ect of contempts, and confined the power of impiisoument to contempts com-
■ mittftd in open court. No publication out of court, respecting the conduct of tie
court, or any of its ofBcen, jurors, witnesses, or parties in any cause pending in cosit,
exposes the party to enmniarj punishment, and the only remedy for the penona ig-
grieved is by indictment or action at law. The act of Pennsylvania of 16th June, ISSt,
enacted the same provision. In the case Ex parte Poulson, which arose upon a motion
in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eaatero District of Penns;^vanis, in
1S35, in the cause of Drew v. Swift, for a rule on Paulson, the editor of a daily paper,
to show cause why an attachment should not issne against him for a contempt, in pnb.
liahing a very libellous article upon the plaintKT pending the trial. Judge Baldwin felt
himself bound to deny the motion, in consequence of the act of Congresa of 1831-
That act had withdrawn from the courts of the United States the commtai-Uw power
to protect their suitors, officere, witnesses, and themselves, against the libels of the
p^eas, however ntrociona, and though published and circulated pending the very ttiil
of a cause. The case before him was one which showed, in a very strong light, the
unreasonableness of the law, in leaving the suitor nnprotected at the moment «hn
he stands moat in need of it, and when the mischief to him might be great and remnli-
less. The vant of such protection, and the undne distrust which the denial of the
[880]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XIV.'} THE UNITED STATES. • 301
authority of the United States, or for acta done, or omitted to
be done, id pursuance of a law of the United States, or of a judi-
cial authority of any court or judge thereof. The justices of the
Supreme Court, and the judges of district courts, may grant
writs of habeas corpus, when subjects of any foreign government,
and domiciled therein, are in custody, under the authority or
process of the United States, or of any state, for acts done under
the order or sanction of any foreign state, the validity of which
depends upon the law of nations, or under color thereof; and
to bear the case, and discharge the prisoner, if entitled thereto
by reason of such alleged authority set up, and the law of nations
applicable thereto; and all proceedings bad in the mean time,
under any state authority, are declared void.(a)^ (x)
c«mmoii-l»w power orer contempU impliea, tend to impair, in the artiniBtioii of the
pablic, the rtlat of the adminittrkdon ot jiutice.
The power of the codtU to punieh ninmiarilj far contempta his been lately much
Mstrained in BngUnd ; for in the ease of the King v. Fanlkner (2 UonL & Ayr. Cat.
in Bank. 311), it wee held, ia the Court of Eicheqaer, that ■ liiigle commiuioiier of
the Court of Bankruptcy, iitting abne, bad no power to poniih aujr eontenipt, how-
ever gran or penonal.
(a) Acta of Congnsa of September 2i, ITSS, aec I*, and March 3, 1B3S, [c 67,]
me. 7, and AngDit 29, 1S42, c. 257. Thia laat statate waa paaaed in coneeqaence ot
the case of UcLeod, who waa indicted for mnrder, in croesing the rirer Niagara, in
the night, with an armed fores, and aeiEing and dBfltroying the iteamboat Caroline,
attached to the American ahore, and in which aStay an American citiaen was killed.
He pleaded anthoiity from the Canadian powers, which authority waa admitted, or
■mimed, by the British government ; but the plea waa orerruled bj the jadicial
•DthoiitieB of New York, and McLeod brought U> trial. See 1 Hill, S77, and 26
Wendell, 4S8. [See alao L« Uanohe, 2 Spragae, 207, 3S1 ; Bnion v. Denman, 2
Exch. 1S7.}
' Hdbtat Corpvt. — The privilege of of M>ea» earput in all caaei where any
the writ waa still farther extended by the person may be reatnuned of Ua liberty in
act of Feb. C, 1867, o. 28, 14 U. 8. St at violation of the Constitntion, or of any
L. 88S, bj which the eeveral conrti of the treaty or law of the United SUtee. [See
United Statee, and the aareral juaticea Seavy r. Seymonr, S Cliff. 189; Elec.
and jndgea ot such oonrt^ within their Coll. of 6. C, I Hugh. B71 i Bx pnrti
reepentive joriidictiona, may grant writs Bridget, 2 Woods, 428 ; In rt Stopp, 12
(z) It is diieretionary with the U. S. his trial in the State court ; and while the
(Srcuit Court whether a prisoner held conrt ia not bonnd to award the writ as
under State proceaa in alleged reatndnt of Mon aa the application is mads, its dis-
hls liberty nnder the F. S. Coustitation, cretion yields to any special circuiDgtancee
or for a crime within the exclusive juris- requiring immediate action. In the ab-
diction of the Federal courts, shall be dis- sence of such argent circnmstancea, the
charged upon Aoftau eotyiu in advance of judgment of the highest State conrt in
[881]
sObyGoOl^lc
* SOI JDRIBPBCDENCE OF [PIET D.
4. Tnrtodlotloii of tiw Clronlt ConrtB. — The limits and jurisdiction
of ihe circuit courts of the United States have beea subject to
BUtchf. SOI.] Under this act, it wm 116, 110, ISO. [Be pant Hung Eta^
held that tn appeal la; from the jndgmMit 3 Snpr. Ct Bep. S63, 108 U. S. G62 ; &
of a drcait court on Boch a writ when sx- parte Siebold, 100 U. 8. S71; Et fortt
ercuuig original at well as appellate joiis- Clarke, lb. 89S.] Fat Congnia cannot
diction. £zpar(«HcCaTdle, 6 Wall. S18. enlarge the original jnrisdietian of the
Bat tlie act of March S7, 1868, repeals eo court ; and it has eTen been held on thii
much of the former one u anthoriiea ap- gronnd that the conrt conld not bjr lotani
peals from the judgments of the Circnit of thii writ review an aider of coninit
Court to the Snpreme Court, or the ezar- ment made bj a diatrict judge mtting it
dee of an; euch jnriwUction h; the 8n- ehambera. in r» Metier, G How. 17< ;
prame Coort on appeals. See Ex parte /n r» Callicot, S Blatchf. 89, expUining
UcCardle, 7 Wall. 506. It has, howcTer, Sx parte Tei^r. In Kaine'e Case, sbaTe
been determined that the Snprane Court dted, a oammianoner had ordend the
■till baa snch appellate joiifdiction as it priaoner to be committed, and a writ et
bad before the act of 1807, which may be Jiaitat a/rptu, issued from the Circnit
exercised by the writ of habcat corpiu. Court, bad been dianiasad after a bearing
aided by the writ of caiiarari. Bx parte and the further question wai laiMd
Ye^er, 8 Wall. SG. See In n Msrtiu, whether a writ isauing from the Supnme
fi Blatchf. SOS ; peal, SSO, n. 1. Court to review the decidon'of the Circuit
In CBsea atisLag under the Jodioiaij Court wa« inued "for the pnrpoae of u
Act, it has been often laid down that the inquiry into the oaoae of comnutoiatt "
Supreme Court could iaiue a Aoteoi eorptu within the fourteenth section of the Jodi-
ad tul!jieiaulum only in the exercise of it* dary Act ; and the majority of the court
appellate juriadietion. Be parte Barry, teem to have thought that it was. See
3 How. 65| /r n Kaine, 14 How. lOS, jSe parte Welta, 18 How. 807.
which the qneation eao be determined, circuit court to the SnpraniB Court in
ahonld be filet obtained, and its daoimon, Itabaat eerpm eaaes. The latter court
if adveiBa, may be reviewed hj tbe U. 8. can on anch appeal review both law and
Sufseme Court in reapect of any Federal fact Johnson e. Sayre, 158 U. S. IN;
ri^t distinctly aaaertad by the acooeed see /n r> Lennon, IGO IT. 8. S9S, SB7.
and denied by such judgment Sx partt Appeab are now limited to dx montlit
Royall, 117 IT. S. 211 ; IIS. id. 181 ; Sa from the date of the judgment or order.
parte Fonda, 117 id. B16 ; In. re Loney, St. of Her. 8, IS03 (27 St. L. 7G1),
ISt n. S. 873; Be Duncan, 1S9 U. S. amending £. S. f 766. Undir tbe
449, 4Gi ; Be Frederich, 149 U. 9. 70, 76 ; amendatory act of lS8fi, then u now no
New York n. Eno, ICG U. S. 89 ; Pepke abeolnte ri^t to the writ upon ori^ul
n Cronin, id. 100 ; Andrew* v. Swarts, application therefor to the Supreme Ccart.
166 U. S. 272 ; Beti^MDMin e. Backer, 167 Wales «. Whitney, 114 U. S. Ga4 ; Ex
V. S. AGS ; In rt Welch, S7 Fed. Eep. parts Mirean, 119 U. S. 684 ; £t pw*
S70. See 29 Am. L. Bar. US ; SO id. Terry, 128 U. S. 289 ; see £e piatt
682; 24 id. 674; 26 id. 149, 481, 66S, Boyall, rapra,' Carper n. Fitcgerald, 1!1
«71,«77. D. S. 87, 88; Palliser ». United States
The Act of Congraes of Har. 8, 188G 1S6 D. 8. 267 1 .Be San Hang, 11 Sawytt,
(29 St L. 437), amended U. S. Rev. 17S. Judgments of the drcait couiti d
Btata. j 764, and allow* qipeals fi«m tbe appeal^ in habtat corjnu oases, may be if
)vGooi^lc
LSCT. ZIT.] THE UNITED STATES. * SOI
freqaent changes, and their unmber has been ate'adily increasiDg
with the increase of states and districts, ever since the first or-
ganization of the national courts under Uie act of Congress of the
24th of September, 1789. They are established in each district
^with a few exceptions) of the nine great circuits into which the
United States are now{() dirided.x The first circuit is com^J
posed of the districts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachnsetts,
and Rhode Island; the second circuit, of the districts of God-
necticnt, Termont, and the northern and southern districts of
New York ; the third circuit, of the district of New Jersey, and
the eastern and western districts of Pennsylvania ; the fourth
circuit, of the districts of ]ilaryland, Delaware, and Virginia ; the
fifth circuit, of the districts of Alabama and Louisiana; the sixth
circuit, of the districts of North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia; the seventh circuit, of the districts of Ohio, Indiana,
niinois, and Michigan; the eighth circuit, of the districts of
Kentucky, east, middle, and west Tennessee, and the district of
Missouri ; and the ninth circuit, of the districts of Mississippi
and Arkansas. '^ In each district of these circuits, with the excep-
(P) isia
Tiewod in the Bnpteme Coart by certiorari. Boberta v. Beilly, 116 V.B.SO; Inrt Doo
Un Ow Baw d. United States, Hi U. Wood, IS Fed. Rep. SSS; ^porti Brown,
B. i7f aaa Knrtc a. Hoffitt, 116 U. 8. 28 id. SGS. The fact that & State atatata
487, 407. la extnditfon the mit of ha- conflicta with the 3tats conititation does
bte* eerptt* nnnot parfaim the office of a not enable a Fedenl conrt to imie th«
writ of enor. Bt Sarin, ISl V. S. 267 ; writ of Aoteoi corpw if it doae not oonflict
AraLoisOtaiayCorte*, I8SU. 8.390; with the Fedord constitutiDn and the
Willis V. Baylea, lOG Ind. SSS ; State v. priwmer a not held in cnstodj nnder it.
Neel, M Ark. 2BS ; J» n Bion, M Conn. Andrewe «. Bwsiti, IGfl U. 8. 27S. The
373, drenlt conrta hsTs jnriadiotian of tbi*
Tlie writ cannot, without expreaa statu- writ on the gnnind of direrae dtizensliip.
tarj authority, be iasoed by a oircnit conrt King o. H 'Lean Asylum, 9i Fed. Rep.
of appeals to be serred, and to effect a SSI. The remission to the demanding
person's nlease, ontsids of the drcDlt. I» State for its decision of a constitutionsl
M Boles, 18 Fed. Rap. 7S. It i« propeily question as to its laws does not wurant a
nmoved by appeal to that eoort from the release by habeat torjnu ont of s Federal
drcait ooart. King v. H'L«ui A^lnm, coort from the ctutody of the asylum
Mid. >S1. State. Pesrce d. Texas, IGS U. a Sll ;
The writ is osed very caationsly in the /» nt White, SG Fed. Sep. G4 ; see I^m.
Tederal courts ta obstmot the otdinsry bert d. Barrett, 167 T. S. 607. In habiat
tduiidstntiaD of State criminal laws, mttu* prooeedings, the prisoner is not
I» n Wood, 140 n. a. 378, S70. Fed- presumed innocent State c. Janes, 118
enl and SUte oourii hare ooncamut N. C. SSS; tee ■. 0. 33 I.. S. A. 078, and
jnrlsdietion in matters of extradition, note,
[888]
D.qilizMbyG00>^IC
* 302 JUBISPBtrOENCE OP [PABT Jl.
tion of aome of the districts in Alabama, Louisiana, Uissis-
aippi, and Arkansas, two circuit courts are annuaUy held br
one of the judges of the Supreme Court and the district judge
of the district; hut the Supreme Court may, in cases where
special circumBtancea shall in their judgment render the same
□eceasary, assign two of the judges of the Supreme Court to
attend a circuit court ; (x) and when the district judge shall be
absent, or shall have been counsel, or be interested in the
cause, the Circuit Court may consist only of a judge of Ute
Supreme Court (c)'
* 802 * These circuit courts, thus organized, are rested with
original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the
scTeral states,' of all suits of a civil nature, at conunon law, or
(e) Acts of CoQgres» of April 29, 1802, c 81 ; of Maich 3, 1SS7, c 81 ; of Tthnuj
22, 1SS8, c. 12; and af Angiut 16, 1842, c. 160.
■ Lima»qfiitCfirettia.—Tbe6ntm- the Snpntm Court of pert of Uuir w«k.
oatt it compoted of the dutrictt cbit«d in Puis pod, 306, d. 1 ; Appleton v. Smith,
the text ; iIbo the aeooad ; to the thinl 1 DiUon, 302 ; United Statu r. Goiden,
add Delttrare ; tbe fourth ia eompoaed of 6 BUtchf. 18 ; 18 U. 8. St. at L. ITS, t
tin diatridi of Maryland, West Ti^inia, 18C. When the jndge ia intamted, tc,
TirginiB, North Carolina, and Sonth Caro- he ma; either certify the «aae to the most ■
Una ; to the fifth add Geoi;gia, Florida, conrenient drcnit court in the next ad-
Hiniam;^, and Texas j the sirth ia jacent state, nnder the act d Feh 28,
oompoeed of Ohio, Michigan, Eenbicky, 1S3S, Bichardaon r. Boatoo, 1 Cntt. £50;
and Tennessee ; the Bevsnth, of Indiana, or may leqneet the jodge of another di^
Ulinoii, and ;'Wiscontin ; the atghth, of enit to hold the court in his place ; act af
Hinneaota, Iowa, Hiasonri, Kanaaa, Ar- Haicb 8, 1S68, c. S8, 12 U. S. St. at U
kansas, and Nebnaka; [and Colorado, 788 ; the fonnsr act not being icpealid
IV St. at L. 61]; the ninth, of Califomit. by the latter. Snperrisore v. Regen,
Oregon, and Nevada. 12 Wall. ir. ; act 7 Wall. 175.
of Jnly 23, 18S6, and of March 2, 1887. > Original JuritdieHim of Ot Omwtf
The act of April 10, 1809, c 22, 10 Owrti. — Under the act of Ang. 6, 1861,
v. 8. St at L. 44, appoints resident dr- the circuit conrts bare jniisdielion ot
enit jndgss for each of the nine ciTcoita, proceedings tnstitated in them for the
with the nme power and jurisdiction confiscation of laud. But in a case where
therein aa the jnatice of the Supreme the proceedinga had been according to
Court allotted to the cirimit, and deeig- the course of admiralty, an appeal in>
nates the jad^es who may hold ths cir- allowed, only to direct a new trial with i
cuit courts. This relievas the jndgea of jury, ftc., as in cases of seizure upon land.
{«) The judges of the Supteme Court persanal violence when diacharging their
■re members of the circuit conrta, though official duties. I» r« Nes^ 136 U. S. 1.
not formally commissianed aa such, and 10, 67, 7S.
are entitled to protection &om assault or
[884]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XIT.] THE UNITED STATES. * 802
in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds five hundred dol-
lars, exclusive of costs, and the United States are plaintiffs, or an
DDfaHi Ids. Co. a. United Statoi, a Wall.
36»; Annstroiig'B Fouudt?, ib. 764 ; Si.
Lonia Street Fonndr;, ib. 770. See
United SUtee «. Hut, ib. 770, 772; United
Eltates V. Athens AnaoTj, V. 8. Dist. C.
as Os. Si* ; Miller e. United Stttee, 11
WslL S68, 804.
The right of •liens to ana the United
Stalea or their offlceis for acta done onder
certun ststntee passed dnring the rebel-
Uon, is limited b; the act of Jul; 27, 1808,
IS U. S. St. St L. 218, c 276, { 2.
The act of March 2, 1S33, as to cases
Qodar the revenne laws, does not now sp-
jlj to cases nnder the internal revenne
act*. Act of Jnl; IS, 1866. J S7; Ins. Co.
*. mtohie, 5 Wall. 641 ; Homthall v. Col.
lector, B WalL 660 ; AesMsor v. Osboraea,
ib. 667.
The dienit conrta have jurisdiction,
ooDcorrentl^r ""^^^ the district coarts, of
Ulls in chancery filed by direction of tbe
CMomisuoner of internal revsnae to en-
liKM the lieu of the United States for tax
spon any real estate, e. Act of July 20,
1868, c. ISS, S 108, 16 U. 8. St. at L. 167.
Undsr the (^Til Rights BiU of April
t, 1806, drcnit and district courts bare
ooncnmnt jorisdictioo of all caoses, dvil
«T criminal, affecting petwns who are
denied or cannot enforce the rights se-
«nTed to them I^ that set in the itato
ooQTts. Pott, S04, n. 1 ; Blyew e. United
Statea, 13 WalL 581. There ia a like
concuTTsnt jnrisdiction of all causes, civil
and cnminal, ariatng nnder the act of
Hay 31, 1870, c 114, j S, IS U. S. St.
at L. 142, except as thsrein otherwise
^Dvided. Also of proceedings nnder the
Kn-Klnx Act against any person who,
voder eolor of any state law, la., subjects
•nr person within the jurisdiction of the
United States to the depriration of any
rfgh^ priiilegoe, or immanities secured
hj the ConstitntiOD of tbs United Btetas.
Act of April 20, 1871, c 22, j 1, 17 U. 8.
Toi. I.— 26
St. at L. 18. Section 6, of the same act,
givee an octioa ia the Circuit Court to
persons injured in the ways mentioned
in the act, sgainst persons who have
knowledge that the wrongful act is about
to be committed, and power to aid in
preventing it, but neglect or nfiua to
The circuit courts have a general
anperintendence and jnrisdiction of all
coses and qneetiona arising nnder the
bankrupt' laws, and concurrent jurisdic-
tion of all suits at law or in equity be-
tween the aeeigDee in baokraptc; and
any peieon claiming an adverse interest,
tonching any property or rights of prop-
erty of the bankrupt tranaferabla to or
vested in such sssignee. Act of Hwch
5, 1867, i 2.
Appellatt Jvritditivm of thi CiTcatU
CoitHt. — Appeals in equity cases, and writs
of error in cases at law, when the debt
or damages claimed exceed $600, as also
appeals from ths nyection or allowance
of clsims, sre given by the Bankrupt Act
□f Much 2, 1807, SB. See g 24.
An appeal is given by the set of Feb.
6, 1867, ftom the decision of inferior
judges, justices, or courts, in AoAmu oarpitt
coses under that act.
The appeal from the district eonrt in
prize causes is now direct to ths Supreme
Court, if the sum in controversy exceeds
$2,000, or if the district judge certifies
that H general question of law is involved.
Act of Jane 30, 1864, S 13. See The
AlicU, 7 WalL 371 ; [The City of Fana-
nia, 101 U. a 468, 458.]
[By the act of Uoreh 8, 1876 (18 St
at L. 470), the Jnrisdiction of the circuit
oourta was extended to all suits of a civil
nature at law or in equity, where the
unonnt in dispate eiceeda, exclusive of
costs, five hundred dollar*, "and arising
nnder the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or treaties made or whieh
[886]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 802 JCBiaPBTTDEKCE OF [PABT U.
alien is a party, and the suit \b between a citizen of the state
where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another etata (a) (z)
(a) The duBBj^ Uid in the declintioii, if tbey oxMed $(>00, gire the jniiidietion
aa to ths matter in dispute. Hona *. Dnpont, 2 Wuh. 468. It ia tha UDonnt of
damftgw claimed in the dsclaration that datannines ths juriidictioii in the fedenl
conrta. Gordon u. LongMt, 16 Petere, 97. The liuitatioa to 9HK) and npwardj wai
«l>oliali«d b; the act of Uarch 8, 1816, in caaes whera the Dnit«d State* ace pbintilb.
The saita between citiaen*, in dvil caoaaa, where the demand ia to an; amall amoont,
belong to the local slats conrta, and an generally cognizable before tingle nagittndn,
and with jories rednced in number, or witbont jntiee, aa the case ma; be. A Ut*
Bngliah statute (8 & B Vict c. 127) iustitated a court of that kind, of an efficiiut
organization and summuy jorisdiciion. It ooDuats of a single jndg^ who is to be a
barrister, a pleader, or an attorae; of ten j'aan' standing ; and it has jnriadictian l»
ti; snmmaril; all aoits for debts nnder £20. The jndge hat power to commit, in ill
cases of fraud or mitcondnot, to piison for forty days, and is ths judge of all mattcn
of law and ^t, and there is to be no appeal from bis dedtioua ; but etrtior«ri will
lie to remove all toits above £10.
afaall be made nnder their anthorit;, ... lar language in the aectian of the aau
or in which there shall be a controvaray statute providing for the removal of
between citizens of different states, or t easei from the state to the United States
controveray between citizens of the euue courts. Pacific B. R. «. EetchuD, IDl
ttate claiming lands under grsnts of dif- U. S. 289. (See ui^ SOS, n.)
ferent states, or a controversy between B; statute of Uarch 8, 1879 (SO St. it
citizeDt of a state and foreign statee, L. S5i), Jurisdiction is given the drcnit
dtiient or anltjecta ; " " and ahall have courts to review by writ of error dad-
exclusive cogniianoa of all Crimea and tiona of district conrtt iu criminal ca«i
offancea cogninble under the anthority where the sentence involves in^tiaon-
of the United Statea, except aa otherwise ment or a fine of over three hundred
provided by law, and concnirsnt jnrisdic- dollara.
tion with the district conrta of the crimes Prior to the act of Jnl; 1^ 1B82, the
and offences cognizable therein," For drcnit oonrta had original jnrisdictiDntJ
cases construing the clause, "arising all suits by and against national Isnki.
under theCoaatitntian,"&c., see Cellnloid County of Wilson e. ITaL Bank, IDS U. S.
Hfg. Co. c. Goodyear, Ac. Co., ISBlatchf. 770. But by statute July 12, 188! (IS St
87S ; Uiller n. Mayor, Ac of New Tork, at I. 152), the juriadietion is given, with
ib. 469. The construction of the citisen- certain exceptions, to tbs state ca«Ttt.— &]
ship clause is the tame ta that of the simi-
(z) The presumption is against the 12 C. C. A. COS ; Ward v. George F.
jurisdiction of the circuit court when it Blake Maouf. Co., id. 296. The wme
does not affirmatively appear, in some part mle applies in all cases coming before the
of the record, to exist under the Federal Supreme Court upon writ of error or ap-
constitution and statutes. I* re Barry, peal. Parker v. Ormsby, 141 U. S. SI,
42 Fed. Rep. IIS; United Statea •. 8S j Stuart v. Eastou, 166 O. S. 4S. The
8ontb<>m Pacific R. Co., 49id. 397 1 United jurisdiction, nnder the Act of Aug. 13.
States e. Central Pacific R. Co., id. S04 ; 1888, whether original, or acquired by
St. Louis, I. M. ft S. Ry. Co. v. Newcom, retnovsl, mutt appear by the pUintifTt
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XIV.] THE UNITED STATES. "802
The; have likewise exclusive cognizance, except in certain cases
which will be hereafter mentioned, of all crimes and offences cog-
sUttemeDt of hia claim. TenneBKe t. court wheo thu anignment was niBdc.
UoioQ & Plmnten' Bank, IGS U. S. tbi. PaAer v. Oimoby, 141 U. S. SI ; Uetcall
Bat divene citiieiiBbip m«; 1m shtnrn b; «. Watertown, 138 U. 8. 664 ; Chases,
amendmant Bowden a. Banibam, 69 Sheldon R. H. Co., GO Fed. K«p. S8G ;
Ted, Hap, 7fi2. And aTsnncnta defective Bowdeo v, Bamham, 59 id. 76S. In a
as to the catiMiuhip of corporationB may init upon negotiable paper, the note ot
he waired b; anawer and taking STidenca. bill of eicbange must on ita face be nego-
Kennedy it. Solar Bef. Co., 8B id. 71(. tiabU, and the citizenahip of the original
The circnit conrts are not necesatril; omien moat be alleged. Ruain Fertilizei
bonnd by each other'a dedaiona, bat each Co. v. Snell, 21 Fed. Brp. SC>3 ; Adama
ahould follow the decisions of tiie circuit v. Bepnblic County, 28 id. 211; Chaee v.
court o[ appeals for its own clronit. Sheldon B. M. Co., G6 id. e2fi ; StautoD
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Sanden, 47 v. Shipley, 27 id. 498; Bull n. Eaason
Fed. Bep. 604; Ediion Electric Light Bank, 123 U. S. 105 ; Soperior Court v.
Co. c. BloomltigdaU, 6G id. 212. Bipley, 138 U. S. 93. See Shoecraft e.
The Act of 1887, aa corrected by the Bloiham, 124 U. S. 780 ; Brock v. N. W.
Act of Aug. 18, 1S8S, (26 St. at J.^ 133|, Fuel Co., 130 U. 8. 341 ; Ambler t>. E]y-
j t, provides: "Nor ahaU any circuit or pinger, 137 U. 3. 480 ; New Orleans v.
district conit hare cognizance of any Huit, Benjamin, 158 U. S. 411; Holmes d.
except upon foieign bills of exchange. Goldsmith, 147 U. 8. lEO ; Plant Inv.
to Tccorer the contenta of any promis- Co. ti. Jackaourille By. Co., 152 U. S. 71;
Boiy note or other chose in action in favor Hissiasippi Hills v. Cohn, ISO U. S. 202;
of taj asaignee, or of any aubeequent Hexicsu Nat. B. Co. d. Davidson, 157
bolder if mch inatmment be payable to U. S. 201 ; Steel v. Rathban, 12 Fed. Rep.
bearer and be not made by any corporation, SSO ; Wilson r. Kdox Connty, 43 id. 431 ;
nnless inch suit might have been prose- Jewett n. Bradlord 8. B. & T. Co., 45 id-
eated in each court to recover the said con- 801; Barling v. Bank of British North
tents if DO sssignroent or transfer had been America, 50 id. 260; Wachnaett Nat.
made." This provision does not apply to Bank c. Sioux City Stove WoAa, 66 id.
actions of tort : Van Bokbelen v. Cook, G 821 ; Jones v. Shapera, 67 id. 4S7 ; Eer-
Sawyer, 687 ; New Providence «. Hslsey, ney Board v. HcMaster, 68 id. 177. An
117 IT. 8. SS6 ; Blacklock o. Small, 127 admipistnitor, aa defendant, most have
U. S. OS; Ambler v. Eppinger, 187 U. S. a diverse citizenship from that of the
4S0; or to suits removed ^m the State complsinant, though his intestate may
conrta. Delaware County ». Diebold S. have had the recjuisite citizenship. Bangs
A L. Co., 133 U. S. 478. The require- o. Loveridge, 60 Fed. Rep. 963. As to
ment that the assignar must have been who are "assigneee" within the St. of
able to ene refers to his oitizenahip, and 1888, see also Sera •. Pitot, 6 Cranch,
not to the jurisdictional sroonQt. Bow- 332 ; Childress n. Emory, S Wheat. 642 ;
den D. Bnmham, 59 Fed. Bep. 752. The New Orieaoa c. Qaiues, 138 IT. S. 696 ;
rif^t to soe depends npou the position of Davies i7. I^throp, 20 Blatch. 397, 404 ;
the asaignar and assignee when the suit Greaves e. Neal, 57 Fed. Rep. 816; Uarine
is began. Jones n. Shapera, 57 Fed. Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, &c. Ry. Co., 41 id.
Bep. 4G7. 643. As to the citizenGhip of national
The assignee most {dead and ahow hia banks, see Petri v. Commercial Nat. Bank,
ability to aoe in a Federal 142 V. S. 644 ; Fisher c. Yoder, 63 Fed.
[887J
;abyG00<^lc
• 802 JDBISPEDDENCE OP [PABT IL
nizable under the authority of the United States, exceeding the
degree of ordinary miedemeanorB, and of them they have cononr-
Uep. G<J6. It u not ■ TsUd objectioit that anoe is to be brought in the diatriet m
a bona jiiU ti'snater which would give the which one of the ptutiei reudn. Hnni-
lotcuit court Juritdiction, wu made tor cipal Ins. Co. v. Gardiner, S2 Fed. Btp.
the pnrpou of securing snch juriadiction. 9S1. Bnt a defendant who it nud in
D'Wolfd. Kabaod, 1 Petera, 49S j Barney another district, where he ia found, mij
V. Baltimore, 8 Wall. 280 ; Manhattan waive thii defect by a volnntarj appcir-
liu. Co. c. Brooghlon, 109 U. 3. 121 ; ance. 3u Louie, &c.B.Co.v.McBride,lll
Hoyt V. Wright, 4 Fed. Rep. 16S. When U. & 127 ; Hardenberg ■. Bay, 33 Fed.
an BseigDment ia Gctitiona, or merely col- Bep. 812 ; IGl U. S. 112; Southem Ei-
Ineive, and the plaintiff merely a nomiaal preai Co. n. Todd, 12 C. C. A. 851 ; Snith
party, the jariedictian in determined by e. Atcbieon, &c. R. Co., S4 Fed. Bep. 1.
the uitizenahip of the imI partie*. Fum- Tliia proviaioD doe* not apply to a aiit
ington v. PiUabury, 11* U. 3. 13S, 143 i nmored by the defendant from a StUe
Hartog B. Memory, 118 U. 8. G88 ; Ber- court. Bal&nore & 0. R. Co. s. Merits
natib Towuhip d. Stebbine, 109 U. S. 62 Fed. Bep. 887. It applies in geoenl
841 ; eee Banigan v. Worceatar, 30 Fed. to suite for infringing patents. UuioB S.
Bep. 392; Heal v. Foster, 18 Sawyer, Co. v. Hall 3J|pial Co., 66 Fed. Bep. SIS ;
2S6 ; Kichardeon c Mattison, (> Bisa. 31 ; Eenuedy v. Peun. J. h C. Co., 87 ii
Greenwalt ti. Tucker, 10 Fed. Hep. S84 ; 389; see Smith v. Sargent M. Co., id.
Msdaii v. Ellin, id. 410 ; 9 id. 867. Where SOI.
the interest is joint, each party ronet be In a suit between corpontiona enetol
codipetent to sne, or liable to be sued, by two different Statea, brought iu a thiid
apart from the othets' dUienihip. Peuin- State, the Fedenl court has juriadictlaii il
solar Iron Co. o. Stone, 121 U.S. 881. the defendant waives its privilcKe of bMg
If two plaiutiffa are citizens of different sued only in its own district. Central
autes, and the defendant of a third SUte, Trust Co. e. McGeoi^ 161 U. S. I». 4
the enit cannot be brought in either plain- foreign corporation which haa an agent in
tifT's State. Smith v. Lyon, 138 U. 3- another State, on whom aerrice can he
816. ?nt the court may dismiei one Joint made, may be sued ai an "inhabit«it"
party made a defendant because he nfusea of that State in a Federal court Shsio-
to JMQ as a oo-plaintifT. Hicklin p. wald e. Dayia, 69 Fed. Bep. 701; ■•
Marco, 66 Fed. Rep. 649. The Supreme Diniy ». Illinoii Cent. R. Co., 81 id. 4».
Court must determine the circuit court's Divoree citizenship is shown when thi
jurisdiction, thoogh the parties consent to defendant is a Federal corporatiou alltpi
a consideration of the merits. Mnrria c. to be a citizen of another State than thtl
Gilmer, 129 U. 3. 316 ; Nashua & Lowell of the plaintirs residence. Union Pta
B. Co. V. Boston & Lowell R. Co., 136 Ry- Ca v. Harris, 168 U. S. 8M.
U. S. 868, 874. The defendant has the harden of proof
By the abore Act of Aog. 13, 1888, ss to such citizenship. Fcetat t. Ck™-
suits in tlie circuit courts are to be land, ic. Ry. Co., G8 Fed. Bep. 434. A '
brought in the district in which the de- circuit court has joriedictbn of an tflnity
feiidant reaidea, except when the citixen- suit to quiet title, or to remore a dood
■hip of the parties ia the juriedictional from title, where the land lies, thon^
fact. See Reinatadler d. Reeree, 33 Fed. the defendants are inhaldtants <rf otber
Bep. 308 ; Werner v. Hnrphy, 60 id. 78S. dUtricla. Dick v. Foraker, 166 U. S. 404 ;
Thns an equity suit for apedSe perform- United States p. Southern Pac I^. Os^
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XIV.] THE DNITED STATES. * 802
rent jurisdiction vitb tlie dletrict courts. (&) But no person con
be arrested in one district for trial in another, and no civil suit
{b) See infra, SMK-SSS.
63 Fed. Bep. 481. In detannining juris- juriadictioD when the tnutae ia ■ citizen
diction by citizenihip, the ptrtlM ahtnild of a different State. Dodge n. Tnlleya,
be GlaaB«d according to their real inter«st& lU V. S, i&l ; see Bondoin College «.
GUtf B. Pattm, 62 Fed. Bep. 4SB. A Hanitt, 63 Fed. Bep. 218 ; Man. k
dtazen of a Territory cannot aue a citizen 8. C. Co. v. Cane Creek, 1G5 U, S. 28S.
of a State in the Federal courta. Sneed c. Bnt when a State anes for a citizen's bene-
Sellera, 66 id. 371. fit, the beneflciaty'a citizentdiip is the
When the juriadiction ii based on citi- plaiutilTa citizeiubip. MaT;laud •; Bald-
UDahip alone, the suit may be bronght in win, 112 U. S. 4S0. When a Federal
the diatrict of either the plaintiff'a or de- Conrt haa taken poaaeamon of property on
fendant'a reaideaee. 2G St. at L. 4SS ; the original bill, its jnrisdictioa in paaaiiig
Winona, Bank v. Avery, 84 Fed. Sep. 81; upon a cnwa-UU tiled for complete relief
aea Falea tr. Chicago, &e., Ky. Co., 32 id. in diapoaing of inch property does not
078 ; QaTin n. Tance, 88 id. 84 ; Yaha depend upon the partiea' eitizenahip.
County v. Pioneei G. H. Co., 32 id. 1S3 ; Morgan's La. ft T. R. & 8. Co. v. Texas
Boatwick «. AnMrican Finance Co., 43 id. Central By. Co., 137 (J. S. 171, 201 ; Pint
897 ; HcConnick H. H. Co. «. Walthera, National Banic c. Salem Capital Floor
184 U. a 41. A suit l^ the United MilU Co., 12 Sawyer, 486; 81 Fed. Rep.
Stataa can only be brought in the defend- 580 ; Osborne v. Barge, 30 id. 805 ; »n
ant'a district. United Statea d. Southern Vanneraon tr. Lererett, 31 id. 876.
Padfic B. Co., 49 Fed. Bep. 297 ; United Under the Act of 1888, the limitation
States V. Central Pac. R. Co., id. 304. of the amount to $2,000 does not apply
Citizenebip is not properly or snfficiently to snita brought by the United States as
nerred by stating the party's " residence." plaintiff or petitioner. United States v.
Ererhart *. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. Shaw, 39 Fed. Bep. 483 ; United Stales
228 ; fMX, p. 344, note ; Ward v. Blake v. Kentucky Rirer Hills, 4G id. 273. 8o
Hanof. Co., S6 Fed. Bep. 437- a receiver of a national bank may recover
Under the act of 1888, snit does not in the circnit conrt a debt dne to the
He Bgiinit an alien temporarily in the bank without r^ard lo the amount.
diatrict Heyar v. Herrara, 41 Fed. Bep. Yardley r. Dickaon, 47 Fed. Rep. 8S6.
8S. Jariadiction once given hj adveree The amount is exclnnve or costs and in-
dtizenahip to a Federal court is not af- terest. Smith e. Oreenhow, 109 U. 8.
fected by a snbseqnent chMige of parties. 668 ; Moore v. Edgefield, 32 Fed. Rep.
Mollan p. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537 ; Phelps 498 ; Beraheim v. Bimbenm, 30 id. 885 ;
». Oaka, 117 U- S. 236, 2JD ; Hsrdnn- Hynes n. Briggs, 41 id. 468. Sepsrata
berg n. Ray, ISl U. 8. 112; 13 Sawyer, cluma, though properly joined under a
IM ; Wetherby o. Stinaon, 62 Fed. Bep. State statute, cannot be compntod to-
178. So a snit to set aside a decree as gether to make up the jarisdictiunsl
fraadnlently obtained ia not defeated by amonnt. Holt v. BeigpTin, 60 Fed. Rep.
B change of citizenship after such decree. 1. Bat the demanil of one plaintiff may
Foster v. Manafield &c. R. Co., 36 Fed. be made ap of distinct emounta each lesa
R«p. 627. In general, the fact that tbe than the 92,000, and these may have been
beDefieiary and the grantor are citizens of «equir«d by asMgnment. Beniheim u. Bim.
the same State does not defeat Federal baan, SO Fed. Bep. 885. Interest maj
;abyG00<^lc
• 802 JUBIBPEtTDENCE OP [PAttl 11.
can be bronght againet an inhabitant of the United States out of
hia district ;(c) and the act of Gongreaa provides against the
assumption of federal jurisdiction to be created by the assignment
• of promissorj notes, or other choses in action, except foreign bills
of exchange.' This restriction applies to assignees by operation
of lav, (ii) but it does not apply to notes payable to bearer :(e}
nor to euits by Indorsee v. Indorser, for that creates a new con-
tract; (/) nor to suits in equity by a judgment creditor ; (j^) nor
to cases in which the United States are a party. (A) The cir-
cuit courts have also appellate jurisdiction from all final decreets
and judgments in the district courts, where the matter in dis-
pute, exclusive of costs, exceeds fifty dollars. If the remedy Ik
3n final decrees in the district courts, in cases of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction, and the matter in dispute exceeds three
(e) Proceea of foieign ttbtohmeDt cannot be ismed t^ the circnit oHirti of tin
United States, where the defendant ia domiciled abroad, or not foai>d tritbin the dii-
trict The circuit courts cannot iaena proeetB beyond the Umiti of their diitriel,
except sabpisnB for witneuee and ezecationa in two special caaea. Toland v. Spngu,
IS Pfltare, SOO.
{d) Sen v. Pilot, e Cianch, 8S2.
(i) BuUard v. BeU, 1 Hbbod, 2S1 ; Bank of Kentucky v. Wiater, 2 Feten, I1&
(/) Young V. Biyan, 6 Wheaton, 146.
(g) Baan v. Smith, 2 Hawin, 2G2 ; Deiter o. Smith, ih. 803.
(A) Bank of United States v. Ptantets' Bank of Oeo^ia, 9 Wbeaton, 904
* Pott, S49, n. 1.
be added to the daniagea to make np the assets repnoent the ralne in omtionsiif.
amount neeeeauy for jurisdiction. Brown Towle f. American Building Society, 90
«. Webster, ise TJ. S.' S23. . A valid de- Fed. Bep. tSl.
fence to part of the pUintiO's claim made By $ 71 of the Tariff Act of Ang. £7,
in good faith, T«dnciDg it below $2,000, ISM (88 St. at L. G70), the aicnit ewirti
does not deprive the circuit court of fta may on petition in equity, prevent inl
joriadiction. Schunk v. Holine Ac. Co., reatiain the combinations and traiti iu
117U.S.EI)0; Feeler c. Lathrop, 4S Fed. restraint of trade in imported srtidN,
Bep. 780 ; Hardin v. Cass Connty, f 2 Id. prohibited by S 78. By the aet of TA.
eS2. In a bill brought by the plaintiff 10, 1891 (26 St. at L. 711), the drenit
on behalf of himself and others, the plain- courts may tuiptena witneseea and reqiun
tifTa individual claim need not always prodnction of books and papers before the
exceed thetS.OOO. See Handley n. Stnti, Interstate Commerce Comroiaaion. Bj
137 V. a. 366 ; Hill v. Glasgow R. Co., the Act of July 3, 1890 (28 St. at L. 30»),
11 Fed. Bep. SIO; Hynee u. Briggs, id. the drenit oonrts were empowned to i«-
188 ; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonner strain oontncts and combinaMona in re-
Ifercantile Co., 11 id. 151. straint at trade or commerce between the
When a stockholder appliaa for a n- States, or with foreign nation^ dedutd
ceiver of a corporatian, the entire corporate illegal by that Act.
[S90]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Xir.] TBE ONITBD 8TATBB. * SOS
hundred dollars, it is by appeal ; and if on final judgments in
civil actions, and the matter in dispute exceeds fifty dollars, it
is by writ of error, (t) And if any suit be commenced
* in a state com^ against an alien, or by a citizen of the * SOS
state in which the suit is brought against a citizen of
another state, or against a citizen of the same state claiming
lands under a grant from another state, and the matter in dispute
exceeds five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, the defendant,
on giving security, ma; remove the cause to the next circuit
court (a) ' The circuit courts have also original cognizance in
(>'} Acta of CoDgnaa ol September 24, 1780, wc 11, 21, 22 ; and Much S, 1803,
[c 40,] sec 2.
(a) Act ot CoDgrsn of Ssptember 34, 1788, wc 12. In Smett v. WjUiami,
4 Paige, 864, it was declaied, tbat the amoimt of the original claim of the plaintiff,
and not the amonat nltimatelj foond due, detennined the jnriadiction of the Court of
ChancsTf of New York, where it was limited to a certain lom.
1 Stnwval of Sttiti from Stale to United whatever, or against any officer or other
&ate» Court*. — Thia ma; take place to peraon for wroDge done nnder color of
the Circuit Conit if any suit or proseca- anthoritj derived from taid act, or the
tiOD, ciril or criminal, be commenced in Preodiaan'a Burean Actii, or for refusing
a itate court for an; wrong done or act to do any act u luoousistent with the
omitted dniiug ths rebellion under oolor Civil Righti Act, luch defendant has the
of any authority from the President, or right to remove the caoM to the proper
any act of Congreaa. Act of March S, diitriot or circuit court Act of April e,
186S, { 5, 12 U. S. SL *t L. 7G0, 7S7 ; act 18M, c SI, S S, 14 U. S. St. at L. 27 ;
of Hay 1 1, 1S66, { 8, 14 U. 3. St. at L. 48. HcEee v. Baina, 10 Wall. 22 ; post, S04,
These proTisiont are constitutional, The n. 1. [Held constitutional in Strander e.
Mayor v. Cooper, S Wall. 247 ; McCor- Wert Virginia, 100 U. 8. SOS. It was
mick o. Humphrey, 27 Ind. 144 ; except held in this case that a staM law to the
M far as they proride tor removal of a effect that no colored persona should be
judgment of a state court after the trial' on a jury was a denial of equal rights,
by jury for a retrial on the bets and the In Virginia v. Rivea, ib. 818, it was held
law, which contravenes the 7th amend- that the mere fact that the officer of the
ment. The Justices », Hurray, 9 Wall. sUte whose duty it was to select jurors
974. See acts of Feb. 6, 1887, and Jan. refused to select any colored persons, was
82, 1889, ! 1 ; ™d generally Short r. not a ground for remova]. As to the
Wilson, 1 Bush, 850 ; Eifort v. Bavins, proper remedy in such case, gee Ex paTU
ib. 480; Edwards v. Ward, 2 id. 606 ; Vii^ia. ib. 339. — b.]
Woodson V. Fleet, 2 Abb. U. 8. 15 ; Mar- So an alien defendant, or a citiien of
ray B, Patrie, 6 Blatchf. 848. another state sued by a. citizen of the
So, if any suit or proseention, civil or state in whinh suit ia brought, il the mat-
erlminal, be commenced in a state court, ter in dispute exceeds $500, and the Buit
against any person who fa denied or can- as to such defendant is to reotrain or
not enforce there the rights secured to enjoin him, or can be finally determined
Uin bj the Civil Blf^ts Act, for any cause without the preunce of other defendant*
[891]
sObyGoOl^lc
•308 JDBI8PBDDHNCE OP [paBT H.
equity And at lav of all snit^ arising under the revenu<>. laws of
the United States, or under aoj law of the United States relatiTe
in the cause, and if a citiieD of the state anj eorpniKtlon other than b bcnkiag
in which auit is brought is k1m> a defend- corpontioD, organized luider a law ti
■Dt, m>; remoTe the cause as againit him- the Cnited Btatea, or against a membar
self into the next circuit court at any thereof, as sach nember, maj be Temond
time before Sual hearing. Act of July to the proper circuit or district court by
27, 186e, c 28S, 11 U. 8. St. at L. 806 ; a mom petition atatiiig that thcf ban a
Bizby V. Couw, 8 Blatchl. 7S ; Allin >. defMice under the Coostitnlion, or any
B«biiisMi, 1 Dillon, 119, Amended so treaty, or Uv, of the United State*. Act
that a eontroreny for more tbao $S0O of July 27, IMS, c. SCS, { 2, IE IT. S. St.
between a citizen of the stats in which at L. 227 ; Fiak d. Union PodGc B. B.,
anit is brought and a dtuen of another 6 Blatchf. 862 ; 8 id. 248.
state, may be removed by the latter, The only question for a state court to
whether plaintiff or defendant, if he will determine when an application is mode to
file in the state court an affidavit that remove a cause to the Citcnit Court ii
liom prt^udice or local iofiuence he will whether the applicant has bruught him—lf
not be able to obtain justice there, and within the act of Congress. If it decides
give security for sppeonince, Ac. Act of that he has, the removal follows as of
Uarcfa 2, 18S7, c 186, 14 U. 8. St. at L. rij^t, and further proceeding in the stats
BG8. This is discuosed and held consti-
tutional in Johnson c. Uonell, 1 Woolw.
890 ; Eailwsy Co. «. Whitton, 18 Wall.
270, 287. See, generally, Sneedv. Brown.
low, 4 Coldw. 253 ; Washington, Al. & 0.
B. K. t>. Alexandria ft W. B. B.
Oran. G»S, 602 ; Sands «. Smith, 1
Ion, 290; CW v. Donglas, ib.
Beecher r. OiUett, ib. SOS; Akerly
Compare Boeenfield n
Adams Eip. Co., 21 La. Ann. 288 ; Vil-
liams D. Adldos, 6 Coldw. 615; Akaly
V. Vilas, 24 Wise. lOfi ; 1 Abb. U. S. 2S4j
Stevens 0. Phcraiz Ins, Co., 41 N, Y. HB;
FUk «. Union Pacific B. B., 8 Blatcbf.
248 ; 6 id. 882 ; Hatch v. Chicago, B. I.,
k P. B. B., 6 id. IDE.
As to removal of snits ftma stats
Vilas, 1 Abb. TJ. a 284. courta to the Supreme Conit, see 300 and
So, any salt or prosecution, dvil or note.
crinuoal, sgainst an internal revenue of- As to removal of snita &om one dicnit
ficer or peraou scting under him, for acta court to another, Ac, oNft, 301, n, 2,
done under color of his office, or against ttd.
any person holding property by title de- [St March 8, 1870, S 3 (18 St. at L.
rived from any soch officer, concerning 470), provided that in civil suit*, at law w
snch property and affecting the validity of in equity, wbet« the matter in diqmte ei-
the intamal revenoe act% may be removed oeeds, ezduaivB of costs, five hnndrsd dol-
to the Circuit Court at any time before lars, and "arising under the Constitutioa
trial. Act of July 13, 1866, c. 184, j 67, or laws of the United StatM, w trsatiea
14 U. 8. SL at L. 171. See Common- mode, or which shall be made, unda their
wealth V. Casey, 12 Alien, 214 ; Benchley aathority, or in which the United Stata
V. Gilbert, 8 Blatchf. 147. (This provi- shall be plaintiff or petitioner, or in which
oion was elaborately considered and held there shall be a controversy between dti-
conatitutional in Tenneasee n. Davis, 100 tens of diffbnnt states, or a <»ntruveisjf
U. S. 267 i Davis ti. Sbuth Carolina, 107 between dtiiens of the same state dsim-
id. 607> — B.] ing lands under granta of different statH,
So any suit at law or in equity agunat or a controversy betwen) citims of a
„Gooi^lc ■
LBCT. XIT.] THE UNITED STATES. 'SOS
to copyrights and patent-righta growing out of inTe&tiona and
diacoveries, and to protect such rights by injunctioQ. (&) The
(b) Act! of April 17, 1800, c 26, lec 3 ; of Fibrairy 16, 1819, BDe. 1, ud at SvHy
4, 18SS, c. 967, ace 17 ; wt of Uucb S, 1S3S, tatitiei fitrtlier lopn»idt/or llu arlke-
timt ofdulittoti imparii, {a. ST,] wc 2.
■tate and foreign Btaiiea, dtizem, or nib- Lathun, 103 U. S. 206 ; Corbin v. Van
jectd, either party maj nmove said suit Brunt, IDS id. 576 ; N. Y. Hnt. lus. Co.
into the drcnit court of die United States v. Allen, 13* Hasa. SS9 1 DauTen Savings
for tlie proper distriet. And when in any Bank s. Thonpaon, ISO id. 490. Aa to
■nit mentioned in thin sectioD there aball who ara the real partiea in interat, see
be a controversy which ia wholly between Bacon v. Hires, lOS U. S. 99 ; Amory
dtizeas of diffemnt states, and which can v. Amory, 96 id. 18S ; aa to when the
be fully detenniued as between them, then atata juriadiction is onated, E«ni P.
flithar one or more of the plaintiffs or de- Hnidekopar, 103 TJ. S. 48B j Stone «.
fendanta sctnally interested in such con- Saigent, 129 Uaai. 603.
tnvemy may remove said suit," Ac Aa As to retDoval of crinunal proceedings
to the effect of this statnte in repealing on the ground of a denial of civil rights,
cartitT Btatata, Me King b. ComeU, 106 see Bnah r. Eentnckjr, 107 U. S. 110 ;
IT. S. S96 ; Tenable v. Richards, 106 id. Neal v. Delaware, 103 id. 970 ; Stisoder
CM ; Stone v. Sargent, 129 Mass. 503. v. West Tiiginia, 100 id. 808; Tirgiuia v.
The conrt diaregaids the {J«adings, and Rivea, ib. 813. Comp. State t. Sntalla, 11
Biraiigea the patties on one aide or the 8. C. 262.
other, according to thdr teal intereat ; As to the time within which • petitioB
and then, if do plaintiff and defendant are to remove must be filed under acta of
citixena of the sanM state, the case is one 18S6 and 1807, see Jilkina v. Sweetzar,
tar reanvaL Removal Caaee, 100 U. 8. 102 U. 8. 177 ; nnder act of 1S7G, Hewitt
4S7 ; Hjde v. Rnbte, 104 id. 407 ! Broad- «. Phelps 105 id. 398.
way Nat. Bank v. Adams, ISO Masa. 431 ; When a removal is claimed on the
Danvera Savings Bank v. Thompson, 138 gronnd of local prejadice, it must appear
id. 183. The reqninte citizenship muat that all the pwtiei on one aide are dti-
axist both when the suit is b^nn and zens of different stitea from any an the
when the petition is filed. Qibeon v. other. Hyers v. Swaan, 107 U. 8. 646.
Bruce, 3 Supr. Ct. Bep. 873 ; lOS U. S. An alien baa no tight to a removal either
S61. A corporalion is to be trsalad as a nnder the seperate controversy or under
dtizan of the state creating it Memphis, the local prejudice clause of the act of
Ac B. B. Co. «. Alabama, 107 U. 8. 681 ; 1875. King v. Cornell, 106 U. 8. 896.
Stetunship Co. v. Tugman, 108 id. 118. A collnsive aaeignment to give jnriadic-
For casea constming the clause ' ' arising tion is void, and gives no jnrisdiction.
ODder the Constitution," Ic., see Albright Hayden d. Hanning, 106 0. S. 686.
V. Teas, 108 U. S. 618 ; Dnbnclet d. ton- In Qaines b. Fuentea, SS U. S. 10,
isiana, 103 id. 560 ; Railroad Co. o. Missis- it was held <two jadges disaenting) thst
nppi, 102 id. 136. Under the aecond clause the right of removal nnder the act of
k removal of the entire ioit may be had March 2, 18S7, was not confined to eaaea
wben there is a separate controversy be- where the Circuit Court might have taken
tween two or more of the patties, which original jurisdidaon as it had been prior
ooald be determined without deciding to that act. — b.]
tlta reminder of the isanea. Barney v.
sObyGoOl^lc
* 804 JURISPBCDENCB OF [PABT U.
juriadiction in coses of copyrights applies, Tithont regard to tbe
character of tbe parties, or the amount in controversy; and with
respect to t^e jurisdiction of the circuit coarta, it may be laid
down as the settled doctrine, that they are courts of limited,
though not of inferior, jurisdiction; and it is necessary, there-
fore, that there should appear upon the record of a circuit
court, the facts or circumstances which gave jurisdiction, either
expressly or by necessary legal intendment (e)
5. JorUdlaUon of tbe Dlatrfot Coarta. — The district as well
as the circuit courts are derived from the power granted to
Congress by the Gonstitutioo, of constituting tribunals infe-
rior to the Supreme Court, {d) The United States are at
present divided into thirty-fire districts, which generally con-
sist of an entire state; but in New York, Pennsylvania, Vir-
ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama, there are more districts than one.
A court is established in each district, with some exceptions,
consisting of one judge, who holds annually, in most of them,
four stated terms, and in some of them only three, or two, or
one; and he holds, also, special courts in his discretion. There
ore at present only twenty-nine district judges; and it seems
to be practically settled, since the. act of 1801, that Congress
may, in their discretion, abolish the infenor courts, and create
new ones under a different oi^nization.
The district courts have, exclusive of the state conrta,
*304 'cognizance of all lesser crimes and offences, ct^izable
under the authority of the United States, and committed
within their respective districts, or upon l^e high seas, and which
are punishable by line not exceeding one hundred dollars, by
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or when corporal punish-
ment, not exceeding thirty stripes, is to be inflicted, (a) They
(e) Turner t>. Tbe Buk of North America, 4 Dallas, 11 ; H'Connick e. SnlUnDt,
10 WbotoD, 192. See also post, 311. The circuit oonrta ore Dot authorized to usoe
writs of mandamut, except whoa neceasuy for the exerdM of their acknowMged
jutiadictioD. H'lDtire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504. It will therefore lie to * diitiiet
conrt refudog to proceed to judgmettt in a case sntiiject to the appellate jurisdictian of
the Circuit Court. Smith v. Jackson, 1 Piine, 453. It ia a seoeral principle of ths
common law, that where a limited authority is givcD, if the party to whom it ia ginu
extends his jarisdictian to abjecta not within it, his warrant will be no protectioD ta
the officers who act nndeT it. Morrell p. Hartin, 8 Uann. ft Gr. 581.
(iQ Art 1, sac 8.
\a) By the act of Congress of August 23, 1842, c 188, and of Angtut 8, ]84fl, c. K
[394]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKT. UV.] THE DSITED 8TATEB. ■•804
h&ve also ezclusire original cognizance of all civil causes of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under
imposts, navigation, or trade laws of the United States, where the
seizures are made upon the high seas, or on waters within their
districts navigable from the sea with vessels of ten or more tons
burden; (6) and also Qf all other seizures made under the laws
of the United States ; and also of all suits for penalties and
forfeitures incurred under those laws, (x) They have also cogni-
zance, concurrent with the circuit courts and the state courts, of
causes where an alien sues for a tort committed in violation of the
law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States; and of all
suits at common law, in which the United States are plaintiffs,
and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to two
tlw dittrict conrta were declared to bave concmreDt juriedictioa with the circuit
court*, of til crimsB and affences agaiiiBt the United Statei, the paniahnwnt of which
il Dot capitKl.
[b) The exdtuiae original cogaizance of all ciril causes of admirkltj and maritiiDe
jntisdiction ia nndentood to he eicluuve at Mwten At dialriei and eireuit court*, and
that the juriadictioD may be concarreiit with courta of commoii law, in cases in which
a MmmoQ-lftw Temedy may be adequate and proper, inasmuch as the Jndiciar; Act of
17S9, sec 9, whoD on this Tar; point, "aaves to suttoie, in all caaea, the right of a
cnnmon-law ramedy, where the common law is competent to gire it."
(z) The joiudiotian of the district id. lOOG. Under tha Rev. State. } G68,
courts OTec penalties will not he treated a* the district court ha« jurisdiction of a ee^
Uansferred to the circuit coorts l^ uncer- off by the United States when sued by a
tain langnage in a statute, as in the con- district attorney to recover fees. Tuthill v.
tract Ubor law (23 St. at L. SS8, j 3) United States, 3S Fed. Rep. G38. The
enabling the penalty to be sued for in the district courts, as well as the Sapreme
nreoit conrts. Lees >. United Statee, ISO and circoit courts, have, under Kev. State.
U. 8. 470 ; see United States v. Hooney, § 716, power to issue the writ of ns taxat.
11 Fed. Rep. 47S. A» inch penalties are Lewis v. Shainwald, 43 Fed. Bep. 492.
of a qnasi-criDunal nature, this jurisdic- As to their jurisdiction in euits reUtIng to
tion is not limited by the act of 1888, national banks, see Stephens v. Bemnyn,
giring the circuit oonrts original cogni- il Fed. K«p. 401 j 44 id. 042 ; 119 Mo.
tauce ■' of all snits of a dril nature," ei- 148 ; Fannere' Net. Bank v. McElhinney,
ceeding f2,000 in anonnt. United States 43 id. 801. In general a national bank
e. WhitcombM. B. Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 89 j cui sue in the Federal courts to recover
post, p. 881, n. Diverse cititenship is not upon a note only where diverse citizen-
a groond of jurisdiction in the district ship is shown. Danahy t>. Denison Nat.
c'ourta. In re Bnrms, 130 U. S. S86. A Bank, 64 Fed. Rep. 143.
enit for the fnll amount of a pens] bond By { 4 of the judicisry act of Har. 3,
exceeding $2,000, when at the trial it ap- 1891, the appellate jurisdiction of the old
peajs tlwt leaa than (2,000 is claimed, circuit courts over the district courts was
most be dismissed. Cabot v. McHaster, abolished.
01 Fed. Bep. 129 ; nee State v. Hill, SO
[395]
;abyG00<^lc
• 804 JDBIBPBPDENCB OP [PAET U.
himdred dotlars. The; Have jurisdiction, likewise, excloske of
the courts of the soTeral states, of all suits gainst consuls or yice-
conauls, except for offences above the magnitude which has been
mentioned, (c) The; have also cognizance of complaints b;
whomBoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the
waters of the United States, or wi^iin a marine league of its
coast; ({{> and to repeal patents undul; obtaiaed.(e)^
(e) Act of Congnn ol Septembar 34, 17SS, c 20, tec « ; [<aUe, W, d. 1.] B; act
«f Congress of Aug 8, 1816, o. 106, the duttict uid drcnit conrts uid the oooiiDi*-
aiOQeix to take affidavit*, Ac., hava jmiadictioD, a* joiticGa of the peace, igiiiut
offenden againat the United StateK, and, on the application of foreign coniali lod
eomtnercUl agents, to enforce their awardt and decrees bj amat and impriaonnen^
«C
(d) Act of April 20, 1818, [e. 88,] we. 7.
(e) Act of Febniu7 21, 1793, c 11, sec 10. B; the act of Gongnat of Angnd V,
181S, c. 188, the district conrts, a» courta of admiralty, and the drcnit coort^ n
oonrta of eqoitj, are to be deemed always opsn for the purpose of Sling pleading! snd
iMning process, and for interlocntory motione and orden.
1 Juriidieliaii a/ Dittriet Courts. — Bee, in whole or in {nrt, to dtiMas of tbs
aa to theii odminltj jtuisdiction, pott. United States, complained of for the cooi-
36B, n. 1, where the interpretation of the miadon of any offence, not capital M
•aring clanee in note (i) hy the later de- otherwise infunoni, sgunit any Unibd
daiona it also given. States law for llie protection of penwi
The diatrict conrts have cogniianc«, or pruperty engaged in camnerce or uti-
ooncnrruit with the circuit and stale gation. Aet of June 11, 1864,c ISl, t^
conrts, of all suits at oommon law, when IS U. S. St at L. 124 ; post, S63, n. 1.
the Dnited States or any officer thereof. The district courts have also, eidn-
noder the authority of any act of Con- siTely of the state courta, cogtiianee of
gress, shall soe,' although the matter in all ctimea and offencw against the Ciril
dispute is less than $100. Act of March Bights Bill, and alao^ concnirentlj nith
S, 181S, { 4. the circuit oonrta, of all canaes, dril tai
So they have jurisdiction, ooncniTent criminal, affecting persona who are denied
as above, of cuita and proceedings againat or cannot enforce the rights aecnnd to
national banks. Act of Jnne S, 1804, them by that act, in the state conits;
S B7. and in all cases where the United Sutn
So they have original jurisdiction in laws fail to fnmish remedies and pnniili
all matters and {voeeedinga in bankraptcy. offences against law, the common 1st, u
Act of March 2, 1807, f 1. [See Claflin modified by the conatitntion and ststnln
V, Hoaseman, 93 U. B. 130.] of the atat« so far as not incaaaistcnt with
In the way of criminal jurisdiction, it the Coostitntion and laws of the United
baa been enacted that the Diatrict Court States, ia to goveni in the United Stata
may, on the report of the district attor- courts. Act of April S, 1608, 14 U. S.
ney, try at special session in a snmnury St at L. 27, c 31, j S ; onic, S02, n. 1,
way, unlns, at the time for pleading, the 30S, n. 1.
accused shall demand a jury, any master. They have, in like manner, eiclndvdy
officer, or mariner of any Vessel belonging, of atata courts, cogninnc« of all crinua
[896]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIV.] THE UNITED STATES. • 805
The judges of the district courts hare, also, in cases where the
party has not had a reasonable time to apply to the Circuit Conrt^
as full power to grant writs of injunction to operate within their
respective districts, as is exercised by the judges of the
Supreme Court, and to continue until the * next circuit * 805
court, (a) They may also grant injunctions, in particular
cases, under the act for the better orffanization of the treamrjf 1
department. (J) '"^
In addition to these general powers vested in the district
courts, they have, in those cases where the districts are so situated
as not to permit conveniently the presence of a judge of the
Supreme Court, the powers of a circuit court superadded to their
ordinary powers of a district coart. (c)
To guard against the inconvenience of a difference of opin-
ion between the circuit judge and the district judge, when hold-
ing together a circuit court, it is provided by law, that in all
cases of appeal or error, from the district to the circuit courts
judgment is to be rendered in conformity to the opinion of
the judge of the Supreme Court presiding in such circuit court
And in all other cases of a disagreement of opinion between
the circuit and district judges, the point may be certified into
the Supreme Conrt for its decision ; ^ but in no case shall im-
(a) Act of FebmuT IS, 1807, [c 13,] tec 1.
(i) Act of Coagnm of May IE, 1S20, [c 107,] Me. 4 tnd S.
(c) AotofFabnur7l9, 1881, [o. 38.]
and <^lnMM igaiiut the act of Hay 31, tiScata oT diTimon bringB nothing befbn
1870, & 114, 10 U. S. St. at L. 140, and tha conit bnt &e pointi oeitifted. Ward o.
the coDcnmnt jnilsdicticinaDder tbe mme Chambarlain, 2 BUcl, 4S0; nbich ntiut
act and undar the Kn-Klni Act, which be pointa of law, Sillinuui o. Hadaon R.
haa alreadj been mentioned, aiUt, 302, Bridge, 1 Black, G82 ; Wilaon v. Rarnum,
n. 1. 8 Hoir. 3G8 : Denniatoun i>. Stewart,
BtB, ■> to tbe tQmmar; trial of offleera 13 How, 6SG ; Brobst t>. Brobat, 4
and marlnera Tor olTencea not capital or WnW. 2; and dittinctly «tat«d,- Sadler d.
otherwiae infamous, act of June 11, 1S64, Hoover, 7 How. 648. [Sea Wet^h v. N. B.
c 131, 13 U. S. St. at L. 124 ; potl, 363, Hort Co., 106 U. S. 6nS. The requeat to
n. 1- certify need not be exprraaly stated, if it
• Ctrtijleait of DimMum. — The asso- can be fairiy infemd from the record.
eiat« Jnatice of tha Saprome Court, and United States «. Harria, 106 U. S. 629.
tha reaident drcnit jnd^ holding court Aa to the diCrerence of procedare in dvil
under the act of April 10, 1869, antt, SOI, and criminal caaea, see Rev. St. U. 8.
n. 2, can certiF; a diriaion of opinion. Ini. S{ SG04G2 ; Ejs parte Tom Ton|t 2 Snpc
Ca V. Donham, 11 WaU. 1. Tha car- Ct. Bep. 871 ; 108 U. S. SGB. — B.]
[897]
^cibyGoQl^lc
• 806 JUBIBPBUDENCE OP [PiBT U.
priBonmeot be allowed, or puBiehment be inflicted, where tbe
judges of the Circuit Court are divided ia opiuioo upon the
question, (tf)
The superior courts of the several territories of the United
States, in which no district court is established, have the enlarged
jurisdiction of circuit courts, subject to revision by writ of
error and appeal to the. Supreme Court (e) > The district and
territorial judges of the United States are required to reside
within their respective jurisdictions; and no federal judge
can act as counsel, or be engaged in the practice of the
law. (/)
* 306 * 6. Jnriidlotlon of AnzUluy BtBt« Conrta. — The state
courts are, in some cases, invested, by acts of Congress,
with the cognizance of cases arising under the laws of the United
States. By the acta of March 8, 1806, and April 21, 1808, and
March 3, 1815, the county courts within or adjoining the rev-
enue districts in certain parts of the states of New Tork,
Pennsylvania, and Ohio, were authorized to take cognizance of
prosecutions for fines, penalties, and forfeitures, arising under
the revenue laws of the United States; and the State or county
courts adjoining any collection district, in relation to taxes or
internal duties which may, at any time hereafter, be assessed,
(if) Act of April 29, 1802, [c. 81,] sec. 6, 4.
<«) Act of March 8, I80E, [c SS,] sec 1.
(/) Act of DeoembOT 18, 1812, aec. 1.
Seven) qveitJoDa mty be decided at R divinon of opiiiion, tliat of tlie [Hoidiiig
the Mime time. United Statae u. Chic«go, jnitice Is to praveU for the lime bdi^;
7 How. ISG. Bnt the diTisLon of opinion but after final judgment, deene, or ordu,
maat be actual, and if certiSeJ pro forma it is the judgea' dnt;r to certify the diilb-
only, or if the question rests on a hypotb- ence as to any qnestioD which might bire
eds. it is the practice of the Supreme been reviewed on certificate nnder the ut
Conrt to decline to answer. Nesmith v. of 1802, and then either partymayremoTe
Sheldon, 6 How. 41 ; Webster v. Cooper, the finsl jadgment, deorae, or order to tbe
10 How. M; Pelham c. Rose, S Wall. Snpreme Conrt, on writ of error or a^fcal,
IDS. A diviaioQ on a motion addressed subject, &c. [The right to a review in
to the discretion of the caart does not snch case is irreopectjve of tbe amoont in
preeeat a poiot which can be certified, controversy, ever since the Mt of 18T(
although touching its jorisdictioQ. Doited <18 St. at L. 815). Dow n Johnscai, lOO
States 0. Avery, 13 WaU. 2S1 ; United U. 8. 1E8.— b.)
States V. Rosenbargh, 7 Id. G80. * AKtt, 299, a. 1.
By the act of Jane 1, 1872, in case of
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. HV.] THE UNITED STATES. * 306
have cognizance of all suits for tazes, duties, fines, penalties, and
forfeitures, arising thereon, (a) _
In attending to this general survey of the organization of the 1
judiciary establishment of the United States, it will be perceived
that all the great features of the system are to be found in the
act of Congress which was passed in September, 1789, at the first
session of the first Congress under the present Constitution. That
act has stood the test of experience since that time, with very
little alteration or improvement ; and this fact is no small evi-
dence of the wisdom of the plan, and of its adaptation to the in-
terest and convenience of the country. The act of 1789 was the
work of much profound reflection, and of great legal knowledge ;
and the system then formed and reduced to practice has been so
successful and so beneficial in its operation, that the administra-
tion of justice in the federal coiirts has been constantly rising |
in influence and reputation.
The principal officers of the courts are attorneys -and counsel-
lors, clerks and marshals. ^
<ii) Vide infra, 400-40E. [Ai to next pu«gnpIi,-«M 800, n. 1.
' To these maj be added commiaoian- wages, >a authorized hj act <rf July 20,
en and regieterB in benkniptey. 1790, J 6.
Cemmit$ianert (x) were lint aathorized By the act of Aug. 8, 1846, tbcy wen
to be appointed by the Circait Court for to enforce the dedmoni of foreigD cohbuIh
the purpose of taking bail and affidavits in certain caaee.
' in ciril eases, by the act of Feb. 10, 1812. When anthorized to do ao by the
Sea act of Harch 1, 1S17 ; Admiralty Dnit«d States coarls, they may, apon
Boles, 5, S6. Bjthelatteractthey could complaint under oath, iasue warrants for
•!•» take depositioiu dt bent itte in cer- the apprehenaion of persona whose ei-
tain caae^ but eoold not isans a hdbeoM tradition is sought nnder any treaty or
earfnu ad talifieandmn. Be parte Barnes, coUTention of the United States, and
1 8pragne, 1S3. bear and report npon the avidenoe to the
Sines these act* their powers have been Secietary of Slate. Act of Ang. 12, 1848,
considerably enlarged. By the act of g 1. The commiasioners should be ape-
Aog. 23, 1842, they were to exercise all dally dasignatsd for the purpose. In re
the powers that any jnstice of the peace Henrich, 6 Blatchf. 414. And special
or other magistrate of any of the United eommiieionera may be appointed for the
States might then exercise in respect to porpoee. United Slates r. Stowell, 3
offenders for any crime or offence against Cnrtia, 1G3.
the United States ander the Judiciary Act, The action of a commistiioner in com-
I 8S, and to issne process for seamen's mltting a prisoner may be revised on
(z) A eommissioner of a circuit court fied by the conrt as correct, as are est
i* an officer of the court, anthorized by forth in United Slates d. Allred, 16G U. 8.
law, and eutdtled to such feea, when certi- fiBl.
[S99]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 807 JDRISPEUDENCE OP [PiBT II.
7. Of Attoin«Ts mnd ConiiseL — Attorneys and counsel are r^-
larl; admitted by the several courts, to assist the parties in their
pleadings, and in the conduct of their causes in those casea in
which the parties do not appear and mant^ their out
* 307 causes personally, * as they are expressly permitted to
do. (a) This privilege conceded to parties, though rea-
sonable in itself, is, upon the whole, useless ; and the necessity
of a distinct profession, to render the application of the law euy
and certain to every individual case, has always been felt in every
country under the government of written lav. As property
becomes secure, and the arts are cultivated, and commerce fiour-
iahes, and when wealth and luxury are introduced, and create
the infinite distinctions and refinements of civilized life, the lav
will gradually and necessarily assume the character of a compli-
cated science, requiring for its application the skill and learning
of a particular profession. After the publication of the twelve
tables, suitors at Rome were obliged to resort to the assistance
of their patrons, and judicial proceedings became the study and
(a) Act of CoDgraM of September 2i, 1789, we U.
habau eorput in cotgonction with > e«rtio- any juitice of the pwce may ezerdM ludei
rari. In re Henrich, B Bktehf. 414 ; /n the act oF Jnjy £0, 1780, 9 7. Act of
rw Hutin, ib. SOS ; an(<, SOI, a. 1. July 18, 1886, c SOB, 14 U. S. St. *t L
Their Dumber wu ebkrged, and sn* 84S.
peiior courts ot tenitorin etiipai>si«d to They may take proof of debia in hank-
i^point thetu, by act of Sept. 18, 1860. nptcy in all caeea, iobject to Qst lennn
See act of April 9, 1866, i 4. By the act of aneh proofs b; the t^[iiter and hjr Ibe
of Feb. 24, 186G, they were empowered to coart Act of July 27, 1888, c 2(8, } S,
b«DB wairantB for the utM of dewrten IS U. a St at L. 228.
from foreign Teaeeb in certain caeea. Their nambera are iDCieMed. *Dd tiny
By the act of May 15, 1862, thej wen ara to iurtitnte praceadlngB againat p«i-
glvra power* to take nirety of the peace wns violating the act of May 81, 1S7D,
and for good beharior, like to thooe irf o. Ill, and have the aame duties vilb
other ofOcers, under the act of July 13, regaid to offances under that act, « thtj
1798. are anthorized M eierdK with r^^id la
TheyaretoinBtitatRproceediugaagaitut other offiracee against the Uwt of the
penoDs violating the Civil Bights Bill, United Stalee. 16 U. & St. at L. HX
and have the same duties with regard to {9.
offences under that act as they are author- Provision for the appaintment of
iied to exeniise wltb regard to other of- regitlert i» baiCkrvpley u made, ukd tbor
fences against the laws of the United duties are defined in the act of March i.
States. Act of April 9, 1866, c. 31, S 4, 1867, SS ^1, and act <^ July S7, IBM,
14 U. S. St. at L. 28. | 3.
They aie to eJercise all the powers that
[400j
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. XIV.] THE UNITED BTATIS. * 808
practice of a diatinct and learned body of men. (h) The diTision
of advocates into attorneys and counsel has been adopted from
the prevailing iisage in the English courts. The business of the
former is to carry on the practical and more mechanical parts of
the suit, and of t^e latter to draft or reviev and correct the
special pleadings, to manage the cause at the trial, and also
during the whole course of the suit to apply establislied principles
of lav to the exigencies of the case. In the Supreme Court of
the United States, the two degrees of attorney and counBcl are
kept separate, and no person is permitted to practise both as at-
torney and counsellor in that court This was by a rule of the
court in February, 1790 ; and when, afterwards, in August, 1801,
the court declared that counsellors might be admitted as attorneys,
on taking the usual oath, this did not mean or imply, that if a
counsellor was thus admitted as attorney, he could continue to
act as counsellor. He must make his election between the two
degrees.^ In all the other courts of the United States, as
well as in the courts • of New York and the other states, • 308
the same person can be admitted to the two degrees of
attorney and counsel, and exercise the powers of each, (a)
Besides the ordinary attorneys, the statute has directed (b)
that a meet person, learned iu the law, be appointed to act as
{h) Onvina, de Ortn et Prog. Jnr. Civ. «e<i. 3S, 40.
(a) In ths conrentioii vhich met in the jeai 1846 to reviae the conititatioii of New
York, than tru a itroog effort made to remove all impeditaents to the Tree adinisaion
of all peiBona to the coarta of joitice to act as connsel and attorneys. Bat the char-
acter and ntilitj of the profesiion were aaved, and the attempted innovation reanlted
in the conatitatioit*! provuloii, that ' ' an; male citizen of the age of 21 yean, of fjnod
monl character, and who poBseswe the requisite qualifications of leaniiliK and ability,
ihonld be entitled to admiaaion to practice in all the coarta of this state." This .was
leaving the rail for admiuion to be easeDtially aa it before eiiated, for it ranet of
netwaity belong to the conrta, in which the admissioii is applied for, to judge of the
satUfactory teat of the good moral character and the reqaiaite learning and ability
ot the candidates.
The conrta ought to be vigilant and thorough in their examination respecting the
ability, learning, and cluuacter of candidatea for admianon to practise as advocates
in the coarta. The interesta of clienta, the safety of the community, the purity.
Intelligence, and lut^pitj of the adminiatration of justice, and, indeed, the praa-
ervation of all our conititntional tights and liberties, are deeply concerned in the
elevated, moral, and educational standard and character of the members of the legal
pnrfeanon.
lb) Act of CongTOM of September U, 178S, aeo. Sfi.
1 He c«n BOW act as both. Bx parte Garland, 1 ValL 333, 376.
VOL. I.— 26 [401]
;abyG00<^lc
* 808 JUBISFBIIDBHCI: OF [PABT U.
Attorney-General of the United States ; and besides special and
incidental duties, it is made generally his duty to prosecute
and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United
States are concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon
questions of law, when required by the President or the beads of
the departments.^ Each judicial district has likewise a public
officer to act as attorney for the United States in the district,
and to prosecute all delinquents for crimes or offences GogaizMe
under the authority of the United States, and to prosecute all
civil actions within his district in which the United States are
concerned, (c)
a Of Clerks. — Clerks are appointed by the several conrts,
except that the clerk of the district court is ex officio clerk of the
circuit court in such district (x) They hare the custody of the
(e) lb. ThB ut of Congnu of Si9t]l H*;, 1S30, [c. 168,] mc 1, iiutitated tha oCn
of Solieitor oftht Trtatury ; andit Ib hii duty to direct and anpanntend >U viai,
•nite, or proceedings in law or equity, for th« recovery of money, chattela, end Uodl,
in the name ind for the om of the United States, end to have chargs of all lendi end
other property conveyed to the United States in payment of debts, and of all tnuts
created for their uae in payment of debts dne to them, and to nil and dispon otludi
aaaigned to the United States, or vested in them by mortage in payment of debti ;
aad to instrnct the district attorneys, marshals, and clerks of tim circuit and district
conrta, in relatirai to enits in which the United States are coDoemed. See the act
atoreiaid, in which his powen and duties are speoifically detailed. [See 12 U. S. St.
atL. 73S; Hid. 207.]
* Bat not when required by a anbor- stitntional in Sx parti Garland, 4 WalL
dinate officer, 10 Op^ Att.-Oen. iK ; and 8SS, stated at length, pott, 409, n. 1. See
only in actoal cases presented for the action Ex parte Law, iS Ga. SSS ; Hoiphy k
of an execntive department, 11 Op. AtL- Glover Test Oath Cases, 41 Ho. 839.
Oen. 189; ib. 431 ; 10 id. EO. See, gen- See (nrther, aa to the oonstatnticnsl ri^ts
arally, aa to this offlee, 0 Op. Att.-Gen. ofattomeyB,Bandall, PetT.,11 AllcD, 473;
320, and especially the act of June 32, Bx parte Bradley, 7 WalL 364.
1870, c. 160, IS U. S. St. at L. 162, esUb- The clerk of each drcnit coml u to la
liahing the Department of Jnstice, and appointed hy the judge of that <nieait.
also creating the oflSce of SolicitorOeneraL Act of April 10, 1809, c 2% | 3. IS C.
An act of Jan. 21, ISOG, requiring a 8. St. at L. 4S.
teat oath of attorneys and counsellon be- Aa to bis bond, aee act of March 3,
fore they sboold be allowed to piactiae in 1SS8, c 93, J 2, 12 U. 8. St. at L. 7SS.
the United State courts, was held luiaon-
{x) An order of coort requiring a ser- performanos of the aerrioe, and fof the
vice to be performed is gnffident anthor- allowance of the proper (be thenCor.
ity aa between a cleik of court, or a com- United State* v. Tan Duiee, 110 U.S. 109;
missioner, and the govenment for the United States v. Allrsd, 166 V, S. 6B1.
[402]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. SIT.] THE ONITED STATES. • 809
seal and records, and are bound to sign and seal all process, and
to record the proceedings and judgments of the courts. And this
is a trust of bo much importance, that, in addition to the ordinary
oath of office, clerks are obliged to give security to the public for
the faithful performance of their duty, (d) To guard still further
against abuse of office, all moneys paid into the circuit or district
courts, or received by the officers in cases pending therein, are
required to be immediately deposited in bank ; and no money can
be drawn out of the bank, except by an order of a judge, to be
signed by him, and certified of record by the clerk. The clerks
are likewise bound, at every regular session of the courts, to ex-
hibit an account of all the moneys remaining in court (e)
9. Of Min*hBTf — " Atarshals are analogous to sheriffs at * 309
common law.' (z) They are appointed for each judicial dis-
trict by the President and Senate, for the term of four years, but
are removable at pleasure ; and it is the duty of the marshal to
attend the district and circuit courts, and to execute, within
the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and to command
all requisite assistance in the execution of his duty. There are
also various special duties assigned by statute to the marshals.
The appointment of deputies is a power incidental to the office,
(d) Act or Congran of September 24, 1789, aec 7.
{e) Act o[ Mircb 8, 1817, [c. lOS.]
■ The minliala d Oie wvenl dUtticts power to trreat penoni found optnting
and their deimtiei have the wme powers illicit digtiUeriea, and to take them brfore
in execQtiiig the Uws of the United Statei • jadicial officer within the county.]
•a alieriffB and their depntiea in the aev- A Tacancy in the office of marahal nuty
vi«l Btatei hkve by law in executing the be filled by the drcait judge nntil an ap.
laws of the raspectiTa itatea. Aot of Joly pointment i> made by the PreaidenL Act
29, ISAl, c 25, S 7, 12 U. a St. at L. of March 3, 1868, c 9S, } i, 12 U. a St.
2S3. [By statute, Huch 1, 1S79, c 125, at L. 768.
I B, 20 St. at L. 841, manhals ara given
{x) la general if the marshal, in en- own name in the Federal conrt without
ftrrcing State remediee, petformi the lama regard to the eitizenihip of himaalf and
datiae as are impoaed by Slate law upon the obligon in the bond. Patterson v.
the (beriHa of the State conrta, he can Hater, 28 Fed. Bep. 31. A suit broDght
maintain in the eitcnit court the nme upon the marshal's bond in a Federal
actioni that the aherifT faaa in the State circnit court ia not dependent upon citi>
conrt. Wade e. Wortsman, 29 F«d. Kep. izenship. Sac Adler v. Newcomb, 3 Dil-
764. If replevin by proceaa from a State Ion, 46 ; Wetmore o. Rice, 1 BJai. 237 ;
court ia attempted of goods in a marshtl'a United StateR v. Davidaoni id. 48S ; Iaw-
poaaeeaion, he can ine on the bond in hia rence b. Norton, IS Fed. Bep. 1.
[408]
sObyGoOl^lc
* SIO JDRISPRUDENCB OF [PABT IL
and the marBbal is responsible civilUer for their conduct, and
they are removable 'not only at his pleasure, but thej are also
by statute made removable at the pleasure of the district or
circuit courts, (a) The act says, that the marshal shall be re-
movable at pleasure, withoat saying by whom; and ou the firet
organization of the government, it was made a question whether
the power of removal, in case of officers appointed to hold at
pleasure, resided anywhere but in the body which appoiiited,
and of course whether the consent of the Senate was not requi-
site to remove. This was the construction given to the Con-
stitution while it was pending for ratification before the state
conventions, by the author of the Federalist " The consent of
the Senate," the Federalist observes, (fi) "would be necessary
to displace as well as to appoint*," and be goes on to obserre,
that "those who can best estimate the value of a steady adminis-
tratioa will be most disposed to prize a provision which connectB
the official existence of public men with the approbation or dis-
approbation of that body, which, from the great permanency of
its own composition, will, in all probability, be less subject to in-
constancy than any other member of the government." But the
construction which was given to the Constitution by Congress,
after great consideration and discussion, was different
• 310 In the act of establishing • the treasury department, (a)
the secretary was contemplated as being removable from
office by the President. The words of the act are, " That tehen-
ever the tecretary ihall he removed from office hy the President of
the United States, or in any other case of vacancy in the ofGce,
the awistant shall act," Ac. This amounted to a legislative con-
struction of the Constitution, and it has ever since been acquiesced
ia and acted upon, as of decisive authority in the case. It applies
equally to every other officer of government appointed by the
President end Senate, whose term of duration is not specially
declared. It is supported by the weighty reason, that the sub-
ordinate officers in the executive department ought to hold at the
pleasure of the head of that department, because he is invested
generally with the executive authority, and every participation
in that authority by the Senate was an exception to a general
principle, and ought to be taken strictly. The President is the
(a) Act of Cougnn of Stptember Sf, 17S9, see 27.
(») Na 77. (a) S«Ftember S, 178B, boo. 7.
[404]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZIT.j TR£ UNITED STATES. * 311
great responsible officer for the faithful execution of the law, and
the power of removal was incidental to that dut;, and might
often be requisite to fulfil it.
This question has never been made the subject of judicial dis-
cussion; and the construction giveu to the Constitution in 1789
has continued to rest on this loose, incidental, declaratory opinion
of Congress, and the sense and practice of goTeromeut since that
time. It may now be considered as tirmly and definitively settled,
and there is good sense and practical utility in the construction.
It is, however, a striking fact iu the constitutional history of our
government, that a power so transcendent as that is, which places
at the disposal of the President alone the tenure of every exec*
utive officer appointed by the President and Senate, should de-
pend upon inference merely, and should have been gratuitously
declared by the first Congress in opposition to that high
authority of the * Federalist ; and should have been sup-*811
ported or acquiesced in by some of those distinguished
men who questioned or denied the power of Congress even to
incorporate a national bank, (a) '
(a) At the iustaneei ot the izsrcue of tbe power oT rauoTil from office hsTc iMen
multiplied berond all former example, under Freeident Juikiwn'e «dniiiiutratioii, the
propriety of the Mnceauon of the power itulf, by the first Congreee, hu been itrongiy
qaeationed. It ii in tbe power of Concrete, at any time, says a high antbority, to cor-
rect the eitenaiTe opentioa of this eiecative power, by placing the appointment of
m/trior qffitxn (and which would include ninety-niue out of a bondred of the IncratiTe
office* ot the goTemment) in other hands. S Story'e Comm. 894-S97.
1 Terture o/ Office AeU. — By the Ten- Globe, Feb. 1, 1867. Mr. H«U'b Speech ;
nceof Office Act of March 2.1867,1* U.S.' United Statee r. Guthrie, 17 How. 2S1,
St- at L. 480, c 16i, E I, it ww enacted 298 ; Wehiter-e Speech in Senate, Feb.
that arerr penon who ia appointed to any 16, 1BS5, Works, ir. ; Harbary t>. Hadi-
eivU ofBce by and with the advice and ton, 1 Cranch, 1S7, 167, 16fi, 172.
eoDMut of the Senate, and who becomes Tbe above proTisions were repealed, how-
dnljr qoalified to act therein, shall be en- aver, by the act of April 6, 1869, c 10,
titled to hold anch office nntil a successor 16 U. S. St. at L. 6, and it was enacted
dull bare been in like manuer appointed instead, "that erery person holding any
and dniy qualified, with a ptoriso as to the dvil ofBce to which he has been or here-
heada of departments. It may be consid- afler may be appointed by and with the
ered aa settled by the diacossion which tliia advice and consent of the Senate, and who
•ct Tcceived before and after ita passage, shall have become duly qualified to act
and by the erenta to which it gave rise, therein, shall be entitled to bold anch
th*t it was within tbe constitutional power office during the tenn for which he shall
of the legialatnre to pan. Johnson's Trial, have been appointed, nnlese sooner re-
^oaritis 3 Am. l^w Rev. G60 ; Cong, moved by and with Ibe advice and con-
[406]
50byGoO>^lc
* SIX JUBISPBUDENCE OF [PART II.
The marshal is obliged to give security to the United States
in twenty thousand dollars, for the faithful performance of the
duties of his office by himself aud his deputies, and, together with
his deputies, to take an oath of office, (b) By the common Ut,
the death of the principal is & virtual repeal of authority of the
substitute or deputy ; but to guard against any iQConvenience
which might arise from the operation of this principle, and to
prevent the mischiefs of a vacancy in office, the act establishing
the judicial courts has provided, that in case of the death of the
marshal, his deputies shall continue in office, unless otherwise
especially removed, and shall execute the same in the name of
the deceased marshal, until another marshal shall he appointed
and sworn. So, a marshal, when removed from office, or his
term of office expires, may still execute all process in his hands,
and he remains responsible for bis prisoners notil they are duly
delivered over to his succeasor. {e) And with respect to tbe
custody of the prisoners, under the law of the United States,
the marshal is directed to deliver his prisonera to the keeper
of one of the jails of the state in which he is marshal, in cases
where the legislature of the state, in conformity with the recom-
mendation of Congress, have made it tbe duty of the jailers to
receive them ; but where they have not, the marshal, under the
direction of the district judge, is to provide his owu place of
security, {d)
fb) Act of Congnw of September 24, 1789, wo. 27. By the act of Congiwi of
April 10, 1S06, c. 21, the marshAj's bondi tra to be filed and recorded in tbe office <^
the' clerk of the dirtrict court or circuit court aittiug within the district ; aod miti fi»
the breach of the eonditioD of anj euch bond may be instituted in th» uivu and
for the «ole nee of the person injured by a breach of the condition of the bond, and
jadgtnent* on the bond are to remain as a security for tbe benefit of any penon injaied
by the bresoh thereof.
(c) lb. MC S8 ; [Doolittla t>. Bryan, 11 How. GSS ; Stersrt c. Hamilton, 4 UcUa,
C94 ; United States v. Bank of Arkuins, Hempat. 400.]
(d) ResolutioDs of CongreM, September 23, 1789, and Uaicb 8, 17B1. See alea the
act of Congrees of January S, 1800, and 1 Piine, S6S. The mushal is botmd to take
from the prisoner under United States process a bond for the limits, as in tlie caae tot
prisnnera nnder state process.
■ent of the Senate, or by the appointment, to suspend any such civil officer, aicept
with the like advice and consent, of a (uc- United States judges, until the end of
«eaaar in hie place, except,' &c. the nest eeiaion of tbe Senate, and to fill
The Preaideut ii empowered, during the vacancy in the mean time.
•n; recess of tbe Senate, in hU di
[406]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XT.] the' nNITED STATES.
LECTURE XT.
OP THB OBIGINAL AND APPELLATE JUBIBDICnOH OF THE
SDPBEHE COURT.
Hatino taken a general viev of the great departmeutB of the
government of the United States, I proceed to a more precise
examination of its powers and duties, and of the degree of subor-
dination under which the state gorernments are constitutionally
placed.
The Constitution of the United States is an instrument con-
taining the grant of tpeeific powers, and the goTemment of the
Union cannot claim any powers but what are contained in the
grant, and given either expressly, or by necessary implication.^
The powers vested in the state governments by their respective
constitutions, or remaining with the people of the several states
prior to the establishment of the Constitution of the United
States, continue unaltered and unimpaired, except so far aa they
are granted to the United States. We are to ascertain the true
construction of the Constitution, and the precise extent of the
residuary authorities of the several states, by the declared sense
and practice of the governments respectively, when there is no
collision ; and in all other cases where the question is of a judicial
nature, we are to ascertain it by the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States; and those decisions ought to be
studied and universally understood, in respect to all the leading
questions of constitutional law. {a) The people of the United
States have declared the Constitution to be the supreme law of
the land, and it is entitled to universal and implicit obedience.
Every act of Congress, and every act of the legislatures of the
(a) Vid» mpra, S4S.
1 But compare Log^ Tender Cuei, 12 WiU. 4G7, amU, 254. n. 1.
[407]
D.qilizMbyG00>^IC
* 814 JUBISPBDDENCE OF [PAl:T D.
states, and every part of the constitution of any state,
*314 which are repugnant to the Constitution *of the United
States, are necessarily void. This is a clear and settled
principle of constitutional jurisprudence. The judicial pover
of the Union is declared to extend to aU catet in law and
equity arising under the Constitution; and to the judicial
power it belongs, whenever a case is judicially before it, to
determine what is the law of the land. The determination of
the Supreme Court of the United States, in every such case,
must be final and conclusive, because the Constitution gives to
that tribunal the power to decide, and gives no appeal from the
decision.
With respect to the judicial power, it may be generally ob-
served, as ^e Supreme Court declared, in the case of TvnuT
V. The Bank of North America, (a) that the disposal of the
judicial power, except in a few specified cases, belongs to Con-
gress ; and the courts cannot exercise jurisdiction in every case
to which the judicial power extends, without the intervention of
Congress, who are not bound to enlarge the jurisdiction of the
federal courts to ever; subject which the Constitution might
warrant. So, again, it has been decided, (i) that Congress has
not delegated the exercise of judicial power to the circuit courts,
but in certain specific cases. Both the Constitution and an act
of Congress must concur in conferring pover upon the circuit
courts. A considerable portion of the judicial power, placed at
the disposal of Congress by the Constitution, has been intention-
ally permitted to lie dormant, by not being called into action by
law. (e) The 11th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, giving
jurisdiction to the circuit courts, has not covered the whole
ground of the Constitution, and those courts- cannot, for instance,
issue a mandamus, but in those cases in which it may be neces-
sary to the exercise of their jurisdiction. ((J)
1. Its Oiigliua JulBdiotioii. — The original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court is very limited, and it has been decided that
(a) 1 DsUu, 8.
(&) M'lntire v. Wood, 7 Cnucb, COt ; LiTingston a. Yajt Ingtn, 1 Pifiie, 4Si
United States v. Hudeon ft Qoodwin, 7 Cnucb, 32 ; fnitcd States d. Bevuu, S
Whetton. 830.
(c) Couklbg's TreatiK, 2d ed. 6«.
{(2) Smith D. Jackaon, 1 Paine, ISS ; [Bath Coanty v. Amy, 18 Wall. 344.]
[408]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Zr.] THE UNITED STATEa. * 815
CongresB hag no power to extend it (e) * {x) It is confined b; the
Constitution to those cases which affect ambaaaadurs, other pu^*-
lic ministers and consuls, and to those in which a state is
apart7;(/) and* it has been made a question, whether *815
this original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was intended
hj the Constitution to be exclusive. The Judiciary Act of 1789
seems to have considered it to be competent for Congress to vest
concurrent jurisdiction, in those specified casea, in other courts ;
for it gave a concurrent jurisdiction, in some of those cases, to the
circuit courts, (a) (y) Inthecaseof the United Stately. Iiavara,(li)
this point arose in the Circuit Court for Pennsylvania district,
and it was held that Congress could vest a concurrent jurisdiction
in other courts, of those very cases over which the Supreme Court
had original jurisdiction ; and that the word "original " was not
to be taken to imply exclusive ct^uizance of the cases enu-
merated. But the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United
States, in Mai^urif v. Madison (c) goes far towards eatablishing
the principle of exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court
in &11 those cases of original jurisdiction. This last case was
considered, in Pennt^lvania v. Koeloff, {d) as shaking the de-
cision in the case of Ravara; and yet the question was still
left in doubt by the Supreme Court, in the case of the United
(<) Hubnry v. MAdiwn, 1 Cnmeb, IS7. (J) Art. 8, Me. 2.
(a) Act of CoDgnea, Septsmbcr 24, ITSS, mc 18. [h] 2 Dillaa, 397.
(e) 1 Cruch, 187. (<') G Serg. A Kswle, MB.
' £z parit Valbudi^iun, 1 Wdl. 2iS, In the c«m of n rait which wu brought
£!>S i Eie parte Yerger, S Wall. 35, B8 ; in the Circnit Court agsinit » foreign con-
Tb« Alicia, 7 Wall. fi71. On the other anl, and which failed an other grounds, it
hud, aince the act of 178B, in all cues was laid down by Nelson, J., that the
where otigiiial jnriedictioti ie given by the jorindiction of the Supreme Court was not
ConatitDtion, the court haa aathority to exdiuive. Orahun v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf.
eierciae it without any further act of SO ; St. Luke's Hospital r. Barclay, S
CongRM to Initiate ite process or con- Blatcbf. 26B ; Lorway o. Loosadti, 1
fer jariadiction. Sentnehy r. DenniMn, Lowell, 77, 1 Am. L. Bev. 92 ; Peunsyl-
24 How. 66, BS. vanu i>. Wheeling Bndge Co, 18 How.
See, as to caaas in which a itatc is a SIS, BOS, 679.
[wty, port, 833, n. 1.
(z) fide tupra, 298, n. (y) Congress from conferring original juritdic-
(y) The eonetitntionalgnuit of OTiginal tioo, in such cases, upon the euboidioate
juiiadiction to the tJ. 8. Sapreme Court of courts of the Union. Bitn v. Preeton,
•11 cue* affecting cousole doee not prevent 111 U. S. 252.
[409]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 818 JDKISPBDDEhXE OP [PIRT II.
Statet V. Ortega, (e) and a decisioQ upon it vaa purposed
waived. (/) '
Admitting this original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may
be shared faj other courts in the discretion of Congress, it fau
been decided, as we shall presently see, that this original juris-
diction cannot be enlarged, and that the Supreme Court cannot
be vested, even by Congress, with any original jurisdiction in
other cases than those described in the Constitution. It ia the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court that clothes it with
moat of its dignity and efficacy, and renders it a constant
*316 object of attention and solicitude on the *part of the
goTemments and the people of the several stat«B. (a)
2. It* AppaU«t« JmlBdtotloB In Cum pandioK In Btate Conrta. —
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, in certain cases,
over final decisions in the state courta, but it has no power to
review its own decisions, either at law or in equity, (b)'
(«) 11 Wh«at(ai, 467.
(/) In the official opinion of thi Attoraay-OenenJ of the United SUtct, in 17VJ, it
wu h«l<l tb*t the Snpniue Court of the tTnitsd Statea had no erimtitiil jarisdiOiu,
until given by itatnte, and that - it was capable of hanog it confemd by law in tlie
case of ambaaaadora, &c., ai in the caae of libeb, Ac. Op. AtL-Oen. L 12.
(a) The Imperial Chamber and the Aulic Council in the Oermanio Conititntian
were tribanals of appellate joriediction only. It wm the original law of Geimuij,
that no man could be sued, except in the state or province to whiuh he beloagid.
fialUm on the MlddU Agei, i. S7I, 373.
(b) Waahington Bridge Compuij v. Stewart, 8 How. *1S ; [Schell «. Dodg^ IDT
U. S. 020.]
1 Antt, 814, D. 1. coQrt ia not final within the act, Beddill
* It may decline to follow ita own de- v. Bryan, S4 How. 420 ; nor it au oHer
ciaionB in subaequent cases, however, aa afBrming a refnwl of a lower oonrt to
in the Legal Tender Ctaea, 13 Wall. 457, great a new trial, Bparrow «. Stnmg, t
tatie, 254, n. 1. See also Waahingten Wall. 684 ; nor ia a judgment revoitag
Univeraity b. Bonae, S Wall. 489, 444. that of a lower court, and awaiding a ar*
On the next poiut *ee, beaidea the act trial, Tiscy e. Hotcombe, 34 How. 116 :
referred to in the text, the act of Feb. 5, [Boatwiek v. BrinkerhoS, lOS U. & 3;]
1S6T, ante, 300, d. 1. nor ia a decree apoD a motion to diiaalTc
As to what is a auit, see 297, n. (d) an injunction in the conrae of a cbancety
and n. 1. Aldrich e. ^tna Co., 8 Wall, nose, when the bill w not finally disposed
491 ; pod, 336, n. 1, where the appellate of, Verdeu b. Coleman, 18 How. 88; nor,
jurisdiction of tbe Supreme Coart t« re- generally, is a deciaion which reetl in Ibt
vise deeidoDS of state coarts is also con- discretion of a conrt of original jniiiilic-
ridered. tion. Cook v. Burnley, 1 1 Wall. 672, S'S :
A judgment afflrminft that of a lower Welln r. McGregor, IS id. 188. But i
court and remanding the case to that refoMi by a state coort to allow tbe re-
[410]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XT.} THE UNITED STATES. *816
We have seen (e) that, by the act of Congrefls of the 24th of
September, 1789, sec. 25, a final judgment or decree in any auit
in the highest court of law or equity of a state, where is drawn
in questiou the validity of a treaty, and the decision is against its
validity; or where is drawn in question the construction of a
treaty, and the decision is against the title, right, or privilege
set up or claimed under it, may be re-examined and reversed or
affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon a writ
of error; and, upon reveraal, the cause may be remanded for final
decision, or the Supreme Court may, at their discretion, if the
cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final
decision of the same, and award execution. The word final, in
the Judiciary Act, is understood to apply to all judgments and
decrees which determine the particular cause ; and it ia not to be
confined to those judgments and decrees which are iiual bo as to
terminate all further or renewed litigation, in a new suit on the
same right (d) Under this appellate authority, it was declared
in the case of Gierke v. Sarwoodf(e) that if the highest court in a
W Sapra, 2(9.
id) WettOD D. City Conndl of Cfau-l«ttoD, 2 TtAen, U9. See Judge ConUing'i
TtMtiM OB the Conrta of the United States, 2d «d. 3S, for t citation of the caaea oa
thii point. This traadae of the learned jadga is copiana, acconte, and a very asefiil
dig««t for tlie ptofeeaion. The details of the practiM of the coarts of the United
StBtee, anpported b? a (nil rsTiew of tlie statutM, jadicial deoiBiona, and rnlea of th«
oonrta, are excellent.
(<) 8 Dallaa, 843.
moral of a salt lo the United States oonit* the complsioaDt, and the complunant U
is. Kanoiue e. Martin, 11 How. 23. {In entitled to hare sncb decree carried im>
WiUiama it. Braffy, 102 U. S. 248, a de- mediately into execntion, the decree moat
Dial of a writ of nipemdeai by the Vir- be reguded be a final one to that extent,
ginia Court of Appeals was held a final and anthorizes an appeal to tbU court, al-
jndgment. So a judgment denying a writ thonKb eo much of the bill ia retained by
t^ mandnmua; this proceeding being now tbe Circuit Court aa ii neoesaary for the
Kgarded as an action, and not merely aa a pnrpoae of adjusting by a further decree
prerogative writ. Hartman e. Qreenhow, the accounts between the partieti paraoant
ib. 672. — B,J to the decree passed." Forgay e. Conrad,
The rale laid down as to appeals from 6 How. 301, 204 ; Thomaon c Dean, 7
Unitad States eouts is, that "whea the Wall. 842.
decree decides the right to the property The writ lies to an inferior etata court
in contest, and directs it to be delivered if that is the highest ooart in wbicif a
np bj the defendant to the complainant, decision could he made in the case nnder
at directs it to he sold, or directs the de- the state laws. Dowuham c. Alexandria,
Imdant to pay s certain sum of money to S Wall. 650.
[411]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 817 JURISPRUDENCE OP [PIRT H.
state reverse the judgment of a aubordinate court, and, on appeal
to the Supreme Court of the United States, the judgment of the
highest state court be in its turn reversed, it becomes a mere nnl-
lity, and the mandate for execution may issue to the inferior state
court But, in the case of Fairfax t. Munter, (f) a writ of error
from the Supreme Court of the United States was awarded to
the Court of Appeals of Virginia, upon a judgment in
* 817 * that court f^inst the right claimed under a construction
of the treaties made with Great Britain in 1783 and 1794,
and the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the
cause remanded, and the Court of Appeals below were required to
cause the original judgment, which had been reversed in that court,
to be carried into due execution. The Court of Appeals, when
the cause came back to them, resolved that the appellate power
of the Supreme Court of the United States did not extend to that
court, and that so much of the act of Congress as extended the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to that court was not
warranted by the Constitution; and that the proceedings in the
Supreme Court were coram non judice in relation to that court;
and they consequently declined obedience to its mandate. A writ
of error was awarded upon this refusal, and the cause came np
^^in before the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case
in which the judgment of the court below drew in question and
denied the validity of the statute of the United States, authoriiii^
an appeal from a state court, (a)
A graver question could scarcely have arisen in that conrt^ or
one involving considerations of higher importance and delicacy,
or more deeply affecting the permanency and tranquillity of the
American Union. In the opinion which was delivered, the court
observed that the Constitution unavoidably dealt in general lan-
guage, and did not enter into a minute specification of powere,
or declare the means by which those powers were to be carried
into execution. This would have been a perilous and difficult,
if not an impracticable task ; and the Constitution left it to Con-
gress, from time to time, to adopt its own means to effectnate
legitimate objects, and to mould and model the exercise of its
powera, as its own wisdom and the public interest should requira
TThe judicial power of the United States is declared to ex-
tend to all cases arising under treaties made under the
{/) 7 Cnnch, 608. (a) Ilutm v. Huntei, 1 Wheatoo, 301.
[412]
sObyGoOl^lc
LSCT. IT.] THE UNITED 8TATE3. "Big
■ authority of the United States. It was an absolute grant * 318
of the judicial power in that case, and it was competent for
the people of thin country to invest the general government with
that, or with any other powers they might deem proper and
necessary, and to prohibit the states from the exercise of any
powers which were, in their judgment, incompatible with the
objects of the general compact. Congress were bound, by the in-
jnnctions of the Constitution, to create inferior courts, in which
to vest all that judicial jurisdiction which was exclusively vested
in the United States, and of which the Supreme Court cannot
take any other than an appellate c<^;nizance. The whole judicial
power must be at all times vested, either in an original or ap-
pellate form, in some courts created under the authority of the
United States. The grant of the judicial power was absolute,
and it was imperative upon Congress to provide for the appellate
jurisdiction of the federal courts, in all the cases in which judicial
power was exclusively granted by the Constitution, and not given
by way of original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.
The court, in their examination of the judicial power, supposed
that the Constitution took a distinction between two classes of
enumerated cases. It intended that the judicial power, either in
an original or appellate form, should extend absolutely to alt
eatei in law and equity arising under the Constitution, the laws
of the United States, and treaties made under their authority ;
and to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls ; and to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ;
because those cases were of vital importance to the sovereignty
of the Union, and they entered into the national policy, and
affected the national rights, and the law and comity of nations.
The original or appellate jurisdiction ought, therefore, to be com-
mensurate with the mischiefs intended to be remedied, and the
policy in view. But in respect to another class of cases, the Cod-
Btitution seemed ex induttria, to drop the word all, and to
extend the jurisdiction of the * judiciary, not to all contro- * 319
versies, but to controversies in which the United States
were a party, or between two or more states, or between citizens
of different states, &c, aad to leave it to Congress to qualify
the jurisdiction, original or appellate, in such manner as public
policy mi^t dictate. But whatever weight mi^t be due to
that distinction, it was held to be manifest that the judicial
[418]
sObyGoOlp^
* S20 JDBI8PBUDBITCB OF [PABT D.
pover was nnaToidably, in some cases, exclnsiTe of all state an-
tborit;, and, in all others, might be made so at the election of
Congress.' The Judiciary Act, throughout every part of it, and
particularly in the 9th, 11th, and 13th sections, assumed that, in
all cases to vhich the judicial powers of the United States ex-
tended, Congress might rightfully vest exclusive jurisdiction in
their own courts. The criminal, and the admiralty and maritime,
jurisdiction must he exclusive ; and it was only in those cases
where, previous to the Constitution, state tribunals possessed
jurisdiction independent of national authority, that they could
now constitutionally exercise a concurrent jurisdiction.
The exercise of appellate jurisdiction was not limited by tie
CoBstitutiOQ to the Supreme Court. Congress might crei^ a
succession of inferior tribunals, in each of which it might vest
appellate as well as original jurisdiction. The appellate juriB-
diction of the Supreme Court, in cases where it had not ori^al
jurisdiction, was declared to be subject to such exceptions and
regulations as Congress might prescribe. It remained, therefore,
entirely in the discretion of Congress to cause the judicial power
to be exercised in every variety of form of appellate jurisdiction,
and the appellate power was not limited to cases pending in the
courts of tiie United States. If it had been limited to cases in
those courts, it would necessarily follow that the jurisdiction of
the federal courts must have been exclusive of state courts, in all
the cases enumerated in the Constitution. If the judicial power
of the United States extends to all cases arising under the Consti-
tution, laws, and treaties of the Union, and to all cases
* 820 of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, * the state courts
could not, consistently with the express grant in the Con-
stitution, entertain any jurisdiction in thcMe cases without the
right of appeal. If the state courts might entertain concurrent
jurisdiction over any of those cases without control, then the
appellate jurisdiction of the United States, as to such cases, would
have no existence, which would be contrary to the manifest intent
of the Constitution. The appellate power of the federal courts
must extend to the state courts, so long as the state courts enter-
tain any concurrent jurisdiction over the cases which the Consti-
tution has declared shall fall within the c(^;nizance of the judicial
power. It is very plain that the Constitution did contemplate
1 The HoMt Taylor, i WtU. <11, 429 ; poK, 3S9, d. 1.
[414]
sObyGoOl^lc
UtCT. IV] THB DNITED BTATES. * 821
that cases wfthin the judici&I ct^nizauce of the United States
would arise in the state courts, in the exercise of their ordinary
juriBdictioB ; and that the state courts would incidentally take
iM^izance of the cases arising under the Constitution, the lavs,
and the treaties of the United States ; and as the judicial power
of the United States extended to all such cases, by the very terms
of the Constitution, it followed, as a necessary consequence,
that the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States must and did extend to the state tribunals, and attach
upon every case within the cognizance of the judicial power.
AU the enumerated cases of federal cognizance are those which
touch the safety, peace, and sovereignty of the nation, or which
presume that state attachments, state prejudices, state jealousies,
and state interests, might sometimes obstruct or control the
regular administration of justice. The appellate power, in all
these cases, is founded on the clearest principles of policy and
wisdom, and is deemed requisite to fulfil effectually the great
and beneficent ends of the Constitution. It is likewise neces-
sary, in order to preserve uniformity of decision throughout the
United States upon all subjects within the purview of the Con*
ititution ; and the mischiefs of opposite constructions and con-
tradictory decisions in tlie different states, on all these points of
general concern, would be deplorable.
* The right of removal of a cause from a state court by * 321
a defendant, who is entitled to try his rights and assert his
privileges in the national forum, is also the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction; and the right of removal of a cause may exist before
or after judgment, in the discretion of Congress. The Supreme
Court, by a train of reasoning which appears to be unanswerable
and concl^^ive, came to the decision, that the appellate power of
the United States did extend to cases pending in the state conrts,
and that the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, author-
izing the exercise of this jurisdiction in the specified cases by
a writ of error, was supported by the letter and spirit of the
Constitution. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, in Vir-
ginia, rendered on the mandate in the cause, and denying the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, was consequently
reversed, and the judgment of the District Court in Tir^nia,
which the Court of Appeals in Virginia had reversed, was
affirmed.
[416]
sObyGoOl^lc
* S22 JURISPRUDENCE OF [PABT U,
3. Ita Pow«n In Cu«s of Mandomiw. — Whether the Sopreme
Court had authority to issue the compulBory process of mania-
mtM to the state courts, to enforce the judgment of reversal, whb
a question which the court did not think it necessary to discuw
or decide; and one of the judges, in the separate opinion whicli
he gave in the cause, seemed to think that the Supreme Coart,
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, was supreme over the
parties and over the case, but that it had no compulsory control
over the state tribunals. The court itself gave no intimation of
an opinion whether it could or could not lawfully resort to com-
pulsory or restrictive process, operating in penonam upon tiie
state tribunals ; and it was no doubt deemed discreet not to
assert more authority constitutionally vested in the court dian
was necessary for the occasion. If the appellate jurisdictioD be
founded, as it no doubt was in that case, on a solid basis, it would
seem to carry with it, as of course, all the coercive power incideot
to every such jurisdiction, and requisite to support it
* 322 * Another question which was largely discussed and pro-
foondly considered by the Supreme Court, was touching
its aathority to issue a mandamu» when not arising in a case
under its appellate jarisdiction, and when not required in the ex-
ercise of its original jurisdiction. In the case of Marbury v. Mad-
iton, (a) the plaintiff had been nominated by the President, and.
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, had been ap-
pointed a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, and
the appointment had been made complete and absolute by the
President's signature to the commission, and the commission had
been made complete by affixing to it the seal of the United States.
The Secretary of State, after all this, withheld the commisaioiL
and the withholding of it was adjudged to be a violation of a
vested legal right, for which the plaintiff was entitled to a remrij
by mandamut ; and the only question was, whether the nmia-
flttM could constitutionally issue from the Supreme Court(i)'(';
(a) 1 Cranoh. 137.
\b) In the case of Eendall v. The United Ststea, 12 Peters, 624, it wu faidti
th&t the Circuit Court for the District of Colombia had anthoritj to isnie inl «&">
1 Maniamit. — See, beaidea the caaea Wall. 107. A miniatenal datj, tk In-
cited in note (b). Ex part* De Oroot, 8 fomwDce of which may ba talanA tr
(jr) Ifandamni will not iune antil all partt Virginia CommisainneR, 111 ^- •■
■deqtute remedies are aihatut«d. Ex 177. Aa ita offlna ia to prerent u a!'*'
[416]
„Gooi^lc
UCr. 17.] THE UNITED STATES. * 322
The Judiciary Act, sec. 13, authorized the Supreme Court to
issue Trits of mandamut, in cases warranted by the principles
iriitdinioa to • moiidaniiu, requiriiig ths performance of a mere ministeiial act by the
Poetmutei'.Ge&eral, ftud which neithet ha nor the Prandent had ao7 authority to
iImij ot control ; foi the Pdstmastei-Gsneral ia not sul^ect to the direction and control
of the President, with respect to the execution of duties impoeed upon him by law.
The President hae no dispeusLog power over the law, nor will a mandamus lie to
correct the erroiieoaB judgment of an inferior conrt It is not the procesa to reriew
judicial errors of an; kind. £1; parU Boyt, 13 Peters, 27E) j Bx parlt Whitney, 18
Peten^ (04. Thi« ia a settled principle in English and American law. The King c.
Joiticei of HonmoathHhire, 7 Dowl. & RyL SSi ; Jadges of Oneida v. Tha People, 18
Wendell, 79 ; The People v. Judges of Dutchess C. P., 30 Wendell, 668.
S
wiwrfnwut or iigunctioii, u one in nspect ric^ 17 How. 2S4 ; United States b. Sea-
ta which nothing ia left to diacretioii. It man, lb. 22S ; Beeside u. Walker, 11
it a simple, definite duty, arising under How. 272 ; Brasheu v. Mason, 6 How.
eircnmstances admitted or proved to exist, S2; CommisaioDeT of Patents v. Whiteley,
and impoaed bylaw. Uisaiauppi d. John- 4 Wall. 522 ; port, 384, n. (c). Compare
•DD, 4 WalL 17s, 49S, stated pott, 828, n. Gronville-Mana; *. Earl of Clarandon,
1. Such ia not the act of the Secretary of L. B. 9 Eq. 11. Some state conrta have
the Interior in ordering the Commissioner declined to issne the writ to compsl a gov*
of the iMid Office to cancel an entry for emor to pertenu • atatntoiy duly of ■
land. Oainea v. Thompson, 7 Wall. S47. miniataritd aort, as tncoiuisteot with the
See Secretary v. UcGanahai), 9 Wall, divisiou of the poweia of goveniment into
398, and Litchfield v. Better & Receiver, three coordinate departments. Mauran
ib. (71. foiC, 823, n. 1. Nor does a «. Smith, S R. I. 192, 217, and caaes cited
naadomiu lie to cranpel the head of a pre and eenlra. Anle, 389, a. 1, 221 n.
dspartment to pay a salary, at the instance 1 ; porf, S2S, n. 1.
of the daimaat of an office to which the Mandamv* ia an appropriate remedy to
miuj b inddenL United States v. Qnth' compel an inferior court to restore an
ioi*^.
of jurisdiction, (Ex peal* Green, 141 U. 3. 326 ; In rv Haberman
Oordrai, 104 U. 8. 616 ; Smith o. Whit- Mannf. Co., 147 id. GS6 ; Jn re Hawkina,
:; Bey, llfl U. S. 178), it will not be issued id. 480 ; Inn Morrison, id.-14 ; Virginia
' when the proper recoedy is by appeal, aa v. Paul, 148 U. S. 107; Jh rt Parsons, 160
from the erroneous decree of a court of U. S. 160 ; In ra Hohorst, id. SGS ; Sey-
■ admiralty, 3x parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. mour v. United States, 3 App. D. C. 240.
■ & 174 ; or where a State court is contion- The Fedeml courts will not by mandamus
'j; ing to proceed in a cause after its removaL or iiynuction control the action of depart-
Ousapeake K. Co. v. White, 111 U. 8. mental officers respecttng matters within
184. Bnt it is the proper remedy to com- their jarisdictios and pending before
'•■' pal jodicdal action, or whenever there ia a them. New Orleans v. Paine, 147 U. S.
1^' R«l refdsal to hear and decide a esose. 301. Ths performance of ministerial
V. Holler, 111 U. 8. 7M ; Ex duties, not involving the exerciv of jndg-
partt Morgan, 114 U. S. 174 ; Sx parte ment or discretion, may be required by
[li I"*' ftAa, 120 U. S. 743 ; Rt Chateaugay the conrta. Noble v. Union River Log-
if.'^On *. Iron Co., 13S U. S. G44; In re ging Bailroftd Co., 147 U.S. 166, 171 1
^f VOL. I.-27 i;4i73
;abyG00<^lc
* 822 JDB18PBUDE»CB OF [FAST IL.
and usages of lav, to aaj courts appointed, or persons holding
office, under the authority of the United States. There was no
attorney at taw diibund by it in azcesB b Jurisdiction otlicririaB acqniied. Balli
of its juiwdiction, Re parit Bndlcy, 7 County d. Amy, 18 WbU, 21*; D«Tem-
WaU. set ; ot when u appeal U rafused port d. County of Dodge, lOS D. a S37,
l]^ the inferior court, uid to compel the 312. In United States f. Shniz, 102 D.
production of the transcript. United States S. 878, a nuiiulamui from the SnptemB
V. Gomel, 8 W«U. 7S3, 766. So, the Court of the Districl of ColDmlia, to tlw
writ will iasas to compel the execution of Secretary of ths Interior, ordering him to
a previous order of the Supreme Court on deliver > patent to part of the public lasds,
the reversal of the judgment of the coart which patent had been Kgnluly signed,
below. Sx partt Hilwaukes B. R., 6 sealed, countersigned, and recorded, was
Wall. S2S ; Em part* Dabuqae A P. R. B., suttuaed b; the Supreme Court. — b.]
IWall. 69. [£i; parte Bradley is approved In Biggs ■>. JohnBon Coonty, 0 Wall,
in Virginia e. Birea, 100 U. S. SIS. Bat 160, it was held that a mandawiM* mi^t
tntaidamvi wilt not iseue to compel an in- be issned I; the Circuit Court to compel
ferior court to itoverae a decision renderwl a county to levy a tax as required by
while acting within its jurisdiction. Ex statate, in order to pay a judgment iv-
parte Bnrtis, 103 V. 8. saS; Ex parU ooversd in that court on its bonds, *]■
Railway Co., 101 U. 8. lil; Ex parte tliough the levy hu been eqjoined by &e
Flippin, 01 U. S. 8jS. See Harqnez v. state conit, on the ground that the boodi
Frisbie, 101 U. S. 478. But mandcmut were void by state laws. See also Webber
does lie to an inferior court to compel an v. Lee, ib. 210 ; United States v. Keokuk,
exerdte of discretioDMy power one way ib. 611, 61S : fy parte Holman, 28 lows,
or the other. See £1 parte Newman, 14 8S ; The' Mayor v. Lord, 9 WalL 409 :
Wall. 152. Except incases of fflONdaffliu pott, 110. See further, gmerslly. Tea
to inferior courts of the United States, Hoffman ■>. Quincy, t WalL fiSS ; Kdos
and to officers of the United States, the County 0. Aspinwsll, S4 How. S76.
federal courts issue the writ only in aid of
Carrickr. Lamar, IISU. S. 128; United SM ; see ib Burdstt, 137 U. S. 771;
Ststes a. Black, 128 U. S. 40 ; In rt Maverick Oil Co. v. Hanson (S, H.), »
Fann. Co., 187 U. S. 461 ; United Stutee Atl. Kep. 161 ; Unit«d State* p. Swan,
V. I^nont, IbS U. S. SOS ; 3 App. D. a 66 Fed. Bep. 517.
632 ; atUe, p, 283, note ; 19 Am. L. Rev. A mandamoa has been issued I17 a State
605. The circnit courts can only issue court to compel the speaker of a legisla-
writs of mandamus as ancillary to other tive aitembly to perform a duty wliich is
proceedings, even where this writ is a civil purely ministerial and imposed by the
action by the State law. Rosenbaum r. State Constitution. Benton v. Bldar, 31
Bauer. 120 U. 8. 160; Oaree b. North- Neb. 169; see 49 Albany L. J. 4S6;
west &c. Asa., 66 Fed. Bap. 209 ; Jn re Harvey v. McFarlsnd <Iowa), 67 N. W.
Vintscbger, 60 id. 160. Rep. 110. In Kansas it i* hdd that tb*
Mandamus will not operate to perform Ooverrtor of a State rosy be nqniird by
the office of an appeal, or a writ of error, mandamus or iqjunctioa to perfnm pnrdy
or of ifuo iBarrmUo, nor will tlie writ be ministerial dntiea imposed upMi him by
issued to compel a decimon in a certain way statute, when tliese dutiet ate sneh as
by the lower court. In re Rice, 165 U. S. might devolve apon any other officer or
[418]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XT.] THE DNITBD STATES. * 328
doubt that the act applied to the cage, and gave the pover, if
tiie law was constitutional; but the court vas of opinion that
the act, in this respect, was not varranted by the Constitution,
because the issuing of a mandamut in this case would be an
exercise of original jurisdiction not within the Gonatitution,
and Congress' had not power to give oriffinai jurisdiction to the
Supreme Court in other cases than those described in the Con*
Btitution. It had not authority to give to the Supreme Court
appellate jurisdiction, where the' Constitution had declared that
ita jurisdiction should be original, nor original jurisdiction
where the Constitution had declared it should be appellate. To
.. enable ine court to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to
be an exercise, or * uecessary to an exercise, of appellate * 323
jurisdiction.
'' The Supreme Court may accordingly issue a mandamua to a
circuit court of the United States, commanding it to sign a bill
y of exceptions, for this is an exercise of power warranted by the
principled and usages of law. (a)
- 4. Its Original Jnrisdlotlon whara a State Is a Party. — The Con-
^'' stitution gives to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in those
cases in which a state shall be a party; and in Fowler v. Lind-
^jt. tejf, (fi) the question arose, when a state was to be considered a
tiL'- (a) Me parte Crane, 5 Peters, 190.(z) In the cue of Bur; v. Uercein, [6 How.
jb*' 103,] in the Snpteme Court of the United SUtea, At Wuhingtoa, Juunaiy, 1647, it
«M u^odged that a, writ of error would not lie to the Supreme Coart, upon the jndg-
mrait of • Circuit Court, refniinf; to i^nt a writ of habeat corput, in a caae of a father
- daimiijg from Uie mother hia in&nt daagbter. The case did not come within the
' proviiion of the 22d oaction of the Judiciary Act of 17SS. The cue was not within
''v^. the limits amgned by the act of Congreu to the appellate jurisdiction of the Snpreme
>' CkxiTt [Compare Bit parte Everts, 1 Bond, 197, with Bennett n. Bennett, Deady,
^''^' (») 8 Dallas 411.
or*''^ igent HwtiD r. Ingham, S8 RtDUS, Am. St. R«p. 2B4 & n. In JUinoii, aciti-
pd W' 441; Householder v. Honill (Kansas), zen who refuses s municipal office, to which
fle)^ , 40 Pac. Bep. S84. In Missouri, on the he has been appointed, may be reqaired
iSm' other IiAnd, it ia held that there is no valid by mandaniua to discharge its dntie«, al-
^ (I)t^ distinctioD between the Goremor's potiti- though a penalty is imposed by statute
^ili>'^ Ml snd ministerial acts and that the exe- for non-acceptance. People c, Williams,
, otj''' <Mtire cannot be in any way controlled by 14C 111. 673.
^vf another department of state government. (z) See also Se Chateaugay Ore A Inn
^po^-' StaM V. Stone, 120 Mo. 428. See Qreen- Co., 128 U. S. Mi.
juP« ■ wood a L. Co. 0. Routt (17 Col. IBfl), SI
,«'=!'' [419]
;abyGoO<^lc
• 828 JDEISPBDDENCE OP [PAET II.
party. ^ (y) The parties in that Buit claimed title to lands under
grants from different states. The plaintiff brought his ejectment
' A suit *£UD8t the governor of a state state constitutioD, fmin cuTTUig out tlu
in his official character U a suit against act. It waa contended, howerer, thit
the state. Eentacky «. Dennieon, Got- this amendtaent was Toid, m impairiiig
«moT of Ohio, 24 Hon*. flS. [In LonisUua the oUigation of tlie state oontiact Hie
B. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711, the Supreme court dedded that the taking of the necn-
Court (Justices Field and Haiian dissent- aaxy Btep« to can; out tha law pused m
ing) refused to maintain aaoit in «qnitj, not a men ministerial duty, and could
and to iasns a nuaidamvs to compel the not be enforced by mtatdamtu; tint m
officeTB of the State of Louisiana to cany any tnist created hy the act. Boud of
out a law of that state, prcTionaly passed. Liquidation v. UcComb, 92 XT. B. Ml,
for levying an annual tax and appropriat- aroee under the same statute. The itate
ing the proceeds to the payment of the board of liquidation were eqjoiied fim
state debt, and providing that the act admitting certain pentms to the lieiidit of
should establiah a contract between the the statute. See further, for suits igiioit
state and its ci«ditoi*. The officers had officers as distinct from the gorenmait
been prohibited, hj an smendment to the they represent, Daris p. Gray, IS Will
(y) By the elevauth Amendment, are deprived of jniisdictian. ChiogD &
"auiu between individuals, nnless the N. W. Ry. Co. c. Dej, 35 Fed. Bep. W
State is a party, in a anbetaalial senae, 870 ; see ante, 298, u. (y).
are left untouched, no matter how much The statute providing for nmonli
their detenniuatton may incidentally and does not apply to a suit in which t. SUe
consequentially affect the interests of a is the sole pluntiff. Stone r. South Csr
State, or the operations of its govern- olina, 117 U. S. 430 ; People *. Sontbeni
ment." Uattbews, J. in Poindeiter v. Pacific B. Co., 65 Cal. 5G3. "Themtn
Oreenhow, 114 U. S. 370, 2»7. That fact that a State is the pUiatifr is oat ■
Amendment does not apply when a State conclusive test that the coDtroverej is one
is interested only in a govemmeutal way, in which this conrt is authorized to gnat
as in a suit against State officers to re- relief against another State or her dti-
strain nnjuat and unreasonable rates fixed lens." . . . Controversies between t«e
for common carriers by State authority. States have tiEtudlf been snch as relstid
Reagan u. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 151 to the boandarie* of their terrileiy. . . .
U. S. 3SZ, 420. Aa to " controversies between s State lad
A salt to compel State officers to do citizens of another State," the ctgect of
what they are required to do by a State this jurisdiction wss to avoid partiality, or
statute is not a suit against the State, suspicion thereof^ through a natJaDal tri-
Bolston e. Hissonri Fund CommissionerB, bnnal. "The grant is of 'jndidBl power,'
120 U. S. 890 ; /n n Ayen, 12S U. S. and was not intended to oonfer npoo the
443. courts of the United Stateajuriadieticaofs
The court will decline to take juris- suit or prosecution hy the one State, of sndi
diction when it la clear that a State is an a nature that it could not, on the settled
indispensable party, CunuinKham v. principles of public and intsniatiauil li',
Macon & Brunswick E. Co., 109 U. S. be entertained by the judidary of the
44<t. In general it ia only when some other State at aU." Gray, J. in Tiscoa-
contract of the Stete U at tba foundatioD ain v. Fallean Ins. Co., 12/ U. S. SAE,
of the litigation that the Federal conrts 287.
[420]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. Zy.] THE UHTTZD STATES. * S24
in the Circnit Court of Connecticat, c}aiming title under a grant
from that state, and under a claim that the lands lay within the
jurisdiction of that state. The defendant claimed title under a
grant from New York, and on the ground that the lands lay
within the rightful as well as actual jurisdiction of New York.
The court laid down this rule on the subject of the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, on account of the interest that a state has
in the controTersy, that it must be a case in which a state is
either nominally or substantially the party ; and that it is not suf-
ficient that the state may be consequcDtially affected, as being
bound to make retribution to her grantee upon the event of evic-
tion. Though there may be a controversy relative to soil or
jurisdiction between two states, yet if that controversy occurs in
a suit between two individuals, to which neither of the states is
a party npon the record, it is not a case within the original juris-
diction of the Supreme Court, because the states may contest the
right of soil in the Supreme Court at any time, notwithstanding '
a decision in the suit between the individuals. Nor will a deci-
sion as to the right of soil between individuals affect the
right of the state as to * jurisdiction; and that jurisdiction * 324
may remain unimpaired, though the state may have parted
90S ; United States v. Lee, lOfl U. S. ISd. well be sUted here aa eluvhere, thongli
In New Hampehire b. Looisiaiu ; New not strictly in place. In the fint, the
York V. Same, IDS U. S. 76, it waa held state o( Miaisatppi songht to file a bill to
tbat one slate conld not acqnira juriedic- enjoin Andrew Johnson, President of the
tion to foe another in the Supreme Coort United States, from canying into effect
of the United Statea, bj taking assign- the Beconatrnction Actt, to called, which
menta of debts due from defendant state to were alleged to be anconetitational ; bat
ddiens of plaintiff state for purposes of the oonrt refnaed to allow it; on tba
ooUection merely. — b.] groand that thej cculd not Testrain or
Shortly after the close of the lebellioo enforce die perfomiaiice of hig eiecntlTe
» suit was bniught in the Snpreme Coort and political functions by the President.
purporting to be by the state of Texas, HissisBippi v. Johnson, i Wall. 175 ; ante,
and Mnctionad by the proTisional goTeniar 2BS, n. 1. In the second ease, a bill by
of 1S85, bj the goTsmoT elected under thestateof Georgia to enjoin the Secretary
the constitution of 13S6, and by the gOT- of Wai, general of the army, and district
emor tftenrards appointed by the com- commandiT from carrying ont the same
■Dander of the district. It was held to be Becons traction Acta (acta of Congress of
well brought, three judges dissenting on March Sand 23, ]Bfl7), on the gionnd that
the gniund that, as a political bet, Tetas their ^ing so woald destroy the corporate
wme not one of the United States. Texas existence of the state, was dismissed, on
p. White, 7 Wall. 700. Two other cases motion, for want of juriMitction. Geoi^
of iotenat, arising out of the war, may as n. Stanton, S Wall. 50 : "ntr, 322, n. 1.
[421]
sObyGoOl^lc
•825 /UEISPBDDEHCB OP [PABI n.'
vith the right of soil. In such a caae the Supreme Coart would
not allow an injunction, on a bill filed by the State of New Tork
agaioBt the State of Connecticut, to stay proceedings in the eject*
meut suit between individuals, though a general claim of Boil ud
jurisdiction was involred in the private suit, because the State of
New York was not a party to the suit in the Circuit Court, nor
interested in the decision, (a)
S. Its AppeUate Jmladlotton ngaUtad by CongreM. — The appel-
late jurisdiction of the Supreme Court exists only in those caseft
in which it is affirmatively given. In the case of Witeart v.
J)auchiff (b) the Supreme Court considered that its whole appel-
late jurisdiction depended upon the regulations of Congress, as
that jurisdictiou was given by the Constitution in a qualified man-
ner. The Supreme Court was to have appellate jurisdiction,
"with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress
should make ; " and if Congress had not provided any rule to
regulate the proceedings on appeal, the court could not exercise
an appellate jurisdiction ; and if a rule be provided, the court
could not depart from it. In pursuance of this principle, the
court decided, in Clarke v. Bazadone, (c) that a writ of error did
not lie to that court from a court of the United States territory
northwest of the Ohio, because the act of Congress had not
authorized an appeal or writ of error from such a court. It was
u^d that the judicial power extended to all cases arising
under the Constitution, and that where a Supreme Court had not
original, it had appellate jurisdiction, with sueh exceptions and
under such regulations as Congress should make ; and that the
appellate power was derived from the Constitution, and must be
full and complete, in all cases appertaining to the federal
•825 judiciary "where Congress had not by law interfered and
controlled it by exceptions and regulations. The court,
however, adhered to the doctrine which they had before laid
(a) Niw Tork b. CoDnecticnt, i Dallu, 8. In tbe CMe of Bhodg kUiid i. Umm-
chuMittt, 12 Petera, 667, it wm decided, aftar & yeiy eUbortite dittnumon, Ihtt the
Suprama Canrt bad jariediction to ucertBin mi eattblith bounduiea between two
•titM, and to restore tai oon&rm righto of eoTBreipitf tud jarisdiction.(z}
{b) 8 DbUm, Sai. (<) 1 Cnmch, aiS.
(z) 3ee ante, 208, n. (y). After tlie iti tne limita we void, if not conStfltad
trne bonoduy i« xtjoBted, gnnta prerl- hj tbe other Sttte. Cot{« >. (koonr,
ooely made by iHie of the Statee beyond 128 0. 8. 1.
[422]
sObyGoOl^lc
lECr. XT.] THE UNITED STATES. •325
down, and proceeded Qpou the principle, that though the appel-
late povers of the eonrt vere given by the Constitution, they
-were limited entirely by the judiciary statutes, which are to be
understood as making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of
the court, and to imply a negative on the exercise of such s
power, in every caee but those in which it is affirmatively given
and described by statute.' This was the principle also explicitly
declared in the case of The United Statei v. More, (a) and in the
case of Duroutaeau v. The United States.(h) In the first of those
cases, the rule of construction was carried to the extent of hold*
ing that no appeal or writ of error lay in a criminal case from the
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, because the appellate
jurisdiction, as to that district, applied, by the terms of the stat-
ute, to civil cases only. The rule was afterwards, in Sx parte
Kearney, (c) laid down generally, that the Supreme Court had no
appellate jurisdiction from circuit courts in criminal cases con-
fided to it by the laws of the United States. Kor has it any
appellate jurisdiction over a judgment of the circuit courts, in
cases brought before it by writ of error from a district court,
though it has over judgments and decrees of the circuit courts in
suits brought before tliem by appeal from the district courts, (d)
6. Its App«lli^t« Jnttiaiotlon oonfiiwd to CaMS nndar tta« ConatltQ-
tlon, TtMtiM, and Iaw*. — The Constitution says, that the judicial
(a) S Cnnch, 169. (&} 6 CtMicb, S07.
<e) 7 WhMton, S8 ; ^ parte Watkliu, S PetoiB, les ; 7 Peters, 668, a. f. (z)
Id) United States v. Qoodwin, 7 Cnnch, 108 ; United States r. Gordoii, lb. 287.
Bat Me lupra, 2S9, aav dtered b; tut o( Congrsia. . Hi. Jnstice Story, in the ewe
Sx parte Chricty, 8 How. 202, 317, stated that no appeal ira« given or lies ttota the
jodgmenta either of ths distriet or drcnit eonrti in ciiminal cases. So it was ai^'adged
that the Supnms Court hai no power of appeal from the decrees of the District
Cooit mtting in hankrnptcy, and no power to issue a prohiUtion, sicept when the
Diatrict Conrt is proceeding as a oonrt of admiralty and maritime jurisdictton. See
also irifra, SSS.
1 A parte HoCardle, 7 Wall. 6M ; the Snpreme Court is by a certificate of
The Locy, B Wall. 807 ; EiparU Graham, the Jndgea of the Circnit Coart that they
10 Wall. 641, 642. are divided in opinion. Ez parte QoiAim,
Neither a writ of prohibitioD nor eerti- 1 Black, 603 ; Forsyth v. United Statss,
orari will lie fcom the Supreme to the i How, 671 ; Uoited Statea v. Circuit
Circuit Conrt in a criminal case. The Jadges, S Wall. 67S, 679.
only mode of bringing snoh a caae before
(x) See also TenneMee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 267, 290 ; fn r« Coy, 127 U. 9. 7S1.
[428]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 826 JUBraPBDDENCE OF [PiBI D.
power shall extend to all cases arising under the Gonstitiitioii,
laws, and treaties of the United States ; (tf) and it has been made a
question as to what was a cate arising under a treat;. In
* 326 * Owinffg v. Norwood, (a) there was an ejectment between
two citizens of Maryland, for lands in that state ; and the
defendant set np an outstanding title in a British subject, which
he contended was protected by the British treaty of 1794. The
Court of Appeals decided against the title thus set up ; and ^
Supreme Court of the Cnited States held that not to be n case
within the appellate jurisdiction of the court, because it was not
a case arising under the treaty. The treaty itself was not drawn
in question, either directly or incidentally. The title in question
did not grow out of the treaty, and as the claim was not under
the treaty, the title was not protected by it ; and whether the
treaty was an obstacle to the recovery, was then a qQestim
exclusively for the state court (i)^(s)
(a) e Cranch, 34i.
lb) A ease, in the leaae of the ComtitatiOD, says Hr. Jnatice Story (ConuDcntuui
cm the CoQBtitntiQn, iii. G07), ia » suit in hi« ot eqaltj, and uiaeB wbeu wiiiig ratjed
toaching th« Constitntioii, laws, or treaties of the United Stataa ii aahnitted to the
coDrta by a party who asserts his rights in th« fonn pn«eribed by kw. Bee ilao I
WhMtOD, S19, and 9 Peters, 324 ; [tn/m, a. 1, ad finem.}
> jlppeaU from Slate Cburti. — Ovingi B«ichart ti. Felpa, S Wall. ISO, Silnr a.
V. Noraood ia confirmed by Hondenon v. Ladd, ib. HO, when jonsdictian ■«
TenneaBee, 10 How. 311 ; Verden o. Cole- taken.
man, 1 Black, 472 ; [Miliar s. Lancaslei The SnpKme Coait cannot raiiw the
Bank, lOS U. S. G42 ; Long d. Ckinvene, judgment of a state court merely beeam
91 U. 8. 106 ; Haltell v. TilgbmaD, 99 the validity of a treaty or statata, ot d
V- 8. 547.] See Lanfear ■>. Hunley, 4 an aothoiity eierciaed under tlw Uaittd
Wall. 204, Semple v. Hagar, ib. 431, for States, was drawn in qnestian before it,
eaaea where juriadictian was declined ; if the dedsiou was in fisTor ot the alIths^
(if) By the U. a Bev. Stats. S 707, the n. Oleesoii, 124 U. S. StG i United Ststn
United States may appeal to the Supreme v. Davis, 131 U. a 36 ; Uiut«d Statts ■■
Conrt from all adverse judgments of the Uosby, 138 U. S. 273.
oonrt ot claims, and the cUimant also has (>} When this jnriwlictioQ depend)
a like lif^t of appeal whei« the amonnt solely upon some titl^ right, pIiTil^^ of
in eontrorersy exceeds $3,000, or his claim immiuiity under the Constitution or Ian
is forfeited nnder { 108B. Such review is of the Dnitad States, specially nt up ct
limited to appeals, and cannot be had hj claimed in the State Court, and tlien de-
writ ot error. See United States D. Yonng, cided adversely thereto, " certain propoc-
94 U. 8. 268 ; B6 id. S41 ; United SUtes tions," says Mr. Chief Justice Fnller ia
«. Jones, 11) U. 8. 477; Shepherd p. Saywatd e. Denny, 1S8 U. S. 180, 389,
Thompson, 122 U. 8. 231 ; United Statu " most be regarded as settled. 1. That tbi
[424]
;abyG00<^lc
LECI. Zr.] THE UNrtBD STATES. *S26
7. Zt> Appellate Jnrisdlotion to Matter upptalat oa the ReoorO.
— The Judiciary Act of 1T89 required, on error or appeal from
a state conrt^ tliat the error aasigned appear on tiie face of the reo-
it;, treaty, or ttetnte. Sttader v. Bald- it da«« not ftppew b7 oImt knd neoeanry
win, S How. 2SI j Bjin v. Thomw, i inteDdment that the qasstion most have
WaU. SD3 ; pod, 830, n. (a). Bat it ma been nlBed and muit ban been decided
held io a eaae annog nnder the Li^al in order to iudnoe the jadgment, the
Tender Act* that althoagb the stat« court Snpreioe Conrt will not have jnrisdio-
hid decided in taTor of the oouetitation- tion. Williuna o. Oliver, 12 How. Ill ;
■lit; of the acta, the Sapreme Court of the Qill v. Oliver, 11 How. S2» ; Millin-
nniled State* had appellate joriMliction, ger o. Hortapee, 6 Wall. 26S, 262. Cam-
both b; | 25 of the JndidacT Act of 178» pare HinneeoU v. Bachelder, 1 Waa
ud b; j 2 of the act d[ 1867 (anU, 800, 109.
a. 1), aa the dedaion below wae against a Again, the faot that a etate court ha*
li^t claimod under the ConstitndoD to declared a contraot *oid which the Sn-
hare a note paid in ooin. Trebilcoclc v, preme Conrt might think valid ii not
VilaoD, 13 Wall. 687 (orerraUng Bmm- snao^ In tmch a caae it mnit be the
rait «. Meyer, 1 Wall. S12]. See The ooostitatbnoreotDelaw of theetatewhlch
BankavL The Mayor, 7 Wall. 16; Fnrman impairs the obligation of the oontiact.
«. Niehol, 8 WaU. 41. ' Bailroad Co. v. Rook, i Wall. 177 ; Enoz
Again, if the judgment of the atate v. Exchange Bank, I2Wall. 379; Nortbeni
CMirt wonld have been the eame if the K. It. n. The People, ib. 364. In Bridge
error alleged to appear on the record had Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. US,
not been committed, or, in other word*, if and Fnrman v. Iflohol, 8 Wall. U, the
cartificate of the pnaidiDg judge of the Kor do the aigoments of conniel, though
State conrt, a* to the extetenoe of grotmde the opiniana of the State conrt* are now
upon which onr interpoaition might be made eo by rule. Oifaaon d. Cbontean, 8
iiiiiiiiwfiillji ioToked, while alwayi re- WalL 311 ; Pamelee v. Lawrence, 11'
pided with reapect, cannot confer jiiiisdio< Wall. 36; Qroes v. U. S. MortgageCo.,
tioa npMi this court to re-examine the 108 U. B. 177, ISl ; United SUtea ».
jndfpnRit below. Powell v. Branawick Taylor, 117 U. 8. 696, 700, 8. The right
Connty, ISO U. S. 133, 13S, and caaes on which the party relies mnit have been
dted. 2. That the title, right, privily, called to the attention of the court, in
er immunity mnat be apedally aet up or lome proper way, and Uie decision of the
claimed at the proper time and in the court must have been against the right
proper way. Miller e. Texas, IG3 U. B. claimed. Hoyt ». Sheldon, 1 Black, G18 ;
GSS; Morrison D. Watson, ISl U. S. Ill, Maxwell t>. Newhold, 18 How. 611, 616.
lis, and cases cited. 3. That each ch^m 7. Or, at all events, it mnst appear from
cannot be recognized aa properly made the record, by clear and necessary intend-
iriien made for the flrat time in a petition uent, that the Federal qnestion was di-
for rehearing after judgment. Loeber e. rectly involved so that the State conrt
Schroeder, 119 U. S. GSO, 6S6, and case* could not have given judgment without
dted. t. That the petition for the writ deciding it ; that ia, a definite isane aa to
of error tbmu no part of the record upon the poasesaion of the right must be dis-
which action ia taken here. Bntler n. tinctly dedudble from the leoord before
Qagi, 138 U. a. G2, and case* cited. 6. the SUte court can be held to have dU-
[426]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 826 JURISPBDD&NCE OF [PiKT n.
ord, and immediately respect some queetious affecting the validify
or construction of the GonstitutioD, treaties, statutes, or authori-
ties of the Union. Under this act, it is not necessary that the
quertion wu whether a itate l>w did not 7 How. 1 ; Tezu «. White, 7 WilL 700,
impair the obligatian of oontnctt. IS 730, itated 328, n. I. For tAha eua
WalL 33B. where the eomt has declined ta enUrtun
In order to give the court jarisdiction, political qoastlaiia, ace 286, n. I; Tht
the BtatDte, the validi^ ol which ii drairu Protector, IS Wall. 700 (as te the bepn-
in qoMtioD, must be piaaed by a state, ning and end of the rebellion),
ft member of the Union ; it is not enough Whetlur the act of Feb. 6, 1887, ntf!,
even th&t it i« pasted by • territory. 300, n. 1, Tepealsbroiiiieiion the teqain-
Hinen' Back n. Iowa, 12 How. 1. Acts ineiit of the Jndiciaiy Act of 17B9 thtt
of other orguiized political bodiea within the error ahatl appear on, the face of tfag
the limiti of the Union miut be dealt with record wai left muettled in Stawut «.
either under the power to put down ineor- Kahn, II WalL 49S, 608 ; Tnbileack f.
rections, or by the penal laws of the etate Wilson, 13 WalL S87, 894 ; bnt it BMtm
or territory in which they are acting, that the law bae not been changed, Klii-
Bcott e. Jones, 5 How. 343 ; potl, 349. The ger n. Missonri, IB Wall. 267, 282. Cues
eoort has no jarisdiction to determine nnder the former act are Walker e. TiDi-
whether a government organized in a Tiao, 8 Wall. 124 j The Tictory, ib. 331 ;
■tate U the duly constitntod government Fnrman d, ffichol, 8 WalL 44; Vorthjt.
of the etate or not. l^iat is a qnestioD Comminlonore, i WalL 811 ; InnuiMe
for the political power. Lniberi'. Borden, Co. v. The Treaaorer, 11 WalL SOi 3«e
poaed of such Federal qoeition by its de- U. 8. 889 ; Hagar v. California, IH U. S.
dsion. Powell r. Brnnswick Coonty, ISO 839. See alao Starin «. New YoA, US
U. 3. 400, 483." U. 8. 248 j Geimania Ini. Co. v. Wikcb.
In order to obtain a review in the Sn- sin, 119 U. S. 47S ; Eaneee Pacific B. Co.
preme Conrttbe judgment of the highest v. Atchison R. Co., 112 U. S. 411; Nn
State court tnoBt have been against the OrleansWater-worksCo.T.IiomsiiiuiSng>r
plaintiif in error and have neceeearlly in- BefiningCo., 126 U. S. 18 ; DrSanmn*.
Tolved a Fedei*l qneation duly claimed in QaiUard, 127 tJ. B. S18 ; Chappdl v. Brad,
the State conrt, and not merely have pre- ahaw, 126 U. 8. 182 ; Hiller t. Swinn,
aented such a qneation with others in 160 U. S. 132; Enstia s. Bolle^ id. Ul;
themselTes anfficient to mabtain the Ifewport Light Co. d. Newport, 161 U.S.
jud^eoL Brooks v. Missonri, 124 U. S. 627 ; Tennessee e. Union & P. Bank, Hi
394 ; Hale e. Akers, 182 U. S. 664 ; San U. 8. 464 ; New Orleans ■. BeqjimiD, lU
Francisco t>. Ilsell, ISS U. S. flS ; Cole b. U. 8. 411 ; Beagan ■>. Farmen' L. & T.
Oonningham, id. 107 ; Hopkins >. Mc- Co., 164 U. S. 882, 420 ; No. Psc B. Co.
Lure, id. 380 ; Beatty ir. Benton, 136 v. Patterson, id. 130 ; Gray «. Coan, id.
U. a. 244 ; Johnson v. fiisk, 137 U. 8. 689 ; 8t Lonis, kc. By. Ca v. Herriim,
300 ; Butler v. Gage, 138 ' U. 8. E2 ; 166 U. 8. 478. So the Snpnne Conrt
Beanpri v. Noyes, id. 897 ; Hiseonri e. has no jurisdiction to review by writ of
Andriano, id. 498 ; Davis v. Texas, 136 error ■ State judgment alleged to impair
U. S. 661; Leeper «. Texas, id. 483; the obligation of a oontraet, when do cod-
WUIiams «. Heud, 140 U. 8. 629 ; New stitutional objection was made in tb>
Vork & N. E. R. Co. v. Woodmfi; ISS State court Morrison v. WatKu, 154
[426]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XT.] THE TTHTTED STATES. *826
record should state in terms the misconstructioD of the authority
of the Union, or that it was drawn in question ; but it must ebov
some act of Congress applicable to the case, to give to the
Bridgt Pioprietoratr. Hobokm Co., 1 WilL ilthoogli the pRsiding jndge oerti&«« that
lid ; Naner v. Tbomw, 13 AUen, 572. it wu so ia fact. BaUroul Co. v. Rock,
If ths Murt eau «ee dearly from the i Wall. 177 ; ParmeUe v. I^vrance, 11
iriule Kcoid, that a certain provuiou of Wall. 3G. Sd the opinion cannot ba
th» Constitutioii was relied on hy the ttsorted to for thn pnrpoae of ahowiDg
part7 who briofp the writ of error, alao that > qoeetiou of federal cognizance iraa
tbat the light thna cUimed by him wti decided by the state court. Qibaon v.
dtsied, it hai jnriadiction, although the Chonteao, 8 Wall. 814. So, on the othet
act of Conf^reta or port of the Constitution hand, if th« record raiaae ■ qoMtion within
anppoMd to be infringed bj the state law is the act, and it appears from the opinion
not pointed out In expreet wotds. Bridge only of the itale court (althoogh the nme
Ptoprieton s. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. US, it leqniRd by a itats law to be Bled among
lUiFDrmano. Tfichol,8WalL44, 6S ;and the papers of a caae) that there was a
it is said that if there is no valid gnnnd point in the case irhich waa a ground of
tea the jndgDient except one which raises a dedaiou, bnt which was not within the
qnestion under the act, it will he preiamed act, the Snpreme Conrt haa Jurisdiction.
tobehased upon that, and jurisdiction will Rector v. Ashley, fl Wall. 142. See far-
betaken. Elingert).MiBeoun,18Wall.2fi7. ther, Hagoire i>. Tjler, 3 Wall. SSO.
IT it does not appear by necessary in- It may be added that writs of error to
tMdment liom the record that a qaestiou state oonrts are not allowed as of right,
within the act wsa raised and passed The practice is to submit the record to a
npoD, there is no appellate jurisdiction, judge of the Supreme Conrt, who exam-
U. S. 111. Advene jadgmeute upon Howard, 164 17. 8. C>T7. Dedsiona by
lights or titles claimed nnder authority the State court relating to ita own ptac-
osrcised nnder the general goremment tice, lu that amendments of the reconl
may thus b« raviewed. Canon e. Don- must be made before the end of the term,
ham, 121 tJ. S. 421. Mining claims and will be followed by the D. S. Supreme
infringements of letters patents and copy- Conrt, and are not a denial by a State of
rights neceaaarily InTotvs Federal laws and the equal protection of the law to Individ-
qnestions. Cons. W. G. M. Co. v. Cham- uals. Fielden t. Illinois, 148 V. S. 452.
IHoa U. Co., S2 hd. Bep. 94S ; Walter A point once decided b; the U. 8. Supreme
A. Wood B. Co. V.Minneapolis E. H. Co., Court is not a Federal question. Kansas
<1 id. 2S0 ; Haggin v. Lewis, M id. 199. v. Bradley, 23 Fed. Bep. 289. Under the
When a Federal question is neoeasarily C. S. Bev. Stats. 709, the jurisdiction
inmlved in the deduons of a State conrt, of the Supreme Court depends upon the
it need not appear alBrmatiTely in Its question presented, and not upon the
i^ion or in the record that that question parties' citiwDship. French e. Hopkins,
was raised and decided. Kaukaana V. 124 U, S. 524 ; McKenna v. Simpson,
P. Co. c Green Bay t H. Canal Co., 142 139 U. B. 606.
IT. S. 1B4, The judgment of the high' The deciaion of a State court coiistming
art State conrt must hsve been final, the laws of the Territory from which that
not merely interlocntory. Famsworth v. State waa formed will he followed by a
Hontsna, 129 U. S. 104 ; McCoUam v. Federal court, when there are no cogent
[427]
sObyG'OOl^lc
* 826 J0BIBPBDDENCK OF [PART H.
Sapreme Court appellate jurUdictiotL It will be sufficient, if it
be apparent that the case, in point of law, involved one of tlie
qnestionB on ;vhich the appellate jurisdiction is made to depend
b; tiie 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and that the
state court must have virtually passed upon it. (e) But tiie
(e) Cnig V. State of Hinonri, 4 Fetan, 410. In CnnraU v. Eanddl, 10 P«en,
888, the Snprems Court nriewed ftll the cu«e on the ippeUate Juiisdktkin oT the
oourt from the ttate courti ; uid it wu dedded, that to giro tihe oonit appellit*
jotiadiction, two thiogt mtut have occnircd, and b« appannt in the nootd, o b;
necesBuy inference from it: (1.) UwtMme one of the qneitiaiu stated in the 2lth
MCtiou of the Jndiciaiy Act of 17BB did ariit in the oonrt below, and (2.) tint i
deciaion was actuall; luade thereon b^ tlie same coort in the manner required b; tb
MCtion. If both of these do not appear on the reiwtd, the appellate juriadictioa
Euls. 12 Petera, 607 ; Ocean loe. Co. v. PolleyB, IS Peters, 167 ; Coons ■. OtHipr,
16 Peten, IS, s. P. See also Conklin's Treatise (2d ed.), SO.
ines whether the case upon the &ee of Cougras to adjodicate on oertain elun^
Uie record will justify the allowance of which were to be paid if the SecRlai;
the writ. Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 of the Tieuory should, on ■ itport of
Wall. 821; Oleasou v. Florida, 9 WaU. 779. the evidence, deem it advisable, it wu
See, as to what i> a caose or Bvlit, ante, held tliat the judge acted as a «oanDi>-
297, □. (d). A petition for a writ of sioner, and no appeal Uy. United Stitis
tmbeai corput, duly presented, is one. Ex v. Ferreira, 13 How, 40j Bx parU ZeUna,
parte UiUigau, 1 Wall. 2, 113. So is s 9 Wall. Hi, 247 ; United States g. Or-
proceeding institated in a state court by cuit Judges, S Wall. 07S. See the amilar
■ubmittiag an agreed statement of facta decision as to the Conit of Claims ss f«-
without any compulaory procesi. Aldrich meriy regulated, iwta, 297, n. 1.
t>. MtOM Co., 8 Wall. 491. Bat when a As to what is a final jodgment, ast
district judge was antborized by act of 816, n. 1.
RMons for disi^arding it. Capital Bank dicnit conrt can revise the acticm of a Stiti
V. Pane* County School District Ho. M, court of eqoity. Sharp t>. WhiUaids, 19
88 Fed. Bep. 988. And if a Territory is Fed. Bop. 166,
■dmitt«d aa a Slate pending an appeal to A Federal Cout cannot restrain « aini'
the U. 8. Supreme Coort ftwm the Temto- nal prcsecntion by a State nndar an nn-
rial court, and later the State's hi^ett constitutional State statnte, or a dtj
oourt reaebee an oppoaita reanlt on the ordinance which contravenes the Umtsd
same iiuestion, the latter decision will be States Constitutkin. Minneapolii &c Bv.
foHowed on the appeal. Stutsman Connty Co. v. Miluer, 67 Fed. Rep. 878 ; Tifk
». Wallace, 142 U. S, 298. CmUra, as to Wo n. Crowley, 28 id. 207. Undo Ok
the binding effect of a Stata decision over- U. S. Kev. Stats. { 1978, criminal pro-
niling an earlier one. National F. A P. caedinp threatened onder an nneonstita.
Works p. Oconto Water Co., 63 Fed. tional State law, may be eqjoined, if their
Sep. tOOS. Bnt a Federal court cannot avowed olgsct is to obatract the plsintif
originally entertain a Ull for the review in the puiauit of a lawful basinest nndu
and rehearing of a suit bnMight in a State the Intaretata Commerce I«w. IL Sehind-
eonrt. Oravar «. Fanrot, 64 Fed. Bep. ler B. C^o. v. Weh^ 43 Fed. Bep. 661 ;
241. It is only by removal that a Federal Donald v. Scott, 67 id. 864.
[428]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. XT.J THE UNITED STATES, * 328
court has been bo precise upon this point, that in Miller v.
NieholU, (d) notwithstanding it was believed that an act of
Congress, giving the United States priority in cases of insol-
vency, had been disregarded, yet, as the fact of insolvency
'did not appear upon record, the court decided that they * 327
could not take jurisdiction of the case. In the exercise
of their appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can only take
notice of questions arising on matters of fact appearing upon the
record ; and in all cases where jurisdiction depends on the party,
it is the party named in the record, (a)
S. Its AppolUto Jiuladlatlon vxiBta, ttaon^ a Steta b« a Party, (z)
— The appellate jurisdiction may exist, though a state be a party,
and it extends to a final judgment in a state court, on a case
arising under the authority of the Union. The appellate powers
of the federal judiciary over the state tribunals was again, and
very largely, discussed in the case of Cohens v. Virginia ; {h) and
the constitutional authority of the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court was vindicated with great strength of ail-
ment and clearness of illustration. The question arose under an
act of Congress instituting a lottery in the District of Columbia,
and the defendant below was criminally prosecuted for selling
tickets in that lottery, contrary to an act of the legislature of
Virginia. Judgment was rendered against him, in the highest
coort of the state in which the cause was cognizable, though
he claimed the protection of the act of Congress. A writ of
error was brought upon that judgment into the Supreme Court
of the United States, on the ground that the prosecution drew
in question the validity of the statute in Vii^uia, as being re-
pugnant to a law of the United States, and that the decision was
in favor of the state law. It was made a great point in the case,
whether the Supreme Court had any jurisdiction.
The court decided, that its appellate jurisdiction was not ex-
cluded by the character of the parties, one of them being a state,
and Uie other a citizen of the state. Jurisdiction was given
to the courts of the Union in two classes of cases. * In * S28
(d) 4 WhMton, Sll.
(a) Oovemor of Oeorgla «. Hadnzo, 1 Peteta, 110 ; Hickia n. Staika, ib. B8 ;
tJAtt e, CockeTBl], 6 id. 348.
(t) 8 Whwton, 284.
ix) See infiv, SSI, a. (x).
[429]
I
D.qitizeabyG00<^lc
* S29 JDBIBFBDDrafOB OF [p&BT U,
the first, their jurisdiction depended on the diaracter of the
cause, whoever might be the parties; and, in the second, it
depended entirely on the character of the parties, and it was
unimportant what might be the subject of controversy. The gen-
eral government, though limited as to ita objects, was supreme
with respect to those objects. It was supreme in all cases in
which it was empowered to act. A case arising under the Con-
stitution and laws of the Union was cognizable in the courts of
the Union, whoever might be the parties to that case. The sover-
eignty of the states was limited or surrendered, in many cases,
where there was no other power conferred on Congress than a
constructive power to maintain the principles established in the
Constitution. One of the inatruments by which that duty mi^t
be peacefully performed waa the judicial department It was
authorized to decide all ca$et of every description, arising under
the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the Union ; and from this
general grant of jurisdiction, no exception is made of those
cases in which a state may be a party. It was likewise a polit-
ical axiom, that the judicial power of every well-constituted
government must be coextensive with the legislative power, and
must be capable of deciding every judicial question which grovB
out of the Constitution and laws. The most mischievous conse-
quences would follow, from the absence of appellate jurisdiction
over a state court, where a state was a party, for it would pros-
trate the government and laws of the Union at the feet of every
state. The powers of the government could not be executed by
its own means, in any state disposed to resist its execution by a
course of legislation. If the courts of the Union could not cor-
rect the judgments of the state courts, inflicting penalties under
state laws, upon individuals executing the laws of the Union,
each member of the confederacy would poaseas a veto on the will
of the whole. No government ought to he so defective in its
organization as not to contain within itself the means of
•S29 securing the execution of its own laws. If "each state
was left at liberty to put its own construction upon the
constitutional powers of Congress, and to legislate in conformity
to its own opinion, and enforce its opinion by penalties, and t^
resist or defeat, in the form of law, the le^timate measures of
the Union, it would destroy the Constitution, or reduce it to the
imbecility of the old confederation. To prevent such mischief
[430]
sObyGoOl^lc
I.ECT. XT.] . THE UNITED STATES. * 380
and rain, die ConBtitntion of Uie United States, most viaely and
moat clearly, conferred on the judicial department the power of
construing tbe Constitution and laws in every case, and of pre-
serving them from all violation from every quarter, so far aa
judicial decisions could preserve them.
The case before the court was one in which jurisdiction de-
pended upon the character of the cause, as it was a case arising
under the law of the Union. It was not an ordinary case of a
controversy between a state and one of its citizens, for there the
jurisdiction would depend upon the character of the parties. The
court concluded, that the appellate power did extend to the
case, though a state was a party, because it was a case touching
the validity of an act of Congress, and the decision of the state
court was against its validity ; and in all cases arising under the
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the Union, the juriBdiction of
the court may be exercised in an appellate form, though a state
be a party.
The court observed, that the amendment to the Constitution,
declaring that the judicial power was not to be construed to extend
to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against a
state by individuals, did not apply to a writ of error, which was
not a suit against a state, within the meaning of the Constitution ;
and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in cases arising under
the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the Union, may be exercised
by a writ of error brought upon the judgment of a state court.
The United Stetes are one nation and one people, aa to all
cases and powers given by the Constitution, and the judi-
cial power * mnat be competent not only to decide on the * 330
validity of the constitution or law of a state, if it be re-
pugnant to the Constitution or to a law of the United States,
but also to decide on the judgment of a stete tribunal enforc-
ing such unconstitutional law. The federal courte mast either
possess exclusive jurisdiction in all cases affecting the Constitu-
tion and laws and treaties of the Union, or they must have -
power to revise the judgments rendered on them by the state
tribunals. If the several state courte had final jurisdiction
over the same cases, arising upon the same laws, it would be a
hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction
and confusion could proceed. Nothing can be plainer than the
proposition, that the Supreme Court of the nation mnat have
[431]
• 380 JDBI8PEUDENCE OF [PiBT II.
power to reviBe the decisions of local tribunals on queetions
which affect the nation, or the most important ends of the
government might be defeated, and we should be no longer one
nation for an; efficient purpose. The doctrine would go to
destroy the great ftmdamental principles on which the fabric of
the Union stands, (a)^
We have now finished the review of the most important pointo
that have arisen in the jnriBpnidence of the United States, on the
subject of the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court So far as t^e powers of that court, under the Constitntion,
and under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, hare
been drawn in question, they have been maintained with great
success, and with an equal display of dignity and diecretiOD. (z)
<a) In WilliunB v. NornB tnd UoatgDmer; v. Henwndst, 12 Wbeaton, 117, Itt,
under the 2Cth section of the Jndicury Aot of 17B9, c 20, it ww held thit tin
Supreme Court hu no appellate joriKiictbn, nnleM the decUion in the itale court
be againtt the right or title act np by the part; under the Conititntion or statute d
th« nnited States, and the titla depended thereon ; or nnleaa the decision be in fatar
of • Btnte Uw, when ita vulidity was qneitioned, aa rapognant to the ConititutiiM of
the United Stataa, and the right of the party depended upon the state law,
» AMt, B8S, n. 1.
(«) The appellate jnrisdictbn of the Sn- 141 U. 8. 8S1 ; In rt Vooda, 14S It, 8.
pnms Covt wa« materiall; affiscted by the 803 ; Uq Ow Bew e. United States, HI
Act of March S, 1891, ch. C17 (36 St at L. U. S. 17 ; 47 Fed. Rep.eU; LanOirBeii,
826 ; see alao Ibid. 1116), ettsbliahing in petitioner. 111 U. S. GS8 ; Hittinglj •.
««h circuit a cirouit coart of appeals, con- N.W.Va.R Co., IfiS U.S. 63; New York,
Hsting of three jndgeBiwhichact abolished ftc. R. Co. r. Bennett, 19 Fed. Rep. 598;
(by S 1) the previous appellate joriadiction Baltimore & 0. R. Co. ». Andtewi, M id.
of the circuit coutta ; and provided (£ 6) 7SS ; United State* s. National EichiD|a
for an appeal from the district or circuit Bank, 63 id. 9.
courts direct to the Supreme Court in The question whether the jtuiguMnt of
certain cases. The taarahala thereby pro- the circuit court of appeals is finil, is pro-
vided for these oourts were aboliahed by vided in the Aot of Mar. 3, 1891, { «,
the Act of July Ifl, 1892 (27 St. at L. 222), when the jurisdiction is dependent upon
which devolved the dntiea of that office diverse citizenship, ia determined \sj tlu
upon the U. 8. marshals. See further snmmon* and declaration, and not by the
Rules 36, 37, 88 of the U. 8. Supreme subsequent proceeding Botgmeytr >.
Court Rules. These courts were eatab- Idler, 10 8. C. 31. This oourt toay take
Ushed for the relief of the Supreme Court jurisdiction, although a queetiaB ii in-
and for thedeapatch of buaineae therein, irolved which arises under tb« Federal an-
and the above Act had immediate opera- atitation, if there are alao involved other
tioD, though previous jtidgmenta conld questions sufficient to dispose of the cwt
not be reviewed by them. See /n re Green v. Uilla, 69 Fed. Rep. S52, It msj
ClMsen, 110 0. S. 200 ; McLish v. Roff, entertain a motion for a new trial, made
[4B2]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. XT.] THE DNITED STATES. • 880
•fUr jddgmant, after a writ of error to kppaala, which in>7, in it( diaeretioii, cer-
nTkw the judgment hu iMued ham the tiff the qneetiou of jorudidioii to Che
Snpreme Court. ShraTs n. Cheeamui, 69 Snpteme Court. HcLUh ;. Boff, 141
fed. Rep. 7S6 ; «ee *lw Duplex P. Co. v. U. S. atti ; Cotamtnu W&tch Co. v. Rob-
Ctmpbell P. a H. Co, id. ISO. bina, 148 U. S. 26S ; Cindtiaati H. & D.
The dnmit ooort in which the suit wu £. Co. c. HdteeD, 149 U. S. SG9 ; Uey.
tried maj ione titan its clerk's office e nKrd v. Eecht, IGl U. S. S34 ; Unitad
writ cf error retunuble to the court of Stales v. Jahn, 1G5 U. 8. 109 ; Bsltimore
•ppatla. Northern Pacific B. Co. v. & 0. B. Co. u. He;era, 02 Fed. Hnp. 367;
Aniato, 49 Fed. Bep. 8S1 ; 144 U. 9. 4es. Fabte v. Conard S. Co., G0 id. COO ; Bar-
Thii court has do juriadiction where more ling v. Bank of Britieb North America,
than MX months interrene between the GO id. 280 ; Farmers' t U. State Bank v.
oitij of judgment and the date on which Annstcong, 49 id. SOO ; The Alliance, TO
the writ of ernir i« sued out. Union Pac. id. 278.
Ry. Co. V. Colorado Eaeteni Ry. Co., 64 Dndsr { G of the act of 1891, provid-
Fed. Bep. 23 ; Coulliette v. Thomason, ing for appeals and writa of error from the
SO id. 787. A* to the binding effect of district or circuit conrti to the Supreme
this court's deddons upon the circuit Conrt, an appeal which Is withio the jaris-
coort see Norton v. Wheeler, !>7 Fed. Bep. diction of tlie Supreme Court is not with-
m ; Hacon o. Georgia P. Co., 60 Id. in the jorisdiction of the circuit court of
781 ; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Bloom- appeals. HcLUh v. Boff, 14t IT. S. 661 ;
ingdiJe, 8S id. 212. Chicago, &c. By. Co. v. ETaus, 68 Fed.
The decision of thie oonrt on & writ of Bep. 433 ; Hastings v. Amea, 68 id. 720.
emr to the final judgment of the Circuit See Care; r. Houston, Ac., Ry. Co., ISO
Court ia not final when the jurisdiction of U. S. 170 ; Aspen M. & S. Co. e. Billings,
ttie latter court depends solely on the feet id. SI ; Haaou e. Pewabic M. Co., 153
that the defendant ia a eorpoiation created U. 8- 361 ; /n re Lebigh Hin. & Hanuf.
by Act oF CoDgreaa, and consequently the Co., 1G6 U. S. 322 ; United States b. Swan,
suit arises uoder a Federal statute ; the 66 Fed. Sep. 647.
iBtet being to extend the appellate juris- Under that section, in caMB involfing
diction of the Supreme Court to such the conadtatioual Tslidity of a Federal
cans when the matter in oontrovei«y atstate, an appeal lies direct to the Su-
eiceeds (1,000. Northern Pacific R. Co. premeCouri^ although taken after the Act
K Amato, 144 U. S. 405. The United went into effect. Homer v. United States,
States can appeal to the Court of Appeals 143 U. 3. G70.
from the Circuit Coutt'a adverse jodgment Tbe circuit courts of appeals ha*a
in the suit of a clerk of the district court power, by j 11 of the Act of March 8,
to tecorer his feee under tbe Act of Uar.' ISSli to amend a writ of error, and may
S, 1887. United Stales v. Hoi^n, 54 thue amend by sealing the writ with ita
Fed. Rep. 4. When a plea to the juriadio- aeaL Cotter v. Ala. G. S. B. Co., 81 Fed.
tianafthetnrcait court is DTemled, there Bep. 747. Under SS 4--6 of that Act
nuat be a final judgment or decree upon haitat wiyu* proceedings in the district
the merits before the question of jnrisdic- courts aru now reriewed by the circuit
tltm can be reviewed by writ of arxor or oourt of appeals. United States u.
appnl 1 then that question alone may be Fowkes, 63 Fed. Rep. 13. An appeal to
token to the Soprome Court upon a cer> this court may now be taken in any in-
tificate from the lower court; or the whole jnnotion proceeding. 28 St. at L. 666.
case be brought before the circuit court of
[438]
D.qilizMbyG001^IC
JDBIBPBUDEKCE OF [PABI C
LEOTUBE XVL
OF THE JCBIBDICTIOH OF THE FBDEBAL CODBTS IK KBSnCt TO TRB
COMKON LAW, AND m BESPECT TO PABTIE8.
It has been a subject of much diacuBsion vhether tbe courts
of the United States have a common-law jurisdiction, and, if
any, to what extent
1. Common-law Jniicdlotloii In Criminal CMM.(2r) — In the case of
the United StaUt t. WorrdU, (a) in the Circuit Court at I^iita-
(a) 2 D«Uu, 884.
(r) Tba goTemment of tba United State* ralatiOD thento u the iheiiff of ■ Moitj
hu no gansrml authoiity dedoood kola atandi to the peace of a State. In n
MTereigD^, with nipect to tha penonal Neegle, 135 U. %. 1, S9. Conunou-liif
OT aodal ligbta or ralatuma of citizeiu, hot proceodiuga for oontonpt are not loljMt
only mch anthoii^ *• ii conferred by the to the ri(^t of ttial by jniy, and. are "doe
Conifcitntion. 7a n Bamu, 186 C. S. joocew of lav " within the 14th Anuod-
ESfl. That goTenmwnt haa no inherent ment Eilenbecker d. Diatrict Court, IM
common-law piwogutiTea. J» n Bany, U. S. 31. The Fadenl eoarti hvn tbe
136 U. S. 667 ; 42 Fed. Bep. US ; Swift power, not immediately deriTcd boa attt-
«. Philadelphia & B. B. Co., fl4 Fed. Bep. nte, to piiaiah oontempta a« inoidBiital to
59 ; 58 id. 8C8 ; bat aee S9 Am. L. Ber. tlieexerciaeof jndidaltnnetioiia SzfvU
1S4. The U. S. Supreme Conrt, posteaa- Teny, 138 U. S. 289 ; £e porta Bobinaa,
ing only the powera oonfened apon it, 19 WalL 605, 510. And the impMch-
cannot leview qnaationa tX general or local ment of a jndge of a Fedonl conrt, which
law. United States «. Thompaon, 93 p. S. ii a orimina) trial, ii not limited te
586 ; Poppe c. Lugford, 104 U. 8. 770. atatntory <Aencea nnder tha acb of Con-
In the criminal law there an no com- gresa See 16 Am. L. Bar. 79B, 818.
moD-lawoffenceaagainet the United States. The U. S. Supreme Court haa no gen-
United State* w. BrittoD, 110 U. S. IBS, eral authority to reviaw on anor or appwl
206 ; United Stitec ». Eaton, 144 U. S. the crimina] Jndgmenti <rf the eiicait
677 ; In n Oneu^ 52 Fed. Bep. 104. oourta. Ex parte Yarbrou^ 110 U. 8.
Bnt there ii a peace of the Unil«d State* ; 051. Snita to recover petwltie* under tha
and a pereoD who aaianlti a judge of the Terenaelawaueofafiuin-crinunaliiatnie,
United States while in the discharge of thongh civil actiona in form ; in them the
hie dutiee rioletea that peace, and in anch ca«e most be proved beyond a reaaonaMe
c«M the U. 8. nutrsha] ntanda in the tame doubt, and the defendant eaaaot be »•
[484]
sibyGooi^lc
LBCT. ZVI.] THE DNITBD BTATS8. * 332
delphia, the defendant wbb indicted and convicted of an attempt
to bribe the conuniasioner of the revenue ; and it was contended,
on the motion in arrest of judgment, that the conrt had no juris-
diction of the case, because all the judicial authority of the fed-
eral conrts was derived, either from the Constitution, or the acts
of Congress made in pursuance of it, and an attempt to bribe
the commissioner of the revenue vas not a violation of any con- .
stitutioaal or legislative prohibition. Whenever Congress shall
think any provision by law necessary to carry into effect the
constitutional powers of the government, it was said, they may
establish it, and then a violation of its sanctions will come within
the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, which have exclusive cog*
uizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority
of the United Stetes. Congress bad provided by law for the
punishment of various crimes, and even for the punishment of
bribery itself, in the case of a judge, an officer of the customs, or
an officer of the excise; but in the case of the commis-
sioner of the revenue, * the act of Congress did not create * S32
or declare the offence. The question then fairly and di-
rectly presented itself, what was there to render it an offence
arisii^ under the Constitution or laws of the United Stetee, and
ci^Tiizable under their authority ? A case arising under a law
must mean a case depending on the exposition of the law, in
respect to something which the law prohibits or enjoins ; and if
it were sufficient, in order to vest a juriBdiction to try a crime or
sustain an action, that a federal officer was concerned and
^nind to gira or piodoM evidence agdnat Statei tud its kwi. It does not praelnde
hinteelf. Bi^d v. United St&tco, I16U. S. k ooncuirent indictment and trial bj the
aiS ; Lees e>. United BUttt, IGO U. 8. State when, u in the mm of making and
476 ; Bg Strooie, I Sawjer, flOS ; Stan- attering oonnteifeit mone;, the eame act
wood t>. Groan, S Abb. U. 8. 184. Alle- violatea both Federal andSUtelaw^ Sea
gations of an offimee agaioet the United In re Loney, 134 U. S. 873 ; People •.
State*, which it not eo in fact, deprive Welch, 141 K. Y. 2S8. A pereon con-
• U. 8. commisdiHier of jnriEdiction to victed of crime in a Federal eoort can
examine the aecnaed, when then an no he eentenced to imprimnment in a State
other facts in the csee than those con- penitentiary onlj andei the expnnw an-
tained in tbe affidarit npon which he was thorit; by a statute, and then only for
■rreeted. Ex parte Perkins, 29 Fed. Rep. more than one jear, and at hard labor.
MO. Ik re Bonner, IGl U. S. 242 ; lit re Hill/^
The Fedend juriediction of orimu ie ISG U. S. 233 ; Ex parte Friday, 4S Fed.
hwed primarily npon the theory of an Bop. 916 ; United Slates o. Cohb, id>
offence committed against the United G70.
[486]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 383 JUBiaPBUDiaiCB of [pabt il
affected by the act, a soarce of jurisdiction vould be opened, which
would deBtro; all the barriers betveeu the judicial authorities of
the states and the general gOTemment. Though an attempt to
bribe a public officer be an offence at common law, the Constitu-
tion of the United States contains no reference to a common-lsT
authority. Every power in the Constitution was matter of defi-
nite and poBitive grant, and the very powers that were granted
could not take effect until they were exercised through the
medium of a law. Though Congress had the power to make a
law which would render it criminal to offer a bribe to the com-
misaioner of the revenue, they bad not done it, and the crime
was not recognized either by the legialative or constitutional
code of the Union.
In answer to this view of the subject, it was observed, that the
offence was within the terms of the Constitution, for it arose under
the law of the United States, and waa an attempt by bribery to
obstruct or prevent the execution of the laws of the Union. If
the commissioner of the revenue had accepted the bribe, he would
have been indictable in the courts of the United States ; and, upon
principles of analogy, the offence of the person who attempted it
must be equally cognizable in those courts. The prosecution
against HenjUld, for serving on board a French privateer against
the Dutch, was the exercise of a common-law power, applied to
an offence against the law of nations, and a breach of a treaty,
which provided no specific penalty for such a case.
The court were divided in opinion on this question. Id the
, opinion of the circuit judge, an indictment at common
* S83 * law could not be sustained in the Circuit Court It vaa
admitted, that Congress were authorized to define and
punish the crime of bribery ; but as the act charged as an ofi^ence
in the indictment had not been declared by law to be criminal, the
courts of the United States could not sustain a criminal prosecu-
tion for it. The United States, in their national capacity, have
DO common law, and their courts have not any common-law juris-
diction in criminal cases, and Congress have not provided by law
for the offence contained in the indictment ; and until they defined
the offence, and prescribed the punishment; he thought the court
had not jurisdiction of it
The district jadge was of a different opinion, and he held that
the United States were constitutionally possessed of a common-
[436]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XTI.] THE UNITED STATES. * 834
law power to panieh miBdemeanora, and the pover might have
' been exercised by CoDgreHs in the form of a law, or it might bo
enforced in a course of judicial proceeding. The offence in ques-
tion was one against the well-being of the United States, and from
its very nature cognizable under their authority.
This case settled nothing, as the court were divided ; but it
contained some of the principal arguments on each side of this
nice and interesting constitutional question.
In the case of T'he United Statet v. Burr, which arose in the
Circnit Court of Virginia, in 1807, the Chief Justice of the United
States declared, (a) that the laws of the several states could not
be regarded as rules of decision in trials for offences against the
United States, because no man could be condemned or prosecuted
in the federal courts on a state law. The expression, trial* at
common law, used in the S4th section of the Judiciary Act, was
not applicable to prosecutions for crimes. It applied to civil suits,
as contradistinguished from criminal prosecutions, and to suits at
common law, as contradistinguished from those which came
before * the court sitting as a court of equity and admiralty. * 834
He admitted, however, that when the Judiciary Act, sec.
14, authorized the courts to issue writs not specially provided tor
by statute, hut which were agreeable to the principlea and uaaget
of law, it referred to that generally recognized and long-estab-
lished law, which formed the tubitraUaa of the laws of every
state.
The case of The United Statea t. Budton ^ Goodwin (a)
brought this great question in our national jurisprudence for the
first time before the Supreme Court of the United States. The
question there was, whether the Circuit Court of the United
States had a common-law jurisdiction in cases of libel. The
defendants had been indicted in the Circuit Court in Connecti-
cut, for a libel on the President of the United States, and the
court was divided on the point of jurisdiction. A majority of
the Supreme Court decided, that the circuit courts could not
exercise a common-law jurisdiction in criminal cases, (i) Of all
(a) Opinion delivered Saptsmboi 8, 1807, and reported bj Hr. Eitohie.
(a) 7 Craocli, 32.
lb) s. p. mfra, 861, United Stete* d. Benni, United SUtee v. Wntberger, ibo
infra, IS2 ; uid United Statet ». Mackenzie & OanMToort, DLitriet Gonrt, New York,
J*niwi7 11, ISiS. In the itatw of Ohio and Looitiana, it is nndentood to be held
[487]
50byGoO>^lc
• 335 JURISPRUDENCE OF [PABT II.
the courts which the United States, under their geDerol powers,
might constitute, the Supreme Court was the onlf one that pos-
sessed jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constituttoa.
All other courts created by the general government possessed no
jnrisdiction but what was given them by the power that created
them, and could be vested with none but what the power ceded
to the general government would authorize them to confer; and
the jurisdiction claimed in that case has not been conferred bj
any legislative act. When a court is created, and its operations
confined to certain specific objects, it could not assume a more
extended jurisdiction. Certain implied powers must necessarily
result to the courts of justice from the nature of their institution,
but jurisdiction of crimes i^ainst the state was not one of
*885 them. *To fine for contempt, to imprison for contumacy,
to enforce the observance of orders, are powers necessary
to the exercise of all other powers, and incident to the courts,
without the authority of a statute. But to exercise criminal
jurisdiction in common-law cases was not within their implied
powers, and it was necessary for Congress to make the act &
crime, to affix a punishment to it, and to declare the court which
should have jurisdiction.
The general question was afterwards brought into renewed
discussion, in the Circuit Court of the United States for Massachu-
setts, in the case of The United States v. CooUdge. (a) Xotwith-
standing the decision in the case of The United States v. Sadaon
^ Goodwin, the court in Massachusetts thought the question, in
consequence of its vast importance, entitled to be reviewed and
again discussed, especially as the case in the Supreme Court had
been decided without argument, and by a majority only of the
court. In this case, the defendant was indicted for an offence
committed on the high seas, in forcibly rescuing a prize which
had been captured by an American cruiser. The simple question
was, whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to punish offences
against the United States, which had not been previously defined,
and a specific punishment affixed by statute. The judge who pre-
sided in that court did not think it necessary to consider the broad
question, whether the United States, as a sovereign power, had
that tben ii no common-Uw liidiet*ble offance, and that tmj indiotabU dSodos
miut be grounded apoa Bami statatt.
(a) 1 GaDisoD, 488.
[488]
sObyGoOl^lc
LGCT. Zn.] THE UNITED STATES. * 336
entirely adopted the common law. He admitted ttiat the courtB
of the United States were courts of limited jurisdiction, and could
not exercise any authorities not confided to them by the Consti-
tution and laws made in pursuance of it. But he insisted that
when an authority was ouce lawfully given, the nature and extent
of that authority, and the mode in which it should be exercised,
must be regulated by the rules of the common law, and that if
this distinction was kept in sight, it would dissipate the whole
difficulty and obscurity of the subject.
* It was not to be doubted that the Constitution and * 336
laws of the United States were made in reference to the
existence of the common law, whatever doubts might be enter-
tained as to the question, whether the common law of England,
in its broadest sense, including equity and admiralty as well
as legal doctrines, was the common law of the United States.
In many cases, the language of the Constitution and laws would
be inexplicable i^ithout reference to the common law ; and the
existence of the common law is not only supposed by the Consti-
tution, but it is appealed to for the construction and interpre-
tation of its powers.
It was competent for Congress to confide to the circuit courts
jurisdiction of all offences against the United States; and they
have given to it exclusive cognizance of most crimes and offences
cc^izabie under the authority of the United States. The words
of the 11th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 were, that the
circuit courts should have " exclusive cognizance of all the crimes
and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States,
except where this act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United
States shall otherwise direct. " This means all crimes and offences
to which, by the Constitution of the United States, the judicial
power extends, and the jurisdiction could not be given in more
broad and comprehensive terms. To ascertain what are crimes
and offences against the United States, recourse must be had
to the principles of the common law, taken in connection with
the Constitution, (a) Thus, Congress had provided for the pun-
ishment of murder, manslaughter, and perjury, under certain
(a) Judge WilBon, in his chirga to » gnnd jury in the Circnit Court of the Dnited
Statn, in Virginia, iu 1791, oheBTred, that we mn«t neat to the common law for the
defluitioa and descriptiDD oT nuui; crime* agalnit the United Statta. See Wilioo'e
Worki, iiL S71-S77.
[489]
sObyGoOl^lc
•838 JDEIBPRUDENCE OP [PittT U.
circumstancea, but had not defined those crimeB. The
*S37 explanation of them must be sought in and • exclusively
governed bj the common law; and upon any other Bup-
position, the judicial power of the United States would be left in
its exercise to arbitrary discretion. In a great variety of cases,
arising under the laws of the United States, the will of the legis-
lature cannot be executed unless by the adoption of the common
law. The int«rpretation and exercise of the vested jurisdiction
of the courts of the United States, as, for Instance, in suits in
equity and in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdictioD, and
in very many other cases, must, in the absence of positive law, be
governed exclusively by the common law.
There are many crimes and offences, such as offences against
ihe sovereignty, the public rights, the public justice, the public
peace, and the public police of the United States, which are c(^-
nizable under ita authority ; and in the exercise of the jurisdiction
of the United States over them the principlea of the common law
must be applied, in the absence of statute regulations. Treason,
conspiracies to commit treason, embezzlement of public records,
bribery, resistance to judicial process, riots and misdemeanors on
the high seas, frauds and obstructions of the public laws of trade,
and robbery and embezzlement of the mail of the United States,
are offences at common law, and when directed gainst the United
States they are offences against the United States, and, being
offences, the circuit courts have ci^nizance of them, and can try
and punish them upon the principles of the common law. The
punishment mast be fine and imprisonment, for it is a settled
principle, that where an offence exists to which no specific punish-
ment is affixed by statute, fine and imprisonment is the pnnish-
ment The common law is then to be referred to, not only as the
rule of decision in criminal trials in the courts of the United
States, but in the judgment or punishment; and by common law
he meant the word in its largest sense, as including the whole
system of English jurisprudence.
* 388 * It was accordingly concluded that the circuit courts
had cognizance of all offences against the United States,
and what those offences were depended upon the common law
applied to the powers confided to the United States, and that
the circuit courts, having such cognizance, might punish by fine
and imprisonment, where no punishment, was specially provided
[440]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. STI.] THE UNITED STATES. "889
by statute. The Bdmiralty was a court of eitenaiTe criminal,
as veil as civil, jurisdiction ; and offences of admiralty jurisdic-
tion were exclusively cognizable by the United States, and
were offences against the United States, and punishable by fine
and imprisonment, where no other punishment was specially
orescribed.
This case was brought up to the Supreme Court, but it was not
argued. A difference of opinion still existed among the members
of the court, and, under the circumstances, the court merely said,
that they did not choose to review their former decision in the
case of The United States v. Hudson ^ Qoodwin, or draw it in
doubt (a) The decision ^as for the defendant, and, conse-
quently, against the claim to any common-law jurisdiction in
criminal cases. ^
These jarring opinions and decisions of the federal courts have
not settled the general question as to the application and inffu-
ence of the common law, upon clear and definite principles ; and
it may still be considered, in civil cases, as open for further con-
sideration. The case of Rudion ^ Goodwin decided that the
United States courts had no jurisdiction given them by the Consti-
tution or by statute, over libels ; and the case of Worrall decided
that they had no jurisdiction in the case of an attempt to bribe a
commissioner of the revenue. If that were so, the common law
certainly could not give them any. The cases were therefore
very correctly decided upon the principle assumed by the court
But the subsequent case of CooUdge did not fall within
tliat principle, because the offence there charged • was • 889
clearly a case of admiralty jurisdiction, and the courts
of the United States would seem to have had general and
exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Mr. Du Ponceau, in his
"Dissertation on the Nature and Extent of the Jurisdiction of
the Courts of the United States," has ably examined the subject,
and shed strong light on this intricate and perplexed branch
of the national jurisprudence. He pursues the distinction origi-
(a) 1 Wfaatton, 415 ; (TTnibid atitaa i. Hall, 98 U. S. 843 ; United States >. Reese,
92 U. S. 214.]
1 Uoited 8tot«t e. Bamef, B Blati^hf. 481 ; PemuylTinia e. Wheeling Bridgf
294 ; United SUtex d. Wilson, 3 Blatcbf. Co., IS How. 618.
G3S; Cnited 3Utes n. Ratnsaj, HetnfBt.
[441]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 340 JDRISPRODBNCB OF [PABT n.
nail; taken in the Circuit Court in MaBsachuHetts, and m&intaiDS
that ve have not, under oar federal government, any common
law, considered as a Mouree of juriadiction ; while, on the other
hand, the common law, considered merel; as the means or inifni-
ment of exercising the jurisdiction, conferred by the Constitution
and laws of the Union, does exist, and forms a safe and beneficial
Bystem of national jurisprudenca Tlie courts cannot derive their
riffht to act from the common law. They must look for that
right to the Constitution and law of the United States. But
when the general jurisdiction and authority is given, as in cases
of admiralty and maritime jui-isdiction, the rvles of action under
that jurisdiction, if not prescribed by statute, may and must be
taken from the common law, when they are applicable, because
they are necessary to give effect to the jurisdiction, (a)
The principle assumed by the courts in the cases of Worrail
and of Sudton ^ Ooodwin is considered to be a safe and sound
principle. The mere circumstance that the party injured by the
offence under prosecution was an officer of the government of
the United States does not give jurisdiction ; for neither the Con-
stitution, nor the judicial acts founded upon it, gave the federal
courts a general jurisdiction in criminal cases, affecting the officers
of government, as they have in cases affectii^ public ministers
and consuls. Becaase an officer was appointed under die
• 340 Constitution, • that would not of itse^ render all cases in
which they were concerned, or might be affected, casw
arising under the Constitution and laws, and cognizable by the
■judiciary. Such a wide construction would be transferring legis-
lative power to the judiciary, and invest it with almost unlimited
jurisdiction ; for where is the act that might not, in some distant
manner, be connected with the Constitution or laws of the United
States ? It rests alone in the discretion of Congress to throv
over the persons and character of the officers of the government
acting in their official stations, a higher protection than that
afforded by the laws of the states ; and when laws are made for
that purpose, the federal courts will be charged with the duty d
executing them.
This appears to be sound doctrine, and to be deduced fmm
the cases which have been mentione<^ There is much weighi
(a) Cni jnriadiotio d«ta rat, en qaoqus conceasa e«M Tidrator, «in« qnitau jcr>
dictio fxplicari non potest. Dig. 2. 1. S.
[442]
sObyGoOl^lc
iECT. XTl.] THB UNITBD STATES. • 841
undonbtedly due to Qie argument of tiie Circuit Court of ifassa-
cbusetts ; aad an attempt to bribe an officer of the goTemment,
or to libel an officer of the government, in relation to his official
acts, irould seem to be an offence against that government. Tbey
tend directly to weaken or pervert the administration of it ; and
if it once be admitted that such acts amount to an offence against
tke United States, they must of course be cognizable under its
anthority, and belong to the jurisdiction of the circuit courts.
The great difficulty and the danger is, in leaving it to the courts
to say what is an offence againtt the United States, when the law
has not specifically defined it. The safer course undoubtedly is,
to confine the jurisdiction in criminal cases to statute offences
duly defined, and to cases within the express jurisdiction given
by the Constitution. The admiralty jurisdiction of the federal
courts is derived expressly from the Constitution ; and criminal
cases belonging to that jurisdiction by the common law, and by
the law of nations, might well have been supposed to be cogniz-
able in the admiralty courts, without any statute authority. If
the common law be a rule of decision in the exercise of
the * lawful jurisdiction of the federal courts, why ought * 341
it not to apply to criminal as well as to civil cases, and
upon the same principle, when jurisdiction is clearly vested ? If
Congress should, by law, authorize the district or circuit courts
to take ci^nizance of attempts to bribe an officer of the govern-
ment in the exercise of his official trust, and should make no
further provision, the courts would, of course, in the description,
definition, and prosecution of the offence, be bound to follow
those general principles and usi^s which are not repugnant to
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and which con-
stitute the common law of the land, and form the basis of sU
American jurisprudence. Though the judiciary power of the
United States cannot take cognizance of offences at common law,
unleBS they have jurisdiction over the person or subject-matter
given them by the Constitution or laws made in pursuance of it;
yet, when the jurisdiction is once granted, the common law, under
the correction of the Constitution and statute law of the United
States, would seem to be a necessary and a safe guide, in all
lases, civil and criminal, arising under the exercise of that juris-
Jction, find not specially provided for by statute. Without such
£^ide, the courts would be left to a dangerous discretion, and
[443]
sObyGoOl^lc
* S41 JinUSPBDDENCB OP [PABT IL
to roam at large in the trackless field of their own imagina-
tions. (a)^
(a) Jtfitft(a^aiirfitaeiiJ(Ttm<f inuiojftneM, coTumittedwliilt tba party iaatUchid to,
anil auder the inuBsdute anthority of, tbe imj or savy of the United 8lat«8, ud a
actual aerrice, are Dot cognizable under the common^m jnriadictioti of tbe caoru i^
the United Staten. Tbef an not included in the Jodieiaij Act of 24th Stptmbn,
178S. They are cognizable in the military and naval conrta-martial inatituUd uudu
the acts of Congreaa. The circuit and district courta of the United Statca han m
criminal janadiction but what ia expresaly coufvired Dpon them bj statote. United
States t. Hudson, 7 Crancb, 32 ; United States i>. Bevans, 3 Wheaton, 336 ; Wuhing-
ton, J^ in Hoostoa i-, Moore, G Wbeaton, 29 ; Sergeant's Constitutional Lav, ISl (U
ed.) ; vide nqmi, 334, and infra, 862, S63, 364. It seemed, however, to be left u u
nosettled qaestdon, in tbe case of The United States v. tUckenzie, ut/ra, 36S, [note,]
whether the military and naval conrta of the United States, and the courts of dnl
juriadictjon, had ameurraU powers in qneadona of the above nature, under tin uti
of Congress. If they had, an acquittal by a court-martial would be a ftnr to 117
criniioal proceeding in any other court, for do persoa is to be pat in jeopardy twin
for the same offence. The better opinion in that cose woald ^ao be, that a prDMci-
tion, instituted and pending before a naval tribunal, would be a good plea in lABi-
mnU of any proeecution anbaeqoently instituted in a national civil court of criniiiul
jurisdictian ; for it would be nnjust, absurd, and impracticable to have a trial for Ibi
' A plea of atUn/oit atjuit, by a gen> of General Hovey, brongbt before a mili'
eial eonrt-martial, under the act of Con- tary commission, tried, and sentenced tah
gresB of March S, 1868, } 30, ia no defence hanged. On petition for A(ii«ai«OT;pvi,tb(
to an indictment for murder under the judges of theCircuit Court weradividediB
laws of a state. Statef. Bankin, 4Co1dw. opinion, but the Supreme Court held tint
(Tenn.) 115. (:i;) iaasmQch as the court knew jodioill]'
It seems proper to insert here the that the anthonty of the United Stiio
famous case as to military cammiasioDB. wai unopposed, and its courts were opa
During the rebellion, one Uilligan, a citi- in Indiana, the military comminian hid
len of the United States resident in In- no jurisdictioD of the case. As to whetbn
diana, who wu neither a prisoner of war Cocgreaa could have given the eoDunii-
nor in the military service of the United aion jurisdictJoQ the Jnd^^ were divided
States, was arreated at his home by order Ex parte Milligan, i WalL 2.
(x) The sentence of a court martial eorpta in the civil conrta. In n Davivo,
cannot be ravfewed by habetu enrpia. 22 Blatch. 47S; Jure McVey, H Sawjw,
Johnson ». Bayre, 168 U. 8. 109. The 26; Are White, 17 Fed. Eep. 72S ; A"
jurisdiction at a court-martial may always Zimmerman, BO id, 178. Upon the pa-
be inquired into on iabmi eorpat, but a eral charge of "conduct projnditiallflgiirf
writ of prohiUtion will not lie to correct order and military discipline," and tie
errors of law within iii jurisdiction, apecifiedchargoofhomicide, beforeawart-
Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 66 ; Barrett «. martial, a plea of forTuer acquittal by 1
Hopkins, 2 McCrary, 129 ; Smith p. civil court is a defence going to the meriti
Whitney, 118 V. a 167. Nor, if the andnottothejuriBdicdon. UnitedStaW
court-martial has jurisdiction, can its pro- v. Uaney, 61 Fed. Eep. 140.
caedinp be collaterally reviewed by hdbaat
[444]
;abyG00<^lc
UCT. XTl.] THE UNITED STATES. •841
3. Conunon-law Tmladiotion In CivU Cmm. — The Supreme Goort
of the United Statea, in Bobinton v. Campbell, (b) went far
tune msat going on at the wme tinw in two dutinct co-onUiute tribnnalB, under the
nine government. The one that fint tskea cognuance of the c«m attaches to itaelf,
gF gonree, eicliuive jnrisdictioa. 8m tn/hi, ii. 122-125. The soonder doctrme, how-
tTsr, is, that the act of Co&gnM of April 23, 1800, c. 38, creating a naval code of
mutial law for the trial of Crimea and oSences cominitted in the nanl service, with-
drew the d^izance of Crimea In the naval service from courts of dvil jniiidiction, and
placed them txcltaintly in oonrts-martial, acting nnder a distinct and pecoliar code,
and which Lord Haustteld termed " a sea military code, which the wisdom of age* had
fbraied." That act of Congress specified porticnlar crimes cognizable by naval coorts-
nurtial, and also declared, that all crimes committed by persona belonging to the navy,
and not therein speciHed, shonld be panished " according to the laws and costoms in
Bach caaaa at sea." The opinions of Lord HansGetdand Lord Longhborough, in John-
Blone o. Satton, 1 T. B. G48, contain principles which go far, by their masterly
strength, to establiah the necessity and justice of the exclosiTe jarisdiction of the mili-
tary tribunals, in cases of ciiiaee committed in the naval service ; for it is in that
service that commanders must act "upon delicate snapicioiu — apon the evidence of
their own eye ; — that they most give desperate commands j — that they must require
instantaneooB obedience ; — and a military tribunal is capable of feeling all these cir-
enmstances." Ha further observes, that "where a man is charged with an oflenoe
gainst the articles, or where the articles an stlent, against the usages of the navy, be
. can only be tried by a conrt-martial." The ith section of the act of Congress of March
S, 1835, 0. 276, commonly called the Crimes Act, seems to be essentially a repetitdon
of (be 8th section of the act of Congress of April SO, 1790, c. 86, and that provision did
not apply to the navy of the United States, for it withhehi that txprfa juriadieHim
to the courts of the United States which the cases already cited would seem to require.
We would have expected some express jurisdiction given to the civil coorts over crimes
at SOB in the United States navy, after the enactment of the naval code of 1800, and
the specific provisions therein for the punishment of crimes committed in the navy, by
□aval conrts-martial, if such hod been the policy and intention of the law. Not only
a eontid constmction of the statute law, but the discipUnn and efficiency of the naval
military service, etrongly sustain this conclusion. It is not a qnestion euseeptible of
doabt, that Congress may, under the Constitution, confer upon courts-martial in the
army and navy the trial and punishment of crimes, capital and otherwise, for they are
■otborized " to make ruin for the government and r^lpilation of the land and naval
forces ; " and cases " arising in the land and naval forces " are excepted bom the pro-
riaion, that " no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous
crime, ludess on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." Military law is a sys-
tem of regulations for the government of the armies in the service of the United Statwi,
•ntborized by the act of Congress of April 10, 1806, and known as the artida of vmr.
Aod lutml law is a similar system for the govetttment of the navy, under the act of
Congress of April 28, 1800. Bat martial law is quite a distinct thing, and a founded
on paimmonnt neeessity, and proclumed by a military chief. In the case of Captain
Afackmizie, above allnded to, the snlgeet of jnrisdictian was again bronght before Judge
Betts, holding the Circuit Court of tbe United States In New York, March 20, 1843
(Uiiitsd Statea v. Mackenzie, 1 N. Y. Legal Observer, S71) ; and, after a powerful
(ft) S Whsaton, 212 ; 10 id. 1G9, a.
[445]
aqitizecibyGoQl^lc
* 842 JURISPSUDEVCE OF - [PAfil IL
tovarda the admission of the existence and applicatitm of the
common law ta' civil cases in the federal courte. The Jadiciaij
Act of 1T89 had declared («) that the lawa of the aeveral states,
except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the Caion
otherwise required, should be regarded as rules 'of decision
tn trialt at conunon law in the courts of the United States, in
cases where they applied. ((Q ' The subsequent act of V ay 8,
1792, for regulating processes in the courts of the United
* 842 States, (e) confirmed * " the forms of writs, executiong,
and other processes, except their style, and the forms and
modes of proceeding itien used in suits at common law in the
federal courtB, and declared that the modes of proceeding in suits
in equity should be according to the principles and usages of
courts of equity." But all these forms and modes were to be
"subject to such alterations and additions as the said conrti
respectively should, in their discretion, deem expedient^ or to
such regulations as Uie Supreme Court of the United States
should think proper from time to time to prescribe to any circuit
or district court concerning the same, "(a) ' {x) Under those pro- .
discaasLon, he instnicUd and charged the gnnd jury, that the juiiadiction of the mnl
conit-mmitlal vu exduiire, and that the dvil tribniul* kftd no jnriadkliaa in ik
cate of Captain Mackenzie, then on trial in the harbor of New York, hefora a unl
conrt-tnutiAl, on I charge of morder on the high leaa, on board the United StiU*
«loo[H>f-war SomeiB, b;f hanging three of the ctsw for mutinj.
(c) Act of 31th September, 178S, c 30, aec 84.
(i) Tbi* proTision ynt inapplicable to the pratUet of the national oNuta, asd oJt
fnmiahei a rale to goide them in the formation of their jndgments. In the can aT
Swift t>. Tjion, 16 Peters, 1, it was decided that the sUtnte only extended to Ik
etatatea and penaanent local naagaa of a state, and the contraction thervoT adofitrd
by the local tribonala, and to right* and title* to teal estates, and to other matttn
tmmoTable and jntra-territorial in their nature and chancter. It did not extend to
•contracta, or other iuatramenti of a commercial nature.
(0 Ch. 80, xec S.
(a) The act of CongreM of Haj IB, 1838, c SS, rendered the forma oT ame
proceea, except the style and the tonm and modea of proceeding in the federal eonra
' Infra, 3i2, n. 1. former, that a tai ia valid nnder the itrte
■ Svia of Deeitiou. — The Supreme conetitntion. Provident InatitatiaD r.
Conrt ia bound by the deoiaion of a state Haaiachntietta, 6 Wall. S11 ; Hamiltis
court, in a eaaa not te-exanuuable by the Co. e. MoBncbnaettB, lb. SSS ; tut Ru-
(z) The Federal ocnrta follow the de- course of those dedsums, whether foandsl
cidona of the bi^ieat court of a Btato in on atatate or not, have beeomo ruin ^
qnettkna eoneoning merely the conatitn- property within the State ; abio in na-i
tion and taws of that State j or where the to rnlet of evidence io action* at law; ud
[446]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECI. ZTI.3 THE UNITED STATES. * 842
TiBions, the coart declared, in the case last referred to, that the
remedies in the federal courta, at common law and in equity, vere
in thoM sUtM Kbnittad into the Union 8inc« Septembei 29, I78&, aanfonn&blB to the
npnme conita of law and •qnit; in thou itata ; and deeUred that wriu of axecntioa
uid other Anal pncMs in the (sderal courta ahoald, except as to atjle, be ths lame in
tach itata aa were then (May, 1SS8) nwd in the oonrtt of such Btatea, and with power
in the (edenl conrta, in their diicietion, to alter their final proceM ao br ai to coufonn
it to the fntore changes in that proceae in the itats conrta. The pnctiee of the an.
prame coorta of the ttate m um ui Septanber, 1780, was adopted, anbject to altetatlona,
b; the federal comta. 1 Paine, 428, 12S ; Wajman v. Sontbatd, ID Wheaton. 1, 81,
S2, 60 ; Bank of the ITnited Btatea a. Halataad, 10 Wheaton, SI ; 1 F«ten C C. 1 ;
Bflen *. Haoghtoii, 0 Paten, 329, S69-S<1. Theae modes and tbrma of proceeding le-
nuQ nnaffectad by aabaeqasnt ttaU rtguLUtmu on the subject, for ttia act of CongrcM
did not adopt pioapeetiTelT mch altentiont m the statn might afterwards make.
Lane V. Townaend, Ware, 286; Springer u. Foeter, 1 Stor?, SOI. 3nch parti onl; of
ths lawa of ». state as are ^iplicable to the Conns of the United Slatea are adopted by
the Procos Act of Congress. A ptnaitg u not adopUd, being one giren against a
sheriff in dstavlt Gwin n. BreedloTe, I How. 29. Hr. Jnstice Stoiy donbted
dall V. Brigham, 7 Wall. S2S ; and it hu Bat it declined tn follow the latest when
Hid that it would follow, in cases anting contracts had been made on the strength
in diflereut states, the interpretationa of of earlier dedsiona the other way, which
similar itatatea hj the reepectiTe state agreed with the opinion of the Snpieaw
courts, although inconsistent with each Conrt as wall as with that of sixteen state
other, Christy p. Pridgeon, t Wall ie« ; oonrta, potl, 419, n. 1. ; Qelpcke v. City
[Erie Bailway Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 of Dubuque, 1 WaU. 176 (see Eiggi t>.
Wall 492,467;] and that when the hi^- Johnson County, 8 Wall 188); and at
est court of a state rerenes its former de- last, in Bntz v. Hnscaline, 8 Wall. STB,
ciaiona, the Supreme Court would follow the Supreme Court ofemled a constmo-
the latest settled ft^ndieations, LeSIng* tion of a state law by the state courts,
well D. Wanen, 2 Bkek, 699 ; Bkwsbaig altfaoof^ thsrs wars no state decision*
& Coming B. B. V. Tioga & B., S Blatcht in aocordanoe with their Tiew ; post, 419,
S87 ; Smith ». Stuiier, 8 WalL Jr. 219. n. 1 ; and it was said to be immaterial
aa to the common law of the State, and giren to the State deddons upon ths con-
its local law* and eostoma, when estab. stmetiou of Slate statutes aa affecting title
liabad by repeated decisioiu. Conn. Unt to real estate within the State. Gormley
Ufe Ina. Co. «. Cnahman, 108 U. S. 61 ; «. Clark, 184 U. S. 3S8, 348 ; I^uriat v.
Bocfaer v. Cheahire R. Co., 12G U. S. Stratton, 11 Fed. Hep. 107 ; Edwards v.
BfiS ; Detroit v. Oabome, 186 V. S. 492 ; DsTenport, 20 id. 768. 80 *b to the 01-
St. Z«m« D. Bute, 1S8 U. S. 926, 242 ; ganiatioii of oorpomtiou*. Hooney «.
Snell s. Chicago, 162 tJ. S. 191 ; Israel v. Humphrey, 12 Fed. Bep. fllZ. And of
Arthur, id. 866 ; Hichi^n «. Flint, Ac. the powers of a State's political and ma-
JL Co., id. 888; Hanrd b. Termont h C. nidpal brgsniiations. Claiborne Conn^
R. Ok, 17 Fed. Bep. 768 ; Uyen «. Reed, v. Brooks, 111 XT. S. 400; Norton e.
id.401;Clea7erv.Trad«s'Ii)B.Co.,40id. Shelby County, IIS U. 8. 426; Heri-
711 ; Ames«. Union Fac. R?. Co., 64 id. wether e. Huhlenbarg Connty Court, 120
ItfS. Sabstaiitially conclndve effaet it U. S. 864. Enlings of the State courta
[4471
zecibyGoQl^lc
* 342 JDRI8PBUDENCE OF [PABT a.
to be, not according to the practice of state courts, " but accordiDg
to the principles of common lav and equity, as diatinguished and
vhether Congreaa pouesied coitetitatioii&l authority to ulopt, pnaptcUvtly, ilatc Ic^
Utioa on any given snl^ecL 8 Sumner, S69. Whes, therefore, the State of T«Dtie«-
■ee, by act, in I8SD, alloired lauda sold on eiecndou to be redeemed on txtieia temii,
it was held that landa thereafter sold on execution under federal proceae van not re-
deemable under the proviiions of the itatate, for state legislation cannot interfen willi
the proceae of the federal coarta. Polk v. Dougtasa, 6 Yeiger, 209 ; Boea v. Danl, 13
Petets, iS, a. r. The federal coDrts follow the deciaiona of the atate conrta on the coo-
etruction of atate lawe, unlesa they come in conflict with the Constitution or Ian gf
the United StatM. 10 Wheaton, 169 1 1 Paioe, S61. Iliey follow, also, thoae ttatoba
of the several states which prescribe rulea of evidence in civil cases, in trials it coia-
nton law. M'Neil v. Holbrook, 12 Peters, 84. The state laws which are made nits
of decision in the fedetal courte are those which apply to righu of petson and pMpnty.
United Slates v. Wonson, 1 Qalliaon, 18 i Hayer v. Fonlkrod, 4 Wash. 849. See iln
infra, iv. 27S, note. State laws HtnUing actions and executions on judgments in
whether the case came there from the When the qnestion is to be detemiiKd
Supreme Court of the state or from the by common-law rules only, the dedsiat
Circuit Court. [So by a decision that a of the state courts are not binding : u,
sUte law has not been passed in accor- with regard to the construction of s deed,
dance with the state constitntion. Town Foicroft v. Mallett, 4 How. 3S3 ; or lo
of South Ottawa n. PerkiuH, 04 U. 8. that of a private act, Williamaoa s. Berry,
260 ; Post 0. Supervisors, 105 U- S. 667. S How. 49S ; or as to liabiljty for a ani-
8o, generally, by construction of stste , lance, Chicago i<. Robbina, 2 Black, 41B ;
constitutions and statutes. Fairfield v. or on a question of equity law, Kelts n
County of Gallatin, 100 U. 8. 47 ; Davie Scott, 18 How. 268 ; ittfra. See furthw,
V. Briggs, 97 U. 8. 628 (St of Lim.}. The Gloucester Ina. Co. «. Younger, 2 Curt
Supreme Court follows the law as de- 822. [Fedenl courte are not bound br
dared by the state court at the time when state decisions on questions depending
the righte accrued. Taylor r. Ypsilanti, upon commercial law or npon pntnl
106 U. S. 60. — B.] common-law prindplee. Oates tf. NalioDil
npoD qnestioDS of commercial or general frauds. Hoses s. Nat Bank, 149 C. S. i9i.
law are not binding upon the Federal Aa to the eSect of other State decisosa
conrta. See Bucher n. Cheshire R. Co., relating to State statutea, see also Uniud
12G U. S. 6GG, ESS ; Pleasant Township Slates e. Stanford, 68 Fed. Rep. 2S ; h
V. Xtna Life Ins. Co., 138 U. S. 67 ; re The Jamecke Ditch, id. 161 ; Central
Western U. T. Co. v. Cook, 61 Fed. Kep. Trust Co. v. East Tenn. &c By. Co., id.
624 ; Cairo &c. Ry. Co. «. Brevoort, 62 id. S53 ; Barber v. Pittsburgh. Ac. By. Ccu,
129 ; FoKpaogh t>. Delaware, Ac. R. Co. , id. GOI ; Sanford v. Poe, id. 546. A Fcd-
— '--al Int. 607; 24 W. N. C. 385. era] court is not bound by a State deoDon
the decision of the highest State as to what are public nws under the rigiit
ontrols the Federal courts upon of eminent domain: Bradley b. Fallbroot
stmction and effect of a Sute Btat- Ir. District 68 Fed. Rep. S4S ; Uarcbtnt
dating assignments for creditors ; v. Penn. R. Co., 158 U. S: 380 ; (won ibt
Nat Bank «. Kansas City Bank, matters of general law, Harriaon r. Hut-
B. 228; or Upon the statute of ford F. Ins. Co., 67 Fed. Rrip. 298. Aiingb
[448]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKCT. ZTI.] THE IJNITED STATES. * 842
defined in that country, from vhidi ve derived onr knowledgs
of those principles. " (ft)
rules of prop«it7, and l>scoina ralta of dtddon in die f«danl oonrts. Bo« b, Dnvil,
18 Peten, 45. By let of Cangnt of Auguit 28, 1812, c I8S, the Supreme Conrt hai
power to prescribe, n^kte, and alter the fonas of process in the district and circuit
eonrtt; th« fonns of pleading in soiia at common law, or in admiralty, or in equity, and
of taking taatimony and of entering decreet, and generally to regulate the whole prac-
tice «f tbe eonrts. The rula ofpradiei in admindty cases, on the iiutanca side of the
District Court, were eatablished in pursuance of ths act of 2Sd Aagiut, 1S12, c. 188.
See tbcae rales in 3 IT. Y. Legal Obeerrer, 867. With i«apect to the common law as
apart of federal jariaprudence, the Soprema Court declared, in Wheaton e. Donaldson,
8 Peters, SGS, that there could not be a common law of the United States. Each of
the states has its local usagee, costoms, and common law There was no principle
which pervades the Union, and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the
Constitution and laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of out
fibdetsl Q'stem only by l^islative adoption, and when a common-Uw right i« asserted,
ths courts look to the state in which the couDoversy originated.
(i) Though there be no equity state conrta, that does not prerent the exercise of
eqni^ jurisdiction in the courts of the United Statsa; they adopt aud follow the
eqnity jurispnideuce eKJsting in England. The District Court of Looiaiana has ac-
cordingly equity powers, and it is bound to prooeed in equity causes according to tha
principlea, rules, and usages which belong to the eontts of eqnit?, as contiadialui-
gniihed from courts of common law. . Qaints *. Belf, IG Peten, 6 ; Lorman >. ClaAs,
a McLean, US, 671.
Bank, 100 U, 8. 389 ; Bailroad Co. v. of commercial law being here inToIred.
National Bank, 102 U. S. 14. In Town Hyrick v. Uichig^n Central R. B. Co.,
«f Puis v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 629, the 107 U. a 102. United Stales conrta re-
Sapmne Court, while sssuming that they cognixe and protect rights giren by state
wovld be bound to follow the dedmon of statutes. Dennick v. Railroad Cot, 108
the niiDds c«urt, that certain bonds is- D. S. 11 ; Brine d. InanraDce Co., 98
sued under the law of that state were V. S. 627 ; Orris v. Powell, SS U. B. 17fl.
imgalarly issued and raid, yet held that Where the United States conrts have
tbey were not bound to fallow it to the jurisdiction, they exercise an independent
extent of holding them void ai againct a jndgment, unleaa some rule has become
bima fidt pmchaser for Tslne, a question established by state decisions. Hence the
dedsion in the State court, if it is not con- If a State constitntion or statute, as
clnaiTe there, as upon the construction of interpreted and applied by the highest
ai will in an qectanent suit, is not concln- conrt of the State, does not violate any
stre upon a Federal court, though entitled rt(^t secured by '&a Federal Conatitntion,
to weight as a pteoedent. Barber e. Pitts- that oonitruction will be accepted as con-
bat]^ Ac By. Co., 69 id. 601. And if elusive upon the question when carried to
« rnle of property is unsettled b7 later die- the U. 8. Supreme Court U. S. Rev.
cisians of the State court, the Federal State. ( 721 ; Lonisvill^ N. 0. ft T. By.
ooort is not fettered, but may nss its own Co. e. Hisnasippi, 133 U. S. 690 ; Baltl-
jadgment Chiaolm d. Caines, 97 id. 285; more Traction Co. c. Baltimore Belt R. Co.,
Kational F. & P. Worka v. Oconto Water 161 U. S. 1S7 ; Southern Pacific B. Co.
Col, 68 id. 1006. «. Orton, 82 Fed. Rep. 467 ; Beehe v.
VOL.1. — 29 [449]
;abyG00<^lc
* 842 JUBIBPBITDENCB OF [PABI IL
III tiiis yiev of the subject, tbe common law may be cnltirated
as part of the jurisprudence of the United States. In its iui'
Snpnine Court T«ftuad to follow ft rtat*
decUion conrtraing t, atatnte which wu not
tendered antil after judgment wu givcD In
the CircDit Court. Boi^eBS v. Belignuu,
107 U. 8. 20. See CMM cited. — B.]
StUet of PrtKtict itader U^e fanner AeU,
— That Btate laws cannot proprio mgon
affect tbe procen of the courts of the
United Statea, aee further, Tbe Uayor v.
Loid, e WalL 409 ; Catberwood v. 0«pete,
2 Curt. Bi ; Hatter of Hopkins, ib. Se7 ;
Hatter of Freeman, ib. 191 ; Doncui d.
Darst, 1 How. SOI ; New England Screw
Co. e. Bliven, 3 Blstchf. 2i0 ; Pomera; «.
N. Y. t N. H. B. R. Co., ib. 120 ; Good-
year v. Providence Bubber Co., 2 Fiaher,
499 ; ante, 948, n. 1. Bat a law allowing
a party to a suit to testify on his own
behalf ia a rule of decision and not of
practice, and mnst be followed. Dibbles
;. Fnniiat, 4 Blatchf. 202. On the other
hand, tbe statats of limitatians of a atate
does not apply to an action for tbe in-
ttiugemeut of a patent^ Collins d. Peebles,
2 Fisher, 641 ; Parker v. Hallock, Ib. fi43 ;
eontra, Parkea v. Hawk, ib. GS ; Parker ».
Hall, ib. S2; and state laws of sst-off
do not affect cases in tbe tlnited States
courts, Watking v. Cnitad State*, 9 Wall.
769. 785.
As to equity, see S48, note 1. The ju-
risdiction and rulea of deciaian in equity
are the vrae in ersry state, for the icuou
stated in note (b) ; and it is no otyectieil
to the jurisdiction that there is a rcaudy
onder thri local law. Dodge v. VmImj,
18 How. SSI, 347; Noonan v. Lee, 1
Black, 499 ; Barber o. Barber, 21 Hon.
682 ; Cropper e. Cobnm, 2 Curt. 46S ;
Hunt B. Danfoith, ib. 692. But what
there is no jurisdiction, according to lit
princi[des of tbe Englith Cbaucety (ns
last-cited case*), the otgection is one t?
wliich tbe court is bound. Parker >.
Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton ft WooUcn
Co., 2 Black, S46 ; Wligbt «. Elhsoo, 1
Wall. IS, 22; Hipp r. Babiu, 19 How.
271. And although by stata laws thtn
is no distinction betwesn caaes at law and
in equity, and altbongh tbe f(«ma of pro-
ceedings and praettee in the state omuti
have been adopted in the United StatM
courta, if the plaintiff's cUiin be a 1^
one, be cannot have merely eqoitsble re-
lief. Bennett e. BatterworUi, 11 Ho«.
SSe ; Jones b. HcHasten, SO How. S :
Shuford V. Cain, 1 Abb. U. 8. S02. A
decision of a state court iuToMng only
general principles of equity ia not binding
on the Supreme Court. Nevaa d. Scott,
18 How. 268.
Powers not jadidal, exercised by tin
chancellor merely as the represmtatiTe et
the sovereign, and by virtue of the king's
LonisTills, &c. R. Co., 89 id. 481 ; see
also CarroU County v. Smith, 111 U. S.
656 ; Gage v. Pumpelly, 116 U. S. 464 ;
Yick Wo 0. Hopkins. 118 U. B. 868 ;
Heath V. Wallace. 138 U. S. B7S; McEl-
Tsine V. Brush, 142 U. 8. 156. This rule
applies even when a similar statute is dif-
ferently construed in another State. Ban-
sennan n. Btnnt, 147 U. S. 647 ; Blay v.
Tenney, 148 U. S. 60 ; Randolph «. Qoid-
Dick Co., 186 U. S. 457. It applies con-
clusively to State statutes of limitatioDS.
■ [«0]
Bansennan d. Blunt, 147 D. S. 647:
Balkatn v. Woodstock Iron Co., 154 P.
S. 177. It does not apply when tlM Stale
jadgmeDt under review involveo the qnw-
tion whether want of notice deprived a
party of bis property without due proMM
of law. Scott T. UcNeal, 164 U. a 34.
It applies even when the deoition of the
State coDrt is of later date than that of
the Federal court. ToniM v. Barney, U
Fed. Rep. 112 ; Leightou n. Ttmn^ 52
id. 439.
;abyG00<^lc
UCT. ZTI.] THE UNITED BTATEB. * 848
proved condition in England, and especially in its improved and
varied condition in this country, under the benign influence of
an expanded commerce, of enlightened justice, of republican prin-
ciples, and of sound philosophy, the common l&w has become a
code of matured ethics and enlarged civil visdom, admirably
adapted to promote and secure the freedom and happiness of
social life. It has proved to be a system replete with vigorous
and healthy principles, eminently conducive to the. growth of
civil liberty ; and it is in no instance disgraced by such a slavish
political maxim as that with which the Institutes of Justinian are
introduced, (e) It is the common jurisprudence of the
United States, and was brought with them as • coloniste • 848
from England, and established here, to far as it waa adapted
to our institutions and circumstances. It wag claimed by the
Congress of the united colonies, in 1774, an a branch of those
" indubitable rights and liberties to which the respective colonies
are entitled. "(a) It Gils up every interstice, and occupies every
wide space which the statute law cannot occupy. Its principles
(c) Quod piincipi placuit, legu hsbet vigorem. Inat. I, 3, 6.
(a) DecUntion of RighU of October 14, 177i ; Joninoli of CoDgress, L 2B.
pTBTOgitive Bi paretiM patria, are not poB- genaral nilea, adopt ancli statA laws m
•ened bj the circuit courts. Fontain t>. may be in force oD the Dittter. Then
Bannel, 17 How. SS&, 3S4. are like proTiaiong aa to executiOD, &C.
llu Prattite Act of June 1, 1872, % 6, There are man; other importaot pro-
provides that the practice, pleadinga, and viaions, especially aa to criminal pleading
fotms and modes of proceeding in other and practice. [The Practice Act of 1873
than equity and admitmltj' caaaea in the (Rev. St. j S14) does not abolish the diB-
eircait and diatrict courts of the United tinction between legal and equitable rnue-
States shall conform, aa near as may be, dies, eren though the state Ian may have
to those existing at the time in like causes done so. La Mothe Hanufactnring Co. v.
in the court* of record of the state within National Tube Works Co., IS Blatchf.
which such drcnit or district courts are 432. Van Arsden r. Morton, 99 U. 8.
hdd, sicept that the rules of evidence 378 ; Thompson v. BAilroad Companies, 6
under the laws of the United States and Wall. 134. Nor does it extend to queit-
•• practised in the courts thereof are not tione of ftidence. Connecticnt Untnal
altered. Section 6 gives remedies by a^ Life lus. Co. v. SchseFer, 84 U. 3. 467.
tacbment or other process against the And wherever Congress has provided a
jwopetty of the defendant in common-law specific method of proeedate, of coniso
caases in the circuit and district courts that governs. Easton t>. Hodges, 7 Bias,
similar to those given under state laws in 324 ; Sage v. Tanszky, 6 Cent. L. J. 7.
the courts of the state where the United For further limitations of the operation
States court is held ; and Che circuit and of the statute, aee Newcomb v. Wood, B7
district eoaits may from time to time, l^ U. S. SSI. — b.]
[451]
D.qilizMbyG00>^IC
* 348 JUBISPBUDEh'CE OF [PiBT n.
may be compared to the influence of the liberal arts and
Bciencee ; adversia perfugium ae tolatium prabent; dtleetant
domi non impediunt forts; pemoctant nobiscum, peregrinantKr,
rugtieantur. To uae the words of the learned jurist, to whom
I have already alluded,(&) "We live in the midst of the common
law, we inhale it at every breath, imbibe it at every pore; we
meet with it when we wake and when we lay down to sleep,
when we travel and when we stay at home; and it is inter-
woven with the very idiom that we speak ; and we cannot learn
another system of laws without learning, at the same time,
another language."
The jurisdiction of the federal courts ratione peraonarum, and
depending on the relative character of the litigant parties, hu
been the subject of much judicial discussion. 'The Constitntion
gives jurisdiction to the federal courts of all suits between aliens
and citizens, and between resident citizens of different states, (f)
and we have a series of judicial decisions on that subject If the
case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the Union,
it is immaterial who may be parties, for the subject-matter gives
jurisdiction ; and if it arises between aliens and citizens, or be-
tween citizens of different states, it is immaterial what may be
the nature of the controversy, for the character of the parties
gives jurisdiction.
{b) Da Ponceau od Jtnudictton, 91. 8m «lao 1 8toT;*s Conun. on the Cotittiti-
tion, 140, 141 ; ii. S61-2S8. The learaed eommentatoi, in the Tolnme lut cited. lUj,
■nd, in my opinion, Mtia&ctorily contenda that the common Uw, in the Rlseiice at
pOutiTe Btatnte law, regulates, iuterpreto, and CMitiok the powen and duties of Uh
conrt of impeachments under the Constitution of the United States ; and thoo^
the common law caanot be the fooudatioD of a juriadietioD not given b; tho Couti-
tution and laws, that jurisdiction, when given, attaches, and is to be exercised aceoid-
ing to the rules of the Gonunon law. Were it othorwise there w<mld be nothing to
exempt as from an absolute despotism of opinion and ptactioe.'
(c) Lessee lA Batler v. Famsworth, i Wash. 101.
1 Frofeseor Theodore W. Dwight, in an Mr. Justice Lawranoe, of Ohio, pnaentt
able article in 6 Am. Law Beg. h. a. 2fi7, the opposite view, which was acted upia.
maintains the view that the Constitution as is well known, in framing the artida
only adopts impeachment as a mode of against President Jobnaon. See pointi
. procedure, and that there can be do im- and authorities submitted b; the same
peschmant except for a riolation of a law author, Johnson's TriaL See alao thi
of Congress, or for the conumssion of a arguments of eonnssl in that can on ths
crime named in tb« Constitntion. On one side and the other,
another page (641) of the same volume
[462]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XTI.] THE OKITBD BTATES. •844
3. Jntlsdiotion when an Allen U a Party, (x) — In Bingham V.
Cabot, (d) the Supreme Court held, that it w&b necessary
to set forth the citizenehip of the respectivo * parties, or * S44
the alienage, when a foreigner v&s concerned, by positive
arermeDts, in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of
the Circuit Court; and that if there was not a sufficient allega-
tion for that purpose on record, no jurisdiction of the suit would
be sustained. The same doctrine was maintained in Turner v.
Enrille,(a) and in Turner v. The Bank of North America ;{b) and
it was declared, that the Circuit Court was a court of limited
jurisdiction, and had cognizance only of a few cases specially
circumstanced, and that the fair presumption was, that a cause
was without its jurisdiction till the contrary appeared. Upon
that principle the rule was founded, making it necessary to set
forth, upon the record of the Circuit Court, the facts or circum-
stances which gave jurisdiction, either expressly or in such manner
as to render them certain by legal intendment. It is necessary,
therefore, where the defendant appears to be a citizen of one state,
to show, by averment, that the plaintiff is a citizen of some other
state, or an alien ; or, if the suit be upon a promissory note, by
the indorsee, to show that the original payee was so; for it is his
description, as well as that of the indorsee, which gives the juris-
diction. But an alien cannot sue a citizen in the Circuit Court
of the United States, if the latter be at the time a resident in a
foreign country, notwithstanding he has property in the district
which might be attached. No compulsory process, under the
Judiciary Act of 1789, lies against a person who is not at the
time an inhabitant of, or is not found in the district in which
the process issues. This goes to exclude from the federal courts
the proceeding by foreign attachment under the local laws of the
states, (c)
(<^ B DdiM, 882. (a) i DiUm, 7. (») i Ddlu, 6.
(c) Pieqoat p. Swu, S Hmod, 8E ; Toknd v. Spngne, 12 PeMra, 300.
(«) The daaeription of ti>« pUintiff potitlTely ftppearinthe plmdings or otW
tbTonghout the reoord u a "ritiieii of ports of the recoTd, and the absence of
London, Englasd," ia insaffldent as an jnriadictioti in the circait court will be
allegation of alienage. Stnait d. Eaiton, noticed bf the Sopreme Court, though not
lfi< U. 8. 46. mggeited by the perties. An averraent
Seeaupra B02, notes. The alienage or that parties "reaide" in a rartain State,
dttzenahip of parties mast diatiactlj and or that a partneTahip is " of" that State,
[453]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 846 JUBISFRUDEMCE OF [PAST II,
4. Joiladlotloit b«tw««n CltUttna of OUfereat StatM. — The Jadi-
ciary Act of 1783, sec. 11, gives jurisdiction to the Circuit Court
when an alien is a party ; and it vas decided in Mornnan r.
Miggiiuon, ((2) that the jurisdiction was confined to the case of
suits between citizens and foreigners, and did not extend
* 845 to suits between alien and alien ; and * that if it appeared
on record that the one party was an alien, it must likeviAe
appear affinnatively that the other party was a citizen. So, agsiii,
in Oourte v. Stead, (a) ^ it was decided to the same effect The
principle is, that it must appear upon the record, that the ebaraC"
ter of the parties supports the jurisdiction ; and the points in that
. Idf i Ddlaa, 12.
fa) 4 Dallas, 32. The omiiaioD of the above arenneDta, or any other requilitc Xo
give jurisdiction, la matter of mhatanee, and not cared by verdict, nor anwndaUt
after veidict. 1 Paine, 4S6, £0i ; Jackicm v. Twentyman, 2 Peten, ISS.
> Prentiss v. Breunan, 2 Blatchf. 162 ; League, IS How. 76 ; Smith d. KenMclM,
Bateau «. Bernard, S BlatchI, 214. So 7 How. IBS ; Starling p. Hawks, S MeL
the ooart haa no jnrindictio^ when all the 81S. [SeeWilliaraa v. Nottawa, IMU.S.
parties, ai wsU plaintiffs a« defendanta, 209 ; Hawea t>. Onklaod, ib. 4G0.] Bat il
aro citiTans of statea other than tbat in wai admitted that if the conTeyanct hil
which the tnit is broDghL Eellyv. Hatd- really transferred the interest, ilthoiigti
ing, 5 BUtchf. COS. See Henerole v. made (or the avowed purpose of enabling
Union T^per Collar Co., 6 Blatchf. S56. the oonrt to entertain jurisdiction of tbc
And when some of the partiea to a bill case, it wonld have accompliahsd that
for partitioD, being oitizeDi of the District porpose, fl Wall. 288 ; and it was bo held
of Columbia, made a merely eolorabU con- in Osborne e, Brooklyn City B. B., i
veyance to a citizen of a state, it wsa held Blatcbt SSS ; Vewby e. Or^on C. B.
not to give the court jnriidiction. Barney Co., SAm. LawTlmas, 127.
V. Baltunore, 6 WaU. 2S0. See Jones v.
or there "doe* bnsiness," is insufScient nlarStats, Lafayette Ina. Co. s. Fmidi,
to show citizenship la anch State. Gnce IS How. 404 ; Lonergan o. Illinois Cent
«. American Central Ins. Co., 109 U. a B, Ca, St> Ped. Bep. 660 ; XnUer >.
27S ; B»rs t>. Frestoo, 111 U. S. 252 ; Dows, M U. 8. 444 ; National S. 3. Co.
MansAeld, C. * L. U. By. Co. r. Swan, v. Tngman, 106 TJ. S. US ; Kansas Psc
id. 870 ; Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, Ry. Co. d. Atchison, 112 U. S. 414 ; Brock
119D.3.2S7; Cameron «. Hodges, 127 «. North Wsstera Fuel Co., ISO U.S. 141 :
U. a. 323 ; Denny t>. Pironi. 1 41 C. S. 121 ; Everhart v. Hnntsville Collie, 120 U. &
Wolfe V. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 14S U. 3. 22S ; Timmons c. Elyton Land Co., 139
8S9 ; Home v. Oeorge H. Hammond Co., U. 8. S7S; 86 Cent L. J. 333.
166 U.S. 8BS, So, in the Federal CourU , Federal suits involving the validity et
where a corporation is regarded u a citi- Stata taxes do not depend npon the citi-
nn of the State by which it is created, it zenship of pardea. UnECed States Eipnas
is not lufficient to aver that it lb "citi- Co. v. Allen, S9 Fed. Bep. 712.
len," or " is doing business in " a paitie-
[464]
sObyGoOl^lc
rjWT. Xn.] THE UNITED BTATB8. • 846
case vere reassertecl in MontaUt v. Murray, (5) and in Bodgton v.
Boaerbank, (c) and in SvUivan t. The Fviton Steamboat Com-
pany, {d) In Maxfidd v. Levy, (e) the question of jurisdiction,
arising from the character of the parties, was discussed in the
Circuit Court in PennsylTauia, and the court animadverted
aeverely upon an attempt to create a jurisdiction by fraud, con-
trary to the policy of the Gonstitation and the law.- The suit
vas an ejectment between citizens of the same state, to try title
to land ; and, to give jurisdiction to the Circuit Court, a deed was
given, collusively, and without any consideration, to a citizen of
another state, for the sole purpose of making him a nominal plain-
tiff, in order to give the federal court jurisdiction. The court
dismissed the suit, and observed, that the Constitution and laws
of the United States had been ansious to define, by precise
boundaries, and preserve with great caution, the line between
the judicial authority of the Union and that of the individual
states. No contrivance to defeat the law of the land, and create
jurisdiction by fraud, could be tolerated, (f) But if a citizen
of one state thinks proper to change his domicile, and remove
with his family to another state, not colorably, but perma-
nently, and with a bona fide intention to retide there, • even • 846
though hie object was to avail himself of the jurisdiction
of the federal courts, he becomes instantly a citizen of the
other state, and may sue as such in the courts of the United
States, (a)
The doctrine in the original oase of Bingham v. Cabot was again
(t) * Cruich. Jai. . (e) 6 Ciwioh, 308.
(d) 8 WbMtoD, 160 ; Dodge v. Fericini, 4 Umod, 13S, a. p.
(«) i Dallu, S30. This mm ma niniduUd by Hi. JostiDB Stoiy, io Briggs e.
French, 2 Samner, 267, ti being eiroDeoiuly decided.
(/) TheBucedoctrinewuheldbyJadgflWaahington, in Hnntv. McNeil, IWaah.
70, 8S. Bat in Brigg> e. Frsach, S Smnner, 2S1, it wu pointedly oondemned ; and
tfaa judge held. Chat a conveyance of land by a citixen of one state to » citizen of
another, for the pnrpoee of enabling the latter to maintain a init on it in tbe conrts
of tbe United States, veetad a 1^ title, and a itranger not claiming under either of
tbe parties had no right to inqnire into the motira of tbe conveyance.
(a) Lemee of Cooper n. Oalbrkith, B Waab. 648 ; Cutt ». CUrk, 6 Haeon, 70 ;
Catlett D. Pacific Ina. Co., I Paine, S94. In Briggt d. French, S Snmncr, 251, it was
held, that it wan anffldent to give jnriadictioD to tbe federal conrta, that a citizen of
one state had really, and net merely nominallj, removed from one state to another,
thongh his motive might have been to proaecate a suit in tbe courts of the United
Statea. It was (uffldeiit if .tbe ^aintiff ma in /aU a citizen of one state and th«
defendant of another. Tbe motive of the reinovsl was not to be inquired into.
[466J
sowGooi^le
* 846 JUBispfiUDEHCE op [part n.
confirmed in Ahercrombie v, Dupuit, (b) vith some symptoms <£
reluctance; and it would seem that the court was not entirely
satisfied with the precise limits in which their jurisdiction had
been circumscribed and embarra^ed by their predecessors. But
in Strawbridge v. Curtiti, (c) the limitation of the federal juris-
diction was considered as being still more close and precise. The
Supreme Court declared, that where the interest was joint, aod
two or more persons were concerned in tiiat interest, as joint
plaintiffs or joint defendants, each of them must be competent
to sue, or liable to be sued, in the federal courts ; and the suit
was dismissed in that case, because some of the plaintiffs and
defendants were citizens of the same state, (d) > The next case
that arose on this subject was whether a corporation was a citizen
within the meaning of the Constitution, and conld sne in the
federal courts in consequence of its legal character ; and it wss
decided in the cases of The Mope Inturanee Company v. Board-
(b) 1 Crutch, B43. (e) 8 Cnuich, 267.
(d) But the Circuit Conrt of the United States U not depriTed of itt jariadictka
MiBiug from the ch&neter of the pnity, by joining witii «a liian or citiian at mother
Btata a mere lumimal party, who does not posBcn the leqaimte chuacter. 6 Cnnch,
303 ; 8 WhMtoD, 4Gi ; 1 Paina, 410. It baa likewiM been xjjudged, that w (he
coorta of LotiiaiaDa do not proceed according to the mlea of the comroon law, but of the
ciril law, a suit ma; be brought in the federal oourts bjr a icddent alien igainit one
or two obligora, bound seTerall; aa well as jointly, who noide in Lomaiaiia, Aou^ tit
other obligor raidei in tmather OaU. The rule in chancery and in the civil law ii, tbit
if the conit can make a decree according to justice and eqnity between the partiei
before them, that decree shall not be withheld becauae a party out of its jnriadietiim
U not made a defendant, although he must have been onited in the soit had he bnm
within Uie reach of the procees of the conrt. Tliia wia the principle of that decwoB.
Breedlore v. Nieolet, 7 Peten, US. See also Harriaon v. Unnn, I Story, «. And
now, by act of Congrees of February 28, 1SS9, c 30, if there be aeTeral defendant*,
and any one ix more of them ie not an inhabitant of, or not fonnd in, the diitriet
where the suit la brought, and does not Toluntarily appear, the ooort may entertua
jurisdiction, and proceed ogsiniit the parties properly before it
1 The act mentioned at the end of note the conrt conld proceed to a dsciee and
(ft) does not enable Uie Circuit Court to do oomplete and final justice to the paitiM
make a decree in a suit in the afawmoe of before it, waa not fat4l. So the act anoM
a party whoae rights must necessarily be to be hardly more than declaratory in
affected by inch decree. On the other equity cases. Bamej e. Baltimore, <
hand, it had been determined before the Wall, 280 ; Shielda d. Barrow, 17 How.
act waa passed, that the non-joinder, for ISO ; Coiron v. Hillandon, 19 How. 113.
want of jurisdiction, of parties merely See also Drake v. Goodiidge, S Blatcbt
farma), or necessary, but without whom 161.
[466J
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XVI.] THE UNITKD STATES. * 847
man, and of I'he Bank of the United Statu v. Deveaux, (e) that
a corporation aggregate was not, in its corporate capacity, a
citizen, and that its right to litigate in the federal courts
depended upon the character of • the individuals who com- * 847
pose the body politic, aad which character must appear by
proper averments upon the record, (a) ^ But a corporation ag-
gregate, composed of citizens of one state, may sue a citizen of
another state in the Circuit Court of the United States. If any
of the stockholders are citizens of the same state with the defend-
ant, the federal courts have no jurisdiction. And the rule relative
to suits originally instituted in the courts of the United States,
requiring all the individuals composing the respective parties to
possess the requisite character to give the court jurisdiction,
applies equally to suits removed from the state courts. (6)
it) B Cnnch, ST, SI ; Bank of Angnsta v. Ewle, 18 Petcn, SIQ ; Wood tr. Hutford
nre iDioraiice Ca, IS Coud. 202, 8. r.
<n) Id Bnitluapt e. The Bank of Oeo^ia, 1 Patera, 288, it wa« than held that a
bOl, to gire JoritdietiMi, muBt state that tbs stoeUiolden vers eitiiuu of Oeoigia.
{h) Waid V. AiTodondo, 1 Paine, 410 ; Bank of Cnnberlaod v. Willia, S Snmnir,
472. Bat the very inconTmient and niurow do«triiie eoDtaiued in the oaaea of Straw-
bridge p. Cnrtiu, 3 Cnnch, 367, Bank of , the United States u. Dereani, B Cianch, '
M, and Comin. fe B. R. Bank ofTicksbnTg p. Slocomb, 14 Peten, SO, wta reviewed
and oremiled in the Louisville Railroad Co. v. Letson, in S How. 497. It waa then
held, that a eorportUvm created and doing basineta In a atate wai an inhabUaitt of the
■tate, capable of being treated aa a eilixn, for all pnrpoaes of aning and being sued,
•Ithongh aome of the membeis of the corporation were not citizens of the atate in
which tiie (uit wu brought, and although the state itadf might be a member of the
corporation. Tliis waa a very important and wlotarj deddon, and reinatated the
federal courta in their eaeential joriadiction in caaea of tnita between citizena of differ-
ent atatee. The aet of Congnas of 3Sth Febniarf, 1S8S, gave aid to this decision, it
being conilderad in ita language and coDstmction aa an enlargement of jniisdictioD
in leapeet to the ehaiaeter of the partiea.
I The mle has now taken the form of Co.s.Fnuida,11Wa]1.210 ; Pennajlvania
• Iflgal ficdon. For while a nut hj or v. Qoicksilver Co., 10 Wall. S6S ; Eiprea*
a^inat a corporation is conaidGTed to be Co. e. Eonntze, 8 WalL 342 ; [Holler v.
bronght b; or against ita memben, they Dow*, 94 TI. 8. 444.]
*re conclusively presumed, for pnrposea On this principle it is held that a aait
of jmiadicticiii, to be citizoDs of the state may be brought by a national bank organ-
Ib which the body was incorporated. BaU' iied and located in one atate against a
Wftj Co. V. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 284 ; citizen of another in the Circuit Coart
Ohio & Hisaiasippl B. R. e. Wheeler, 1 sitting in the latter state. Hannheturen'
Black, 288 ; Covington Drawbridge Co. e. N. Bank v. Baack, 2 Abbott, U. 3. 23&
Shepherd, SO How. 2S7 ; Uarshall v. Bait, explaining a dwtum in Kennedy v. Oibaun
A Ohio R. R., 18 How. 814 ; Lafayette Ina. 8 WaU. 4BS, 506.
Co- r. French, 16 How. 404 ; Inaonnoa
[467]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 848 JUBISPBPDENCB OF [PARI n.
With respect to tbe queBtion oa the peculiar right of ttie Bank
of the United States to sue in the federal courts, it vas decided,
in reference to the first Bank of the United States, that nu right
vas conferred on that bank by its act of incorporation to sue in
those courts. It had onl; the ordinary corporate capacity to sue
and be sued ; and being an invisible, artificial bein^ a mere legal
entity, and not a citizen, its right to sue most depend upon the
character of the individuals of which it is composed.. Tbe Con-
stitution of the United States supposed apprehensions might exist,
that the tribunals of the states vould not administer justice as
impartially as those of the nation, to parties of every description,
and, therefore, it established national tribunals for ^e decision of
controversies between aliens and a citizen, and between citizens of
different states. The persons whom a corporation represents may
be aliens or citizens, and tbe controversy is between persons suing
by their corporate name for a corporate right, and the individual
defendant Where the members of the corporation are aliens or
citizens of a different state from the opposite party, they
* 848 come * within the reason and terms of ihe jurisdiction of
the federal courts. The court can look beyond the cor-
porate name, and notice tbe character of these members, who are
not considered, to every intent, as placed out of view, and merged
in tbe corporation. Incorporated aliens may sue a citizen, or the
incorporated citizens of one state may sue a citizen of another
state, in the federal courts, by their corporate name, and the con-
troversy is substantially between aliens and a citizen, or between
the citizens of one state and those of another. In that case, the
president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United
States averred, that they were citizens of Pennsylvania, and that
the defendants were citizens of Georgia; and this averment, not
traversed or denied, was sufficient to sustain the suit in the Cir-
cuit Court In suits by the Bank of tbe United States, of 1816,
such an averment is not necessary, because the act incorporating
the bank (a) authorizes it to sue and be sued in the Circuit Court
of tbe United States, as well as in tbe state courts. Without such
an express provision, it would have been difficult for the Bank of
tbe United States ever to have sued in tbe federal courts, if the
fact of citizenship of all the members was to be scrutinized, for
there were probably few or no states which had not some stock-
(s) Act of CangreM April 10, 1816, aec 7.
[468]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. IVI.] THE UNITED STATES. • 849
holder of the bank & resident citizen, (b) It tab indispensable
for CoDgresB to provide specially for a jurisdiction over suits in
which tiie bank was concerned, or no jurisdiction could well have
been sustained. It was truly observed, by the Supreme Court,
that if the Bank of the United States could not sue a person who
was & citizen of the same state with any one of its members, in
the circuit courts, this disability would defeat the power.
A trustee who holds the legal interest is competent to
* sue in right of his own character as a citizen or alien, as * 849
the case may be, in the federal courts, and without refer-
ence to the character or domicile of his cettui que trutt, unless he
was created trastee for the fraudulent purpose of giving juris-
diction, (d) This rule equally applies to executors and adminis-
trators, who are considered as the real pafties in interest; but
it does not apply to the case of a general assignee of an insolvent
debtor, and he cannot sue in the federal courte, if his assignor
could not have sued there. The 11th section of the Judiciary
Act will not permit jurisdiction to vest by the assignment of a
chcte in action (cases of foreign bills of exchange excepted),
unless the original holder was entitled to sue ; and whether the
assignment was made by the act of the party, or by operations
of law, makes no difference in the case. An executor or adminis-
trator is not an assignee, within tlie meaning of the 11th section
of the Judiciary Act. (fi) ^
ib) Osbom B. United SUtea Butk, 9 Wheston, 738 ; United Statea Bouk », Plant-
«n' Bank, 0 WbwtflD, 901.
(a) CluppedeUinB e. Decbenaai, 4 Cimnch, SOS, SOS ; Brawn ■>. Strode, 6 Cnnch,
SOS. See alao G Crajicb, 91, uid Ctiildnes v. Emory, 8 Wheaton, 042. IT the
nocninal pUintiB' and the n&l defendant be dtiieus of the st«t«, yet if the party for
wliow DM the niit ww brought was a citizen of another atats, the Citomt Court of
the United 8tatea baa jnriadiction. Brown «. Strode, ntpra; MoNutt n. Bland, 2
How. B.
(h) Sen «. Ktot, 6 Cianch, S33i Hayern. Fonlkrod, 4 Waah. 849. Bat it ia
B^dgad that a note payable to A, or bearer, may bs saed in the fedeial conrts, in
hia own name, and that the 11th aectlon of the Jndidary Act doea not apply. Bol-
lard V. Bell, I Hmod, 243 ; Halated v. Lyon, 2 UeLean, 226. So the bolder of a
negotiable note, payable to the uuker's own order, and indorsed, may sae the maker
> What i» a cAoag in aOion vntkin the WalL 887, 393, it is said to be bard to
Mrtumf The act apeaka of "any suit to reconcile Sere v. Pitot with later judg.
r«oover the cotUenU of any promiaaory ments, and tbs Chief Justice inclinee to
note or other cAom in ocftaK in favor of an the view that tha reatriction of the lltb
aangnee." In Bnehnell r. Keiinrdy, 9 tection appliea only to righU of action
[458]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 849 JCBISPRDDENCE OP [PiBT IL
With reapect to the District of Columbia, and to the territorift!
districte of the United States, the; are not ttaUi, vithin tiie
sense of the Constitution and of the Judiciary Act, bo as to
enable a citizen thereof to sue a citizen of one of the states in
the federal courts. However extraordinary it might seem to be,
that the courts of the United States, which were open to aliens,
and to the citizens of every state, should be closed upon the
inhabitants of those districtd, on the construction that they
were not citizens of a state, yet, as the court observed, tliis
in the federal canity thaagh the tiolder be a citizan of another itate ; for tin rigbt
pa«MB not by anngnmeia, but to betrer by deliverj. Towue v. Smith, I> L*w Bep. 1! ;
[1 Woodb. & M. 116.] [By ilatate Mardi S, 1876, 18 SL at L. 470, the enxpUofi in
the origiiia] act ii m*de to api^j to " promiaaoTy note* n^cotubla by the U« menhaDl
and billa of ezehange." flinee this statute, an aaeigiiBe may ine od a claim not Foandcd
in contract without ngni to the dtizenahip of U« assignor. Tan Bokketen v. Cook,
SSaw. 587. —B.)
founded on contncts which contain be a party for the purpoM of jnnadktitn,
within themselvea some ivramiie or duty it ia uecMsary to be one apon neord, ud
to be perfoimed, and not to thoee aiiaing it may be doubted whether the eiceptioD
out of aome wrongful act or neglect of mentioned abore in note |a) aitcndi
duty to wUch the law attaches damages beyond the can of bonds gireo to in
(dting Barney v. Globe Bank, 2 Am. Law ofBoer in his official capacity. Tiu de-
cided easHa are of that natnra. HnU ■■
the restriction might well have been lim- Hntchinaon, 14 How. CSS.
ited to written promisea to pay money, An equitable aasiguee of a claim to u
upon which an assignee could sue with- account is within the clause. Wilkiiaai
out naiiig the name of the assignor. [In «. Wilkinson, 2 Curt. GS2 ; anU, 301
Corbin r. County of Black Hawk, lOG In addition to the eaaes giren in intt
tJ. 8. 466, it was held that a anit to com- (ft) above, the netiictiou doe* not apply
pel specific performance of a contract fell to bonds payable in blank or to beaier.
within the corresponding section of the White f . Vermont ft Uasa. R. R., 31 Hoa.
Revised Statutes (} 629). — b.] 675 ; Thomson e. Lee Connty, 1 WiH
A case not within this clauseis replevin 827. [Tovm of Tbompeon r. Percine, IM
' brought to recover bank-notes in sptds, C. 3. 68S ; Township of Chickaming v
which lies, if the plaintiff has the reqniaite Carpenter, ih. 063 ; City of Lexington '.
citizenship, although the assignor is of Batler, U Wall. 382.] And an indMM
the same state with the defendant Desh- may sue hia immediate indomr, altliaiigh
lern. Dodge, 16 How. 622. Soasnittore- he could not have maintained an action
Mver poaaeasion of mort^tged premises ; against the maker. Po^ 8G0 ; Coflse t.
bnt not one to enforce the payment of the Plantera' Bank of Tennessea, IS How. IH-
debt by sale or decree against the mortga- The assignee of a chose in action mntt
gor. lb, SSI, citing Smith r. Kemoohen, show affirmatively that the actim mi^
7 Bow. 198 ; Sheldon «. Sill, S How. 411. have been maintained by the astigsor if
See furdirT, Weemsv, Oeoige, ISHow. 190. no assignment had been mads. Btadlej
A$ to parUa, the general rule is that to v. Shines, S WalL 89S.
[460]
D.qitiz'eabyG00<^lc
LECT. ZTI.] THE CNITED STATEa * 350
was a Bubject for legislative, and not for judicial, conaidera-
tion.(<!)'
* If the jarisdiction of the Circuit Court between citizens * 850
of different states has once vested, it is not devested hj
a subsequent change of domicile of one of the parties, and his
removal into the same state with the adverse party, pendente
lite, (a) The jurisdiction depends upon the state of things at
the time the action was brought. So, an indorsee of a note, who
resides in one state, may sue his immediate indorser, who resides
in another state, though that inunediate indorser and the maker
be residents of the same state. The indorsement is a new con-
tract between the parties to the record, quite distinct from the
original note, (b)
5. JniMttotton wli«n ■ State Is Intereited. — The case of Oibora
V, The Batik of the United StaUt (c) brought into view important
principles touching the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal
courts, where a state claimed to be essentially a party. The
court decided, that the circuit courts had lawful jurisdiction,
under the act of Congress incorporating the national bank, of a
bill in equity brought by the bank for the purpose of protecting
it in the exercise of its franchises, which were threatened to be
invaded under a law of the State of Ohio; and that as the state
iteelf could not be made a party defendant, the suit might be
maintained against the officers and agents of the state who were
intrusted with the execution of such laws.
As the amendment to the Constitution prohibited a state to be
made a party defendant by individuals of other states, the court
felt the pressure and difficulty of the objection, that the state of
Ohio was substantially a party defendant, inasmuch as the process
of the court in the suit acted directly upon the state, by restrain-
ing its officers from executing the law of the state. The direct
(c) The t«rm datt, in the senae of tfa« CoiutitntioD, applies only to the memhen
of the AmeiicaD confederncy, and dofM not extend to ■ ttrrUory of the United Statee.
Seton D. HaQham, R. M. Charlton, (Oe.) SS* ; Hepbam v. Ellfey, 2 Cranch, US;
GorpDration oFNew Orleans c. Winter, 1 WheatoD, 91 ; [ante, 32S, n. 1.]
{a) Morgan t. Morgan, S Wheaton, 290 ; Clarke v. Matthewson, 12 Peters, 104.
{b) Toang v. Brran, 6 Wheaton, 140 ; UolUn v. Tommce, 9 Wheaton, 537 1
[Coffee D. Planten' Bank of Tennessee, IS How. 183.]
(e) 9 Wheaton, 738.
* Baniey e. Baltimore, 0 Wall. 280 ; low*, 12 How. 1 ; Scott v. Joute, 6 How,
«iKe, 345, n. 1. Compare Miner*' Bank p. US, dtedon^, 3Sfl, n. 1.
[461]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 351 jmUBPBDDENCE OP [PIBT 0.
interest of the state in the sait vas admitted, but the objection,
if it were valid, would go, in its consequences, completelj
*S51to destroy the powers of * the Union. If the fedeml
courts had no jurisdiction, then the agenta of a state,
under an unconstitutional law of the state, might arrest the
execution of any law of the United States. A state nigbt
impose a fine or penalty on ajiy person employed in the execn-
tion of any law of the Union, and levy it, by a ministerial officer,
without the sanction even of its own courf«. All the Tarioui
public officers of the United States, such as the carrier of the
mail, the collector of the revenue, and the marshal of the dis-
trict, might be inhibited, under ruinous penalties, from the
performance of their respective duties. And if the courts of
the United States cannot rightfully protect the agents who
execute every law authorized by the Constitution, from the di-
rect action of state agents in the collection of penalties, they
could not rightfully protect those who execute any law. The
court insisted, that there was no such deplorable failure of juris-
diction, and that the federal judiciary might rightfully protect
those employed in carrying into execution the laws of the UuioD
from the attempts of a particular state, by its agents, to resist
the exe.cution of those taws. It may use preventive proceedioga,
by injunction or otherwise, gainst the agents or officers of the
state, and authorize proceedings against the very property seized
by the agent; and the court concluded, that a suit brought
against individuals, for any cause whatever, was not a suit again^
a state, in the sense of the Constitution. The Constitution con-
templated a distinction between cases in which a state was inter-
ested, and those in which it was a party ; and to be a party for
the purpose of jurisdiction, it is necessary to be one upon recard.(z)
(x) The rnle that * gorerDment cannot not be sned, withont its cooaent, in* Fed-
be ensd vithoQt Its consent HppUn onlj enl circuit court bj one of its citiieiii on
to raita of individuals, and not to mitg the groand that the anit aTiam under tlie
iMtnecn different goTemments. United U. 3. Conititntion and Inn. Huii c
States t>. TeXM, 118 tJ. S. S2I ; tee IS LanimaDa,134 U. 8. I ; HcCkhe; v Vir-
Am. L. Rev. 814. JnriBdiction confeired ginia, 13S TJ, S. 662 ; Peimoyer *. Hc-
hj atatnts upon the Fedsnl courts over Coniiaugfa;r< H*) ^- S. 1.
certain nnmi against the United States The Eleventh AmendpMUt, proTiding
includes the power to render jndgment that "the judicial pover of the United
agaiOBt the United States. United States State* shall not be construed ta eitend ta
•. Davia, 12 C. S. App. 47. A State can- an; suit in law or equity, commeiiced ec
[462]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. ZVI.3 THE CNITED STATES. * S51
The CoDBtitution only intended a part; on record, and to be
shown in the firBt instance by the simple inspection of the rec-
ord, and that is what is intended in all cases where jurisdiction
depends upon the party, (a) ^
(a) In the cw« of HcSiitt v. Bland, S How. », it wu decidad that a citizen of
another itaM might sne a citizen of Misaimippi, io the Circuit Couit of the United
Stktes, though he sned in the name of the nominal plaintiff or tniatae, who waa alio
a citizen of Hiniaiippi, prMided he aaa Iktparty in iitterett. Mr. JiutiM Daniel dis-
1 The opinion of Mr. JosUcn Daniel case of bonds given to an officer in hia
mentioued iu note {a) seema to state the official capacity, aitU, 849, n. I.
genenl rale, and the 'exception is in the
proBscated against" a State, inclndee lecetTabla coupons is a snit againat the
not onlj snits bronght sgainst a State State." See also United States s. Beebe,
if name, bat those against its oScera 127 U. S. 338, 314 ; Christiau ir. AtUstie
or agent*, when the State, though not ft N. C. B. Co., 13S U. S. 233.
named, is in labatance the real defendant. The Eleventh Amendment does not
United States v. Beebe, 127 U. S. 388, prevent anils against the counties of a
Si* ; Hagood v. Sonthem, 117 U. S. G2 ; State being brought in the Federal courts.
Poindexter D. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270; Lincoln Count; ■>. Luniug, 138 V. S.
Harye c Fatwna, id. 325, 330 ; Lonia- 62e.
iaiia V. Steele, 1S4 U. 9. 280 ; North The State must have a direct interest^
Carolina b. Temple, id. 22 ; New Hsmp- pecuniary or otherwise, in the suit ; and
shire s. Loaisiana, 108 U. S. TS ; Chicago it is not the real party in intereat when an
k N. W. By. Co. B. Dey, SS Fed. Rep. injunction is sought, for unreasonableness,
$66 : Sanfanl v. Gregg, G8 id. 620 ; see against the regulations of its railroad com-
fupra 2bS, note. In re Ayera, 123 U. S. mledonerB. Reagan v. Farmers' Ldan k
443, GIS, Harlan, J., eaid in a dissent- Trust Co., 154 U. S. 3S2, 420; see Pen-
ing opinion : " The result of former deci- noyer v. HeConnaughy, 140 U. 3. I.
dons is : That a suit against officers of When a State proceeds as plaintiff, the
the United States to recover property not Conrt of Claims has jurisdiction of its
legally in their posseeeion, is not a suit claim against the United States, if it arise*
against the United States ; and that upon an act of Congress. United States
neither a suit Bgunst officers of the State v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 32 ; United States
to recover property illegnlly taken b; t. Alabama, id. SS. A suit by a State is
them, in obedience to the statutes of the subject to the conditions affecting the con*
State, nor a snit brought against state duct of suits by ordinary litigants, snd, if
officers to enjoin them from taking, under removed to a Federal court, proceeds in
the command of the State, the property of the ssme manner ss a suit between indi-
a tax-payer who has tendered coapons for viduals. Abeel v. Culberson, 66 Fed. Rep.
tazesdnetoher,weresiutaagUQsttheStBte 320; see Alabama v. Burr, 115 V. 3.
within the meaning of the 11th Amend- 413; Ames v. Esnsss, 111 U. S. 446. A
ment of the Constitution. And now it is writ of error sued out by a State should
a4jndged, in the caws before us, that a be dismissed if the State is not a party to
suit merely against state officers to enjoin the record and refasea to submit to the
them from bringing actions against tax- jarlsdiction of the court. Sontb Carolina
payers who have previously tendered tax- «, Wesley, IGG U. 8. G42.
(468]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 852 JOBISPRUDENCB OP [PABT D.
The question of jurisdiction depending upon the character and
residence of parties, came again into discussion in the case
" 852 of 2%« Bank of the Uiated Statea v. The Planters' • Bank
of Georgia; (a) and it waa decided that the circuit courts
bad jurisdiction of suits brought by the Bank of the United States
gainst a state bank, notwithstanding the state itself vas a stock-
holder, together with private individuals who were citizens of the
same state with some of the stockholders of the Bank of the
United States. It was declared that the state of Georgia was
not, as a state, to be deemed a party defendant, though inter-
ested as a stockholder in the defence, ^e state, so far as con-
cerned that transaction, was dirested of its sovereign character,
and took that of a private citizen ; and this principle applies to
every case in which the government becomes a partner in anj
trading company, (h)
We have seen bow far the courts of tiie United States have a
common-law jurisdiction ; and it appears to have been wholly dis-
claimed in criminal cases ; and the true distinction would seem to
be, that all federal jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases must be
derived from the Constitution and the laws made in pnrsnance
of it; and that when the jurisdiction is vested, the principles of
the common law are necessary to the due exercise of that juris-
diction. We have seen likewise, with what caution, and within
what precise limits, the federal courts have exercised jurisdic-
tion, in controversies between citizens and aliens, and between
citizens of different states. In the next lecture we shall enter
upon a particular examination of tlie powers and claims of the
federal courts, relative to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
Mnted, uid conbinded, on tlie anthori^ of prior i
depended, not on the aitaation of the parties conoenied ii
acter of the parties appearing on the record.
(a) S Wheaton, SOI ; Bank of Kentnck; v. Wiitar, S Patera, 31S, a. f. In thii
hut caw it wa« decided that an incorporated bank n* snaUe, though the whole
liroperty and control of the bank belonged to the state tnootporatiiig it
(ft) Story, J., II Peters, Sifl.
[464]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XTII.j THE UNITED STATK8.
LECTURE XVIL
OP THE DIBTBICT AMD TEBBITOBIAL CODBTB OF THE UNITED STATES.
Thb district coorts act as courts of common law, and also aa
courts of admiralty.
A distinctioii is made in England between the instanoe and the
priet eowrt of admiralty. The former is the ordinary admu-alty
court, but the latter ie a special and extraordinary juriadiGtion ;
and althoi^h it be exercised by the same person, it is in no way
connected with the former, either in its origin, its mode of pro-
ceeding, or the principles which govern it. To constitute the
prize coart, or to coll it into aotdon in time of war, » special oom-
miseion issues, and the court proceeds summarily, and is gov-
erned by general principles of policy and the law of nations.
This was the doctrine of the English Court of King's Bench, as
declared by Lord Mansfield in lAndo v. Rodnei/ ; (a) and though
Bome parts of his learned and elaborate opinion in that case do
not appear to be very clear and precise on the point concerning
the difference in the foundation of the powers of the instance and
of the prize court of admiralty, yet I should infer from it that the
judge of the English admiralty requires a special commission
distinct from his ordinary commission, to enable liiro, in time of
war, to assume the jurisdiction of prize. The practice continues
to this day of issuing a special commission, on the breaking out
of hostilities, to the commissioners for executing the ofBce of lord
high admiral, giving them jurisdiction in prize cases, (^fi)
• The division of the court of admiralty into two courts • 354
is said not to have been generally known to the common
lAwyers of England before the case of Lmdo v. Rodney ; and yet
it appears, from the research made in that case, that the prize
jurisdiction was established from the earliest periods of the Eng-
lish jadioial history. The instance court is the ordinary and
(a) Dong. 018, note. (f>) Ex partt L^nch, 1 Had. 15.
VOL.I.-80 [465]
;abyGoO<^lc
* 355 jubisfbddehce of [pabt n.
Appropriate court of tidmitalty, and takes oogmzanca of the gen-
eral Bubjecta of admiralty jurisdiction, and it proceeds according
to the civil and maritime law. The prize court has excluHive
cognizance of matters of prize and matters incidental thereto,
and it proceeds to hear aad determine according to the course of
the admiralty and the law of nations. The distinction between
these two courts, or rather between these two departments of the
same court, is kept up throughout all the proceedings ; and tiie
appeals from the decrees of these two jarisdictions are distiuct,
and made to separate tribunals. The appeal from the instance
court lies to delegates, but from the prize court it Ues to the
lords commissioners of appeals in prize causes, and who are
appointed for that special piupose.
Such is die distinctioa in England between the instance and the
prize court of admiralty ; and in the case of Ex parte Lyneh;{a)
it was held that the jurisdiction of the admiralty as a prize
court did not cease with the war, but extended to all the inci-
dents of prize, and to an indefinite period after the war. It
remains to see how far that distinction is known or preserved in
the jurisdiction of our district courta.
It is said by a judge who must have been well acquainted with
this subject (for he was registrar of a colonial court of admiralty
before our Revolution), that this distinction between the instance
and the prize court was not known to our admiralty pro-
•855 ceedings under the •colony administrations, (a) In the
case of Jennings v, Carson, (fi) the District Court of Penn-
sylvania, in 1792, decided that prize jurisdiction was involved in
the general delegation of admiralty and maritime powers, and
that Congress, by the Judiciary Act of 1789, meant to convey
to the district courts all the powers appertaining to admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction, including that of prize. Prize joiia-
diction was inherent in a court of admiralty, though it was of
■ course a dormant power until called into activity by the occur-
rence of war.
But notwithstanding this early decision in favor of the plenary
jurisdiction of the district courts as courts of admiralty, there
was great doubt entertained in this country, about tiie year 1793-
whether the district courts had jurisdiction under the act of Coo-
(a) 1 Had. 16. (a) 1 Pet Aim. 6. 9. (ft) Ik L
[466]
;abyG00<^lc
LSCt. ZTU.] THE DKITED STATES. * 356
greaa of 1789, as prize courte. The District Court of Maiyland
decided aguaet the jurisdiction, and that decree was affii-med on
appeal to the Circuit Court, on the ground that a prize cause was
not a civil cause of admiralty jumdiction, but rested on ihejus
belli, aud that there was no prize court iu existence in the United
States. The same question was carried up to the Supreme Court
of the United States in February, 1794, iu the case of &la»iv.
The Sloop Bettey, (c) and was ably discussed. The Supreme
Court put an end at once to all these difficulties about jurisdic-
tion, by declaring that the district courts of the United States
poesessed all tlie powers of courts of adnui-alty, whether consid-
ered as instance or as prize courts.
In the case of the Smulova, (d) the Circuit Court in Massa-
chusetts was mdined to think that the admiralty, from time
immemorial, had an inherent jurisdiction in prize, because, if we
examine the most venerable relies of ancient maritime jurispru-
dence, we shall find the admiralty in possession of prize jurisdic-
tion, independent of any known special commission. It seems
to have always constituted an ordinary, and not an extraor-
dinary, branch of the admiralty powers ; " and it is to be * 856
observed that Lord Mansfield leaves the point uncertain
whether the prize and the instance jurisdictions were coeval in
antiquity, or whether the former was constituted by special
comroiasion. Be that as it may, the equal juiisdiotion of the
admiralty in this country, as an instance and as a prize court, is
now definitely settled ; and if the prize branch of the jurisdiction
of the admiralty be not known in time of peace, it is merely
because its powers lie dormant, from the want of business to call
them into action.'
There is no pretence of claim, on the parts of courts of com-
mon law, to any share in the prize jurisdiction of the courto of
admiralty. It is necessarily and completely exclusive ; and we
will first take a view of the jurisdiction and powera of the district
courts in prize cases, and then of their ordinary admiralty juris-
diction. As prize questions are applicable to a state of war, and
(c) 8 DbIUi, 6 ; P«nh»lloir «. Doane, 3 D»11m, 64, a. p. See alio the wt of Cm»-
great of June 26, 1B12, kc. 6.
\d) 1 ObII, 563.
1 See esaei cited 357, n. 1. [See United Slatei v. Amei, 90 U. S. 86 j The Qtj of
101 D. S. 4fi8t «T.]
[467]
;abyGoO<^lc
* 357 JIJEISPBODEMCE OP [PIBT II.
are governed chiefly by the rules of the lav of nations, and the
usages and practices of the maritime powers, I do not propose
to enlarge on that subject My object will be to ascertain the
exact jurisdiction of the district court, in all its various powetB
and complicated character. I shall consider, (1.) Its character
as a prize court. (2.) As a court of criminal jurisdiction in
admiralty. (3. ) The division line between the admiralty and the
courts of common law. (4.) Its powers as an instance court of
admiralty. (5.) Its jurisdiction as a court of common law, and
clothed, a.lBo, with special powers.
1. Of tbe DUtriot Conrt u a Pilsa Conrt. — The Ordinary prize
jurisdiction of the admiralty extends to all captures in war made
on the high seas, (x) I know of no other definition of prize goodB,
said Sir William Scott, in the case of the Two JWendt, (a)
* 357 than that they are goods " taken on tlie high seas jure
belli, out of the hands of the enemy. The prize jurisdic-
tion also extends to captures in foreign ports and harboia, and
to captures made on land by naval forces, and upon sorrenden
to naval forces, either solely, or by joint operation wit^ laod
forces, (a) It extends to captures made in rivers, ports, and
harbors of the captor's own coantry. But as to plunder or
booty in a mere continental laud war, without the presence
or intervention of any ships or their crews, Lord Mansfield
admitted, in Linda v. Modney, there was no case or auUioritj,
or principle, to enable him to bring it within the cognizance of a
prize court (£) The prize court extends, also, to all ransom
(a) 1 C. Bob. 271. (a) Lindo v. Kodnsy, DoIIf^ 013, note.
(ft) In the MM of Alexander e. Th« Duke of WeUingtou, 2 Run. ft Hj. 35, Lonl
Brongliun nid, tbat military prize rests upon the auns priadpla* at l>w u piiM li
Nk, though in gensnl no itstnte pmwi with respect to it.
(«) A at«te o( w«r mutt exlrt to raBtain Id. 427 ; Heney r. The Josie, 5> id. TH-
k libel in prize. The City of Hexico, 2S The general niles of pleading in adminh;
Fod. RepL 148. Although an admiralty iuits in rvm apply to a mit in ram fori
conrt doea not ninally render a deci«e in forfUtare, founded upon a vioUtiou of tbt
perhnam on a libel in rm, yst if a clear internal raTcnae lam, and brought b; tlw
right to recover againit the person is United States, after a seizure of the piop-
shown, whetherthab'bel inranii sustain- erty on land. Coffey v. United Statn,
able or not, the Ubellaot alter decree may IIS U. S. 427 ; 117 U. S. 333.
introdnoe the proper allegatioDS in fxr- The "Prt»Couit« Act, 1894" (67 kiS
tonam and prooeed thenou. Tbe Zodiac, Viot. ch. 30) [ooride* as to PriM Gootti
S Fed. Rep. 320 ; see La Noniumdie, E8 in the British possessions.
[4681
sObyGoOl^lc
LBcr. rru.] the united states, "SST
bills upon captnres at sea, and to monef received ag a ransom
or commntation, on a capitulation to naval forces alone, or jointly
with land forces, (c) The federal courts have asserted for the
prize courtfl in this country a jarisdiction equally as ample and
extensive as any claimed for them in England.^ In the case of
(c) Ship* ttken ftt Qenoai, 4 C. Bob. 888 ; A&thon e. FiahEr, Dong. 649, note ;
HMMKHwire >. Keating, 2 GiU. S2S.
■ Pria JurudiOien. — United Statee v. lee 680 Pimm oT HerchaDdlst, 9 Spregne,
Weed, G Wall. SS, 69 ; The Amy Warwick, 233 ; 108 Caiki of aice, Blatchf. Pr. Sll ;
2 Sprague, I2S ; Th« Hikwatba, Blatchf. 282 Bags of CottoD, ib. 302, which w«re
Pt. 1 ; 282 Bales of Cotton, ib. 802 ; The decided the other way, on their peculiar
Anna, ib. 887 ; The Prize Cabee, 2 Bkck, drcnmttanueg.
986 i Jacker if. Hontgonery, 18 How. 498. It ha« been laid that captura by the
Bee the act of Jaa« 80, 1884, e. 174, IS arm; and aar; jointly are not diitribnta-
D. S. St at L.SOS, whichdoeanoteihanat ble in the admiralty apart from atatnte ;
the snlject, however. There are cue* and in this ooontr; they accnie exclu-
•Qtaide of it The Siren, 1 Lowell, 280. UTely to the benefit of the Unibtd States.
The eiclnaiTe jurisdiction in prize of the The Siren, 1 Lowell, 280, 288 ; 13 Wall.
idiniTmltywasaeeertedae tocapturesmade 389; [Porter e. United States, 106 U. 8.
on the UiMissippi River daring the rabel- 607.]
lion. United States b. 200} Bales of Cot- The Eagliah court of admiralty bag now
ton, 1 Woolw. 236; 2S Law Bep. 461. jnriedictioDof boo^utdpropeitycaptnred
Bnt Congrees enacted (act of Jnly 2, 1864, on land hf land foreea ezclneiTel; by St
c 32G, S7, 13U. S. StatL. 377) that no 8ft4Tiet.c6E. Bands & Einree Bootjr,
property teized or taken apon any of the L. R. I Ad. ft Ec. 109, 129. [See St
inland waters of the United State* by the Bands & Eirwee Booty, 4 L. R. Ad. 436.]
naval forces thereof sboold be r^rded a* See alao as to the jniiiidictiDn of the
maritiine price, bnt that it shonld be de- United States conit under the ConGaca-
tireTed to the proper officers of the coorta, tion Act of August 6, 1861, aaU, 802,
or as ptnvided in that act and the act ap- n. 1. Union Insuranoe Co. r. United
proved March 12, 1863, IS U. S. St at L. SUtex, 6 Wall. 7Ge ; Armstrong's Foon-
830, sa to abandoned and captured prop- dry, ib. 766. See more especially the act
«rty. See the Cotton FUni, 10 WaU. of July 17, 1862, c 19G, { 7, 12 U. 8. St.
S77. at L. G9I, which gave a proceeding in rem
Private property captnred on land by in the district conrts, conformable to those
the naval force* has been held not to be in admirslty or revenue cases, against tlu
maritime prize, sabject to the prize jnris- property of rebeU during the lata war.
dletion of the United Slates courts, tbongb In proceedings relating to a seizure on
B proper sutijeot of capture. Htb. Alta- land, when the case is of common-law
Knder's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404 ; ante, 91, n. jariadictiDa, it must be tried by jury at
1 ; United States v. Weed, 6 Wall. S2, the demand of either par^- Union Ina.
71 ; United States e. SttH Bale* of Cotton, Co. p. United States, 6 Wall. 769 ; Arm-
•upnt; [United States e. Winebeater, 9B strong's Fonndiy, ib. 766; Ifiller v.
U. 8. 872.] But the Bret case was put United States, 11 WaU. 2«B, 804 ; Hor-
partly on the act of July 17, 1862; and ris'a Cotton, 8 WaU. G07; Confiscation
[469J
sObyGoOl^lc
* 858 JITBISFBUDENCE OF [P&RT H.
the Smuloua, (i) though the court gave no opinion as to tiie
right of the admiralty to take cognizance of mere captures made
on the land, exclusively by land forces, yet it was declared to be
very clear, that its jurisdiction was not confined to captures at
sea. It took cognizance of all captures in creeks, havens, and
rivers, and aleo of all captures made on land, vhere the eame
had been made by a naval force, or by co-operation with a
naval force ; and this exercise of jurisdiction was settled by the
most solemn adjudications. A seizure may therefore be made in
port, in our owt( country, as prize, if made while the propertj
was water-borne. Had it been landed, and remained on land, it
would have deserved consideration ; and no opinion was given,
whether it could have been proceeded against as prize,
" 358 under the admiralty jurisdiction, or whether, ' if liable to
seizure and condemnation in our courts, the remedy ought
not to have been pursued by a process applicable to municipal
confiscations.
It is understood in England that the admiralty, merely by iti
own inherent powers, never exercises jurisdiction as to captures '
or seizures, as prize, made on shore, without the co-operation ol
naval forces, {x) In the case of the Oogter Eemt, cited by Sir Wil-
liam Scott, in the case of the Two Frienda, (a) and decided by the
highest authority, that of the lords commissioners of appeal, in
1784, it was held, that goods taken on shore as prize^ where there
had been no act of capture on the high seas, were not to be con-
sidered as prize, and that the prize courts had no jurisdiction ia
such a case. But it is admitted, that if the jurisdiction has once
attached, and the goods have been taken at sea, they may be
followed on shore by the process of the prize court, and its juris-
diction over them still continues. In this respect, the prize court
id) I QaU. MS. (a> 1 C. Rob. 271'.
CuBB,7WaU.tSi, 402; £r parte Grahun, deddiid in &vor of the fonner liew in
10 Wall. 541. SeTeDt7-eight Balea of Cottoiu 1 LoweD,
A nicA qnetrtioii m to vhsther cotton 11.
picked up at sea wu prize or derelict waa
(x) A captnre made hy the army, or by prize. The tTneetra SaBora de Hegta, lOt
the army and navy oparatrng together, U. 8. 02 ; m« United States v. Winchee-
inures exclusively to the benefit of the ter, 09 U. S. 372 ; United StaUa r.
gUTemmeot, and is not the sul^eet of Steerer, 113 C S. 747-
[470]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XVn.] THE DNITED 8TATBB. • 859
seems more ezteneire, and to bold a firmer jurisdiction, than the
iuBtance court ; for, aB to cases of vreck and derelict, if the goods
are once on shore, or landed, the C(^nizance of the common law
attaches. (6) *
Though the prize be unwarrantably carried into a foreign port,
and there delivered by the captors upon security, the prize court
does not lose its jurisdiction over the capture, and the questions
incident to it. (c) So, if the prize be lost at sea, the court may,
notwithstanding, proceed to adjudication, and at the instance of
the captors or the claimants, (d) It has jurisdiction, likewise,
though the prize be actually lying within a foreign neutral ter-
ritory. This is the settled law of the prize jurisdiction, both in
England and in this conntry. The principle is, that the possession
of the captor, though in a neutral country, is considered
to be the possession * of his sovereign, and mi poUttate * 359
inaricB. (o) But it is admitted, that if possession of the
thing seized be actually as well as constructively lost, as by
recapture, escape, or a voluntary discharge of the captured ves-
sel, the jurisdiction of the prize court over the eubjeot is lost
Though captured property be unjustifiably or illegally converted
by the captors, the jurisdiction of the prize court over the case
continues ; but it rests in the sound discretion of the court,
whether it will interfere in favor of the captors in such cases;
and it is equally discretionary in ail cases where the disposition
of the captured vesael and creW has not been according to
duty, (h) The prize court may always proceed in rem, when-
ever the prize, or the proceeds of the prize, can be traced to the
hands of any person whatever; and this it may do, notwithstand-
ing any stipulation in the nature of bail had been taken for the
property. And it is a principle perfectly well settled, and con-
stantly conceded and applied, that prize courts have exclusive
jurisdiction, and an enlarged discretion, as to the allowance of
freight, damages, expenses, and costs, in all cases of captures,
and as to all torts, and personal injuries, and ill treatments, and
{b) The Two Friends, 1 C. Rob. 271. (e) The Peacock, 4 C. Bob. 185.
(cfl The SaianDah, 0 C. Rob. U. (a) Vide tupra, 104.
{b) The Falcon, 0 C. B«b. 191 ; The Ponnma, 1 Doda. 2S ; L'Eole, (t C, Bob. S20|
U Dame Cedle, S C. Rob. S57 ; The AiabelU and Haddn, 3 OalL US.
> See The Nusm, 4 WalL SH ; aim>,amU, 857, u. L
[471]
;abyGoO<^lc
* S60 JUBI8PBUDEMCE OF [PART O.
abuse of power, connected with captares jure heUi; and the
courts will frequently award large and liberal damages in those
cases, (c) '
The prize courts may apply confiscation by way of penalty,
for fraud and misconduct, in respect to property captured
• 860 • as prize, and claimed by citizens or neutrals, (a) They
may decree a forfeiture of the ri^ts of prize against
captors gnilty of gross irregularity or fraud, or any criminal con-
duct; and, in such cases, tiie property is condemned to the gov-
ernment generally. (()
2. Crimiiwl Jnrtadlottoii of th« Admlraltr. — The ordinary admi-
ralty and maritime jurisdiction, exclusive of prize cases, embraces
all civil and criminal cases of a maritime nature ; and thou{^
there does not seem to be any difficulty or doubt as to the proper
jurisdiction of the prize courtii, l^ere is a great deal of unsettled
discussion respecting the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the
District Court aa an instance court, and possessing under the
Constitution and Judiciary Act of 1789, admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction.
The act of Congress (c) gives to the district courts, exclusive
- of the state courts, and concurrently with the circuit courts, cc^
nizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority
of tlie United States, and committed within their districts, or
upon the high seas, where only a moderate corporal punishment,
{c) Le Cam ». Eden, Dong. G94 ; The Amiable Nuioj, 1 Pdne, 111 ; Chuabv-
lain V. Ctumdler, S Huou, 24S, 2i4. Frobable cauu of niziin is a mfficient cxotH
in the case of capture! jure belli, and aa to marine tort* gener«ll]r, or the eierciae d
belligerent right* to a limited extent nnder atatate provisiona. The Palmyia, li
WbeatoD, 1.
(a) The Jobanna Tbolen, 0 C. Bob. 73 ; Oawell v. Yipa, IS Eaat, 70.
(b) Ceae of the Geoige, 1 Wheaton, lOS; 2 Wlieaton, 278, a. c. [A prize emit
detenninea only the qnestion of prize or no ptue. It detenninet nothing aeto Ibe
title. Ciuhiiig e. Laird, 107 U. 8. 09. — B.]
(c) Act of September 24, 1789, nc 9 and 11.
1 The Jane Camphell, Blatcbf. Pr. 101 ; wroDgfnllf annk another, and m* •fl«^
and Bee caaea cited ante, 166, n. 2. The iranla libelled by the goTemment, cm-
District Court, moreoTer, ma; beer and demoed and aold, it vaa held that the
determine all qaeetionB respecting claims owners of the annken reaael and cargo
ailBiiig after the capture of the tcsscI. ahonld be paid out of the prooeeda befon
Thoa, where a Tesael which bad been cap- thej were diatribnted. The Siren, 7 Wall,
tured hf a United States war steamer IGS, See The Davia, lOWalt. \S\ Cisec
and which waa in cbarg« of a pri» crew, Tenell, 11 WalL 1B9, 201.
[472]
sObyGoOl^lc
UCr. Zni.] THE UNITED STATES. * 361
or fine or imprisonment, is to be inflicted. This is the ground
of the criminal jurisdiction of the district courts ; and it is given
to them as district courts; and as it includes the minor crimes
and ofFenccB committed on the high seas, and cognizable in the
courts of admiralty under the English law, the district courts
may be considered as exercising the criminal jurisdiction of a
court of admiralty in those cases. The Constitution of the United
States declares, that the judicial power of the Union shall extend
to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ; and it has
been supposed ((f) that the federal courte might, without
* any statute, and under this general delegation of admi<*861
ralty powers, have exercised criminal jurisdiction over
maritime crimes and offences. But the courts of the United
States have been reluctant to assume the exercise of any crim-
inal jurisdiction, in admiralty cases, which was not specially
conferred by an act of Congress. In the case of The United
Statea v. M'Oill,{a) the defendant was indicted and tried in the
Circuit Court in Philadelphia, for murder committed on the high
seas, and the jurisdiction of the court was much discussed. One
of the judges observed, that he had often decided that the fed-
eral courts had a common-law jarisdiction in criminal cases ; but
be considered that the crime charged (a mortal stroke having
been given on the high seas, and the death in consequence of it
happening on land) was not a case of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction within the meaning of the Constitution, or of the
English admiralty law; and the prisoner, on account of this
defect of jurisdiction, was acquitted. The other judge of the
court gave no opinion, whether that case was one of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction, upon the general principles of the
admiralty and maritime law; and he confined himself to the 8th
section of the penal act of Congress of April 30, 1T90, c. 9; and
the case charged was not, by that act, within the jurisdiction of
the Circuit Court.
Afterwards, in the case of The United Stateg v. Bevantf (fi) the
Supreme Court, on a case certified from the Massachusetts
circuit, decided that, even admitting that the United States had
exclusive jurisdiction of all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction, and admitting that a murder committed on the
(d) Dn Ponc«Mi on Juriadiclioii, E>P~4I.
(a) 4 Dallas, 4211. (») 8 Wbeaton, 336.
[ITS]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 362 JDBI8PBDD£NCE OF [PABT IL
waters of a etate vhere the tide ebbs and flows was a case of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, yet Congress bad not,
by the 8th section of the act of 1790, c. d, *'for the punish-
meot dl certain crimes a^inst the United States," conferred
on the courts of the United States jurisdiction over
* 362 * such murder. The act confined the federal jnrisdiction
to murder and other crimes and offences committed on
the high seas, or in any rirer, harbor, basin, or bay, out of the
jurisdiction of any pari;icular state ; and the murder in questioD
was committed on board of a ship of war of the United States
in Boston harbor, and within the jurisdiction o£ Massachusetts.
There was no doubt of the competency of the powers of Con-
gress to confer such a jurisdiction in the case of a crime com*
mitted on board of a ship of war of the United States, wherever
the ship might be; but no such power had, to that extent, been
as yet exercised by Congress ; and it must have followed of
course, in that case, that the state courts had jurisdiction of the
crime at common law, for it was committed within the territory
of the state, (a) It was admitted to be a clear point, that the
state courts had cognizance of crimes and offences committed
upon tide waters, in the bays and harbors within their respectiTe
territorial jurisdictions. And in the case of United State* r.
WilthergeT, (b) it was decided that the courts of the United
States had no jurisdiction of the crime of manslaughter com-
mitted by the master upon one of the seamen, on board a mer-
chant vessel of the United States, lying at anchor in the nver
Tigris, within the empire of China, because the act of Congres*
of the 80th of April, 1790, c. 9, sec. 12, did not reach such' a
case, and was confined to the crime committed on the high seas.
Upon the principle of that decision, the offender could not be
judicially punished, except by the Chinese government ; and it
(a) In offiuial Qpinjoiui eommonicated to the ezecativB govemmeDt in ISl! ud
1S14, it was coDsiilered to 1m & clear point, that for grave Crimea committed mOia
the j-urudidumal limits of the United Sialyl, oa boaid national veaMls of mr, the triil
and punishment did not belong to naval conrta -martial, bat to the ordinary oonrta of
Uw. Op, Atl-Gen. i. IH, 120. Bnt the act of Coogrera of April 28, 1800, c S3,
" for the better government of the nav; of the United Ststea," art. 31, declared that
the crime of mnrder, when committed bjr anj officer, teuiun, or toarine, belongiag
to anjr pnblic Rbip or ve«»el of the United Statei, mHunit the territorial jniiadictiDD af
the aame, might be punished with death, bj the sentence of a conrt-martiaL
{b) S Wbeaton, TS. See also the cue of the United Statea v. Dsiis, 3 SDmoet,
482.
[474]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECI. mi.] THK UNITED BTATBS. * 868
was aaid, upon the argument of the case, that China disclaimed
the jiirisdictioQ. The lav vas defective upon this point, and a
remedy was provided hj the act of Congress of 3d of March,
1825, c. 67, sec. 5, which declared, that if any offence shall be
committed on board of an; vessel belonging to a citizen of the
United States, while lying in a foreign port or place, by any one
of the crew or a passenger, on any other person belonging to the
ship, or on any other passenger, the offence shall be
'cognizable in the circuit courts of the United States, *363
equally as if it had been committed on board of such
vessel on the high seas, provided that if the offender shall be
tried, and acquitted or convicted in the foreign state, he shall
not be subject to another trial here. The act provided also for
the punishment of many other crimes against the United States,
committed upon the high seas, or in any arm of the sea, or in any
river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, within the admiralty jurisdic-
tion of the United States. But the crimes in any river, bay, £c.,
to be cognizable, must be committed out of the jurisdiction of any
particular state, except it be conspiracies to defraud insurers ;
and it further provided, that the act was not to deprive the state
coorts of jurisdiction over the same offences. As the state courts
have jurisdiction of offences committed within arms of the aea,
creeks, havens, basins, and bays, within the ebb and Bow of the
tide, and within the body of a county, tiie jurisdiction of the circuit
courts of the United States was not extended by the statute to
those cases, (a) ' {x)
(a) United States r. Qrnsh, 6 TSaxtm, 260. In the case of the United StAtee r.
Davis A Hanlon, in the Circnit Coart ot the United States for the District of New
York, and of the United Stateei'. Jackson (2 N. Y. Leg&l Obserrer, 3, SG), it waa
held that tbe fedend courts have no jurisdiction onder the act of Congress of April,
1790, of the crime of iaicenj, committed on board of an American vessel lying in the
1 Complaints against an; master, offl- commerce or navigation, majr be snill.
car, or mariner of any vessel of citizens manly tried by the district jndge on the
of the United StAtes, for an; offence, not leport of the district sttomey. Act of
capital or othenriee infamooe, againet June 11, 1834, c 121, { 2, IS U. 8. St.
may Uw of the United States for the pro- at L. 124 ; miU, 304, n. 1.
tactioa of peraone or property engaged in
(z) Undei the U. S. Rev. Stats. } GS4S, the great lakes, such waters heing " high
the Federal conrts have jarisdictton of an sees." UnitedStates v. Rodgen, 150 U. S.
•saaalt with a dangeroua weapon com- S49, Ony and Brown, J.J. diswnting.
mitted on the open nnendoaed water* of This jnriadicUon does not, however, ex.
[475]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 363 jnBlBPBDDENCE OF [PIBT n.
It appears from these cages, that though the general cognizance
of all cases of admiralty and maritime juriBdiction, aa givea by
tiie Constitution, extends equally to the criminal and civil joris-
port of Saranna}!, in OeorgU, nor if committed within the local juriadictiou of wj
foreign power. It would iure been otherwise if committed on board the tokI on
the high seas. The acti of Congren of April 30, 1790, c 9, aod of H>i«h 3, 1825,
c S7, are not inCBciently pnciae on the anttject of the criminal jurisdiction of the
•dmiralt? over crimes committed on the high aeia. The 8th, 9th, lOth, 11th, and ISth
•ectiona of the act of 1790 provided for the poniahment of murder, robbal;, and other
npital and inferior ofTencaa, committed on the high aeu " b; onj person or fotant,"
withont confining the proviaion apecificall; to American dtizona or American Toaeli;
and ^t, under that statute, it has been at^adged that robbery, committed by a for-
eigncT on the high seaa, on board of a Teasel belonging ezdoaively to lalgecta (rf a
foieigD state, wia not piracy within that statute, nor puoithable by the courts of the
tend to a crime committed on the Qreat occorred upon the high ae)
I^ee within atate houndariea, either by murder there. Ball r. United States, 110
lirtue of BcT. Stats. £ 6S4S, or the Act of V. 8. 118. The limits of Fedoal jotis-
Congreas of Sept. 4, 1890 (2S St. at L. diction being confined to the district, ciril
424) which eitends the criminal jniisdic- process does not run to the outer verge of
tioQ of the U. S. circuit and district courts the three-mile zone of water, at Itut
over the great lakes and their connecting when thia zone of water is not by Staten
waters. United States v. Peteraon, S4 Federal atatute made a part of the State or
Fed. Rep. 14G i see^part«Byer»,S2 id. district. The Hongaria, 41 Fed. Bap.
404 ; United StAtas v. Beyer, 31 id. 86 ; 109. But if a U. 8. war yeaul has aeind
United Slatea r. Beacham, 29 id. 284 ; a vessel under orders of the government
United Stataa v, Rogers, 46 id. 1; /» ns within the limita of Alaska, the couiti
Qarnett, 141 U. 8. 1. will assome jurisdiction aa thus detn^
The power of Congress to punish for mined by the government's ordm. Unittd
maiulaogbter on the navigable waters of States v. The Kodiak, SS Fed. Bep. 128.
the United States ia founded on the com- The U. S. Bev. Stats. { GS7S, ai to
merce clause of the Constttntion, bat not guano islands ia constitntional ; it dew
necessarily its power to regulate the pro- not assume to extend the admiialtT jnris-
eedure in admiralty. United Statea e. dicttnn over land, bnt merely extend) the
Beacham, 29 Fed. Rep. 284 ; The Tol- Federal Ic^latiou as to offences upon the
cheater, 42 id. ISO. Navigable waters of high seas to like offence* upon gusno
the United States include rivers and lakes islands appertaining to the United Stato.
which of themselves, or by nniting with Jones n. United Statea, 1S7 U. 8. 202.
other watera, form a continued highway on By the Act of Aug. 13, 1S88 (2SStst
which intemationsl or interstate comraeree' L. 433) the circnit eotlrts have eichiain
may be carried on, but not lakes or riven cognUance of all crinm cognizable uudcr
wholly within a State and having no navi- the aathonty of the United Statee, except
gable outlet into another State or nation, as otherwise provided by law, and coaear-
The Daniell Ball, 10 Wall 667 ; Miller rent juriadiotion with the district courts
V. New York, 100 U. S. 886 ; United of the crimes and offences cc^iiabl* by
States ti. ' Burlington Ac Ferry Co., 21 diem, and in civil actiona peiaons are aot
Fed. Rep. 331. to be arrested in one district for trial ia
Both the act and the death mnit have another.
[476]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZTII.] TBB UNITED STATES. * S6S
diction of tbe admiralty, as known to the English and maritime
law when the Constitution was adopted ; jet that without a par-
ticular legislatiTe provision in the case, the federal courts do not
United BtatM. Unitad SUtca v. Palmer, 8 WhMtoD, 410 ; ud MSH^mi, 186, 187. By
the satm lUtnM, tbe paniahmeut of tntdicioiu mBiiuing oo the high seu u expreoslj
ccmBuad to the offence committed in in American pnblic or prirate vesael. Under
the 9th aection of the &ct of CongtvM of Hanh 8, 1826, to pronidi mor* e^etwUlyfor
tk4 punUAmetU o/wrtom crinua, Ac, any offence, inch aa plnndering ihipwrecked prop-
ertj, teSeAtr below or aboet liiQhr^oaier mark, a puniahable aa withiu the juiisdictlon of
the federal eouitt. United Statea v. Coomba, 12 Petera, 72. The 4th, 7tb, and Stb
■ectiona of the act of 182G are general as to mtuder, rape, and other apeciAed Crimea,
and they apply, according to the tarmi of them, " to any person or persona," without
defining tbrcharacter of the veaaal on board of which the crime may be committed.
Bat tbe 6tb taction of the act of 182G, reepecting robbery on the high aess, conSnes
the juritdiction to the offence committed on board of an American Teasel, and aa doea
the S2d aection, reipectiDg aaaaalts with latent to commit a felony ; while, on the other
hand, by the 23d aectioli, a conspiracj on the high aeas to dntroy any veaael with
intent to iqjnre the nnderwritars is made felony, and tbe eectios it general, and
appliea to all persons.
It is difBcnlt to undeiirtsnd exactly what wai intended by this diversity of langnage
in different sectionB, being general in one and specific in another, so far ae those Tsriaos
MCtiona hare not been construed or defined by jndidal decisions. We may safely
•ay, that so far aa any crime committed npon the high seas, no matter by whom or
where, amounts to piracy witliin the purview of the law of nations, there can be no
doubt of tbe jurisdiction of the circoit courts of the United States. (See supra, 18fl,
187.) But where the crime has not attained that "bad eminence," then the jnrisdic-
tioD' can only, npon proper piindples, attach to crimes committed by American citi-
zens upon the high aeas, or to Crimea committed in or npon an Amerioan veesel on
the bif^ sea*. If the Amsriean dtiwn commits the crime on the high seaa, on board
of a fbieign vestel, the personal jurisdiction over Oie dtiMQ, in that ease, if it exist
at all, mast be ooncnmut with tbe jnriadiction of the foreign government to which
the vessel belongs, or by whose subjects it is owned. Under the Stb section of the
•ct of A}Hil SO, 17B0, if an offence he committed on board of a foreign voael by a
dtiien of the United States, or on board of a veaael of tbe United Statea l^ a for-
eigner, or by a dtizen or foreigner on board of a pitatical vessel, it is cognizable by
the courts of the United StatM. United Statea e. Holmes, G Whetton, 41S. The act
of 1825 enlarged tbe jurisdiction of the federal courts to offence* on board of Ameri-
can vessels by any of the American crew, in all places snd waters where the tide ebbe
and flows. The act of 1836 extended the jurisdiction not only to offences on the high
Mas, but on any other watere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of tbe
United SUte*. United States v. Lynch, 2 N. Y- L^al Observer, 61 ; United Statea
V, Roberts, ib. W. In the case of the United Statea e. MackenaeftOansevoort, in tlis
Hew York Circoit Court, January 11, 1818, it was declared, that if the Crimes Act of
March 8, 1825, c 276, was to be considered as giving the circuit and district conrts
coaeurratt jnrisdiction with conrta-martial over offences committed on board ships of
war, yet that the proviso in the Ilth section showed that tbe powers of conrts-martial
were not abrogated or aoapended, and that It was donbtfol whether the conrts of civil
jurisdiction were under tbe neceasity of ezerdaing their jurisdiction. The coart
refused, in that case, to interfere by proceas, and Interrupt the naval court of inquiiy
[477]
sObyGoOl^lc
' 364 JCBISPBUDENCB OF [PABT IL
exercise criminal jurisdiction as courts of admiralty over mari-
time offences. In the case of Tie United State* v. Coolidge, {h) it
vas insisted that the admiralty vas a court of extensive crimioal
jurisdiction, and that offences of admiral^ jurisdiction were
exclusively cognizable by the United States; and that a marine
tort on the high aeaa, as, for instance, the forcible rescue of a
prize, vas punishable by the admiralty, in the absence of
*364 positive law, by fine and imprisonment. The 'deciaion of
the Supremo Court was otherwise ; (a) and it seems now to
be settled, that the federal courts, as courts of admiralty, are
to exercise such criminal jurisdiction as is conferred npon them
expressly by acts of Congress, and that they are not to exercise
any other. The United States courts have no unwritten crimi-
nal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdictioa.
They have none hot what is conferred by Congress, and this
principle extends as well to admiralty and maritime aa to com*
mon-law offences, (i) This limitation does not, however, apply
to private prosecutions in the District Court, as a court of admi-
ralty or prize court, to recover damages for a marine tort. SaA
cases are cognizable in the admiralty, by virtue of its general
then nttiiig upon the caoo. Aftenrards, the Mma aomt, on farther uid mora dtbont*
diaouBiioD and connderation, decUied that the Circuit Court had no joriadicticiii in
the case. See lupra, S41, n, {a).
The act or Cangreaa of Much 8, 18S5, c. 10, see. 1 and 2, paniihia remit ud
mntinj, or attempts at the aame, by anjr of the crew of any American raaael mi tha
high Bsa^ or on any other waten vithin the admiraltj and maritime jnrisdictioii at
the United State*, bjr Gns and imprisonment, acoording to tha natnre and aftgnnlioa
of the offence ; and rednoea the same from the grade of a capital oS)ite«. On tha
other hand, the act lenden tha master and other officen of any snch iiiail. at mj
nich place, indictable, and pntuahable by fine end impriaonmant, if without any jniti-
fiable caoaa, and from malice, hatred, or revenfp, they beat, woand, or impriaon my
of the crew, or inflict any crael and nnnsnal poniahment apon them. Bee Abbott oa
Shipinng, 6th Am. ed., Boston, 1846, pp. 340 to 253. The sabstanca ia giveD in the
notes by the learned editor, of the several acta of Congiesa relative to crimes and
offences committed on the high seas. The principal acts on that sabject are those of
April 80, 1790, 0. 36 J Sd March, 1826, c. 276, end March S, 1836, c. 40. The English
law is more penal, end the atatate of II t IS Wm. III. c 7, malcea the cnme rt
Te7olt, or endravon to create a revolt, or to Uy violent hands on hit eommander,
jrfracy and robbery. Regina o. H'Oregor, 1 Carr. k Sir. 43B.
(b) 1 Gall. 488. (a) 1 Whoiton, 416.
(() United States v. Hudson A Qoodwin, 7 Cranch, 3S ; United States v. Coolidge,
1 Wheaton, 416 ; United SUtes b. Bevans, 3 id. S36 ; United Stotn v. Wiltbe^er, S
Id. 76. ThejnrisdictioDof the Supreme Conrt ie pointed oatbytheCanstilntion; but
the powers of the inferior conri:s are regulated by statute, and they hare no pawen bat
anch s( the statute gives them. Smith v, Jackaon, 1 Paine, 4G3.
[478]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZTII.]* THE UNITED STATES. * 364
admiralty jurisdiction, and so it was held in the case of the
Amiable Nancy, (e)
The ciyil jurisdiction of the English admiralty is according to
the forms of the civil lav, and before a single judge ; but the
criminal jurisdiction, in which all maritime felonies are tried, is
in the court of admiralty sessions, before commissioners of oyer
and terminer, being the judge of the court of admiralty, and
three or four associatea It has cognizance of all crimes and
offences committed at sea, or on the coasts, out of the body of a
county; and in that court the proceedings are by indictment
and trial by jury, according to the course of the common law. (d)
(e) 3 Wheaton, S46. So it u a well-utsbluhed principle of the nuritime 1a», that
owDCTB an reapcustble in the adniiBlt; for the torts of their utasten, in acta relatiTe
to the MTvice of the ahip, and within the scope of their employment. [The State
Bight*, Crabbe, 22 ;] Abbott on Shipping, pp. 898, 890 ; Sherwood v. Hall, S Smnuer,
131. It wai held in Chamberlain d. Chandler, S Mason, 212, that the admiralty bad
jniisdictioD of peraonal t«rt« and wrongs committed on a passenger on the high seas,
by ths master of the ibip, whether the torts were by direct force, as trespMses, or were
oonaoqaential injories. So, in Plnmmer d, Webb^ 4 Unsoo, SSO, it was held that a
bther or master might soe in the admiralty for wage* earned by iDuitime (errice, and
for torta committed on the high teas, ai in the abdnction of a minor or spprentioe, ptr
qiud Btrnlivm amiiii. If the tortions act happens in port, bat is a condnning iQJniy
from lea, or if there be a trespass at sea npon property, and contlnnsd upon land, it
becomee a maritime tort of admiralty jurisdiction. The courts of odmirelt; maj award
eonseqnentiiil damages in cases of marine tort, Betsey Caines, 2 Hsgg. Adm. SS ;
and courts of common la* have also jurisdiction, ooncnrrently with the instance eonrt
of admiralty, ia casee of marine treepHss, &ee from the question of prize, Perciral r.
Hichey, IS Johns. 257 ; Wilson n. Uackenzie, 7 Hill (N. Y,), W. The admiralty
can take jarisdiotion of a suit for domajKa in the nature of a breach of a maritime con>
timet, eren though the ship did net enter on the Toysge. Abbott on Shipping, pt 4,
e. 4, sec a ; case of the City of London, in the Adm., Nor. 1889 [1 W. Bob. 88.]
See Cnrtis's Tiwtise on Seamen, pp. 300, S5fl. Bat if a tort be committed bj a mas-
ter on one of the crew on shore, or fn » Jtreign part, in the course of the voyage, it is a
Mse of common-law jurisdiction, and the admiralty cannot draw to it a tort on shor^
though it be a yriaxaatti, mixed ap with a tort on the high seas. Adams v. Haffltrds,
SO Pick. 127. Ths adminlty, saye Hr. Justice Story, does not claim any jarisdicHon
over torts, except maritime torta committed on the high seas, or on waters within the
•bb and Dow of the tide. Where those waten are wHMit Ou body of a antniy, tha
learned judge wonld seem to differ from the courta of common law, for they deny
the admiralty jurisdiction in the latter cose. The objection to the admiralty jurisdic-
tion does not apply in the case of tide waters in foreign oountries, where the distinction
of counties is nnknown. Thomas it. Lane, 3 Snmner, 0, 10.
(tf) 4 BUckst, ComiD. 3SB. Pn Beg. n. Eeyn, 2 Ex. D. 68, it is held that the tei>
ritorial criminal jurisdiction of England does not extend beyond low-watsr mark. The
whole subject is reviewed at length in several of the opinions delivered. See also Smith
Adm. Law k Practice (2d ed.). Stat. 41 1 42 Tict c. 7S, provides that the jnrisdic-
tion of the admiral shall extend to one marine league from the elioie. — b.]
[479]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 866 JimiBPRITDEKCE OF [PABT n.
The criminal jnriadiction of the English admiralty received its
present modification bj- the act of 2S Henry VIIL & 15; but it
had a very extenfiiye criminal jiirisdiction, coeval with the fint
existence of the coort. It proceeded by indictment, and
*S65 "petit jury, before, and independent of, the statate d
Henry VIIL ; and all criminal offences cognizable by the
admiralty, and not otherwise provided for by positive law, are
punishable by fine and imprisonment (a) The better opinion,
however, is, that the ancient common law or primitive crimiital
jurisdiction of the English admiralty has become obsolete, and
has not been in exercise for the last one hundred years; and that
no offence of a criminal nature can be tried there, which does
not fall within the jurisdiction specially conferred by the statate
of Henry VIII. (i) There is, therefore, a very strong precedent
for the doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States,
which refuses to the federal courta any criminal jurisdiction in
admiralty cases, not derived from statute. And to whatever
extent the criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty may extend, the
Judiciary Act of 1789 provides that the trial of all issues in fact
in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.
3. Xdnlta oi the Admiralty Joilsdlotlon. — ' There has existed a
very contested question, and of ancient standing, touching (he
proper division or boundary line between the jurisdiction of the
courts of common law and the courts of admiralty. The admi-
ralty jurisdiction in England originally extended to all crimes
and offences committed upon the sea, and in all ports, rivers,
and arms of the sea, as far as the tide ebbed and flowed. Lord
Coke's doctrine was, (c) that the sea did not include any navi-
gable waters within the body of a county; and Sir Matthew
Hale supposed, (d) that prior to the statute of 85th Edw. Ill
the common law and the admiralty exercised jurisdiction
*866 concurrently * in the narrow seas, and in ports and havens
within the ebb and flow of the tide. Under the statutes
of 13 R II. c. 5, and 15 B. II. c 3, excluding the admiralty juris-
diction in cases arising upon land or water within the body of a
(a) i C. Bob. 74, note.
{b] 3 Bro. CiT. ud Adm. l«w. Appendix, No. 3 ; OptnioD of Iaw Offiaen of At
Cntwn, ib.
<<:) i Init ISS. id] 2 H«le, P. C. e. S.
[480]
;abyG00<^lc
tECT. XTU.] THE DHITED STATES. * 367
county, except in cases of murder and mayhem, there have been
long and vexatious contentions between the admiralty and the
common-law courts. On the sea-shore the common-law jurisdic-
tion is bounded by low>water mark where the main sea begins ;
and between high and low water mark, where the sea ebbs and
flows, the common law and the admiralty hare a divided or alter-
nate jurisdiction, (a)
With respect to the admiralty jurisdiction over arms of the
Bea, and bays and navigable rivers, where the tide ebbs and
flows, there has been great difference of opinion, and great liti-
gation, in the progress of the English jurisprudence. On the
part of the admiralty it has been insisted, that the admiralty
continued to possess jurisdiction in all ports, havens, and navi-
gable rivers, where the sea ebbs and flows below the first bridges.
This seemed also to be the opinion of ten of the judges at West-
minster, on a reference to them in 1713. (b) On the part of the
common-law courts it has been contended that the bodies of
counties comprehended all navigable rivers, creeks, ports, har-
bors, and arms of the aea, which are so narrow as to permit a
person to discern and attest upon oath anything done on the
other shore, and as to enable an inquisition of the facts
to be taken, (c) In 'the case of Bruce, (a) in 1812, all *&&!
the judges agreed, that the common law and the admiralty
had a concurrent jurisdiction in bays, havens, creeks, &c., where
shipB of war floated, (x) The high seas mean the waters of the
(a) 1 BUektt. Comm. 112; CoDStable'a Case, 5 Co. 106, 107 ; Finch's L. 75; Bar-
ber V. Wharton, 2 Lord Kajm. 14S2 ; 2 Eaat, P. C. 803 ; 4 BlackaL Comm. 268 ; Tha
King E>. Forty-nins Casks of Brandy, S Hagg. Adn). 257. The jarisdiction of the ad-
miralty EObsistB Then the ahora ia covered with water, and the jnriadicUon of the
eommoQ kw whan the laud is left dry. The Panline, S C. Bob. S58.
(ft) at<Hl in Andrew, 232.
{e) Eiof; e. Solegnard, Andraw, 231 ; the reaolntion of the jndgaa in 1682, cited in
2 Bro. Cir. and Adm. Law, 73 ; Stanton, J., Fitz. Abr. Coroae, 3GS, S Edw. II. ; i
InsL 140 ; Hawkins, P. C. b. 2, c. 9, sec. 14 i 3 East, P. C. 804 ; 6 Wheaton, 106,
note : Com. Dig. tit. Adm. E. 7, It ; Bacon's Abr. tit Adm. A. ; United States e.
Ornsh, B Mason, 290.
(a) 2 Leacb'a Ctown Casea, 1093, case SGS, 4th ed.
(z| The jorisdictioD of the English Ad- flow of the tide. Hie QneeD «. Audenon,
miraltj oitrnds oTcr British veeaela, not L. R. 1 C. C. 161 ; The Qneen «. Can, 10
only when sailing on the high seas, bnt Q. B. D. 76. The English admiralty ju-
alao in foreign rivers below bridges, where risdiction does not inctnde a clsim for in<
gntt ships go, and within the ebb and jniisi reoelved by a seanMD on an English
VOL. I.— 81 [481]
;abyG00<^lc
* 867 JCBISFBDDENCE OP [PABT H.
ocean without tbe boundary of any county, and they are irithin
the exclusive jurisdiction o£ the admiralty up to high-water mark
when the tide is full. The open ocean which washes the sea-
coast is used in contradistinction to arms of the aea encloseti
within thefaueeg terra, or narrow headlands and promontories:
and under this head is included rivers, harbors, creeks, basins,
bays, &c., where the tide ebbs and flows. They are within the
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States; hot if
they are within the body of a county of any particular state, the
state jurisdiction attaches, {b)
lb) Hale, Hist. P. C.L42«; ib.ii.lS, 18, 64; 8 Inst 113; CoDiUble's Cue, 6 Co.
lOe a ; Lord Hale, H>ig. L. T. c. 4, p. 10 ; United States t. Qnuh, E Huon, 2MI.
In the United States District Court fnr Conoedticut, January 7, 1840, in the can of
Gedne; v. Schooner L'Antistad, the judge held that a vessel on tide wateia, off Bhort,
within MontauJc Point, and five miles from it, and eighteen miles from New LondoD.
and haira mile from Long Island shore, and not in any known harbor, waf on tic ki^
Kiu, and within the sdmirKlty jurisdiction. The high seas imported the open octan
without the faiua terra. The Schoouer Harriet, 1 Story, 3iB. In the ease (rf the
Public Opinion, 2 Hagg. Adm. S98, it was held that the admlralt; had not jniiidie-
tion of B, case srising in the Humber, twenty roilea from the sea, bat within the Bni
and reQux of the tide, because it was infra corjiiu camiiatue. Bat in the Kortben
District Conrt of the United States in New York, in the caae of Van Santvood t. The
Boat John B. Cole, in IMO, it was decided that a cmtraet to be performed on bosid of
a oanal-bMt at Albany, b«ing within the ebb and flow of the tide on the nirigibig
Hudson, for the delivery of a cargo of flonr in New York, was a maritiffle eonlnct, »■
lating to the buuness of navigation and trade, and within the admiralty jorisdictiiw.
The New York Legal Ol^rrer for October, 1846.
In Thomas v. Lane, S Sumner, 1, in the case of a Ubel for a maritime tort, it nt
admitted that the admiralty bad qo Jnriadiction over torta, except thoae that wtn
maritime or committed on the high seas, or on waters tnilhin lAt Ab andjloie vf (it iit,
and that the courts of common taw denied the jurisdiction, if the waters are iriUiit tk
body of the atunty. It was held, however, to be a clear point, that the exception did
not apply to tide oaten in ftrrti^ anmtriea, and that the admiralty juiisdictitHi iV
lached to torts on such waters, bnt the libel must aver that the trespaas was on tidt
water in a foreign port, and it cannot bn taken by intendment. It was doubted in tht
case of United Stat«s v. Davis, 2 Sumner, 4S2, whether a place at Raiatea, ons of Um
Society Islands, within a coral reef, covered at high and uncovered at low water, wu
to be deemed the high seas, so as to confer criminal jurisdiction ; for a place may at
high water be the high seas, and at low water strictly part of the land, as in the can
of the sea-shore, according to the doctrine in ConsUble's Case, 5 Co. 10(1 n. It wu
vessel within the body of a county of water : The Diana, Lush. S39 ; and of ■
England. See The Egyptian Monarch, Sfl collision in a dock connected with the
Fed. Bep. 773. But under the English Thames by channels provided with gstt*
statutes the Admiralty has jurisdiction of and locks. The Queen e. Judge of (Sty if
a claim for collision in the Great North Londou Court, 3 Q. B. D. SOB
Holland Canal, which is foreign inland
[482]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZVn.] THE UNITED STATES. • S67
The extent of the juriBdiction of the district courts, as courts
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, iraa ybtj fully examined,
eipreul^ held, in the casee of United States v. Bora, 1 Gall. S21, and in United 8tat«i
V. Pirates, C Wheaton, 184, that a vesael lying in ao open roadstttul, within a murine
league of the ehore, was -upon Hit high Mat, aiider the Sth seetioD of the act of SOth
April, 17M, c. 9, sec S, BO as to give juriadictioD to the cocttit of ths UniEed States.
The high aeaa in that act mean any waters on the sea-cosot which are without ths
bonndaries of low-water mark. And yet agun it waa held, in the case of The United
States D. Bobinson, i Haaon, S07, that an offence committed in a ha; entirely land-
locked and enclosed by rseb wis not committed on the high seaa. The caaea are ao con-
flicting, that it saenu impossible to arrive at any definite concluaions on the subject
It seems to be conceded that the admiralty has an established jmisdiction to award
tUanagu for torts, or personal wrongs, done on the high seas ; and that waters within
the ebb and Sow of the tide, and which lie within tJie body of ■ coanty, are not, in
England, within the admiralty jurisdiction. Coke's 4tb Inst. 134 ; S Brown's Civ. and
Adm. Law, 111 ; The Nicolaas 'Witzen, 3 Hagg. Adm. 3SBi but that in the United
States all tide waters, though within the body of a county, ore within the admiralty
jorisdictioD, and torts committed on such waters are cognizable in the admiralty. See
Cnrtis's Treatise on SearaeD, p. I1S2, and the cases there cited. Nay, if the tort be one
continued act, tbongh commencing on land, and be consummated on tide water, the
admiralty has cognizance of it Plummer t>. Webb, i Mason, 883, EL84 ; Steele v.
Thatcher, Ware, 91. It is admitted, however, that the courts of common law have in
this conntry concurrent jurisdiction over mariners' contracts, and in cases of tort com-
mitted apon the high seas. Bnt as these conrla are not competent to give a remedy
in rem, the remedy is a personal suit
In the case of the etramboet Black Hawk, decided in the District Court for the
Northern District of New York (Conkling's Treatise, 2d ed. p. 360. note), it was held
that seiznrea made on the St Lawrence, far above tide waters, as at Ogdensburgh and
on Lake Ontario, for infractions of the navigation laws of the United States, were
cases of admiralty JurisdictiOD. The learned judge put the decision on the ground of
uniform practice for half a csntnry duly acquiesced in; but he admitted with great
candor that the jurisdiction on the admiralty aide of the court might reasonably be
questioned, though it waa not for that court, under the extraordinary sanction given
to the practice, to renoanee it In Wyman e. Hnilbnrt, 12 Ohio, 81, the coort waived
the question whether the great lakes, above the ebb and flow of the tides, were subject
to the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty. But now, by act of Congress of Febni-
trj 2S, 184G, c. 20, the district courts have the same jorisdiction in mattera of con-
tract and tort, concerning steamboats and other vessels of twenty tons burden and
upwards, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and employed in business of
commerce and navigation between ports and places in different states and territories,
upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes, as is now eiercised and
possessed by the said courts in eases of like steamboats and other vessels employed in
navigation and commerce upon the high seas, or tide waters within the admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction of the United States. The maritime law of the United' States, as
far as the same is or may he applicable thereto, shall constitute the rule of decision in
Kirb suits, in the same manner and to the same extent, and with the same equities as
it now does in cases of admiralty and msritime jurisdiction, with saving of the right
of trial by jury, and of a concurrent remedy at common law in competent cases. [JW,
S6», D. 1.]
[488]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 868 JDBISPHDDENCE OP [PAET It.
and with great ability and reaearch, by the Circuit Coart of the
United States for Maaaachaaetta, in the iuBurance case of De
Lovio V. Boit. (e) It was maintained, that in very early periods
the admiralty jurisdiction in civil cases extended to all maritime
causes and contracts, and in criminal cases to all torte and
offences, as well in ports and havens within the ebb and flow of
the tide, as upon the high seas ; and that the English admiralty
was formed upon the same common model, and was coextensire
in point of jurisdiction with tiie maritime courts of the otiier
commercial powers of Europe. It was shown, by an exposition
of the ancient cases, that Lord Coke was mistaken, in his attempt
to coniine the ancient jurisdiction of the admiralty to the bi^
seas, and to exclude it from the narrow tide waters, and
• 868 • from ports and havens. The court agreed with the admi-
ralty civilians, that the statutes of 13 B. IL and 15 B. IL
and 2 H. ly. did not curtail this ancient and original jurisdiction
of the admiralty, and that, consistently with those statutes, the
admiralty might exercise jurisdiction over torts and injuries upon
the high seas, and in ports within the ebb and flow of the tide,
and in great streams below the first bridges ; and also over all
maritime contracts, as well as over matters of prize and its inci-
dents. It appeared, from an historical review of the progress of
the controversy for jurisdiction, which lasted for two centuries,
between the admiralty and the courts of common law, that the
latter, by a silent and steady march, gained ground, and extended
their limits, until they acquired concurrent jurisdiction over all
maritime causes, except prize causes, within the cognizance of the
admiralty. The common-law doctrine was, that tiie sea, ex vi ter-
mini, was without the body of any county ; but that all ports and
havens, and all navigable tide waters, where one might see from
one land to the other what was doing, were within the body of
the county, and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the common-
law courts. On the sea-ahore or coast, high and low water mark
determine what was parcel of the sea, and what was the line of
division between the admiralty and the courts of law; and it was
held that it ought to be so considered, by parity of reason,
where the tide ebbs and flows, in ports and havens ; and that the
admiralty jurisdiction extends to all tide waters in ports and
havens, and rivers beneath the first bridges. It was admitted,
<cj 2 0*11. 398.
[484]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. XTII.] THE DNITED STATES. " 869
however, that the common law originally bad jurisdiction on the
high seas, concurrent with the admiralty ; and that in cases mani-
festly within the admiralty jurisdiction, both oiTil and criminal,
the common law now claimed concurrent jurisdiction.
The result of the examination in that case was, that the juris-
diction of the admiralty, until the statutee of Richard II., extended
to all maritime contracts, and to all torts, injuries, and
offences on the high seas, and in ports and * havens, as far *369
as the ebb and flow of the tide ; that the common-law inter-
pretation of those statutes abridged this jurisdiction to tbin^
wholly and excluaively done upon the sea, but that the interpre-
tation was indefensible upon principle, and the decisions founded
upon it inconsistent; that the admiralty interpretation of those
statutes did not abridge any of its ancient jurisdiction, and that
interpretation was consistent with the language and intent of
the statutes, and analogous reasoning, and public convenience.
It was considered that the decisions at common law on this sub-
ject were not entitled to outweigh the decisions of the great
civilians of the admiralty. The vice-admiralty courts in this
country, under the colonial governments, exercised a most ample
jurisdiction, to the extent now claimed, over all maritime con-
tracts, and over torts and injuries, as well in ports as upon the
high seas; and the Constitution of the United States, when it
conferred not only admiralty but maritime jurisdiction, added
that word ex indvstria, to remove every latent doubt This large
and liberal construction of the admiralty powers of the district
courts, and their extension to all maritime contracts, torts, (x) and
(x) Torti eommitted on the high seaa district court hiu b diBcretion to accept or
•re within the jarisdiction of the admit- decliDe jariBdiction of an admiralty suit
alty witboat r^ard to the nationalit; of for a maritime tort committed at sea,
the vemels or of the parties. The Nod- wheDbronghlbetweenforeigneraoragaiDBt
dlebnm, 23 Fed. R(^p. SfiS ; 30 id. HZ; a foreign vessel. The Noddlebam, SO
tTuited States' 0. Lewie, 86 id. M ; Bern- Fad. Rep. 142 ; Neptnne Steam Nav. Co.
luuii P. Greene, 8 Sawyer, 230; The p. SnllivanTimberCo., 37id. 169 ; Chubb
Mecca, {ISSS] P. SS. As to the juriedic- t>. Hamburg-Am. Packet Co., S9 id. 431 ;
tion of the district eonrte over the navi- The City of Carlisle, id. 307 ; Camille r.
gable watem of Alaska, see 7n r« Cooper, Couch, *0 id. 178 ; Traeey v. The Walter
143 U. 8. 472 ; Kie «. United States, 27 D. Wallet, «« id. 1011. If jurinliction
Fed. Bep. 351. As to jury trials, see The is taken, the law to be applied in such
Empire, 19 Fed. Rep. 6SS ; The Erie cases is the general maritime law ■■ ad-
Belle, 20 id. S3 ; The J. W. French, 13 ministered in the country in which the
id. 916. Apart from statnta or tteaty the luit is bronght The Belgenland, 114 U.
[486]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 869 JUBISPBODBNCE OF [PABT n.
injuries, vas recommendeii by the general equity and simplici^
of admiralty proceedings, and the policy and wisdom of that code
S. SEC. A muitiine lien may be enforced rsBael, ii not within the U. 8. adminltf
•guniit tlu vessel of a foteign oorpontion itatataa. WillUma b. Tbe WelhaTen, U
fornecesBarjrrepMts.andmpplieafaTiiuhed Fed. Bap. 80. Buch court* cumot, >ftN
in the port of atuolment. Th« HaniM, judgment, order a Teasel, which haa bten
6i Fed. Bep. 496. raleased on bond, to be nunated. The
Tbe foUowjng are maritime torts : Nog. Hattie Bell, SC Fed. Rep. lit.
Bgence of the owner TMottiiig in a boiler- Whan iiqnry i« cansad by a ooUinca
explosion cansiDg iqjury to a seaman, between a veeael and a bndge, or wbii(
Orimsley 0. Hankina, 46 Fed. Bep. 400 ; &c., tlie jnrisdictionof admiialtTledeta-
negligenca of the master oanaing penonal mined by the locality of the ^ing injnnd.
injoiy to a SBaman : The A. Heaton, 43 Sorthwestem U. P. Co. r. Atlee, 2 Dilhm,
id. 692 ; The H. 3. Piclcands, 42 id. 239 ; 479 ; 21 WaU. 3S9 ; Johnson v. Chicago
see Tbe Egyptian Monarch, 3t) id. T73. BleTator Co., 119 U. a SS8 ; Boston t.
The wrongful smst of deserting sea- Crowley, 38 Fed. Bep. 202; AmsdU
nwD at tbe masteris request is not a mari- Charleston Bridge Co., 40 id. 76B ; Hill t.
time tort. Bain d. Saudnsky Trana. Co., Choaen Freeholders, 4fi id. SOO ; Or^on
60 Fed. Bep. 912. City Tnuia. Co. «. Columbia St Mdgt
Contributory negligence on the part of Co., 63 id. 649 : The Professor Hone, !t
one employed in loading a vessel and in- . id. S03 ; Qrsenwood «. Weatport, 60 ii
jnred by ita negligence doss not neoea- 660 ; Anderaon v. Tbe Mary OamCt, S9
■arily preclode a recovery, but tbe dam- id. 1009 ; Price s. The Belle of the CrasC,
ages may be divided. The Max Horria, 66 id. 62. See The Zeta, [1393] A C.
137 U. 3. 1, 12; see 32 Cent. L. J. 1S8. 468; 10 Law Quart Bev. 113. Hcms
Lobs of life is not the subject of an ad- an injnry to a peraon upon a wharf bya
miralty mit in rem, when the local law caOBc of injury proceediug team a tmsiI
creates no lien. The Corsair, 146 TJ. 9. is not within the adnuialtf jnrisdicCimi.
336 ; The Alaska, 130 U. 8. 201 ; 83 Fed. but an injury to a person on the tbhI
Rep. 107; The Harriabnrg, 119 U. S. caused by a piece of timber, &c., sent bom
199 : see Jones t>. The St Nicholas, 4S the wharf, is witliin such juriadicdoD.
Fed. Rep. 671 ; Tbe City of Norwalk, 66 Ibid. ; Hermann v. Port Blakelj UiU Co..
id. 98 ; Nelson t>. Tbe Premier, 50 id. 797. 69 Fed. Bep. 644. Flood waten an dC
But damages allowed by a state statute within admiralty cognizance ; hence, a
fur negligence causing death on navigaUe building on land tampnrarily submerged
waters within the State may be recovered Iqr such waters and iqjnred by a vessd it
onalibelinpn-nmimi. Tbe Car Float No. not within tbe admiralty Jnhsdietion.
16, 61 Fed. Bep. 364 ; The City of Nor- The Arkaiuas, 6 UcCrsry, 364.
walk, S6 id, 98 ; Nelson i>. The Premier, Where tbe case is within admiiattf
69 id. 797. ci^izance, the District Conrt may decide
The odmirsJty courts have no Joiiadic- the qnestions involved, and a writ of pro-
tion of a suit for injaries saffered by a bibiriou will not lin, but where the tort is
ssamsn upon a wharf from the improper not a maritime tort, a arrit of pn^titioB
method of discharging the cargo, although will lie, eepecially if the want of jnrisdic-
lossof wages is incidentally involved in- don appears on the face of the proceeding
the damages. The Marr Garrett, 68 Fed. Smithr. Whitney, 116 U. 3. 167; Ezparti
Rep. 1009. A claim for bad treatment of an Phenix Ins. Co. , 118 U. 3. 610,625.
American seaman serving on a Norwegian In the adminl^, • oommisdoiHr'i
[486]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XTII.] TBE DMITED BTATE&. * 369
of maritime law, which had embodied the enlightened reason of
the civil law, and the customs and usages of the maritime nations,
and regulates, by its decisions, the oonunercial intercourse of
mankind, (a) ^
(a) Judge Story lUted, in thii etas, that all dviUaiu and jnrista agned that mari-
time MDtracU included, unong other thiogi, charter-patties, aSreightments, marina
hjpothecatioDS, oontraeU for marine Mrrlce in the building, reptiirinj;, aappljing,
and navigating ehipe, contracts betwsmi part ownera of ahipa, contracts and quasi-
omtiBcts, respecting averages, contribntiona, and of miisiona and policies of insurance-
He said that admiralty courta of other foreign conntriea had exercised JuHadiDtioD oTer
policies of insurance as maiitiiae oontiacta.
1 Admiralty Jaritdietion o/tA« Unittd nations. (3.) That its natnre and extent
StaUt. — The Supreme Court has since is to be deterznined by the decisions of the
decided in accordance irith Judge Story's Supreme Court, and by the usages ezist-
opinioD, Insurance Co. c. Danham, II ing in the States when the Conatitutitni
Wall. I ; and that and other caaes show was adopted. The Lottawanna, SI Wall,
that the admiralty and maritime juris- S&8 — b.]
diction of the United States is not limited In Ths Hine, 4 WalL 6S6, 566, Mr.
by the restraining statutes or the judicial Justice Uiller declared it to be settled
prohibitions of England. lb. p. SI ; that the admiralty jurisdiction to which
Waring v. Clarice, 6 How. iil ; Ifev Jer- the power of the federal judiciary is tfj
■ey S. N. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. the Constitntion declared to extend, is not
ZH ; The Msgnolia, £0 How. ZB8 ) The limited to tidewater, but coven the entire
Commerce, I Black, &74 ; The Belfost, 7 navigable waters of the United SUles ;
Wall. 621, 640. [In Sx parU Easton, 96 and that the jnriadiction of admiralty
U. S. 6S, it is laid down: (1.) That the causes arising on the interior watera of
jnriadiction in admiralty of the United the United States, other than the lahM
States courts is not limited hj that of and their connecting waters, is conferred
England. (2.) That it doei not extend by the Judidary Act of SepL 24, 1T8B,
to all cases which would fall within it by {9, stated anU, 804, aod more fully poal,
the dvil law and the usage of continentsl 872, in the text. A little later, in The
findings of fact may be reversed if clearly Fed. Kep. 428. That court, on an appetl,
erronaooa. The Cayuga, Ge Fed. Bep. tries the case de neno. Pettie v. Boston
4SS. Upon an apped the findings of the Towboat Co., 49 Fed. Bep. 464. That
district judge upon conflicting evidence court is not within the Act of Feb. 16,
will not be disturbed unless clearly against 1875, which limits the Supreme Court, on
the weight of evidence. The Albany, 48 an appeal in admiralty, to a review of the
Fed. Bep. 565; The Alejandro, G6 id. circuit court's Cudings on qneations of law
«S1. But the circuit court's findings of only. The SUte of California, 49 Fed.
fact are conclusive on an appeal. The Bep. 172. As to the joinder of sails in
Iionisrille e>. HsIIiday, IM V. S. 6G7; rent and pernmam, see The Normandie^
The S. S. Wilhelm, 69 Fed. Bep. 1S9. 40 Fed. Bep. 690 ; The Benicoa, 44 id.
Unless the prooft ate in writing, the elr- 102 ; The Clatsop Chief, S id. 168 ; The
euit court of appeals will not review the Mont« A., IS id. Ul ; The Alida, id.
facts on an appeal in admiralty from the 648.
district eomt The Philadelphian, 60
[487]
soiyGoOl^lc
* S69 JDBISPBDDEKCE OF [PABT U.
Thia enlarged extension of the civil jurisdiction of the admi-
reltj, as declared in the Circuit Court In Massachusetts, remaiiu
Cbief, 12 How. 413, the admindtjr juris- Dunham, II WalL 1, 35 ; ind beJow Ib
diction of the duttict oonrts upon the thi* note. [Where the iDJiu7 ii taSmd
gmftt Uke« and their connsctiiig tniten on land, though tlie inatnuaent infiidiiig
•Iw mnit b« RgBtded u eonfeired upon it ia on navigable water, the idminltj hu
them bj the aame act The act of 1S16, ao jniitdiction. The Sc^MOoer Maod
an^>, 367, n- {b), w» p>«ed when the Webater, S Ban. 647 ; The Neil Coebnn,
jurisdiction nnder the Jodiciaiy Act mu 1 Brown Axlm. 162 ; The Ottawa, lb. 3tt ;
■uppoted to b« limited to tide waters, and A veme] doe* not oewe to be within Uh
whan this WIS decided by the Supreme admitaltj jniisdictioii when mooted to a
Conrt to be a wrong new of the kw, sad wharf. She ii still water-bonHi, end net
that the test ww lutngabiUtf , not the ebb a p«rt of the land. Leathars v. BUniiift
and flow of the tid^ it foUowed that the lOS U. S. 620. The test of whether i
act of 1S46 wai inoperatiTe to extend the Tessel is of anch a natuie as to be within
jurisdiction, and if it affected it at all the Bdnuraltj jurisdiction ia found in the
mast restrict it, eoQtni7 to the intent ot olgect for which it is intended and tha
the ecL It was pronauuced not to hare the purpose for which it i* need. If these In
latter effect In The Eagle (contrar; to the for commercial navigation, it u within tLe
doctrine of Allen •>. Newberry, 21 How. jurisdiction, no matter what its fbim «
244, and the dicta in The Hina and Qeo- build, or its propelling power. The Oei-
eaee Chief). See also Insurance Co. v. eral Gasa, I Bmirn Adm. 331 ; Oastnli.
Ihmhiun, 11 Wall. 1, 26. A Crgreaa Raft, 2 Woods, 813 ; A BiA
NKvigability within the meaning ot of CTpreaa Logs, 1 Flip. 643. 8eeCope>.
these decisions is navigabilitj in fact, and Vallette Dry Dock, 10 Fed. Hep. Hi.
those rivers are said to be navigable which And it seems that the nature of the nib-
are susceptible of being used, in their ject-matter alone may be sufficient to gin
ordinary condition, as highways for com- jnrisdictioii, thoogh there be neither a
mercq, over which trade and travel may maritime tort or contract. Qrigg e. Tbe
be conducted in the coatomary mode. Clarissa Ann, 9 Hogh. 60. A mariM
Tbe Daniel Ball, 10 WalL GS7, 668. tort includes iqjuries arising trom ntfdi-
[The jurisdiction was held to extend to a gence as well as from poMtive toctiMi
navigable canal In The Steamer Oler, 2 acta. Leathers v. Blessing, 105 C. S.
Hugh. 12 ; The Avon, 1 Brawn Adm. 626 ; Holmes v. Or. ft CaL By. Co., *
170. Comp. The Canal Boat 2. H. Mc- Saw. 262. An attacbtnent of goedi it
Gbesney, 8 Ben. ISO; 15 Blatchf. 183, aofficient to give jnriadictiou where de-
See Tbe Hontello. II WalL 411, 20 fendant is out of the district. Atkim *■
Wall. 430, where it is assumed that a Disintegrating (To., IS WalL 272.— M
river must be navigable in its natural Wilh regard la amtraeU, it is inH
state to be a pert of the navigable wat«ii settled that jnrisdiction does not depmd
of the United States. — b.] apoa theii having baen made upto the
77is juriadicHon at to tort is said to sea, nor, it would seem, apon the fact
depend entirely on locality, and torts that they are to be performed upon nsvi-
committad on navigable waters are cogniz- gable waters, Ininuance Co. v. Dnehun,
able in the admiralty coiuts. The Bel- II WalL 1, 26, stated Mpra (a point in
[488]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZTII.] TBE UNITED STATES. * 869
to be discussed, and definitivel; settled, ia the Supreme Court
It has been subsequently and frequently asserted in the oircuit
doabt, parhips, before tliftt CMe, Belfast, note. Taylor «. Canyl, 20 Hoir. 66S,
lupra), but npon the salgeet-matter of the G9B ; poll 877, n. (t) and I.
eontiact ; if ttuit u muitlma tlie contnot A procaeding in ran to enforce • mui-
il maritiiiie. Among the oontcacta which time lien ia not, howerar, » coaunon-laiT
luve been coniiderad maritime tin those remedy, and if a atste ststDts pnrporta to
for mMine inauranco, Iniaranoe Co. t>. ^tb anch a remedy in a common-lAW
Dnnbam, lupra ; for the carriage of pas- court it is invalid for that pnrpoM. 7
■angen on nafigaUe waten, The Uoaea WalL 614. On this gronnd it has be«n
Taylor, i WalL 411 ; aae also The Pacific, held that state courts have no jnriadiction
1 Blstchf. S09 ; charter-party, affreight- to enforce a lien for breach of a conttMit
ment, wharfage, &&, m mentioned below to cany a passenger by it«Mn on the
in tbie note. Bat it uemi to be the pre- Pacific Ocean by proceedinge in rem under
TailiDg opinion that a contract t« boild a a state law, The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall,
•hip is not a maritime contract. People's 411 ; nor of similar proceedings for a col-
Ferry Co. V. Beer*, 20 How. SfiB, as ex- lisiou on the Mississippi Hirer, The Hine,
plained in Uorewood v. Eneqnist, 23 How. 4 Wsll. 6GG ; nor of ainular proceedlngi
491, 4S4, and 11 Wall. 28. See also Con- to enforce a lien for breach of a contract
ningham b. Hsll, 1 Cliff. 43 ) Yoong e. between dtiiene of a state for the carriage
The Orpheus, 2 Cliff. 29, S8 ; The "Sat- of merebandise tmai one port to another
WKy, 3 Benedict, IBS, .106. The o**e of within the same state over navigable
•teredore's service is thought doubtful in waters. The Belfast, 7 Wall. eS4.
tba CircassisD, 1 Benedict, 20S. A maritime lien is the foundation of a
TKi original juritHeHon in admirdUy proceeding in ran. The Bold Buccleugh,
azerdsed by the diettiot courts by virtoe 7 MooT^ P. a 207, 284 ; The Bock Island
of the act of 178S ia exdiuizt not only of Bridge, 8 Wall. S13 ; Csstriqns v. Imrie^
other federal courts, bat of the state courta L. B. 4 H. L. 414, (47. Bee The Haggle
also. The Hine, 4 Wall. 668,666. [Comp. Hammond, I) Wall. 4S6. And whenerar
Stndley e. Baker, 2 Low. 20S.] It is not a maritime lien arises, the injured par^
a remedy in the ccmmon-law eourta which may proceed, whether for a breach of a
is MTed by tb* elanse in f 9, stated pod, maritime oontraet nr * maritime tort,
972, ante, 804, n, {b], bnt a common-law either in ran or in penanwm, at hie elee-
Tonedy. The Uoees Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, tion. The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 642 ;
412; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 844. Leon v. Oalceran, 11 Wall. I8G, 192.
[Comp. Baird v. Daly, G7 "S. T. 286.] If And the same rule eeems to apply to some
there is a common-law remedy, it may be matters not strictly belonging either to con-
pnrsnsd st the eleotiou of the enitor in tnct or tort, such ss sslTsge, jettisan, or
the stste courts, or in the Circuit Court general avenge. The Eag1e,SWsll. 18,28.
if his residence permits. The Belfast, Tskingthis in connection with the rale
witpra; Leon e. Gslcersn, 11 WslL ISfi, above stated as to jurisdiction over torta,
191 ; [United States e. Scboonmsker, 102 it hss been held that the United State*
n. 8. lis.] See also a meeterl; article courts have jurisdiction of pcoeeedings Ai
by Hr. Danm G Am. Law Kev. 631, on ran for a collision infra corpus eomibUut,
the history of the sdmiralty jurisdiction. The Commerce, 1 Black, 674 ; The Bel-
Kt pp. 617, 620, from which much assist' fsst, 7 WalL 624, 6S7 ; The Brooklyn, t
uiee has been derived in revising this Ben«dict^ M7; or In foreign wttui^ and
[489]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 869 JURISPRUDENCE 07 [PABT IL
and district oonrta; Thus, in Plummer v. Wehh, (8) the jnriBdio-
tion of the admiralty over all maritime contracts, upon the
(») 4 UjtsoD, sso.
It is said that In theaa caaea, aa la othen, Ware, 477 ; A. D. FatchiI^ 1 BlatcU
tha American law will generally be applied. 414 ; Gates n. Johnson, SI Law B«pt 27)
Th« EagU, 8 WaIL IS, 22. See further, (u to snnins, see Taylor «. Canyl, M
as to mantime torts, FhiL, WU. ft Bait How. 688) ; for tort* ot bnache* of cm-
R. E. D. Phil, ft E. Steam T. Co., 23 tnct b; ealtien of passengers on narigabla
Hon. 209 ; The SUvara (Reindeer), 2 wsters. The Hosm Taylor, 4 Wall 411 ;
Wall. 384; Banistt v. Lather, 1 Curt. Steambost New World, 16 How. 4«Si
4S4. (The lien giTsn by maritime law is FaciGc, 1 Blatchf. &6B ; for oonuacti at
» proprietary right, enforceable in any charter-party or af^«i^tment to b« [»►
jurisdiction, and is not defeated by a sale fbraied on uarigable waton. The Bdfu^
of ths vessel to a hona fide purchsMr, or 7 WalL 624, SS7 ; The Eddy, G WalL
1^ anything except proceedings ut nrn. 481 ; Uorewood «. Eneqnist, 23 Hm.
The Atou, 1 Brown Adm. 170 ; The 401 ; N. J. Steam ITav. Co. n. Uerehanta'
Champion, ib. 620. See The Ci^ of Bank, 0 How. S44 ; CarpeDler c. achoaDv
UeccB, 6 P. D. 106. — b.] Emma Johnson, 1 Cliff. 638 ; Choith •.
To give some other instances, the Shelton, 2 Cnrt. 271 ; Tha Hardy, 1 Dil'
United Stntes courts have jurisdiction of Ion, 460 ; although made and to be po^
similar proc««diDgB for general avenige formed abroad by a foreign ahip^ Hag)^
contribationa. Dopant do ffemours v. Hammond, B WalL 4SG ; for conliacU of
Tance, 19 How. 162 ; The Eagle, 8 WalL wharhge, Kelsey v. The Eat* Tremaioe,
16, 23. But when, as has been deter- 4 Am. L. T., U. S. Courts R. 92 ; md to
mined by the Supreme Court in certain libels by matinen for thmr wnges eanail
cases mendoned in the notes to shipping on nsTigable watere entirely within «M
in the third Tolume, p<al, the lien de- state. The Sarah Jane, I LowsU, iOS,
pends on posaession, if posseasiDn is given 2 Am. Law Bev. 4&Ii.
np without reeerve there can be no pro- The exiateuee of a maritime lien, u>d
ceeding fn Tvm. Bags of Linseed. 1 Blsck, consequsntly of s proceeding vl nn in
108, 113. See The Eddy, G Wall. 481, the admiralty, has been denied sgiinit
404. And it has been held that in some bridgua, The Bock laland Bridge, 6 Will.
oases, e. g. for contribution in genera] 2] 8 ; canal boats fit only for canal Dtri
average, the admiralty jurisdictioD tn per- gation, ftc, Ann Arbor, 4 Blatchf. 2DS:
soRom was gone also. Cutler e. Eae, 7 Jones b. Coal Ba^es, 8 Wall. Jr.
How. 729 ; 8 How. SIG. Hendrick Hudson, 3 Benedict, 419. Cm-
The jurisdiction also extends to similar pare The Oeneral Cass, 6 Am. L. T. It (*)
proceedings for salvage. The Centurion, The much-debated qneetion as to the
[x] The following are within the admi- rendered to them sepatately: The ColniB-
ralty jurisdiction: A dredge and her scows bua, CG id. 430 ; a Uth-bonae built oo
treated as one craft: Evans v. The Star- boats and designed for navigation and
buck, 81 Fed. Rep. 502 ; Aitcheson v. tranflportation : Tebo t>. New Tork, 81
The Endless Chain Dredge, 40 id. 3S3 ; id. 692 ; a steam fbrry-hoat plying aeresi
The Alabama, 22 id. 449 ; there being, a river or harbor: Unrray «. The P. B.
however, no joint lien on different scows Nimack, 3 id. 86 ; a dismantled itnnif
and dredges for the entu« price of lerrices made Into a plaaanra tow*baat : Tits City
[490]
sObyGoOl^lc
LlCr. SVn.] THE UNITED STATES. *870
doctrine of the case "of 7>« Lovio t. Boit, was declared, * STO
and it was considered, that, inasmuch as courts of admiralty
act as courts of equity and administer justice upon the same prin-
ciples, and with equal safety, maritime contracts were suitable
objects of such a jurisdiction ; and especially as such contracts
require a liberal interpretation and enlarged good faith, and the
application of a comprehensiye equity. So in iSteele v. Thatcher,
and Ihinkviater v. The Brig Spartan, in the District Court for
Maine, the doctrine in De Lovio t. Boit was explicitly recognized
as sound, (a) It was declared to hare been before the public for
(a) Wmre, 91, 149. .
tafbicement in tdmirBltj of lieoi created put owdw*, althongh ths pUintUT wm
by Btste Uwa in Ttvor of p«rties to mui- *1bo unster uid ship's husband, The
tune contracts to whom ths genend kd- Larch, 2 Curt. 127. See Eellom v. Em-
miralty law does not gire such liens is sd- enon, ib. 79 ; UarcDgo, 1 Lowell, 63, 1
Tsrted to in the notes t« vol. iii. 170, d. 1. Am. L. BeT. 68. [As to wlieti a United
By way of finishing ths satqect of ad- State* district court will take jurisdiction
miralty jurisdiction, it should be sddsd in oase of a libel against a foreign Teasel,
that it does not extend to the decree of a or in snits between foreignen, see The
tale or foreclosure of a ship under a mort- Bark Liliiia M. Vigus, 10 Ben. 8S5 ;
gifte, Bc^art V. The John it,y, 17 How. Thomassen v. Whitwell, 9 Ben. 118 ;
Sn ; nor to matters of account between Ths Hsrmine, 3 Saw. 80 ; Bemhard v,
partner^ Ward d. Thompson, 22 How. Greene, ib. 230 ; The Pawaahick, 2 Low,
ISO ; nor to roattfos of acconnt iMtween liZ ~ b.]
of Ptttsboig, 46 id. fl99 ; timbers made ersi conrts is eiclnsive and tiDlform, and
into a raft for transit and manned bj a State laws proTidiug for maritime liens
pilot, crew, and cook for the voyage : by procMdiuga in rrm are void. United
Hnntz 0. A Rait of Timber, 15 id. ESS ; States v. Burlington & H. Ferry Co., 21
Seabrook v. Baft of BaOroad Cross-Ties, Fed. Hep. 931 ; The Henonuoie, 86 id.
40 id. 6»0. 197 ; Aitcbesou v. Eadlesa Chain Dredge,
The following are not : rongh boxes, 40 id. 2S8 ; McCaffrey u. The J. G. Chap-
not DWDoed or enrolled, and used bnt once man, 32 id. 989 ; The Wm. U . Hoag, 69
or twice for the transportation of coal on id. 742 ; Eley e. The Shrewsbury, id. 1017;
a ntn: Wood t. Two Bai^*, 46 Fed. Butler b. Boston & S. S. Co., 180 U. S.
Rep. 204 ; tt mwine pnmp: Baker e. The C27 ; Stewart v. Potomac Ferry Co., G
Big Jim, 61 id. 608 ; h floating dry-dock : Hughes^ 872. Maritime freight, pro-
Cope e. Vallette Dry-dock, 10 id. 142 ; ceeded against in a State court oF equity
Snyder n. A Floating Dry-dock, 22 id. withont jurisdiction, snd in the handa of
S85 ; s floating pIl^driTer: Muellerweisse a depositary, may be attached in admiralty
•. Pile Driver, S9 id. 1005 ; a mnrinr rail- to euforoe a maritime lien thereon. The
way with one end fastened to the land Vigilancia, 63 Fed. Hap. 783. So of a
and ths other extending into the water, vessel in the possession of a receiver.
The Proreasor Morse, 28 id. 803, The Willamette Valley, 66 id. 666 j see
The admiralty jurisdiction of the Fad- The City of Frankfort, 62 id. 1006.
[481]
D.qilizMbyG00>^le
* S70 JCBispBintEiicB OP [put n.
twelve years, vithont having its reasoning met, or its ooncltuioDS
shaken ; and it was adjudged that the admiralty had a genenl
jurisdiction over maritime contracts; and the circumstance that
the contract was under seal did not affect the jurisdiction, thou^
it was admitted that in England the courts of lav would grant a
prohibition in such a case. The broad jurisdiction of the Ameri-
can courts of admiralty over all executed maritime contracts (for
the jurisdiction is confined to executed contracts (i) ^ (x), aitd
{b) S HMon, le, 17.
> Bnt BBS Tha Pidfie, 1 Blatehf. 500; The following w«n held not muitiiM:
anlt, 969, n. 1. tThe tollowing in for- <Bnildiiif[}JEdiran)8 v. Elliott, 21 WiH
ther example! of contncta held to be CSS; Bteamer Fatnl v. Dmnon^ np*;
miridme io character: (Whufage) &s (mortgi^) Deel; tr. Brigaatine EnicK,
;>ar(e Euton, 95 U. 3.68; (rapain) Steamer S Hngb. 70. See geaenll; The Elia
Petrel ■>. Dnmout, 2S Ohio St 602; (rai*. Ladd, 8 Saw. SIB ; The loaco, 1 Bnnra
iDg veiael) The Loaiea Jane, 2 Low. 266 ; Adm. 49fi ; Tha Tidal Sala, 12 fed. Btp.
(promine to pay average Ion) Bark San 207. — B. ]
FemnDdo v. Jackson, 12 Fed. Sep. 341.
{x) CoQlta of admiralty act od eqnit- oalrage in any erent : The Boanoke, SO id.
able principlei, bat they cwinot grant 674 ; aee Sheldrake d. Tha Chatfield, 51
injnnctiona, or order apedfie perfonnance id. 496 ; a voyage chartered in a nad
or reformation of contracta. Watta tr. not yet bnilt : Dnmoia o. Tha BaiSMa, 14
Camots, 116 U. 8. S53 ; Pateiaon v. id. 102 ; » contract to foniali watman
Dakin, SI Fed. Rep. 688 ; Uarqnardt n. or ueta for the voyage of a fiahing tbmI,
French, SB id. 603 ; Meyer r. Pacific Hail Oiough not yet lannched : The Hitan K.
8. Co., 6S id. 9S3 ; Williama c. Providence Dixon, 38 id. 397 ; I^ke r. The Uaobu-
W. Ina. Co., 66 id, 166 ; The Eolipae, tan, 46 id. 797 ; bteaeh of contract aiW
136 U.. 3. 699. the quality of auppliea (iimiahed : £leeD>
The following ooBtr^ct* are maritime ; Dynaouc Co. v. The Electron, 48 id. 68) ;
ft docking oontract; The Vidal Sala, 13 gooda ordered by the owner in the bomc
Fed. Bep. 307 ; overcharge of freight : port: The Glenmont, S4 Id. 401 ; if-
Oregon v. Pittsburgh & L. A. Iron Co., freigbtment : The Qaeen of the Pacific, «
96 id. 666 ; false repreeentationi to a paa- id. 218 ; a charter-party, or a bond gim
eenger, made on land, at to a future voy- to wciin performance thereof: Halkit.
age; The Normannia, 62 Fed. Rep. 406; Fox, 61 id. 298 ; The Alberto, 24 id. 37» ;
an implied contract of the wharfage of a a stevedore'a cUim for loading or nnlotd-
floating boat-hooae : Woodroff b. One Cor- ing a veoael, even in the home port. Tk«
ered Scow, 30 id. 269 ; contracta of af- Oilbert Knapp, 87 Fed. Bep. 209 ; TU
freightment : The Qneen of the Pacific, HatUe Hay, IS id. 899.
01 id. 213 ; an expresa or implied con- Tha following oontracta ate not nin-
tract for wharfage fnmiihsd to a foreign time: Matariala or machinei; faniiabed, or
vewel : The Dom Mathews, SI id. 616 ; a work done, in the original conitznctioa ■
contract to float a venel landed by a Btorm aqnipment of a reasel : The Pacific * ^'^
far up a beach : Frame v. The Ella, 48 id. Bap. 120 ; The Count de Leeaepe, 17 ii
669 ; a contract to pay a fixed amount for 400 ; The Glenmont, 32 id. 703 ; U H-
[492]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XVII.] THE DNITED STATES, * 871
all cases of a maritime nature, has been equally asserted in the
circuit courts of the United States at Not York and Philadelphia,
founded on the lan^age of the Gonstitutioa and the Judiciary
Act of 1789. (c) This enlarged admiralty cogaizance of civil
causes was elaborately vindicated, on principles of reason, as well
as on the ground of authority, in the case of the Schooner Til-
ton, (d) It was there held that the admiralty had jurisdiction of
all causes of a maritime nature, inclusive of questions of prize,
whether they arose from contracts or from torts. The jurisdic-
tion was clear, in all matters that concerned owners and proprie-
tors of ships, as such. It was observed that suits in the
admiralty, touching • property in ships, were either petitory • 371
suits, in which the mere title to the property is litigated
and sought to be enforced, or they were poteettory suits, to restore
to the owner the possession, which he had under a claim of title.
The jurisdiction over both classes of cases was exercised by the
(c> The Sloop Muy, 1 PdD«, 673 ; Wilmer c The Smilsx, [2 Pet Adm. 295, d.,]
uid DsTU V. Brig Seneo, [Qilp. 10,] in the Circuit Court of the Pennsjlvauis dietrict.
(d) 6 Uuon, 486. It is Dot dUputed th*t eoiirta oF admiral^ h£.Te jarisdiction
orer charter-partiea and maritime contracts genera]!}', bnt not oTer prelimiiiary con-
tneta leading thereto. Andrem v. Ebmx F. k H. Ins. Compui;, 3 Uaaon, S ; The
Schooner Tribune^ S Sumner, 114.
402 ; peTNoal loans, not on the ahjp'i The PnU«ki, 8S id. >SS ; Norton e. The
credit, ttiongh made in a foreign port : Kichaid Window, 07 id. 266 ; aerricea
Hart r. The Adnnee, SS id. 142 ; Brovn of a ahip-keepar lu the home port: The
B. The Alliance, id. 720 ; Oalf City 0. & America, 66 id. 1021 ; The Sirioa, 6G id.
W. Co. V. The Oeorga DamoiB, 66 id. 226 ; a contract for river [olotage under
3S3 ; a loan of money, secured by s. con- which no services have bean perfonned.
vejance or mortgage of a vessel : The C. The Seven Sous, 68 id. 271.
C. Trowbridge, 14 id. 874 : The Ella J. After the vessel ia launchsd, contracta
Slaymaker, 28 id. TS7 ; The Katie O'Neil, for equipment or lepaira or material an
66 id. Ill ; Gray d. Proceeds of The Ad- maritiine. Befon the veteel is lannched,
vance, S3 id. 704 ; fratiduleut negotia- they «n contracta upon laud, and are non*
tions iudncing the making of a policy of maritime. Olobe Iron- Works Co. v. The
marine inanrance ; Williame v. Providence John B. Eetcham, 2d, 100 Uieh. G8S,
W. Ids. Co., G6 id. 169 ; a contract to hohling that a claim for the price of a
procure marine insurance : Harquardt v. boiler, aniokeatack, ftc. supplied in Inild-
Prench, 63 id. SOS; see Bosenthal e. The ing and equipping a steamer before laancb*
LiOnieiana, 87 id. 364; mattert of account ing, was non-maritime and enforceable
between part-ownen of • vessel : The H. in a State conrt by a proceeding in rem
E. Wilhud, 63 id. 699 ; 62 id. 887 ; the under a Ijtate »tatuta. See al»o The Pam-
l«a«e of a wharf : Upper S. Co. v. Blake, 2 doi, 61 Fed. Bep. 860 ; Lake Nst. Co. v.
App. D. C. SI ; atotBge of gruu throngh Anstin £1. Supply Co. (Texas), SO 8. W.
tba winter on a Teasel tiednp to a wharf : &q>.882.
[498]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 871 JDRISPBDDENCE OP [PAXT U.
admiralty, until some time after the restoratioii in 1660, when the
courts of lav interfered, and claimed the ezclusiTe c<^izanee
of mere questions of title ; and the admiralty jurisdiction over
petitory suits has been, in England, abandoned for a considerable
length of time, though it is constantly upheld as to possessory
suits, (a) The distinction does not appear to rest on any sound
principle, for the question of title is necessarily involved in that
of the possession; and it is admitted by the courts of law(fi) that
the admiralty possesses autiiority to decree restitution of a ship
unlawfully withheld by a wrong-doer from the real owner. In
the case of illegal captures, and of bottomry, salvage, aud marine
torts, the admiralty courts in this country inquire into and decide
on the rights and titles involved in the controversy ; and where
they have jurtsdiction of the principal matter, it ia suitable, and
according to the analogies of law, that they should poaBeas it over
the incidents.' Notwithstanding the English practice to the coH'
trary, tlie admiralty in this country claim to poasess a rightful
jurisdiction equally over petitory and possessory suits, (c)
(a) Haly d. Ooodson, 3 U«riT. 77 ; Lord Stowell in the euta of The Aoran, tC
Rob. 1S8, 13S ; Tbe Warrior, 2 Dods. 28S ; and Tha Pitt, 1 Hagg. Adm. 240 ; 3 Bn.
CiT. A Adm. Iat, IW, IIG.
fft) In the matter of Blanchard, 2 Bam. ft Crew. 344.
(c) TlieSchoonerTUton,fiUaw»i, 4ee; WaicJudge, iDWaTa,248,B.p. IdHmcm
of tbe Schooner ValuntMc aod Cai^, I Snmner, GGl, Mt. Joatice Story iiaiiilnil.
with DDdiminlihed confidence, tha rightfnl joriadiction of the Atmriean aduunhj
over charMr-partiea and all other maritime contraeta, -whether made in foragn |*m
or at home, ae matten jvris et dt jure, and that the court might proceed in ran when
there waa a lien, and i» peramtam where do each lien existed. He reviewed, with tu
nenal'accunui; and epirit, the hiatory of the queation of adminlty jariadiction, ai bt
had already done mora at large in De TxiTio v. Boit. See wupra, 367. On the otbs'
hand, in Bains n. The Schooner Jamee and Catharine, 1 Bald. E44, Jadge Saldwii
held, that admiralty jariadiction, nnder the Constitution of the United States, wu to
be considered as ratraiiud by the statntea and common law of England before tin
BeTolution, and u exercised by the atate courts before the adoption of the Conitilt-
tion. It 'a high time thaC this vexed qneation <rf admiralty jurisdiction nndec tb
Constitution of the United States should be put at reaC by a final deeision in ti"
Supreme Court of the United States. The Court of Appeals in Kentucky, in the (•«
of Case D. Woolley, 9 Dana, 21, do indeed consider the question as aathoritatinlT
settled by the cases of De Lovio v. Boit, Plnmmer d. Webb, Drinkwater it. The Brig
Spartan, The Steamboat Thomas JeflerKon, and Peyrouz *. Howard, that a dnl
eause srisiDg where tbe tide ebbs and flowa, evtKl/ioHgk il mag bt wiUm a anmtg, wu
> Ward v. Peck, IS How. 267 ; Taylor 1 Sprague, 170. Bnt m* The Johi J^,
w. The Boyal Saxon, 1 Wall. Jr. 811 ; The 8 Blatohf. «7.
Friendship, S CarUa, 4SS ; The Tannto,
[494]
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. ZTU.] THE DMITED STATES. * 872
With respect to the criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty, ve
have already seen that the courts of the United States do not
assume any jurisdiction 'which is not expressly conferred by an
act of Congress; and the argument for the extension of
the civil jurisdiction of the admiralty beyond • the limits • S72
known and established in the English law, at the time of
the formation of our Constitution, is not free from very great
difficulty.
It has been made a question, what were the " cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction," within the meaning of the Constitu-
tion of the United States. It is not in the power of Congress
to enlarge that jurisdiction beyond what was understood and
intended by it when the Constitution was adopted, because it
would be depriving the suitor of the right of trial by jury, which
• ca«e of admiralty or maritime JQrinlictioii. Ur. Cuttis, in hit TreKtiH on the Bighia
and Datiea of Ueichuit Seuaea, pp. 2G2, 2SS, 260, conclades his eiamioatioii of the
CAMS, with the propodcion, that >li persons on board a Testel eogsged in wrrice, and
whoM Mrvice is of ■ maritime character, and in the busineas and emploTment of tho
Teasel, have a present standing in the admiraltj, and come within ita jnrisdii:tioD, and
can sue in prrtonam, and, where there U a lien, i* nim.
The jurisdiction of the English admir^tj has been enlarged, and donbtfal points
settled bj the statate of 3 k 4 Victoria, e. 68, passed 7tb August, 1S40. It is enti-
tled "An Act to improTe the Practice and extend the Jnrisdiction of the High Court
«f Admiralty of England." The Dean of th« Arches is made an assistant judge of
the admiralty court, VFith coccnrrent authority. Jurisdiction is given over the claims
of mortgageca of ehipe, over all questions aa to the title to omiership of any ship or
▼esse), or the proceeds thereof remaining in the registry, srising in any cue of poa-
nsaion, salvage, damage, wages, aod bottomry. Jariadiction is given over all claims
and demands in the nature of salvage, for services rendered to, or damagee received
by, any ship or sea-going veasel, or in the natore of aalvsge or for neceeaaries supplied
to any ship or sea-going vessel, or in the nature of salvi^ or for necessariea enpplied
ta any foreign ship or sea-going vessel, and to enforce the payment thereof, whether
aocb ship or vease) may have been within the body of a coonty or upon the high seas
at the time. The court may direct issues of fact to be tried by a jury, before a judge
of one of the conrte of law at Westminster, and the judge of the admiralty is to havs
the like protection as other judges in the exerdse of bis jurlsdictiou. Concurrent
jnrisdiclion over all these subjects and causes of action is retained in the courts of law.
A synopsis of the admiralty jurisdiction m Wti* ajUTiiTy is stated to contain, 1. Con-
tracts between part owners, petitory and possessory snits; 2. Charter-parties and
affreightments; S. Bottomry and hypothecation; 4. Contracts of material-men ; f>. In-
surance; 6. Wages ;(z) 7. Salrage, civil and military; 8. Averages, contributions,
(z) Anassignmentof ashipwright'slien if faiHy mads, of a mariner's lien for
for repaiiB may be enforced is admiralty, wagefc The New Idea, 00 id. 204 ; ^le
Fark V. The Hull of the Edgar Baxter, 37 Wm. H. Hoa^ 6S id. 743.
Fed. Bep. 219. So may the aasignment,
[495]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 878 JCaiSPBODENCB OP [PABT II.
is secured to him hj the Constitution in gaits at common Itw;
and it is well known that in civil suits of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction the proceedings are according to the course of the
civii law, and without jury. If the admiralty and maritime juris-
diction of the district courts embraces all maritime contracts, then
suits upon policies of insurance, charter-parties, marine hypothe-
cations, contracts for building, repairing, supplying, andnavigi-
ting ships, and contracts between part owners of ships, must be
tried in the admiralty by a single judge, to the exclusion of the
trial by jury ; and the state courts would be devested, at one
stroke, of a vast lield of commercial jurisdiction. The words of
the Judiciary Act of 1789, sec. 9, are, that the district oourta shtll
have '^exclusive original cognizance of all ciril causes of admi-
ralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under lawB
of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, where the
seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea
by vessels of ten or more tons burden, within their respective
districts, as well as upon the high seas." But the act adds, bf
way of qualification to this designation of admiralty jurisdiction,
these words, viz., "saving to suitors in all cases the right of a
common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to
give it."'
The act of Congress is rather ambiguous in its meaning, and
leaves it uncertain whether it meant to consider seizure on tide
waters, in ports, harbors, creeks, and arms of the sea, as
*373 cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, or as 'cases
simply within the cognizance of the district courts; for
the expression is including, that is, comprehending, either within
the cognizance of the court, or within the class of cases of admi-
ralty jurisdiction, all seizures under laws of impost, navigation,
and trade, on waters navigable from the sea, by small vessels of
ten tons burden. This act has, however, been construed to pot
a construction upon the words " admiralty and maritime jurisdic-
tion," conformable to the claims of the civilians, and in oppo-
sition to the claims of the common-law tribunals ; and there is a
uid jettJBoiu i 6. I^otage ; 10. Binaom ; II. Sniraya; 18. HHitime torti and tR»
p*n«8. The Jnruit, for Jauouy, 1841, p. 408. All tlu abore cuuai of iction, tietpt
thoM aming on inannnca, nnaoDi, uid aarvvft, now Iwlcmg to the Engluh onirt of
sdminltf.
1 Aiut, ieo,Ti.i.
[496]
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. XVn.] THE UNITBD STATES. * 874
series of decisioDB in the Supreme Court of the United States
to that effect
In the case of The United State* t. La Vengeance, (a) a French
privateer was libelled in the District Court of New York for
an attempt to export arms from the United States to a foreign
country contrary to law. She was adjudged to be forfeited to
the United States. The decree, on appeal to the Circuit Court,
was reversed. On a further appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States, it was contended that this was a criminal case,
both on account of the manner of prosecution, and the matter
chai^d ; and, therefore, that the decree of the District Court was
final ; and that it ought likewise to hare been tried by a jury in
the District Court; and that, if it was even a civil suit, it was
not a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. To render it
sucb, the cause must arise wholly upon the sea, and not in a bay,
harbor, or water within the precincts of any county of a state.
But the Supreme Court decided that it was a civil suit, not of
common-law, but of admiralty and maritime, jurisdiction. The
seizure was on the waters of the United States. The process
was in rem, and did not, in any degree, touch the person, and no
jury was necessary.
Afterwards, in the case of The United State* v. The Schooner
Salty, (b) the vessel was libelled in the District Court, as
forfeited for being concerned in * the slave-trade ; and this * 874
was also held, on appeal, to be a case, not of common-law,
but of admiralty, jurisdiction. So, in the case of The United Statet
V. The Schooner Betsey, (a) it was held that all seizures under
the act of Congress suspending commercial intercourse with a for-
ei^ conntry, and made on waters navigable from the sea, by ves-
sels of ten tons burden, were civil causes of admiralty jurisdiction,
being proceedings tn rem, and not according to the course of the
common law, and were to be tried without a jury. The court
said, that the place of seizure being on navigable waters decided
the jurisdiction, and that the act of Congress meant to make
seizures on waters navigable from the sea civil causes of admi-
ralty and maritime jurisdiction. In this last case, the counsel
for tbe claimant contended that the seizure was made within the
body of a county, for a breach of a municipal law of trade, and
that though it belonged to the jurisdiction of the District Oourt^
(") 3 DallxB, 2B7. (b) 2 Cnnch, 404. (a) 1 Cranch, 44S.
vol.. I. -32 [497J
;abyG00<^lc
• 875 JUEISPBUDENCE OP [PABT n.
it was not a case of admiralty cognizance. All seiziires in Eng-
land, for violation of the laws of revenue, trade, or navigation,
vere tried by a jury in the Court of Exchequer, according to &e
course of the common lav; and though a proceeding be in rtm,
it is not necessarily a proceeding or cause in the admiralty.
In the case of the Samuely (b) where the vessel and caigo were
seized and libelled, and condemned in the District Court of Rhode
Island, for a breach of the non- importation laws of &e United
States, the same objection was made upon appeal to the Supreme
Court, and it was again overruled, on the authority of the pre-
ceding cases. The same objection was taken in the case of tlie
Ootavia ; (o) and it was contended that the word includiiy, in
the 9th section of the Judiciary Act, ought not to be coDBtmed
cnmulatively ; and that a suit might be a cause of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction, and yet triable under the common
* 875 law, proceeding * by information, instead of the civil-lav
process by libel. The objection was again overruled. The
last case that brought up the same point for review and discm-
sion was 7%e Sarah ; {a) and the Supreme Court there rect^ized
the marked and settled distinction between the common law and
the admiralty jnrisdictions of the district courts. In seizures
made on land, the District Court proceeds as a court of common
law, according to the coarse of the English Exchequer, on infor-
mation tn rem, and the trial of issues of the fact is to be b;
jury, (f)) But in cases of seizures on waters navigable from the
sea, by vessels of ten or more tons burden, the court proceeds as
an instance court of admiralty, by libel tn rem, and the trial it
by the court.
It may now be considered as the settled law of this conntry,
tliat all seizures under laws of impost, navigation, and trade, if
made upon tide waters navigable from the sea, are civil cases
of admiralty jurisdiction ; and the successive judgments of the
Supreme Court, upon this point, are founded upon the Judiciary
Act of 1789. If the act of Congress declares them to be cases ot
admiralty jurisdiction, it is apprehended that this is an extension
of admiralty powers beyond the English practice. Gases of for-
feiture for breaches of revenue law are cognizable in England in
the Exchequer upon information, though the seizure was made
(b) 1 WbeatoD, 9. (<:} 1 Wbekton, 20. (o) 8 Wbeaton, Ml.
(b) Thompeon, J., 1 PdiM, Mi ; United Statei e. FamtMii Pmck^a^ Qflpin, Vi-
[498]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. xni.] THE DNITBD STATES. * 376
npoQ navigable waters, and they proceed there to try the fact on
Thich the forfeiture arises, by jury, (c) Informations are filed in
the Court of Exchequer for forfeiture, upon seizure of property,
for breach of lavs of revenue, impost, navigation, and trade. In
the case of The Attorney- Qeneral v. Jackaon, (d) the seizure was
of a vessel lying in port at Cowes, for breach of the act of navi-
gation, and the proceeding was by information and trial by jury,
according to the course of the common law. Lord Hale
aaid, (e) that informations of that * nature lay exclusively * 376
in the Exchequer. Congreas had a right, in their discre-
tion, to make all such seizures and forfeitures cognizable in the
district courts ; but it may be a question, whether they had any
right to declare them to be cases of admiralty jurisdiction, if they
were not so by the law of the land when the Constitution was
made. The Constitution secures to the citizen trial by jury, in
all criminal prosecntions, and in all civil suits at common law
where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. These
prosecutions for forfeitures of lat^ and valuable portions of
property, under revenue and navigation laws, are highly penal
in their consequences; and the government and its officers are
always parties, and deeply concerned in the conviction and for-
feiture. And if, by act of Congress, or by judicial decisions, the
prosecution can be turned over to the admiralty side of the Dis-
trict Court, as being neither a criminal prosecution nor a suit at
common law, the trial of the cause is then transferred from a jury
of the country to the breast of a single judge.' It is probable,
however, that the Judiciary Act of 1789 did not intend to do
more than to declare the jurisdiction of the district courts over
these cases ; and that all prosecutions for penalties and forfeits
urex, upon seizures under laws of impost, navigation, and trade,
irere not to be considered of admiralty jurisdiction, when the
case admitted of a prosecution at common law ; for the act saves
to "suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy,
where the common law is competent to give it."^ We have
ie) Attornvj'Gimml v. Le Hnchaot, 1 Anst 62.
id) Bonb. 386. ' («) Haig. L. T. 337.
1 Sm Union Ids. Co. v. United SUtu, * Jntt, S49, n, 1.
S WhII. 759, and other rates cited, atU,
S57. a. 1. Bn ilso 303, n. 1.
[499]
;abyG00<^lc
*'377 JimispRCDEKCE of [pabt n.
Been that it is competent to give it, because, under the vigoroiu
sjsteni of the Englieh lav, such proaecutions in rem are in the
Exchequer, according to the course of the common law; and it
may be doubted whether the case of Jja Vengeance^ on which
all the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have rested,
was sufficiently considered. There is, however, much coloaial
precedent for this extension of admiralty jurisdiction. The nce-
admiralty courts, in this country, when we were colonies, and
also in the West Indies, obtained jurisdiction in revenue
" 37T causes to an extent * totally unknown to the jurisdic-
tion of the English admiralty, and with powers quite as
enlarged as those claimed at the present day. (a) But this
extension, by statute, of the jurisdiction of the American vice-
admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, to revenue cases
and penalties, was much discnsaed and Complained of on the part
of this country, at the commencement of the Revolution, (b)
Whatever admiralty and maritime jurisdiction the district
courts possess would seem to be exclusive, for the Constitution
declares that the judicial power of the United States shall extend
to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ; and the act
of Congress of 1789 says, that the district courts shall have
exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction, (e) ^ It is certain, however, that the state
(a) 8m the rorm of the cominualoni of thsae Tics-adnursltj coarts niiileT tht
coIodUI egtabliahmeaU, in ■ aot« to ths ctM of Dn Lovio v. Bolt, 3 OallisoD, 170, ud
in Da Poiicc»a on Juriadictian, 1G8.
{by Joumdi of Congrats, i. 22, 29, S9 ; JonnuUs of the AnemUj of the Colonj
of Xew York, ii. 7SG, 797, ROD. In Englind, u Judge Conkling obwrrei, aU niaa*
seizaree am cognizable eiclnilTaljr in tlia Court of Exchequer ; uid nich of then u
■ra cogniiable on the wlmiinlty side of the diitrict oonrtz of the United States m
made so only bj force of a legisIatiTe act. The effect of the statute m to nch seiion*
embraced by it is to nithdraw them from the consideration of a joiy, according to the
eonne of the civil kw- Conkling's Trestiae, 2d ed. S91.
(e) Constitntion, art. 3, sec 2 ; Act of Congreaa of Septembrr 31, 1789, (■ %
■ec. S ; vide tupm, SOI, 872. Hr. Justice Story (3 Comni. on Const, p. G33, uote)
Bays, that the opinion here expressed ie "founded in mistake," and that the idmiraltj
and maritime jurisdiction was intended by the CaDBtitntion Co be exactly as eitauin
or excluuve, and no more bo, in the national jndiciai;, than it ' ' existed in the jiiri>
prudence of the common law ; " and that where the cognizance of admiralty inl
> See as to the lutqects treated in the marks of Mr. Justice Story shore nfated
text and note («), antt, 3SB, n. I. In to are cited with approbation.
Tsjior V. Cany), 20 How. 6SS, the n-
[500]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. Xm.] THE DNITED STATES. * 878
courts take an ezteneive and unquestioned cognizance of mar-
itime contracts, and on the ground that they are not cases,
strictly and technically speaking, of admiralty and maritime juris-
diction. If, however, the claim of the district courts be veil
founded to the ci^piizance of all maritime contracts, wheresoever
the same may he made, or whatever may be the form of the con-
tract, it would seem that the jurisdiction of the state courts over
those contracts could not be sustained. But I apprehend it may
fairly be doubted, whether the Constitution of the United States
meant by admiralty and maritime jurisdiction anything more
than that jurisdiction which was settled and in practice in this
country under the English jurisprudence, when the Constitution
was made; and whether it had any retrospective or historical
reference to the us^;e8 and practice of the admiralty, as it
once existed in the middle ages, before its territories * had * 378
been invaded and partly subdued by the bold and free
nuritiQW CMM "WW pierioiul? concnrrait in the coartii of conimoD law," it remained
•a If I wu mistaken u to the meBDing of ths CmiBtitntion, in supposing that the
jndiciiil power, extending "to all caaei ot adinin]t;r and maritime jurisdiction," was
exclusive, I was led into the error by following the constructioti asBUmed by the
Supreme Conrt of ths TTntted States, in the judgment delivered in Martin u. Hunter's
Lessee, 1 Wbeaton, 804. In that case, the court ohseired, that Uie words "the jndi-
«iaJ power sAall st^nd," &c.. were iniperative, and that Cougreas oonld not vest an;
portion o( the jndicial power of the Cnited States, except in oourta ordained and
eatablished "bj itself. It «aa their duty to vest the wAub judicial povtr in their own
conrta. The learned judge who delivered the opinion of the court noted and dwelt
on the distinction in the laugnage of the Constitution, between declaring that the
judicial power ihall ertetid to all eata in law and equity arising under the Constitu-
tion,—to ail oue* affecting ambassadors, &c., — to all oaheb of admiralty and mari-
time jurisdiction, — and then (dropping ex indaitria the word all) to controversies to
which the United States shall be a party, — to controvoraiea between, &c., &c The
diOereDce of phraseology, he said, was not accidental, but designed, and the jurisdic-
tion in the one use wu imjuTotive, and in the other might be qnaliRed ; and that,
upon any constructian, the jodicial power of the United Stat«« was in some eases an-
avoidably exclusive, and in all pthert might be made to, at the election of Congrese. Upon
this ground I was led to the view I took in the teit, that as the admiralty and man-
time JDrisdictioD, within the purview of the Constitution, wa« exeludvi, it ought not
to ezUud further than the leUhd admiralty and maritime jurisdiction when the Con-
stitution was formed. It appeared to me, therefore, upon a ncondderation of the
subject, that the elaborate decision in De Lovio v. Bait graaped at too mucb jnriadic-
tioD. But we are taught hy the note in the CommeDMries referred to that the state
courts have all the concurrunt cogniiance which they had originally, in 1787, over
maritime contracts, and that thia concurrent jurisdiction doea not depend, as decland
In 1 Wheston, S37, on the pleasure of Congress, but is founded on the "reasonable
interpretation of the Constitution."
[601]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 378 JOHISPHDDENCE OP [PiET U.
Spirit of the courts of common law, armed with the protecting
genina and masculine rigor of trial by jury.
4. Jiuladlotlon a« an Inataso« Conrt ol Admiralty. — The exten-
sive and superior claims of the American courts of admiralty, as
courts of civil maritime jurisdiction, we have had occasion alread;
to consider; but, according to the English jurisprudence, the
instance court takes cognizance only of things done, and con-
tracts not under seal made super altum mare, and without the
body of any county. This, of course, excludes all creefcR, bays,
and rivers which are within the body of some county; and if
the place be the sea-coast, then the ebbing and flowing of the
tide determines the admiralty. The cause must arise wholly upon
the sea, and not within the precincts of any county, to give the
admiralty jurisdiction. If the action be founded on a matter
done partly on land and partly on water as if a contract be
made on land to be executed at sea, or be made at sea to be
executed on land, the common law has the preference, and
excludes the admiralty. (a)' The admiralty has cognizance of
maritime hypothecations of vessels and goods in foreign ports,
for repairs done, or necessary supplies furnished ; (d) and in the
(a) Com. Dig. tit. Adm. E. 1. 7, 10, 12, F. 1. 2, 1, 5 ; 3 Blnckat. Comm. 104, 107.
Id caaea purely dependeut upon tbe Uxaiity of the act done, the odmiivlt; jorudiction
is liiuited to the iiea and to tide watar aa far as the tide flows, and doaa not na^
beyond high-water mark. Bnt in mixtd ceuo, as where salvage servic«» an per-
formed partly on tide waters and partly on shore, far the preservation of the prop-
erty, the admiralty has jnrisdiction. United States v. Coombs, 12 Peleis, 71. h
Peyronx v. Howard, 7 Peters, 324, the Supreme Court decided, that Ifew Orlnn*
WM within the ebb and Qow of the tide, and that admiralty jurisdiction {Ncriilnl
there, and that repairs done there by a shipwright upon a steamboat were esaentiillT
a maritiroe service, and gave a lieo, notwithstanding the comnienceinent or Icrmiiu-
tioD of the voyage of the steamboat might be at some place dp the Mimiisippi,
beyond the reach of the tide. It was held, in Smith v. The Pekin, Gilpin, 203. tint
a contract for wages on a voyage between porta of adjoining atat«s, and on the tide
waters of a river or bay, is within the jurisdiction of the district courts, and miy b«
enforced by a aait in rem in the admiralty. But if a vessel bo engaged anbatantiillT
in interior navigation and trade, not on tide waters, the admimlty has no jnriadi^
tion, though she may have touched at one termiiHa of tbe Toyage on tide watHS-
The Steamboat Orleans p. PhcEbus, 11 Pelera, 17S. The principle vihieh ttemlati
eOablMedia that admiraltg juriadietitm esctendt lo allmaritimttaHMi and KTnca,lei$
ruiHantiatly ptr/ormed on tide vxUeri. See pp. S64, S67, 369, S70, 871, 378, 37«,<'
this volame. [But xee now 369, n. 1.]
(ft) Johnson ». Shippen, 1 Balk. 84 ; Lord Rayro. 982, b. c. It soenu to be, iIb^
not only the better opinion, bat the settled law, that the admiralty has jtiiiadiction
1 Jnlt, 866, n. 1.
[502]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. ZTU.] TH£ UNITED STATES. * 879
case of Menetone t. G^bona, (o) it was admitted by the K. B.
that the admiralty had entire jurisdiction in the case of an hypo-
thecation bond, charging a ship with money taken up in a foreign
port for necessaries, though the bond was under seal, and exe-
cute on land. The jurisdiction, in such a case, depended on the
subject-matter, for the contract was merely »n rem, and there
was no personal covenant for the payment of the money, and the
admiralty jurisdiction in such a case was indispensable, as
the courts of common law • do not proceed in rem. (o) If • 379
the admiralty has' cognieance of the principal thing, it has
also of the incident, though that incident would not, of itself,
. and if it stood for a principal thing, be within the admiralty '
jurisdiction. Upon this principle it is that goods taken by
pirates, and sold on land, may be recovered from the vendee, by
suit in the Bdmiralty.(6) Suits for seamen's wages are cogni-
zable in the admiralty, though the contract be made upon land,
provided it be not a contract under seal ; and this is intended for
the ease and benefit of seamen, for they are all allowed to join in
the suit, and all the persons on board below the rank of the -
master are comprehended in the description of mariners. («)
i» rem in the cue of bottooiry bonds creatint; a lien on a vessel, whether tha bond irai
executed b; the owner in a foreign or in ■ home port. Wlieqever the local law give*
a lien on the vessel as a secnritj, or there is an eipresi hypothecation, the admiralty
faM jnriedtctioa in rem to enforce it. Corisb d. The Jinrphy, 2 Bro. Civ. & Adm. I«w,
fiSO, App. ; The Sloop Haiy, 1 Peine, 071 ; The Brig Draco, 3 Sumner, 1S7.
(e) 8 T. B. 267.
(a) In the case of The Atlaa, S Hagg. Adm. lS-78, it was admitted that the court
of kdninJt; bad an undoabted jorisdiction over bottomiy bonds founded npon sea
risks, and defeaaihle bj the destmction of the ship in the coane of the voyage. It
TCI an original jurisdictian exercised upon the groDud of authorized usage sod estab.
liihed antbority. But the jorisdictioD would not attach npon any bond not dependent
upon the accidents of the voyage.
<f) Com. Dig. tit. Adm. F. 6; 3 Blocks. Com. 108. The court of admiralty has
Mithority to entertain a dvil suit, entitled ctnua ipolii eivilit tt maritima, for the reeti-
tation of goods piraticaUy taken on the high aeas. The Herculu, 2 Dods. 369 ; [628
Piecee of Habt^y, 2 Low. 823).
(c) 1 Salk. 84 ; Str. 761, 987 ; 1 Lord Baym. 898 ; S Lev. 00 ; 4 Inst. ISi, 142 ;
Com. Dig. tit Adm. E. IG ; 2 Lord Raym. lOit, 1206. A contract for wages on
Iward a steamboat plying between porta of adjoining atatea, on a navigaiiU tide laiUr,
may be enforced by a tuit At rem in the admiralty. Wilson v. The Steamboat Ohio,
Gilpin, GOS. Bnt to tender a service on board a vessel even on tide waters maritime,
ao lar as to give admiralty jurisdiction over it as for wages, it must contribute to the
pweerration of the venel, or of those whose labor and skill are employed to navigate
Jur, Mnriffinna do Dot come within that description. Trainer *. The Snperioii
[503]
^cibyGoQl^lc
* S79 JUBIBFBQDENCB OP [PABT D.
This case of seamen's wages the courts of common law admit to
be of admiralty jurisdiction; and this is an exception in favor of
seamen, to the general rule that the admii'alty has no jurisdiction
of any matter arising on land, though it be of a maritime nature,
as a charter -party or policy of insurance. The District Court, as
a court of admiralty, possesses a general jurisdiction in suits by
seamen and salvors, and by material-men, in rem and in jwr-
gonam. Tlie courts of admiralty have a general jurisdiction to
enforce maritime liens, by process in rem, and there may be ft
maritime jurisdiction tn personam, where there is no Hen, and
consequently no junsdiction tn rem.^ Seamen have an implied
lien on the vessel for services rendered upon the high seas or
upon tide waters. They may proceed in rem and in perumam;
but the proceeding in rem is only maintainable by material-men
when there is a apeciSc lien, or for w^es or for repairs made,
or necessaries furnished to a foreign ship, or to a ship in die
porta of the state to which she does not belong, (d) The admi'
Oilpiu, 614. Ths service must bo esBeotiallj iDoritinH; Ubor on boaid > fuel or
coal boat is not of tbat description. Thackeij d. The Fumer, ib. G24. Th« Kmu
must c«nc«ra tranwctiont and proceedings rebttlTe to commerce and oaTigatim,
and to damsgea and iqjurieB apon tbe sea. Nor has tiie admiralty any jariadictiixi
in matters of account between part owners. The Steamboat Orletms v. Vhsim,
II Peters, 175. It iit limited in matters of oontract to those which are moritmu. Ik
Thus, in the case of The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheaton. 428, it was held that ths
admiralty had no jariediction OTsr contracta for the hire of seamen, nnless the sn-
vice was substantially performed npon tbe seei, or npon waters within the ebb and
flow of the tide. Snite for seamen's wages ou a voysge from a place in Kentockj,
up the river Missonri and back again, were, therefore, not of adminlty and maritime
jnrisdiction. But state courts ander state laws have jurisdiction in ran in cases vl
supplies and repairs to boats or vessels on river navigation in the interior, u well si
nnder contracts for the carriage of persons or property upon navigable river waten.
Statutes of Hissouri, 1B3S, p. 102. Tbe district courts, as instance couits of admi-
ralty, have cogniiance of all claims for salvage iu cases of shipwreck, and of veaeU
derelict at sea. This is wn]l settled by the American cases. See Conkling's Tratin,
2d ed. 15S.
(d) The Hope, 8 0. Bob. 216 ; The TreUwney, 3 C. Bob. 218, note ; The Oenersl
Smith, 4 Wheaton, 438 ; The Jemaalem, 2 Gall. 345 ; The Robert Fulton, 1 Pune, 820 ;
Drinkwater v. Brig Spartan, Ware, 149 ;' Sheppord e. Tnylor, 6 Peters, 6TB ; StoT7. J.,
in tbe ca«e of the Brig Nestor, 1 Sumner, 74 ; ConkliuK's Treatise, 3d ed. 155 ; Th(
Schooner Marion, 1 Story, 68. See also infra, iii. 167-170. If materials for a vessel
be furnished in a home port, and a note of hand given by the owner, a libel in the
admiralty t» personam will not lie. Bsmsay b. Allegre, 12 Wheaton, 011. In tllia lall
case the extent of admiralty jnrisdiction in perxmam was much discnMed and anes-
tioned b; Hr. Jostice Johnson. But in Willard v. Doit, 3 Hason, 98, and in Han-
1 Autt, 809, u. 1.
[604]
sObyGoOl^lc
tECT. XTII.} THE UNITED STATES.. * 880
ralty jurisdiction is easential *in all such caBee, for tlie*880
process of a court of common law caunot directly reach
the thing in specie. If the lav raises a Hen for a maritime ser-
vice, a court of admiralty has power to carry it into effect (a) '
The act of Googress of July 20, 1790, relative to seamen, sec. 6,
has given a specific and summary relief for seamen in the recovery
of wages, by authorizing the district judge, or, in his absence,
a magistrate, to summon the master before him, and to attach
the vessel as security for the wages, (b)
We have now finished a general survey of the admiralty juris-
diction of the district courts in civil and criminal cases, and both
as au instance and a prize court. It would not be consistent
with the plan of these elementary disquisitions to give a detailed
sketch of the course of proceeding, and of the peculiar practice
in the admiralty courts. The proceedings are according to the
course of the civil law, and are remarkable for their compre-
hengive brevity, celerity, and simplicity. Nothing can be more
moDd V. Essex F. A M. Ins. Co., i Maioii, 196, Hr. JnstLce Story considered it t« be
settled jurisdictioQ of the admiralty, that the master could sue there in perxmam for
his wages, and the Bcaiaeii in rnnas veil as in perMnom for tLeir wages. This appears
to be a well -established dislliictioi].
(a) Phillips V. Scftttergood, Oilpin, 1. No prior replevin or attachment of the
property mider an; state comt process can control the penunouDt Jarisdiction of the
admiralty in rem, for freight or seamen's wages, or on a bottomry bond- Certain Logs
of HahogHny, 2 Snmner, CSS. A peison hired for service ss one of the crew on board
of a canal-boat, under a coastiog license, in the coal trade from the tide waters of the
river Delawate, through the Saritan Canal, to the tide watera in the harbor of New
Toii, perfarma service of a maritime character, and has a lien on the vessel for his
wages, and may proceed in rem for the same. Weiser v. Coal Boat D. C Salisbury,
D. C. D. 8. New York, November, 1844.
(A) See iii 139-171, as to the lien of material-men. lb., as to the remedy for saa-
meu's wages. Haterial-men and workmen, having liens on vessels mtdtr ilaU lava,
may enforce them in the District Conrt as well as in a state ooort, at their election, as
the jarisdiction is in that case conoumint. Davis o. A New Brig. Gilpin, 473, In
the case of Hcyer f. The Schooner Wave, in the District Court of the Sonthem Dis-
trict of New York, 2 Peine, ISI, the plaintiffs, as branch or deputy pilots, libelled the
veaaet for salvage, in relieving her in distress within the harbor of New York, and
salvage was allowed. On appeal to the Circuit Court oF the United States for the
Sonthem District of New York, the decree was reversed, on the ground that the act
of Congress of August 7, 17BS, c. 9, had adopted the pilotage lews of the states reiipec-
tjvely, temporarily, and had not sioce interfered, and that the remedy for the pilots
-was in the state conrts, and that the District Court had no jurisdiction in the case of
pilotage arising within the watera of the states, nntil Congreas should give it, as they
bad the right to do. See infra, iii. 17S, note.
1 Ante, 369, n. 1.
[605]
;abyG00<^lc
* 881 JURISPRUDENCE OF [PABT IL
unlike, in its process, pleadings, proof, trial, and remedy, than
the practice of the courts of admiralty and of the courts of com-
mon law. («)
* 381 5. OMl Jiitladlotlon of the Dlstrlot Ccnuta. -~ * The jm^
diction of the District Court, when proceeding aa a coort
of common lav, extends to all minor crimes and offences cog-
nizable under the authority of the United States, and which are
not strictly of admiralty cognizance ; and to all seizures on land,
and on waters not naTigable from the sea; and to all suits for
penalties and forfeitures there incurred ; and to all suits by aliens,
for torts done in violation of the lav of nations, or of a treaty;
and to suits against consuls and rice-consuls ; aud to all suits at
common law, where the United States sue, and the matter in
dispute amounts to one hundred dollars, (a) It has jurisdiction,
likewise, of proceedings to repeal patents obtained surreptitiously,
or upon false suggestions. This was given by the act of Congress
of February 21, 1793, chap, ii., and it is a jurisdiction that leads
(e) The tct of CoagraaB of Maj S, 1702, c 3S, aec 2, d«clu«d thxt th« fonn of
writs, eiecntiona, and other pToe««WB, except their style, in Buiti of admiralt; and mui.
time jariidictiDD, should be aocording to the priiiciplei, mlea, and angea which belong
to courts of admiralty, as oontradi«tiiigiushed from conrta of common law, labject to
altemtioiu and additioDH bj the said courts, and to regulations to be preaciibed bj
the Supreme Court. For a kaowlsdgo ot the admitalty practice, I woold refer tlu
student to Gierke's Practice of the Court of Admiralty in England, wbieh ia • work of
undoubted credit; and in 1809 a new edition was published in tliii country t^ Mr.
Hall, with an appendix of precedents. I would aUo refer him to the 8d Tolanie </
Brown's Civil and Admiral^ Law, and to the appendix to the 1st and 2d voIdims
of Mr. Wheaton's Reports, where he will find the practice of the instance and prizs
courts digested and summarily explained. See aUo the Treatise of Mr. Danliip, on
Admiralty Practice, He was fonnerly dttorney of the United Stat™ far Hasaachn-
■etts i and his work Li pronounced, by the most competent judges, to be learwd,
accnrate, and well-digested. See alio the case of Lane n. Townsond, in the District
Conrt of Maine, in 1835, Ware, 287, in which the learned Judge defines the natoie and
effect of stipulations in the admiralty. That case contains a learned examination of
the mode of commencing a suit, and of the pnetorian stipulations required ni the
defendant in the Roman law, and it satisfactorily shows great inaccuracy in Biwrs'l
riew of the aulyects of the stipulations, cautions, or seeuritiea required in the pragral
of the suit by the practice of the Roman forum. In the c««« also of Hntaon f. Jordan.
Ware, 385, 3B5, the admiralty practice, as derived from the Soman law and the civil
law courts, is discussed with the coatomaly learning and ability of the distingniahed
judge. So also the practice od the joinder of dJAerent actions of differant natures in
one libel, ib. 427. See, in 3 N. Y. Legal Observer, S67, and in the Law Reporter for
Uacch, 18*8, the rules of practice in the courts of the United States, in cauKa of ad-
miralty and maritime jurisdiction on the instance side of the court, eatablished in pni*
aufluce nf thi- act of Conffress of 23d August, 18*2, c 188>
[a) JudiniRry Act of September, 178fl, See. 9.
[606]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ITII.] THE UNITED STATES. • 888
freqaeatly to the most intricate,^ nice, and perplexed investi-
gatioDS, reepecting the originality of inreDtioDS and improve-
mentB in complicated machinery, {b) It was made a question
in the District Court of New York, in the case Ex parte Wood,
whether the process to be awarded to repeal the patent was not
in the nature of a acire facias at common law, upon which issue
of fact might be taken and tried by a jury. The district judge
decided, that tiiie proceeding was summary, upon a rule to show
cause, and that no process of tcire facia» was afterwards ad-
missible. But upon appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States, (c) the decree of the District Court was reversed, and the
District Court was directed by mandamua to enter upon record
: the proceedings in the cause antecedent to the granting of the
rule to show cause why process should not issue to repeal the
patent. The District Court was further directed to award pro-
cess, in the nature of a teire facias, to the patentee, to show
-.., cause why the patent should not be repealed; and upon
the return • of the process, the court was to proceed to try • S82
^.- the cause upon the pleadings of the parties, and the issue
:^'- of law or fact joined thereon, as the case might be; and that if
F'-^ the i^ue be an issue of fact, the trial thereof was to be by jury,
' ** . according to the course of the common law.
This was a just and liberal decision of the Supreme Court ; and
■^<' it was observed, in the opinion which was pronounced, that it
■i^' was not lightly to be presumed that Congress, in this class of
'^'■^" patent cases, placed peculiarly within their patronage and pro-
^ % tection, involving some of the dearest and most valuable rights
"^t,,- which society acknowledges, and the Constitution itself meant
ii£B.' to favor, would institute a new and summary process, which
ne^\ should finally adjudge upon those rights without a trial by jury,
■^^,^: without a riRht of appeal, and without any of those guards with
^^' which, in equity suits, it has fenced round the general adminis-
iDi'*" tration of justice. The Supreme Court then went into an ana-
t^V'''\. lytical examination of the 10th section of the act of 1793, on
i*** 1^ which the claim of summary jurisdiction rested, and vindicated
■'^iii' the construction which they assumed in opposition to that taken
V^if'-'' by the District Court.
liiii'^''^. The jurisdiction of the judges of the district courts, in cases
iS"'^of bankruptcy, has presented for consideration some important
'^ (S) See voL a. 8«8. [ci » WhetWn, M8.
[607]
;abyG00<^lc
* 883 JDBIBPBUDENCB OP [PAKT n.
queations on the point of juriBdiction. We have no buiknipt
BjBtem in existence ander the government of the United Statei:
but there may be some lingering traces of business yet arising
and undetermined, under the Bankrupt Act of the year 1800,
and many questions may be expected to arise under the Bank-
rupt Act of 1841, which has been recently repealed, (a) In the
case of Cov\fort SandB, (h) in the District Court of New York, it
was observed that in England the sole power of directing die
execution, and controlling the administration of the bank-
* 883 rupt system in all its departments * and in every stage of
the proceeding, resided in the lord chancellor.
This jurisdiction of the English chancellor is not in the court
of chancery, but in the individual who holds the great seal; uid
it is exercised summarily upon petition, and his judgment upon
tiie petition is without appeal, unless the chancellor, in hia dis-
cretion, allows a bill to be filed, in order to found an appeal
thereon. The judge then proceeded to examine the several pro-
visions of the Bankrupt Act of the United States of 18O0, in
order to show, that, upon the principles of construction adopted
in England, the district judge had the same jurisdiction in casee
of bankruptcy &a is exercised by the lord chancellor. The same
course of reasoning which sustains the jurisdiction of tlie one
would confer that of the other. He insisted Uiat the jurisdiction
was given, not to the District Court, but to the individual who
happened to hold the office of district judge, and that, conse-
quently, all his decisions in bankruptcy were without appeal, for
appeals lie only from the decrees of the District Court. But that
extraordinary doctrine has since been overruled ; and it has been
held (a) tliat the circuit courts of the United States had jurisdic-
tion of matters arising under the bankrupt law, and the district
courts had not exclusive jurisdiction over the entire execution of
such laws. They could not remove the assignees, nor compel
them to account An appeal lay in proceedings under the Bank-
rupt Act from tiie district to the circuit courts, and the state
courts had a concurrent jurisdiction in matters of account between
the bankrupt and his creditors, and which has been freely and
extensively exercised, {b)
(a) See infra, ii. 891. {b) United Statea Law Journal, L 15.
(a) Lncu v. Morru, 1 Pune, 396.
(b) See the UM of Sud* n. Codwisa, 4 Johns. CSS. In the caae Be parte Cbiii^
[508]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. XVn.] THE UNITED STATES. • 384
«. TVnitoilKl Conrta of tha tToitod Btmtn. — With respect to the
vast territoriefl belonging to tiie United States, Congress
have assumed to esercise over 'them supreme powers of*S84
sovereignty. Exclusive and unlimited power of legisla-
tion is given to Congress by the Constitution, and sanctioned by
judicial decisions, (a) Congresa was, by the Constitution, (6)
clothed with authority "to exercise exclusive legislation in all
cases whataoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles
square) as might, by cession of particular states and the accept-
ance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United
States. " The District of Columbia was created for that purpose,
under cessions from the states of Maryland and Virginia. The
territorial jurisdiction of that district, known as the District of
Columbia, and which embraces the city of Washington, and
throws its municipal protection over all the officers and agents of
the government of the United States, ia extremely important (c) (a;)
8 How. 292, it wu lield that tlie Supreme Court had no revuing power over the decrees
of the Diitriut Court sitting in baiJcruplcy, nndor the act of 1841 ; bat it bad over pro-
ceedings M a court of admiralty and maritimo juriadiction. The Dietrict Court, when
oittiiig in banbuptcy, had plenary powep over liens and mortgages on the bankrupt's
property, and summarily to decids on their validity and aitent, and may operate upon
the parties in the itate courts by injnnction, and in that way control the proceedings
in the state courts. B. o. Bat in the caae of Peck v. Jenneaa, Sup. Court of New
Hampshire, July, 184S [16 N. H. 616], it was adjudged that tbe Bankrupt Aot of 1841
neither Ifmitad nor enlaq^ the jurisdiction of tbe state conrta, and that creditors of a
bankrupt may pniane their Temedies in the slate courts, notwitfaslondii^ their claims
are debts capable of being asserted under the bankmpti^, and that mortgages and liens
aaved by the Bankrapt Act may b« enforced in the state oourtt, and that the district
conrts rannot intarfere with or control the exercise of it. See tupra, 247, and infra,
411. On the other band, in Lewie i>. Fisk, 6 Bob. (La.), IGS, it wu held that a decree
of bwikraptcy, under the sot of 1841, devested all jurisdiction in the state courts, and
they bad no authority to decide qnestionB Involving the a^jnatmeut of privil^es and
liens among the creditors of i^e bankrupt, or the distribution of the fimda of the es-
tate^ All the eetate of the bankrapt is, by tbe decree of baukraptcy, ipao faOo vested
in the aesignee.
(a) Const art i, sec S ; American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Peters, SIl. Ses also
mpra, 268.
(i) Art. 1, see. 8, 17.
(e) The powers of the judidsry of the District of Colnubia were aUy diacuseed
and declared I^ Ch. J. Cisach, in the Circuit Court of th«t district, on the 6th of
Jane, 1837, in the case of the United States, tx rtlat. Stokee, Stocktons, and Uoore v.
{x) CongTMS cannot delegate general By tbe Act of April 7, 1874, ch. 80,
legislative power to tbe local government g 2 (IB St at L. 97), tha appellate jnriB-
of tbe District of Columbia. Boach a. diction of tha Supreme Court over the
Tan Riswick, i UacArthur, 171. judgments and decree* of the Territorial
[509]
;abyG00<^lc
* 384 joaiapRCDEMCE op [pari a
The general Bovereignty existing in. the government of the United
States over its territories is founded on the CoostitutiOD, which
AxQM Kendall, PtwtmMtwOeDeral of the United State*, [E Cnnch, C. C. 163.] It
wu decided that the eonrt had antbont; to iuae a moMdamtu to compel the defradut
to credit' the relaton with the unoaDt of an award made by the Solicitor ot the Trw-
ary in theii faror, under an act of Congreaa of Jnlj 2, 1836. 'The defendant had k-
fused to appeal under a citation in that cante, and claimed exemption from tU penowl
reaponeilnlitj, as one of the heada of the departmenta, to the juriadictioa of the eomt.
The Chief Juitioe held that the Circuit Coart of the diMrict had all the jnriadictioa
tliat any circuit court of the United Statea coold have, under the acts of Congnn of
18th February, 1801, tec 11, and of the 27th February, 1801, [c. 16,] sec G, ud it
had more, — it was inferior only to the Supreme Court. It had power to all beron
it uiy petson found in the district, ftnm the highest to the lowest No officer of gir-
emment in the distnct WM too high t« be reached by tJie proceae of the court. The
defendant in the caae conld not shelter himself under the authori^ or ocmmanil et
the President There i* no law establishing a lelation between the Poatmaster-Ga-
eral and the President, or any authority in the latter to prescribe his duties, or eeaoii
him in the aierclse of hia official fnnctiona. The Postmanter, in the eierdK of hi*
official dadea, is as independent of the Pieddeut as the Preddent la of him. If tbs
President has any powej to control him, it is only through the feu' of remoTil ; and
no act done under snch a oontrol would be jnatified. Tbia decision wm affimed on
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United State*, in Jannaiy term, 1838. EmdaU
V. The United States, 12 Peter^ 624.
court* in jury case* i* to be exerdsed hy of Columbia the amount of (1,000, named
writ of error, and in other euea by at^eal in the Rar. Stats, f 70S, was incnased to
according to the mle* and regnlationa 92,600 in 1870 (SO St at L. 390.) By the
prescribed \j the Snpreme Conrt. Aa to Act of Feb. 9, 18SS, ch. 7«, S S (27 St it
criminal ca«e« in th Territories, see 18 8t L. 434), establishing a court of ai^xalt
at L. 264 ; lit rt Snow, 120 U. S. 274 ; for the District ai Colambda, appeal* ha
Folaom «. United States, Ifl 3. C. 222; 26 from that court to the U. S. Sapceme
St. at L. S29, g la. Under the St. ot Har. Conrt TheActofHar. 3, lS91,ch.611t
3, 1886 (23 at at L. 443), ) 2, providing g 9 (28 St at L. 868), eatabUehing a court
for appeals and writ* of error tmm the of private laud claims, proride* [or an ap-
territorial Supreme Courts in certain cases, pe*l (hMn that conrt to the Supreme Oonrt
it is not necessary that tbe decision should Bythe Act of JnnelO, 1800, ch. 407, j 1'
he against the BUth(«it; asserted. Clayton (36 St at L. 131, 188), the circuit courts
«. Utah, ISS U. B. 632. See Linford e. may allow an appeal to theU. S. Supraoe
Sllison, 15B U. S. SOS ; Maricopa & P. R. Court in caaea of eontroreray u to the
Co. V. Arizona, IBSU. S. 847. In appeals appraisal of imported merchandise,
or writs of error bvm the Judgments or The power conferred by the Coikstitn-
decmeK of the Snpreme Court of tbe Dis- tion to make war and treaties imfdiea ths
trict of Columbia, or tht territorial court*, power to acquire territory by conquest oi
the matter In dispute, exclusive of costs, trnaty and to govern inch territory nntit
roust now exceed $6,000, excepting cases it is admitted ae a State into the Union,
ot patents, copyrighta, or under treaties or Nelson v. United States, 30 Fed.- Bqi^
Federal atatutes. Aetof Har.3, 1885, ch. 112 : nijim, 36n. (x.) Tbp power ot the
395 (23 St at L. 443). At to the District United States over snch territory extendi
[610]
sObyGoOl^lc
LGCT. Xm.] THE UNITED STATES. *884
declared (d) that Congress "should have power to dispose of
and make all needlul mles and regolatioiiB respecting the Terri-
(d) Art 4, MC. 8.
to all TJghtfbl nitgea|i uid metboda of "Th« personal and civil rjgfatairf die in-
li^uUtioD. Ibid ; LtXe Church of lAtter- bftbitaots of the Territories are sBcnrad to
Day Saint* ■>, United StatM, 181 U. 8. 1. them, aa to other citiuna, by the prinoi-
Thia iuoludee the powen of both national plest^conatitDtioiial liberty which leatraio
and tnunicipal gOTeroroent, and the United all the agencie* of goremment, State and
Stataa ma; there grant, for appropriate national ; their political right* are fnn-
purpose*, titles and rights in tide landi cIum* which they hold aa prinlq^ea in the
below high water mark. Shivelj r. legielatiTe discretion of CongreBs." Hut-
Bowlby, 162 U. S. 1. Upon the adnii*- ph; r. Bameey, 111 U. B. IS, ti. Arti-
aion of the new State, the land beneatli cle 7 of the U. S. ConstitatiaD, preserring
tbe narigable walsn within its limits, the ri^t of trial by Jury, has been held
Te«t» in *Dch State, and not in the United to apfd; only to poven ezerdasd by the
States. Van Brocklin d. Tennessee, 117 Federal goremment, and not to thoae of
U. S. 161. Land* conveyed to a Tetrltorr, the States and Tarritorie*. Walker d.
" its Baooeaaoi* and assigns forever," pass New Mexico ft S. P. R. Co. (New Hex.),
to the State when admitted. Brown e. 84 Pao. Bep. 43. This provision has.
Grant, 116 U. & 207, Sll. Bo of all however, been held to apply to territorial
property owned by tlie Territory, nnless court*. Bradford e. Territory, 1 01k.
otherwise deelared by Congress. Ilnd. 864.
The act of Mar. 3, 1887 (24 St at L. Cases appealed to the IT. S. Snprenw
476 ; as amended, 26 id. 46) made it nn- Court fnm a Territory admitted a* a State
lawful for sliens and private corporations pending the appeal may be remanded to
to acquire lands in the TerHtories. Mod- the State conrt, if no Federal qneatian is
ificatioDi of the enabling act in the con- involved ; if two State* are formed from
stitntioD adopted bj a Territory are pre- tme Territory, it will he remanded to the
BOmably accepted when the Presidsnt and Stete which contains the trial comit;.
Congre** formally admit it into the Union. Bader v. Maddox, 160 U. S. 128 ; Elliott
Bomine v. SUte, 7 Wash. BL 2IS. The v. Chicago, ftc. Ry. Co.. id. 246. Under
power of the Territories to pass loral or } 16 of tbe Act of Mar. 3, 1891 (mpro, 830,
fecial laws was restricted by the Act of n. x) appeals now lie from a Territorial
Jnly 80, 1886 (24 St. at L. 170.) See Snpreme Court to the circait of appeaU.
Higbee e. Higbee. 4 Utah, 19 ; Elk Point Aztec U. Co. e. Bipley, 161 U. S. 79 ; 63
«. Vaughn, 1 Dak. 113 ; Territory e. Fed. Hep. 7j Badaracco v. Cerf, id. 189.
O'Connor, 6 id. 897 Same r. Quyott, 9 The right to remove a pending cause from
Ifont 4S ; Downes v. Parshall, 3 Wyom. the courts of a Territory 1* not lost npon Its
426. As to the right of mflVage in the admission as a State If a petition for re-
Territories, see Nelson v. United States, maval is filed In the State Supreme Court
SO Fed. Sep. 112 ; 16 A. Q. Op. IIS ; 80 before action by it in the cause. Carr v.
Cent L. J. 309. note. Upon admitting Fife, 156 U. S. 494 ; Eoeningstierger b.
« Territory ea a State, Congress may nat- Richmond S. M. Co., 168 U. S. 41 ; see
nrsliis all its foreign bom inhabitants m Bnrke v. Bunker Hill, ftc. Co., 46 Fed.
citizens of the United States. Boyd *. Rep. 644 ; Sargent r. Kindred, 49 id. 486.
Hebraaka, 143 U. S. 186. The United State*, by transferring at
[611]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 884 JORISPRnDENCE OP [PABT IL
tories, or other property belongiiig to the Uaited States." (e)
In the territories northveat of the river Ohio, and as separate
(>> It wu held, in the caw of Tba dual Compuy v. BailrMd Compuy, « Gin A
Jobsi. 1, bj the Court of Appeal* in Uaiyknd, that C«Dgnu acted in the goTonnuat
of the Diitriot of Colnmbui and other dutricta, not aa a local l^ulatnn, bat at the
legialatare of the ITnion ; and in the caee of The State r. New Orleana N. Campanj,
11 Martin, SB, 309, it VM held that the I^ialataie of the Orleans ttrrUary could gtant
a charter binding on the fatnre State of Louisiana. So, in the <aae of WilUami *.
The Bank of Hiohigan, 7 Wend. G89, the New York Court of Emm utjadgnt that tba
Dower to incorporate a book waa within the scope of the genend powers of Urriloriil
legislation, conferred npon the Uichigan territory by the act of Congrest of Januiy
11, 1805. The goveDtment of the United States, which can lawfully acqnin toii-
toiy by coaque»t or treaty, ranst, as an ioATitable conseqaenoe, pcaaew the power tg
gorem it. Tbe territories niust be under the dominion and jarisdiction of the Ciuon,
or be without any goTemment ; far the territorial do not, when acqoired, beeoioA
entitled to self-government, and they are not sclijeet to the jatisdiction of any state.
They (kll tindet the power given to Congresi by the Constitution, This wu the
doctrine and decision of the Snpreme Court in the case of tbe American Ins. Companr
«.^ Canter, 1 Fetere, Sll ; and see aim 3 Story's Comm. 193-1S8, GSe. In a case sub-
mitted to the Supreme Judicial Court of Hassachuastts in 1S41 (1 Met. &8D), it mi
held that in places ceded to the United States for navy yards, armnals, kc., and where
there is no other reservation of jurisdiction to the state than that of a right to aerre
civil and criminsl process on snob lands, the persons residing there were not entittcil
to tbe beoeflt of the commoD schools of the town, nor liable to any tax assessmenti,
nor acquired any town settlement by a reaidencs therein, nor any eleotive &«nchiK, s>
inhabitunta of the town.*
1 [In respetat to the district containing litical discnaaion. In the eelebtated ease
tbe site of the national government, the of Dred Scott, 1 B How. 893, a unyoritr of
grant of power to Congreee is " to exercise the judges of the Supreme Court wer» of
exclusive legislation in all cases." In opinion that the last-mentioped clauis of
reapect. to the territories, tbe grant is " to the Constitution applies only to territofv
make all needful rules and regulations within tbe original states at tbe time tbe
oonceming the territory and oWerprojieria Constitution was adopted, and that it did
belonging to the United States." The not apply to fntnte territory acquired Iff
natare of, and the limitations upon, the treaty or conqaest from formgn nationi.
sovereignty of the Union over the terri- They were also of i^iaion that the powir
tories and the people thereof have become of Congress over sncb future territorial
the sutijects of angry and dangerous po- acquisitions was not unlimited, that the
•nnendering part of its jurisdiction over The exception of "the timtorirt"
an ofTeni-e, does not loee it all. /n rt from an Act of CongreM applies only
Wilson, 140 U. 8. 57S. A Territorial where on organized syatem of civil goreni-
criminal statute is snspended and not re- ment has been established, and not to ■orb
pealed by an Act of Congress npon the a district as Oklahoma. Ia n Lane, ISS
aune sutgect, and becomes the law npon U. 8. 443 i see United States r. Pridgeon,
the admission of the Trrritory as a State. 163 U, 8. 48.
A re Nelson, SB Fed. Rpp. 712.
[512]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. XTTI.] THE UNITED STATES. * 885
territories were Buccessi vely formed, Congress adopted And applied
the principles of the ordinance of the confederation Congress of
the date of the 13th of July, 1787. That ordinance vas framed
upon sound and enlightened maxima of civil jurisprudence. The
organized territories belonging to the United States, and gov-
erned under the superintendence <rf Congress, at present consists
of the territory of Columbia. The territories of Michigan and
Arkansas were admitted into the Union as states, and upon an
equality with the other states, b; acts of Congress of June 15,
1836, and January 26, 1837; and the territories of Iowa and
Florida were admitted into the Union as states, and upon an
equality with the other states, by acts of Congress of March S,
1845, c. 48, and of December 28, 1846, c. 1 ; and the territory
of Wisconsin was admitted into the Union, on like equality, by
act« of Congress of August 6, 1846, c 89, and March 8, 1847,
C 53; and the republic of Texas, by a joint resolution of Con-
gress of March 1, 1845, and of December 29, 1845.^
* It would seem, from these various congressional regn- *885
lations of the territories belonging to the United States,
that Congress have supreme power in the government of them,
depending on the exercise of their sound discretion. That dis-
cretion has hitherto been exercised in wisdom and good faith, ^
and with an anxious regard for the security of the ri^^ts and
privileges of the inhabitants, as defined and declared in the ordi-
nance of July, 1787, and in t^e Constitution of the United
States. "All admit," said Chief Justice Marshall, (a) "the
constitutionality of a territorial government." But neither the
District of Columbia, nor a territory, is a »tate, within the mean-
ing of the Constitution, or entitled to claim the privileges secured
to the members of the Union. This has been so adjudged by
(a) i WliMtou, 422.
ddzBDs of t}iB states migrating to a teni- prahiMtmg ilarmj in the terrilorj of Up-
toi7 were oot to be regarded ae (^oloniets per I.oainuiK, acquired from France.]
■abject to abeolnte poirer ia Coograsa, ' Slates since admitted are CaliTomia,
bat at oitiMQi of the United States, with by act of Sept. B, 1850 ; Minnesota, by
all the righta of citiienihip unanntaed by act of lUy II, 16S9 ; Oregon, by act of
the Constltatioii, and that no legislation Feb. 11, 1850 ; Kansas, by set of Jan. 28,
na conatitational 'which attempted to 1861 1 Weet Tirginiai, by act of Dec. SI,
deprive a citizen of hia property on his 1862 ; Nevada, by act of March 21, 1864 ;
becoming a reddent of a territory. The Nebraska, by act of Feb. 9, 1S67, Ac.
queatioD aroae under aji act of Congreo
vol.. L — 33 [613]
;abyG00<^lc
* 886 JDBiapfitTDENCE OF [PAST n.
the Supreme Court. (6) Nor will a writ of error or appeal lie
from a territorial court to the Supreme Court, unless there be a
special statute provisiOD for the purpose, (c) If, therefore, tlie
govemment of the United States should carry iDto execution the
project of colonizing tiie great valley of the Columbia or Or^n
River, to the vest of the Rocky Mountains, it would
*386 afford a 'subject of grave consideration, what would be
the future civil and political deatiny of that country. It
vould be a long time before it would be populous enou^ to be
created into one or more independent states ; and in the mean
time, upon the doctrine taught by the acta of Congress, and
even by the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, the colonistg
would be in a state of the most complete subordination, and as
dependent upon the will of Congress aa the people of this counti?
would have been upon the king and parliament of Qreat Britain,
if they could have sustained their claim to bind ua In all cases
whatsoever. Such a state of absolute sovereignty on the one
hand, and of absolute dependence on the other, is not congenial
with the free and independent spirit of our native institutions;
and the establishment of distant territorial governments, ruled
according to will and pleasure, would have a very natural ten-
dency, as all proconsular governments have had, to abuse and
oppression, (a)
(£) Uepburn c. ElUey, 2 Cnuch, 14G ; Corpontion of ITew OtImu* v. Winttr, 1
Wheaton, 91 ; [iKite, 82S, n. 1.] [Aa to the juiisdictioi] of tenitoruJ conrta in tdBli^
»lt7 wwes, see The City ot P.nama, 101 U. 8. *63. — b.]
<<)' Clarke v. Bazadone, 1 Cranch, 212 ; United SUtes «. Uore, S id. IW.
(a) Cicero, ia hi» Oration for the MaDJIi&n Ia«, c. 14, dnciibes, in glowing ail»m,
tha oppreuionB and abiueg committed by Bomui magiBtntes, ezerdsinj oiril ml
military power in the diitant provinces.
[614]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ITm.] THE UNITED BTAXK8.
LECTURE XVHL
OP THB OONCUBBBNT JUBIBDICTION OF THE STATE OOTERNHENTa
The question, how far the state governmentB have coucurrent
povere, either legislative or judicial, over cases within the juris-
diction of the government of the United States, has been much
discussed. It will be m; endeavor, in the course of the present
lecture, to ascertain the just doctrine and settled distinctions
applicable to this great and important constitutional subject
1. Of Conoamnt Powen of IiagUdatloa. — It was observed in
the Federalist, (a) that the state governments would clearly
retain all those rights of sovereignty which they bad before the
adoption of the Constitution of the United States, and which
were not by that Constitution exclusively delegated to the Union.
The alienation of state power or sovereignty would only exist in
three cases : where the Constitution in express terms granted
an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one
instance an authority to' the Union, and in another prohibited
the states from exercising the like authority; and where it
granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority
in the states would be absolutely and totally contradictory and
repugnant, (x)
(a) Vo. 82.
(i) The nuna Mt or series or acta may Supreme Court may be invoked to protect
be puDubed uodec both Fedenl uid Slite uiy Federal right asserted bj the accused
lavs. Cross p. North Carolioo, 182 V. S. and denied by the State judgment New
181. Wben the offence charfced is > crime York ». Bno, l&G U. S. 80.
under both Federal and State lavs, the A sale under the decree of a Federal
qneations at issue may be first raised in court may be set aside by a State court,
the State court, which is under the same when made in violntion oF an injunction
obligation aa tbe Federal courts to give ef- previously issued by the State court, and
fe«t to the supreme law of the land, and to neceassry to give complete relief in deal-
protect rights thereby secured, as the Utl«T ing with the entire eulgect-matCer, if tht
ooort^ and the jurisdiction of the U. 8. State ooort has jaiisdiction of all the pal*
[615]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 388 jaBlBPRUDENCE OP [PlRI IL
la the judicial cooatructioa given from time to time to tlie
ConetitutioD, there is no very essential variation from the
* 388 * contemporary exposition which was here laid down by
the high authority of the Federalist. Judge Chase, in the
case of Calder v. Bull, (a) declared that the state legislatures
retained all the powers of legislation which were not expregsly
taken away hy the Constitution of the United States; and he
held that no conBtnictive powers could be exercised by the
federal government. Subsequent judges have not expressed
themselves quite so strongly in favor of state rights, and in re-
striction of the powers of the national govermnent In Sturget
V. Orowninghield,(l>) the Chief Justice of the United States ob-
served, that the powers of the states remained, after the sdop-
tioa of the Constitution, what they were before, except so far a»
they had been abridged by that instrument The mere grant of
a power by Congress did not imply a prohibition on the states
to exercise the same power. Thus, Congress are authorized to
establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy ; but the
states may pass bankrupt laws, provided there be no acts of
Congress in force establishing a uniform law on that subject {c)
The states may legislate in the absence of congressional regula-
(a) 3 DklUi, 38S. (ij 4 WLeatou, IBS.
{<:) In Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash. 31S, Judge Washington had previonily held, it
the Circnit Court of the United States for Pennsjlruiia, that Congram bad the eicla-
aire power to paaa bankrupt lava ; but this opinion irag «ubaeiiuentl; cometed, aid
qoaliQed accoiding to the doctrine in the text.
tie».' Stevens v. Central Nat Bank, 141 a wilfnl and feloDiooa aasanlt hy a plot ia
N. Y. 50. canmng a collision and death on the other
The appointment of a i«ceiTer for an vessel, w the U. S. Rst. Stata. } 5U4 ii
insolvent buik by a State conrt does not Dot applicable. In re Welch, S7 Fed-
bar a creditor's suit in the Federal conrt Rep. G76. The Federal coarts are tnood
to set aside a fraadulent conveyance to to proceed to judgment and to aSbrd rv-
tbe bank, and the latter conrt retains ita dress to snit^H^ before them in ereiy ctN
joriadictioii even when the receiver sella to which their jarisdiction eiteods ; their
the property so conveyed pending the jurisdiction over controversiee betmen
Federal suit. Bacon d. Harris, S2 Fed. citizens of different Stittes cannot be iai>
Bep. 99. Conversely, property ri^tfully ^red by State lavs which prescribe the
in the poesesalon of a Federal receiver it modes of redress in their conrti, or vhid
not fmbject to seizara and levy ander State r^ukta the distribntiou of jndieial poser.
process to enforce the collection of a tax Chicot Connty b. Sherwood, 14S ?. S. G19>
aasMsed upon its owner under State laws. See also. The Willamette Valley, 82 Fi^
In n Tyler, 149 U. 8. 16*. A State Bep.'2B3.
conrt has jnrisdiction of an indictment for
[516]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. IVIII.] THE UNITED STATES. * 889
tioDS. It is not the mere existence of the power, but its exer-
cise, which is incompatible with the exercise of the same power
by the states. It is not the right to establish these uniform laws,
but their actual establishment, which la inconsistent with the par-
tial acts of the states. But the concurrent power of legislation
in the states did not extend to every case iu which the exercise
of it by the states had uot been expressly prohibited. The cor-
rect principle was, that whenever the terms in which the
power was granted to Congress, or the nature of the • power • 389
required that it should be exercised exclusively by Con-
gress, tiie subject was as completely takeu from the state legisla^-
tures, as if they had been expressly forbidden to act on it. In
Houtton V. Moore, (a) the same principles were laid down by
Judge Washington, in delivering the opinion of the Court. He
observed, that the power of the state governments to legislate on
the subject of the state militia, having existed prior to the for-
mation of the Constitutiou, and not being prohibited by that
instnunent, it remained with the states, subordinate, neverthe-
less, to the paramount power of the general government, operat-
ing upon the same subject If Congress, for insttmce, did not
exercise the power of providing for organizing, arming, and disci-
plining the militia, it was competent for the states to do it ; but
as Congress had exercised its constitutional powers upon the
subject of the militia as fully as was thought proper, the power
of legislation over that subject by the states was excluded,
except so far as it had been permitted by Congress. The doc-
trine of the court was, that when Congress exercised tiieir powers
upon any given subject, the states could not enter upon the same
ground, and provide for the same objects. The will of Congress
may be discovered as well by what they have not declared, as by
what they have expressed-. Two distinct wills cannot at the
same time be exercised, in relation to the same subject, effectu-
ally, and at the same time be compatible with each other. If
they correspond in every respect, then the latter is idle and in-
operative. If they differ, they must, in the nature of things,
oppose each other so far as they do differ. It was, therefore, not
a true and constitutional doctrine, that in cases where the state
governments have a concurrent power of legislation with the
national government, they may legislate upon any subject on
(a) C WlwUon, L
[517]
sobyGooi^lc
* S91 JUBIBPBQDENCB OF [PABI U.
which Congresa have acted, provided the two laws are not in
their operation contradictory imd repugnant to each other.
*390 * Judge Story, in the opinion which he gave in this case,
Bpoke to the same effect, and defined with precision die
boundary line between the concurrent and residuary powetB of
the states, and the exclusive powers of the Union. A mere grant
of power in afErmative terms to Congress did not per se tnuufer
an exclusive sovereignty on such subjects. The powers grant«d
to Congress were never exclusive of similar powers existing in
the states, unless where the Constitution has expressly in terms
given an exclusive power to Congress, or the exercise of a like
power was prohibited to the states, or there was a direct repug-
nancy or incompatibility in the exercise of it by the statea
This is the same description of the nature of the powers as Uiat
given by the Federalist. An example of the first class is to be
found in the exclusive legislation delegated to Congress over
places purchased for forts, arsenals, &c. ; and of the second class,
in the prohibition of a state to coin money, or emit bills of credit;
and of the third class, in the power to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization, and in the delegation of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction. In all other cases, the states retain concurrent
authority with Congress, except where the laws of the states
and of the Union are in direct and manifest collision on the same
subject, and then those of the Union, being the supreme law of
the land, are of paramount authority, and the state laws, ho far,
and so far only as such incompatihility exists, must necessarily
yield.
In the application of these general principles to the case before
the court, it was observed, that the power given to Congress to
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia vaa
not exclusive. It was merely an affirmative power, and, being
not incompatible with the existence of a like power in the states,
it might well leave a concurrent power in the latter. But when
once Congress has acted on the subject, and carried this power
into effect, its laws for the organization, arming, and disciplining
the militia were supreme, and all interfering regulations of the
states suspended. A state may oi^nize, arm, and disci-
* 391 pline * its own militia, in the absence of, or subordinate
to, the regulations of Congress. This power originally
existed in the states, and the grant of it to Congress was not
[518]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. IVIU.J TEE UNITED 8TATE3. • 891
necessarily exclusive, ontess a GOQCarrent pover in the states
Tould be repugnant to the grant, and there was no such repug-
nancy in the nature of the power. But the question vas, whether
a state legislature had any concurrent power remaining after Con-
gress had provided, in its discretion, for the case. The conclusion
was, that when once the legislature of the Union has exercised
its powers on a given subject, the state power over that same
subject, which had before been concurrent, was, by that exercise,
prohibited; and this was the opinion of the court
These expositions of the paramount powers of the general gov-
ernment are to be received as correct and conclusive, for they
proceed from the highest authority, and are exceedingly clear
and logical in their deductions. The same doctrines had been
previously declared in the Court of Errors of New Tork, in the
steamboat case of Zdvii^tton v. Van Ingen. (a) **Our safe rule
of construction and action," as it was there observed, (i) "was
this, that if any given power was originally vested in this state,
if it had not been exclusively ceded to Congress, or if the exer-
cise of it had not been prohibited to the states, we might then go
on in the exercise of the power until it came practically in colli-
sion wit^ the exercise of some congressional power. When that
happened to be the case, the state authority would so far be con-
trolled, but it would still be good in those respects in which it
did not contravene the provision of the paramount law." A.
similar expositiou of the concurrent jurisdiction of the states
was given by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Moore v.
Mouston; (c) and by the Chief Justice of Massachusetts, in
Blanchard v. RutBell (d) >
(«] e Jobm. 507. (i) B Johns. 610.
(e) 3 Serg. A B>wle, 179. (d) 13 Hiia. IS.
' Gilman v. PhiladelpMo, S WdL 718. any atste deprive any penoD of life, lib.
[Fourtteath and Fifteenth AmendmmU. — erty, or property, without due proeen of
B; the fonrteenth unendment to the Con- law ; nor deny to an; peraon within ita
■titatioii, it ii provided that "Ho etate jurisdiction the equal protection of the
■tuJl make or enforce any law which ahall lam." (x)
ahridge the privilegef or immnnitiea of Bj the fifteenth amendment, " The
dtiMDi ot the United State*; nor ahall rij^t of citixenaof the United Sl*te« to
(z) In the Fonrteenth Amendment the 120 U. 3. 673 ; Charlotte tcR. Co. c.
word "citiMUs" is used in the polltioal Olbbea, 142 U. 9. 88S ; aee State e. DeU-
nnae, and the word "persons" incladea ware, Ac. Co., 7 HooaC. (Del.) 260. A
jpriTate coipontioni. Baldwin i>. Franki, tribal Indian, who baa not bern natanl*
[619:1
sObyGoOl^lc
* 892 JDBI8PBCDENCB OF [PABT Q.
When the Constitation of the United States waa nnder <^€
consideration of the state conventioDB, there was much
*392*coacem expressed on the subject of the general power
TOte ihdl Dot be denied or ftbndged b; ing to citizeiu of the UDited Statai, a
the United State*, or by U17 at&te, on auch, or which are gnanntead bj tlw
accoimt ot race, color, or praTJona con- Cnitsd States Constitation, and timm in
dition of Mrritade." onder the protection of the fedenlgorm-
TheM amendments have been a nam- ment. Such privileges and iTriininiliti
ber of times before the conrta, and in the as do not fail within this elan an eidn-
oinstniction ot them the whole robject of UTsly luder state protection.
the Telative powen of the United State* In 81saghter-HoaieCMes,lB Will-H,
and of the etatsa TsspecCiTely has been it was held that there traa nothii^ in tlit
largely discosaed. There am two iTstenia amendmenti {ISth or 14th) toprerenti
of gOTcrament combined in one. The state from granting to a eorporatian the
same person may be a dtften of both, en- etclnsiie tight to erect oattle-yaid* ud
titled to the protection of each, and amen- sEaogbtering-boases, and from prohilitug
able to the lawa of each. The United the landing or slan^taring of cattle •!
States hM only the power which tiare any other than specified [dacee which m«
been delegated to it, bnt within the range under the control of said corpoiMion, mi
of these powers is eapreme. The same for the nse of which it was entitted to
act may be an offence against both BU.te charge a reasonable compenaadon.
and United States law (<. g. passing forged In Minor v. Happeiaett, 21 Wall. in.
coin). Each may then pnnish for the in- it wsa held that no right to TOte ii girai
fringement of its own law*. There are or gnarontwd by the thirteenth or tbu-
oertaia immunities and privileges belong- teenth amendments. Heno^ that an ex-
ited, taxed, or reu^nized ai a citizen, Co. n. PennsylTania, 1S6 U. 8. 114; Fm-
either bj the United Statea or a State, is bins Mining Co. v. PeDnsylvania, 1% C.
not a citizen within the Grat section of the S. 131 ; Singer Hanuf. Co. v. Wrif^t, SS
' Fourteenth Amendment. Elk v. Wilkina, Fed.Bap.191. The defence of the Statute
112 U. 8. 94. The Fourteenth Amend- of Ljmitstiona gainst a debt already bsmd
ment lestnots the action of the Statea, is not " property " within the Fonrteenth
and does not relate to I^islation 1:7 Con- Amendment, of which the debtor i> d(-
gma. In nSing Lee, G4 Fed. Bep. 384 ; prived by a repeal of the statate. Cunp-
W«ltton V. SflTin, 128 U. 8. 678; Free- bell «. Holt. 116 U. S. 820.
land V. Williams, 131 U. 8. 40B. It ap- The following an in conflict iii& tbs
pliestoallthedepartmentaof Stategovem- Fourteenth Amendment: Eiclnaian kwt
ment. Ah Sow v, Nunsn, £ Sawyer, SG2. as applied to Chioeae children born in tba
It applies, as to dne process of law, to a United States : Gee Fook Sing e. United
taking by right of eminent domain, after States, 49 Fed. Rep. 14S ; diacrininitiiig
the amendment, under a State statute pre- State legislation against one elaas of p•^
Tioosly enacted. Eankanna Water-power aoni of a particular race or nation: A r>
Co. «. Qreen Bay & M. Canal Co., 142 U. Pairott, fl Sawyer, SIB ; an Act inpaang
8. 2ti4; Marehant v. PennsylTania R. the fall term of the origins! ssntwcei^s
Co., IfiS U. 8. 380, 888. It does not convict after his attempt to escape, without
apply in * particnlar State to corpontlona any allowance for the time already serred:
foreign to that SUte. Norfolk A W. B. Sute v. Lewin, (3 Eausaa, S79 ; diserimi-
[o20]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. Zrill.] THE DNITSD STATES. * 392
of taxation over all objects of taxation, vested in the national
government; and it was supposed that it would be in the
power of Congieas, in its discretion, to destroy in effect the
clmion of fsmiJai from the infirago, by ■ beyond thii. UQited States v. Beese,
Mate, waa not unconstitDtional. See dao 98 U.S. 214. As to"dugprDe«isofUw,"
United Statei v. B««m, it^fra. see Eenntird e. LoniBUin*, Bi C. S. i80 ;
The right ot jar; trial te not protected McMillan v. Audenon, 0C U. 8. 37 ;
b; the fonrteenth amendment Walker k. Selle; o. Pittabntgh, 104 U. S. 7S.
SaQTiiiet, 92 F. S. BO. Tbe hiatory of theee Muendmentn, and
It 1b a violation of the fbnrtean& their pnrpose aa pecnliarly applicable to
amendment for a itate, throDgh any of tike colored race, ia diacuaaad in the fbre-
itB deportmenti or agendas, to diacrinu- ginng cases. They do, hoveTer, it would
nate in the selection of inrora between teem, apply to othec laces aa well j and
different persona on aceoant of race oc it baa been held that the effect of them ia
color. Strander v. West Viif^inia, 100 to forlnd all class legislation, — snch leg-
U. S.l SOS ; Bx parU Virginia, lb. 3SB ; ialation being a denial of the " equal pro-
ConuDonwealth v. Johnson, 78 Ky. G09. tectjon of the laws." Ah Kow v. finnan.
But a colored parson has not any absolnte 6 Saw. GC>2 ; e. c. 18 Am. L. Beg. h. b.
right to have even a nngle colored jnror 076, and note ; Parrotf ■ Cbineae Caae, S
<m tbe jDiy that tries bim, provided only Saw, 849 ; /n rs Ah Chong, ik 461 ;
tlwre be no discrimination in the choice. Slaogbter-Honse Cases, 16 Wall. 86, 72.
Tir^nia v. lUves, 100 (7. S. 813. Comp. State e. Ah Chong, 16 Nev. GO.
Tbe fifteenth amendment givea simply For fnrther discnasion of tbe respectiTA
the rigfat to exemption from discrimina- right* and powgre of the United States
tioD on acconnt of race, color, or previous and of the state^ see United Statea v,
oondition of servitude, in the ezerdse of Cruikshauk, 92 U. S. C42 : TenjieaMe w.
tbe elective franchise; and Congress has Davis, 100 U.S. 261. — b.]
00 power to legislate for any purpose
Dating taxes : Jennings v. Coid Ridge I. & Soathem Pac R. Co., 8 Sawyer, 23B ; a
C.Co., 147U. 8.147; ColnmbosS. Ins. Co. State law making all grain elevators public
». Wri^t, IGl U. 8. 170 ; Northern Fa- warehonaes ; Brass o. Korth Dakota, IBS
dfic &. Co. B. Walker, 47 Fed. Hep. 681 ; V. S. 891; a State law fixing elevator
Shirk D. Ia Fayettr, G2 id. 8G7 ; special rates, for cities exceeding a certain popu-
aasessmBnts without notice to the owner lation: Budd v. New York, 143 U. 8. C17 ;
or opportunity for him to be heatd. Hur- or forbidding lanndiy business in parts ot
dock e. Cincinnati, S9 Fed. Bep. 891. a city between certain hours at night, but
The following are not : A State law not applying to other kinds of boaineas :
opbeld by the State conrts aa not provid- Scon Hing v. Crowley, 118 U. 8. 708 ;
ing a cniel and nnoaual punishment : He- or tbe canying of dangeions weapons :
Elvains «. Bmsb, 142 U. 8. IGG ; State Miller v. Texas, 168 U. S. G8G ; a State
poulabnients, penalties, and fair provisioDa law making it a misdemeanor to isane a
for tnala applying eqnally to all persons of policy of fire Insurance without express
tbe same dasi : Lonisville & If. R. Co. n. authority therefor by charter, and making
Woodaon, 184 U. 8. S14 ; Harchant b, the policy void: Com'th v. Trooman, 164
P«nn. B. Co., 1G8 U. 8. S80 ; In n Boggs, Penu. St. 806 ; a State law requiring a
if Fed. Sep. 476 ; San Hateo Coun^ v. errtifieate or lioenae appropriate to a par-
sObyGoOl^lc
* 8d2 JUBISPSUDENOE OF [PIBT n.
concurrent power of taxation remaining in the etates, and to
deprive them of the means of supplying their own wants. All
the reBooreea of taxation might, by degreee, become the Bubjecta
ticuUr profetdcm: Dent r. West TirgiDia, R7. Co., I2G U. 8. 466, 613 : Oratioi t.
129 U. S. Hi; admitting or refusing to Tillman, 64 Fed. Kep. M9. SamuuTT
admit women to practise kw in t. State: poirer ve«t«d in health officera to quuu-
Bx parte Loukwood, 154 U. S. 113 ; sep- tine those afflicted with daageroui ind in-
arale railroad care Tor white and negro Tectious disease, or to remove dead uiinaU,
pagsengers. If the accommodations are is doe proces* of law. /» re Smith, U
equally good: Anderson v. Louisville & Hud, 466 ; Natioiiar F. Co. r. I^mbert,
N. a Co., 62 Fed. Bep. 48; or empow- *8 Fed. Eap. 468. Sou theri^tof«m-
ering railroad commissioiiers to abolish, inent domain when duly ezenueed. Bur
grade crossingB: New York & N. E. B. v. New Brunswick, S7 Fed. Bep. 40Z. A
Co. V. Bristol, lEl V. S. G56 ; absence of State statute aathorimig the exsctioM at
the aecosed in a capital case from court tolls, fixed without notica or hesiing, for
when judgment is affirmed by the appel- n«mg an improved waterway is not s tik-
late court : Schwab v. Berggren, 14S U. ing of property without due pocoi of
B. 442 ; Fielden 0. Illinois, id. 462 ; State law. Sands 0. Uanistee Ri*et imp. Co.,
statutea prohibiting interraarriage between 133 U.S. 2S8. Norisanact fixing sidu-
whitas and blacks. Dodson v. State imam charge for grain eleratora. Bnddi.
(Ark.), 3ia.»W. Rep. 977. New York, 14S U. 8. 617. Thepriudpls
See also WaUton 0. NeTin, 12S U. 8. that no person Hhall be depriTed ol life,
678; KaufTmann.Woottera, 13SU. S. 2S6; liberty, or property without due procMsd
Fielden v. Ulinois, 143 II. S. 452 ; Minne- law, which was in ■nbatauce embodiei]
apolis i, St. L. By. Co. v. Emmona, 149 also in the constitutions of nearly sU tke
U. 8. SS4 i New York & N. £. R. Co. n. States wheu the Fonrteenth AmenduKOt
Bristol, 161 U. S. 669; Pittsburgh &c., was adopted, is not incompatible with the
B. Co. D. Backus, 154 U. 8. 421 ; Indian- equally vital principle that all property i>
apolis ft V. B. Co. v. Backus, id. 43S; held under the implied obligatianthatthe
Gilchrist V. Helena Hot Spring & S. R. owner's use of it shall not be injurioni to
Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 708 ; £1: parU Mumy, the comniDnity. See Uogler d. Esnvs, 1^
35 id. 498 1 nnioD Centnd Life loa. Co. o. U. 3. 628, S86. A constitutional reqnin-
Chowning, S6 Texas, 664 ; BrBceville ment of due process of law will predodB
Coal Co. D. People, 147 111. 66 ; Att.Oen. the State Snpnme Court from answering
V. Jochim, 99 Mich. 368 ; Wulien n. Su- a qneetion propounded by the ItgUlstnn
perviiors, 101 Cal. 16 ; State v. Goodwill and goreinor as to the priority of ^pw-
(S3 W. Va. 170), 25 Am. St. Rep. 868, priatlons for private claims, all of which sre
■nd note ; cases cited supra, 24S n. {y). in excess of the constitutional limilatitm.
The provision as to due procese of law 7» re Priori^ of Legislative Appopiis-
in the Fourteenth Ameodineiit applies to tions (Col.), 34 Pac. Bep. 377. Under
the acts of State officers. PaciHc Gaa the exclusion acta, due process of law plane
Imp. Co. s. Ellert, 64 Fed. Bep. 42t. The the burden upon the government to ihow
police power is a right reserved by the that a Chinaman is unlawfully in this
States, and was not larrendered to the country. United State* «. Lour Hop, 5S
general government when authority was Fed. Rep. 58 ; Barr 0. New Bronnricl^
conferred upon Congress to regulate com- 87 Fed. Rep. 402 ; Sanford b. Poe, Bfl id.
merce. Bowmau v. Chicago & N. W. 648.
[522]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZVin.] THE UNITED STATES. * SQZ
of federal monopoly. The etates muBt support themaelres, by
direct taxes, duties, and exciBea, and Congress may lay the eame
burden, at the same time, on the same subject. . Suppose the
national tax should be as great as the article, whether it be land,
or distilled spirits, or pleaenre-carriages, for instance, will con-
veniently and prosperously bear, and the state should be obliged
to lay a further tax for its own necessities; the doctrine, as I
understand it, is, that the claim of the United States would be
preferred, and must be first satisfied, because the laws of the
United States, made in pursuance of the Constitution, are the
supreme law of the land. The author of the Federalist (a)
admits that a state might lay a tax on a particular article, equal
to what it would well bear, but the United States would still
haTe a right to lay a further tax on the same article ; and that all
collisions, in a struggle between the two governments for revenue,
must and would be avoided by a sense of mutual forbearance,
fie nowhere, however, meets and removes the difficulty in the
case of a want of this mutual forbearance, where there is a con-
current tax laid on the same subject, which will not bear both
taxes. He says only that the United States would have no right
to abolish the state tax. This is not contended; but would not
the United States have a right to declare that their taxes were
liens from the time they were imposed; and would they not, as
of course, be entitled to be first paid ; and must not the state
collector, in all cases, stand by and wait until the national
• tax is collected, before he proceeds to collect his state tax • 393
out of the exhausted subject T Upon the doctrine of the
federal courts, and upon the doctrine of the Federalist himself,
this must be the case ; and though the state legislatures have n,
concurrent jurisdiction in the case of taxation, except as to im-
posts, yet, jn effect, though not in terms, this concurrent power
becomes a subordinate and dependent power. In every other
case of legislation, the concurrent power in the states would seem
to be a power entirely dependent, and subject to be taken away
absolutely, whenever Congress shall choose to exercise their
powers of legislation over the same subject. I do not mean to
be understood to question the validity, or to excite alarm at the
existence, of this doctrine. The national government ought to be
supreme within its constitutional limits, for it is intrusted with
(a) No. S2. Sm al«o No*. 31, 3S, Si.
[528]
;abyG00<^lc
* 894 JUBIBPRnDEMCE OF [fiXt a.
the paramount interests and general welfare of the whole nation.
Our great and effective secnrity coneists in the fact, that the con-
stituents of the general and of the state governmentB are one and
the aame people; and the powers of the national government
must always be exercised with & due regard to the interest and
prosperity of ever; member of the Union ; for on the concnrrence
and good will of the parts, the stability of the whole depends.
My object is to discover what this concurrent power of legiBlati<Hi
amounts to, and what ia its value, and on what constitutional
foundation it is supported.
It was observed by Mr. Hamilton, in the convention of New
York, in 1788, (a) that if the United States and the state should
each lay a tax on a specific article, and the individual should be
unable to pay both, the party who first levied would bold the
property. But this position must be received with some
*894 qualification. The United States have 'declared, by law,
that they were entitled, in respect to their debts, to priority
of payment; and when it was said that this claim would int«rfei«
with the rights of the state sovereignties, and would defeat tbe
measures they had a right to adopt, to secure themselves agaioet
delinquencies, the answer given in United States v. Fiaheria) is,
that "the mischief suggested, so far as it can really happen, was
the necessary consequence of the supremacy of the laws of the
United States, on all subjects to which the legislative power of
Congress extends. " It would seem, therefore, that the concurrent
power of the legislation in the states is not an independent, but a
subordinate and dependent power, liable, in many cases, to be ex-
tinguished, and iu all cases to be postponed, to the paramount or
supreme law of the Union, whenever the federal and the state
regulations interfere with each other. (6)
(a) Debates in rta New York ConTention, printed bj FraBcia CUlila, 118.
(a) 2 Cnmcb, 35S, S97.
(i) Hr. Hamilton, is Secratary of the Treamry, io Mb Report in Jannary, 17H,
on "a provision foi the support of the public credit of the United States," neon-
mended the tnomption of the state debts, od the groaiid, among othen, that if tba
statu were left with the dnt; and btuden of proriding for tbe pajment of the itati
debts contracted during the Revolutionary War (and vhicb were then eatimated at
tirenty-fiVG millions of dollsrx), there' might be a oompetition for reeonrcaa, prodncJng
interfering i^nlatioDS, coUiiion, and confusion. Fattienlu branchea of indnsby
might be oppressed by an accQmnlatioD of taiation upon tbem, in tbe exsrdae, at dw
game time, of the powers of tbe Union and of tbe states upon the same oligecti, iimI by
different modes. The Secretary, though fully and deeply impTMaed with tbe en]bun»
[624]
50byGoO>^lc
LECT. XTin.] THS UNITED STATES. * 895
In Wagmim t. Southard, (c) the question arose, how far the
judicial process of the federal courts could be controlled by the
lava of the several states. It was decided, that Gongresa had
exclusive authority to reflate proceedings and executions in the
federal courts, and that the states had no authority to control such
proueaa; and, therefore, executions by ^W/o^tiu, in the federal
courts, were not subject to the checks created by the Kentucky
statute, forbidding sales on execution of land for leas than three
fourths of its appraised value. It was, in that case, further
observed, that the forms of execution, and other process, in the
federal courts, in suits at common lav, except modes of proceed-
ii^, were to be the same as used in September, 1789, in the
supreme courts of the states, subject only to alterations and addi-
tions by Congress, and by the federal courts, but not to altera-
tions since made in the state laws and practice. It was further
observed, that the laws of the several states were, by the
Judiciary Act of 1789, sec. 34, to be regarded as • rules * 395
of decision in trials at common law, in cases where they
meot of the case, do«a not «eem to qneation the anthority of ««oh governnient to br
tuM in ita discretii*!, but uemnea the policy and necessity of moderatioD and for-
bearance, when there shonld happen to be a preoccupancy in the taxation of an article.
It has become a settled point, and I think it was a very clear one from the beginning,
that in the conitrnction of the power of Congretis to Uy and collect tazea, daties, im-
posts, and excises, it is not to be taken as an Independent gntnt of power, withoat any
defined limit or object, bnt that it is a power to be considered in connection with the
worde immediately thereafter by which it u made snbject to the qualification or limita-
tion of being exercised for tAe purpose of " paying the debts, and providing for the
common defence and general welfare of the United States." The pnrpoM for which
the taxes are to be laid is not of itself a distinct, subttantial power, bnt a qualificatiotl
of the power of taxation, by restricting it to those great and speriAed pnipoaes, thongh
the application of it to those purposes does nndonbtedly admit, and necessarily lequirea,
the exercise of a large and iindeiined discretion. The progress of this question, and
the very weighty opinions upon it, are full; abown and forcibly illnatrated in Story,
Comm. ii. 887-866 ; and aee particularly Hr. Monroe's Message on the bill respecting
the Cnmberland road, May 4, 1822, ib. 415-4SS. That Congress possess the power to
appropriate money taieed by taxation or otherwise, far Mua pvrpomi, in their discre-
tion, than those pointed out in the enamerated powera, is a qnestion that hsa given
rise to very able and acute dlKDssions ; and the affirmative side of the qneation has
been snstsined and snccessfnlly vindicated by tbe practice of the government, and the
weighs anthority, among others, of Mr. Hamilton and Mr, Monroe, in celebrated docu-
ments under their official sanction. See Hamilton's Beport on Manufactures, and
President Uontoe's Menage above referred to. Story; Comco. ii. 4*5-468. This dis-
tingaiabed commentator give* to the affirmative side of the qaestion the sanction also
of his decided opinion.
{ii 10 Wheeton, 1 ; United States Bank v. Halttead, Lb. Gl, a. P.
[626]
;abyG00<^lc
• 395 JDEISPHITOENCB OF [PABT II.
apply, unless the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United
States had otherwise provided. ThiB, however, did not apply to
the practice of the federal courts. As to that, the laws of tlie
states were no rule of decision, and the direction was intended
only as a legislative recognition of the principles of universal
jurisprudence, as to the operation of the lex loci, in the trial
and decision of causes. The law respecting &nal process was
materially altered by the act of Congress of 1828, (a) and that
act adopted into the national courts in each state respectively
(Louisiana excepted), the existing laws and usages of the Bev>
eral courts, regulating the efFect and operation of judgments and
executions, and the proceedings for their enforcement; but
where judgments were a lien in the state upon the property of
the defendants, and the defendants were entitled to an impar-
lance thereon of one term or more, the defendants in the United
States courts, in such state, are entitled to an imparlance of one
term. If, in any state, there were no courts of equity with Uie
ordinary equity jurisdiction, the courts of the United States, io
such states, might prescribe the mode of executing their decrees
in equity ; and the courts of the United States were also invested
with power to alter, in their discretion, the final process in their
courts, and to conform the same to legislative changes made for
the state courts, (x)
(a) Act of Congnm of Ha; IB, 1S2S, c 6S, mc 2, 3.
(z) The V. a. Bav. Stati. tS S14. S^E, 626. Eqniuble dafencM, though plewUUe
raquiic the practice, pleadings and foniw under State practice, cuiDot t>e pleaded in
and mode* of proceeding in civit caoaes the Federal conrt foi that dittrict. Snj-
in the Fedetal conrta to conform to State dar v. Pharo, 25 Fed. Bep. 3M ; Hetkloti
practice. The statute does not apply to v. Chue, S2 id. 43S. So the prectiee b
the form of verdicta. AUntt v. Cortis b the State courts which allows upon an u-
Co. Uanuf. Co., 2G Fed. Rep. 402. And swer or counter-claim the relief nnullT
, the Federal courts are not bonud bf a obtainable ont; by a croes-bill, is not fol-
State etatnte pi«Tiding for the eubmia- lored in the Federal courta. Chapin >.
sion of special queatioastoajnry. McElwee Walker, 8 Fed, Rep. 7B4 ; Bnndeti.Qil-
«. Met. Lumber Co., 69 Fed. Rep. SOS. So chriet, 18 id. 4SG ; White v. Bower, «
the Federal courts ate not controlled b; id. 186. The fict that a State statota
State statntss in the allowance or amount permits a married woman to sue in equity
uf costs. Bradfoid v. Bradford, 2 Flippin, in her own name does not enable her so le
230 ', Huntress v. Epsom, 15 Fed. Rep. do in a Federal court Willi «. Pknly,
732 ; O'Neil v. Eanm Cit?, kc R. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 257; see Horning Jourasl
Slid. fl68; Ford v. Louisville Ac R Co., Ass'n f. Smith, BB id. lil. The sane i>
4E id. 210 i see Willard t>. Serpell, 02 id. true of the examination of the adrane
[526]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. XYIir.] THE UNITED STATE8. • S95
2. Of Cononmnt Jndlolal Pow«r. - — In the 82d number of the
Federalist, it is laid down as a rule, that the state courts retained
party, u if oader crou-cxusination, il- tcj, 69 Fed. Bep. IBS. Bat righti en-
lowed by a State statute. Penn. B. Co. r. forceable in the State eonrta will not be
AlU^heny K. Co., 2fi Fed, Bep. IIS ; there foUowad when conrusion or conflict
Disro V. Favel, id. llfl. A proTimon in of interaeta may result. Hence the same
a State itatate which giret the aune right reoeiTers appointed in the former courta
of action for negligence caunng death aa will Dot neceesarily be re-appointed in the
the deceaied would hare if living, that latter. Yoang v. Aronaon, 27 Fed. Rep.
the action i« to he brought in the State Sil. And the right to set off a judgment
court only, hu been held inralid as a or decree of one of these Courta in the
limitAtion upon the Fedenl courts of ad- other is restrictvd. l^uderdale Co. v.
miralty. Bigelaw i>. Nickerson, 70 Fed. Foster, 23 Fed. Rep. 516. A provision in
Bep. 113 (Showalter, C. J., dissenting), a State Code which permits a defendant
But interpleader o( adverse claimants in to demand from the plaintiff more certain
equity, as allowed by a State statute, may and definite atatements in hia complaint
he enforced in the Federal coarta. Wella doea not apply to the Federal Circait
V. Uiner, 25 Fed. Bep. 5S3. So of a Court sitting in equity. Phelpn v. Elliott,
partition euit based on equitable titles. 26 Fed. Rep. 881. But aupplemeutaiy
Aspen Mining & S. Co, v. Rucker, 28 proceedings allowed by State law for dis-
Fed. Bep, 220. The fact that a auit may covery of the debtor's property at law or
be bronght in a State upon its penal'atat- in equity, may be enforced in the Federal
utes after the offender's death does not courts. Senter c. Mitchell, 16 Fed, Rep.
affect the Federal ooorts which follow the 206. Chancery practice is uniform in aU
common-law rule that qui tarn actiona on the Federal courta, and ia the same
penal statutes do not eurvive. Schreiber whether the local State baa coarla of
V. Sharplegs, 110 U. S. 76. The question equity or not In the Federal courts
whether gamiabed funds are to be de- legal and equitable claims cannot be
poMted in the court registry ia determined joined in one suit, and the eiistenoe of
by the Federal and not by State practice, an adequate remedy at law ia fatal to the
Gaines r. New Orlsana, 27 Fed. Bep. 411. jarisdictiou at any atage of the caae.
New remediea created by State statutes Northem Pacific R. Co. v. Paine, 119 IT.
ulaiging equitable rights may be enforced 8. 561 ; Qnincy •>. Steel, 120 U. 8, 211 ;
in the equity courta of the United States. Ridings v. Johnson, 128 U, 8. 212 ; Mis-
Bollandir. Cha]len,l]0 U. 8. 15; Gold- eiseippi Mills v. Cobn, 150 U, 8.202;
■mtth B. GilliUnd, 22 Fed. Bep. 865 ; Leighton v. Young, fi2 Fed. Bep. 4Se ;
Wells, Fargo ft Co, v. Miner, 25 id. 6S8 ; Tyler «. Savage, US U. 8. 79, 87 ; Frank-
A. ft W. Spragne Manuf. Co. v. Hoyt. 26 lin Tel. Co ■, Harrison, 145 U. S. 469,
id. 421; Boeenhanm v. CouncU Blnff Ina. 474 ; Lindsayv.FintNat.Bsnk, 156U. 8.
Co., 87 id. 7; Fechheimer i^. Baum, id. 485, Thia uniformity of equity practice
167 i Borland v. Haven, id. 894 ; Sage prevails alao in cases removed from the
o. Winona ftc. K. Co. , 68 id. 297 ; Pren. State to the Federal courts, and in inch
tioe V. Duluth 8. ft F. Co., id. 487, cases ■ r«ast of the pleadings ia often
A remedy provided by a State statute for necewary npon the removal. Benedict e,
a right thereby newly created, must he Williams, 10 Fed. Bep. 208 j Phelpa v.
adopted, either at law or in equity, in the Elliatt, 26 id. S81 ; Hunton v. Equitable
Federal conrta. Fint Nat. Bank v. Pn- Life Am. Society, 45 id. 6S1. Bat Equity
[627]
;abyG00<^lc
' 398 jnBISFBDDENCE OP [PASt D.
State courts may, in the exercise of their ordinary, origiiul,
and rightful jurisdiction, incidentally take cognizance of caaes
arising under the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the
United States; yet to all these cases the judicial power of
the United States estends, by means of its appellate juris-
diction, (a)
In Soutton v. Moore, (b) the same question came again under
the consideration of the Supreme Court; and Judge Waahii^-
ton, in delivering the opinion of the coart, obaerred, that he ssv
nothing unreasonable or inconvenient in the doctrine of
* 398 the Federalist, on the subject of the concurrent * jurisdic-
tion of the state courts, so long as t^e power of CongresB
to withdraw the whole or any part of those cases from the joriB-
diction of the state courts be, as he thought it must he, admitted.
The practice of the general government has been conformable to
this doctrine ; and, in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the exclusive
and ooncurr^t jurisdiction conferred on the courte by that act
were clearly distinguished and marked. The act shows that, in
the opinion of Congress, a grant of jurisdiction generally was not
(a) In Wtdleigli e. V«azie, 3 Sumner, 166, in the Circuit Conrt ot tbs CniMd
States, in i writ of enti^ for knd, tlie defendant pleaded in abatement an action in
th« state conrt bntween the fflme parties for the lame land. It iva« held not to be 4
good plea, became the partiei were revened ; bat it vaa stated by the conrt, that, ia
cages of ooncnrrent jnriadictian in the itata and federal coarta, the latter court had do
diacretian to control the suit, in order to prevent a collision ^letween the courts. 1l
ma snggeitad that one or other of the conrt^ on a reconstraetbn of the Cotutitutiini,
aag^t to have Rxcloaive juriedictioa ; and in Wallace v. STConnell, 13 Petei^ 18S, it
«aa held that an attachment commenced and conducted to a condnaion, before tb in-
atitutioii of ■ ault againBt the debtor in a federal court, ia a defence to the suit 3<i an
attachment pending in a stale court, prior to the commencement of a init in the couit
of the United States, may be pleaded in abatement The attaching creditor acquira ■
lien en the deb^ f!<*od against the world. In Habry v. Heradon, Ala. Sup. Court
(Law Beporter for October, 1816, ii. 2G4, } it was «4ji)dged, in an able and clear argu-
ment by Collier, Ch. J., that the stale courta had cofpiizance, ooncnrrently with tli
federal courta, of cases of fraud in a bankrupt's diachaii^ nnder the act of Cougresi of
1841, as no act of Congress had expresaly excluded such a oognizaace. The power o(
impeaching a bankrupt's diacbargs for frand rested npon the principles of tha eoauBou
law, as well aa on the prorinons of the act of 1811. So, in the case of Ward tr. Xann,
in the Snpiome Judicial Coort of Uasaaehuietta (the Law Beporter for Hatch, 1847).
it was B^udged, after an able consideistiou of the caae, that if a caae be within the
ordinary juriadietion of a state court, the court may take cogniaance of it, thou^ the
-eanse of action arises under rights acquired by a statute of the United Statea, pnHdtd
there be no restriction tinder tha Constitution or the statute of the United Statea, con-
fining the jQiisdJetian to the federal oonita.
(b) 5 Wheaton, 1.
[680]
;abyGoO<^lc
LBCT. XVItl.] THE UNITED STATES. * 399
of itself aufficient to vest an exclusive juriadiction. The Judiciary
Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the circuit courts of all
crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United
States, except vhere tlie laws of the United States should other-
wise provide; and this accounts for the proviso in the act of
24th of Febmary, 1807, c. 75, and in the act of 10th of April,
1816, c. 44, concerning the forgery of the notes of the Bank of
the United States, declaring that nothing in that act contained
should be construed to deprive the courts of the individual states
of jurisdiction under the laws of the several states, over offences
made 'punishable by that act. There is a similar proviso in the
act of 21st of April, 1806, c. 49, concerning the counterfeiters
of the current coin of the United States. W ithdut these provisos,
the state courts could not have exercised concurrent jurisdiction
ovtJr those offences, consistently vith the Judiciary Act of 1789.
But these saving clauses restored the concurrent jurisdiction of
the state courts, so far as, under the state's authority, it could
be exercised by them, (a)' There are many other acts of Congress
which permit jurisdiction over the offences therein described, to
be exercised by state magistrates and courts. This was neces-
sary ; because the concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts over
all offences was taken away, and that jurisdiction was vested
exclusively in the national courts by the Judiciary Act, and it
required another act td restore it. llie state courts could exer-
cise no jurisdiction whatever over crimes and offences
a^inst *the United States, miless where, in particular * 899
cases, the laws had otherwise provided ; and whenever such
provision was made, the claim of exclusive jurisdiction in the
particular cases was withdrawn, and the concurrent jurisdiction
of the state courts, eo inatanti, restored, not by way of grant from
(a) In the CB« of The ^tate v. Tatt, 2 Baile; (S. C. ), 44, the sUte courts are con-
ndered la having jariadiction, independent of tlie acta of Congreaa, to punish the at-
tering and paaaing counterfeit bank bills and coin of the Unitpd States, and on the
principle that aocb a poWer ia naaanti&l to the protection of the citizens. In the cue
of The Commonwealth f. Fuller, S Uetcalf, 313, it was adjudged that thr state courta
bad jariadicUon of the olfenc« of poaaesfiinf;! with intent to pasfi, acunter, conotetfeit
gold or diver coin, current bj law or usage within the st&te. The provUa in the acts
of Con^NM of 1789, ISOfl, 182G, rscognizea the concnrrent jurisdiction of the states
1 Atf, 40% u. 1.
[531]
;abyG00<^lc
*400 JUBISPRITDBKCE OF [PAKT II.
the national government, but by tbe removal of a disabilitj before
imposed upon tbe state tribunals.
In the case last referred to, the Supreme Court disclaimed
the idea that Congress could authoritatively bestov judicial
powers on state courts and magistrates. "It was held to be
perfectly clear, that Congress cannot confer jurisdiction upon
any courts but such aa exist under the Constitution and lavs
of the United States, although the state courts may exercise
jurisdiction in cases authorized by the laws of the state, and
not prohibited by the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal
courts. "
The Supreme Court, having thus declared the true foundation
and extent of the concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts in
criminal cases, proceeded to meet and solve a difficultrf occurring
on this subject of concurrent jurisdiction, whether the sentence
of one jurisdiction would oust the jurisdiction of the other. Tbe
decision on this point was, that the sentence of either court,
whether of conviction or acquittal, might be pleaded in bar of
the prosecution before the other ; as much so as the judgment of
a state court, in a civil case of concurrent jurisdiction, might be
pleaded in bar of an action for the same cause instituted in a
circuit court of the United States.
There was another difBculty, not so easily surmounted, and
that was, whether, if a conviction of a crime against the United
States be had in a state court admitted to have concurrent juriB-
diction, the governor of tbe state would have the [>ower to par-
don, and in that way control the law and policy of the United
States. Judge Washington, in speaking for tbe court, did not
answer this question, but contented himself with merely observ-
ing, that he was by no means satisfied that the governor
*400 could pardon, but that if *he could, it would furnish a
reason for vesting the jurisdiction of criminal matters
exclusively in the federal courts.
The conclusion then is that in judicial matters the concurrent
jurisdiction of the state tribunals depends altogether upon the
pleasure of Congress, and may be revoked and extinguished
whenever they think proper, in every case in which the subject
matter can constitutionally be made cognizable in the federal
courts ; and that, without an express provision to the contrary,
the state courts will retain a concurrent jurisdiction in all cases
[682]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. Znil.] THE DNITED BIAT£B. * 401
where ibey had juriadiction originally over the Bubject-matter. (a)
We will next see whether thie state jurisdiction does not equally
depend upon the volition of the state courts.
There are various acts of- Congress in which duties hare been
imposed on state magistrates and courts, and by which they have
been invested with jurisdiction in civil suits, and over complaints
and prosecutions in penal and criminal cases, for fines, penalties,
and forfeitures, arising under laws of the United States. We
have seen a very clear intimation given by the judges of the
Supreme Court, that the state courts were not bound, in con-
sequence of any act of CongresH, to assume and exercise jurisdic-
tion in snch eases. It was merely permitted to them to do so,
as far as was compatible with their state obligations ; and in some
instances the state courts have acted in those cases, and in other
instances they have declined jurisdiction, though expressly vested
with it by the act of Congress.
In the case of FergUBon, (h) an application was made to the
Supreme Court of New York, for the allowance of a Kabeat cor-
pus to bring up the party alleged to be detained in custody by an
officer of the army of the United States, on the ground of being
an enlisted soldier ; and the allegation was, that he was on infant,
and so not duly enlisted. It was much discussed, whether
the state courts had concurrent 'jurisdiction, by habeai* 401
corpus, over the question of unlawful imprisonment, when
that imprisonment was by an officer of the United States, by
color, or under pretest of the authority of the United States.
The Supreme Court did not decide the question, and the
motion was denied on other grounds ; but subsequently, in th«
matter of Stacy, (a) the same court exercised a jurisdiction in
a similar case, by allowing and enforcing obedience to the
writ of habeas corpus. The question was therefore settled in
favor of a concurrent jurisdiction in that case, and there has
(a) Id the can of Detaficid «. The State of IlUnois, it was decided in the Conrt of
Erron of New York, in Deoemb«r, 1811, upon appeal from a decree in chancery, that
the state coarta have a concurrent jniisdiction with the Supreme Court of the United
States in soits between a state and citizena of another state, and the decree in chancei;
was affirmed. 2 Hill (N. Y.), 1G9 : e. c. 36 Wendell, 1B2. The federal courts have
exolnsive jurisdiction when a state ie defendant at the suit of another state, and when
crimes are committed against the United States, and when Congress hare declared the
joriadiqtion of the fedsial courts exclusiTe, lb.
<»} 9 Johns. SW. (a) 10 Johns. 328.
[638]
;abyGoO<^lc
* 400 JdBISPBTrDEKCE OF [PABT II.
the national goTenunent, but by the removal of a disability before
imposed upon the state tribunala
In the case last referred to, the Supreme Court disclaimed
the idea that Congress could authoritatively bestov judicial
powers on state courts and magistrates. " It was held to be
perfectly clear, that Congress cannot confer jurisdiction upon
any courts but such as exist under the Constitution and laws
of the United States, although the state courts may exercise
jurisdiction in cases authorized by the laws of the state, and
not prohibited by the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal
courts. "
The Supreme Court, having thus declared the true foundation
and extent of the concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts in
criminal cases, proceeded to meet and solve a difficulty occurrii^
on this subject of concurrent jurisdiction, whether the sentence
of one jurisdiction would oust ihe jurisdiction of the other. The
decision on this point was, that the sentence of either coart,
whether of conviction or acquittal, might be pleaded in bar of
the prosecution before the other; as much so as the judgment of
a state court, in a civil case of concurrent jurisdiction, might be
pleaded in bar of an action for the same cause instituted in a
circuit court of the Uuited States.
lliere was another difficulty, not so easily surmounted, and
that was, whether, if a conviction of a crime against the United
States be had in a state court admitted to have concurrent juria-
diction, the governor of the state would have the power to par-
don, and in that way control the law and policy of the United
States. Judge Washington, in speaking for the court, did not
answer this question, but contented himself with merely observ-
ing, that he was by no means satisfied that the governor
•400 could pardon, but that if *he could, it would furnish a
reason for vesting the jurisdiction of criminal matters
exclusively in the federal courts.
The conclusion then is that in judicial matters the concurrent
jurisdiction of the state tribunals depends altogether upon tlie
pleasure of Congress, and may be revoked and extinguiaho^
whenever they think proper, in every case in which t
matter can constitutionally be made cognizable in i
courts ; and that, without an express provision to the c
the state courts will retain a concurrent jurisdiction iujl
[682]
LECT. XVIIl.] THE UNITED STATES. •401
where they had jurisdiction originally over the subject-matter, (a)
We will next see whether this state jurisdiction does not equally
depend upon the volition of the state courts.
There are various acts of Congress in which duties have been
imposed on state magistrates and courts, and by which they have
been invested with jurisdiction in civil suits, and over complaints
and prosecutions in penal and criminal cases, for fines, penalties,
and forfeitures, arising under laws of the United States. We
have seen a very clear intimation given by the judges of the
Supreme Court, that the state courts were not bound, in con-
sequence of any act of Congress, to assume and exercise jurisdic-
tion in such cases. It was merely permitted to them to do so,
as far as was compatible with their state obligations ; and in some
instances the state courts have acted in those cases, and in other
instances they have declined jurisdiction, though expressly vested
with it by the act of Congress.
In the case of Ferguson, (i) an application was made to the
Supreme Court of New York, for the allowance of a haheat cor-
pus to bring up the party alleged to be detained in custody by an
officer of the army of the United States, on the ground of being
an enlisted soldier ; and the allegation was, that he was an infant,
and so not duly enlisted. It was much discussed, whether
the state courts had concurrent • jurisdiction, by haleat * 401
corput, over the question of unlawful imprisonment, when
that imprisonment was by an officer of the United States, by
color, or under pretext of the authority of the United States.
The Supreme Court did not decide the question, and the
motion was denied on other grounds ; but subsequently, In the
matter of Stacy, (a) the same court exercised a jurisdiction in
a similar case, by allowing and enforcing obedience to the
writ of kabeat corpus. The question was therefore settled in
favor of a concurrent jurisdiction in that case, and there has
(a) In the cua of Delafidd «. The State of Illinois, it was decided in the Court of
Brronof New York, in December, 1811, upon appeal fnim & decree in chincery, that
the state courts have a cancutrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of tlie United
State* in suit* between a atata and citizena of another state, and the decree in chancery
waa afflimed. 2 Hill (N. Y.), 1G9 ; s. c. 36 Wendell, 162. The federal oonrts have
exeluaive jnrisdiction when a state is defendant at the suit of another stata, and when
crimes are committed against the United States, and when Congrese have declared the
JDTiadii^n of the federal conitt exclusive. lb.
<») 9 John*. 88B. (a) 10 Johns. 828.
[688]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 401 jmuSPBDDENCB OF [PART n.
beeD a eimilar decision and practice by the courts of other
states, (b) > (x)
(6) Case of Lockington, b«fara Tilghmui, Chief Justin of PeunvrlraniM, Hortmbet.
1813, fi HaU'H L. J. 92 ; uow cue, 6 HaU'a L. J. 301-^30. A limilar cua in llaTj>
lud, 5 Hall's L. J. las ; and in South Carolina, G Hall's L. J. 4B7. CMnmoawnlth
V. Harrison, 11 Hasa. 63 ; Cue of Joseph Almeida, in Haiyland, and the case of Pml
knd othen, in Virginia, cited in Bergeant'a Conatitntiaiul L«w, 279, 28a B; tite Nn
Toric Revised Statntea, ii. G63, sec. 22, ■ habeat eorpui may be awaidnl, nnicsa lb*
party be detained by proDesa frota a court or judge of the United Stetea, tiani^ adu-
tioe jutisdictioii in the case.
I But aee Ableman v. Booth, 21 Hov. ia imprisoned under the authority of the
606. In that case tlie defendant Booth United States, haa auy right to interfcR
had been charged with having aided and with him (p. 621) ; a. c. 3 WU. 1. Sea
abetted in the escape of a (ugitiTe slave also Matter of SjiuigleT, 11 Mich, m ;
from the coatody of the United Statea State v. Zulick, 5 Datchec, 409 ; £i patU
marahal, which was a penal offence nnder Holman, 28 Iowa, 88 ; Hatty of Hopaoo,
the Fugitive Slave Law of Sept. 18, ISGO. 40 Barb. 34 ; O'Connor, 48 Barb. 158 ;
HU bail having giveu him Dp, a warrant Jordan, 2 Am. L. Rep. h. a. 749 ; Fu-
for Booth's eommitmeot was made by a rand, 1 Abb. U. 8. 140 ; 2 Am. L T. U. S.
United Statea commifiaioDer. On the next Cta. R. 4 ; Neill, 3 BUtchf. 156.
day, however. Booth was released by a It was considered by sonw judgci tbit
state jndge on babeat eorpiu, and the the principle of Ableman e. Booth did not
judge's decision was affirmed by the So- extend lieyond imprisonment Ufider judi-
pnme Court of WiBCODain, on the ground cisl process of a federal conrt. This wu
that the Fngitlre Slave Law was nncon- the auggeation in an interesting note to tbo
stitutional. The marshal took a writ of Ust edition of this woric, it 32. Kote th>
envr returnable to the Saprenw Court of language of the court in Freeman v. Hove,
the United Statea. After Booth'a release, 24 How. 4G0, 4G9, 460 ; and see Katln
he waa indicted iu the District Court, of Barrett, 42 Barb. 479 ; Hatter of ll>r-
tried, and untenced to a month's inipris- tin, 4G Barb. 142; People d. Gaol, 44
onment,.and again released on habta* Barb. 98, lOS ;' McCarey, Pet., 2 Am. U
eorput by the atote court, who also di- Bev. 347; Ex parte Anderaon, 16 Icw^
rected their clerk to make no rrtum to 59G ; Comm. v. Foi, 7 Penn. St. SS*.
the writ of error brought thereupon. The In Oarmley'a Case, 12 Op, Att-Qen. 2iS.
Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the principle was'thoaght not to apply to
the state court in both casea, on the broad an imprisonment by an erecntJTe offlcet.
ground that no state judge or conrt, after In Tarble's Case, 26 Wis. 390, the Sn-
they are judicially informed that a party preme Court of Wbcondn, still denyiim
(z) See lapra, 301, note (r). Subject laws of the United Statea. Bohb ». Cen-
to the eioluaive and paramount authority nolly, 111 U. S. 624. A Federal drcaJt
of the general government to control qoos- court may dischai^ a person held, in vie-
tiona arisiug {mm the action of ito own lation of the Federal coastitntion, nndn
tribiuals in matters of habeia corpus, the State process for trial on an indictmeat
State courts may inTCstigato ill^al re- charging him with an cffenee against tha
attaints, even when snch illegality arises lairs of the Suto. Ex parte Bayall, 117
from a violation of the Constitution and U. S. 241, 3iS4 ; Expart6 FDnda,id. 516-
[584]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECt. Zrni.] THE UNITED STATES. *402
The Supreme Court of New York, in the caae of The United
StaUt V. Dodge, (c) held that they had jurisdictiOD, and did bob-
tain a suit on a bond for duties given to a collector of the United
States cuBtoms. The suit was authorized by the Judiciary Act
of 1789, giving concurrent jurisdiction to the state courts in
suits at common lav, where the United States were plaintiffs, (d)
Afterwards, in the case of 2%< United States t. Lathrop, (e) the
game court discussed, very much at large, the queBtion whether
a Btate court had jurisdiction of an action in favor of the United
States, to recover a penalty or forfeiture for breach of a law of
the United States, and when a suit for the penalty was by
the * act declared to be cognizable in a state court It * 402
was decided that the court had no Buch jurisdiction, and
that it could not even be conferred by an act of Congress, {x) The
difference between this case and the one preceding was, that
the preceding case was a suit on a bond given to a collector of
the customs for duties, and this was an action of debt for a pen-
(c) 14 Johns. 9G.
(<Q The >ct at Congren of September 21, 1789, c. 20, «m. 8S, deeUred, thtt for
■117 crime or oSence agunU tbe United States, any jostioe oftha peace, or other
nuguttate of any of the slala, might cwue the offender to be urested end impiuoued
or bailed nDder the tuoal mode of proceai.
(>} IT Johns. 4.
the loiiiidiieBB of the reasoning in Able- aUt^ed gnmnd that he enlisted when lesi
man b. Booth, and asterting a right, even than eighteen jrean old, and without the
when a party was imprieoned by order of consent of his father. This decision was
a court, to inqaire collaterally into the reversed by the Supreme Court of the
sinf^e fact of its jurisdiction, thonght that United States, and it was onoe more laid
there was room for refusing to apply that down that a state judicial officer has no
reaaoning where the detention was by a jotisdicCion to issue or continue proceed-
mere military officer, without the judg- inga under a writ of haieai torput, for
meot of any eonrt. They accordiiiKly af- the di«ch«rge of a person held under the
firmed the discharge of a party who was authority, or claim and color of authority,
held in the castody of a United States of the United States, by an officer of that
Kcmitlng officer as an enlisted soldier, government. IS Wall. 397 ; post, 410,
wdered by a state commissioner on the n. 1.
(z) See Steams v. United States, S penalty nnder Federal laws, shonld, when
Paine, 810 ; Brigham v. ClaBin, SI Wis. the Federal jorisdictian is not clearly ei-
'607; 11 Am. Bep. 42S, «38. In Beti «. diudre, be favorable to its own jurisdic-
Colnmbia NaL Bank, 87 Penn. St. 87, 91, tion, leaving the donbt to be solved by
it was held that the decision of the State the Federal Courts,
court, as to its jurisdiction to enforce a
[686]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 408 JOBISPETOENCE OF [PAET 11.
alty for breach of the excise law. They irere both cases of debts
due to the United fjtatea, but the one was a civil debt, and the
other a penalty for breach of a revenue law ; and thia alight differ-
ence in the nature of the demand was considered to create a most
momentous difference in its results upon the great question of
jurisdiction. It was the opinion of the court that Congress could
not invest the state courts with a jurisdiction which they did not
enjoy concurrently before the adoption of the Constitution ; and
a pecuniary penalty for a violation of an act of Congress was a
punishment for an ofFence created under the Constitution, and
the state courts had no jurisdiction of the criminal offences or
penal laws of the United States. The Judiciary Act of 1789
was the true exposition of the Constitution with respect to the
concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts, and the exclusive
jurisdiction of those of the United States ; and by that act the
exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under
the authority of the United States, and of all suits for penalties
and forfeitures, was given to the federal courts. The Judiciaiy
Act in no instance excluded the previously existing jurisdiction
of the state courts, except in a few specified cases of a national
nature ; but their jurisdiction was excluded in all criminal cases;
and with respect to offences arising under the acts of Congress.
In such cases the federal jurisdiction was necessarily exclusive ;'
but it was not so as to pre-existing matters within the jurisdiction
of the state courts, (a)
The doctrine seems to be admitted, that Congress cannot com-
pel a stat« court to entertain jurisdiction in any case. (()
•408 • It only permits state courts which are competent for the
purpose, and have an inherent jurisdiction adequate to the
case, to entertain suits in the given cases ; and they do not become
(a) Ely «. P«ch, 7 Conn. 2S9 ; Daviun r. ChampliD, iti. 344, 8. P.
(6J DewBj, J., in Ward v. Jenkuig, [10 MotoJf, 683.]
' State V. Tuller, 34 Codq. 380, 29S ; mcnt, V "" officer of a natiaiial buk, of
Teall V. FcltoD, 1 Conut. C37, G4S. a special depodt is mch bank, nut bang
But a party tnay be paniihsd in a pnnisbable by any statnta of tba Diiitcd
■Ute court ander a ttate law for pas^Dg State*, may be pnniabed is a atata coort,
counterfeit coin of the United States, onder a Mate law. Stata t>. Toller, M
Fox e. Obio, 5 How 410 See Hoore v. Conn. 2S0 ; Commonwealth o. Tenney,
lUinnis, 14 How. IS. S7 Ham. fiO. See Conuu. b. Hall, ib.
So it haa been held tbat tlie embezzle- C70.
[536]
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. inn.] THE CKITED STATES. "408
inferior courta in the senee of the Constitution, bec&uee thej are
not ordained by Congress. The state courts are left to infer their
own duty from their own state authority and organization ; but
if they do voluntarily entertain jurisdiction of causes cognizable
under the authority of the United States, they assume it upon the
condition that the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts shall
apply. Their jurisdiction of federal causes is, however, confined
to civil actions, or to enforce penal statute?; and they cannot
hold criminal jurisdiction over offences exclusively existing as
offences against the United States. Every criminal prosecution
mast charge the offence to have been committed against the
sovereign whose courts sit in judgment upon the offender, and
whose executive may pardon him. (a)
We find a similar doctrine in one of the courts in the State of
Ohio, in the case of The United States v. CampbeU. (b) That was
an information filed by the collector of the revenue, to recover a
penalty for breach of the excise law; and the court held it to be
a criminal prosecution, and that one sovereign state could not
make use of the municipal courts of another government to en-
(a) It hM b««n ■ qneatiOD of gnve ditciuaioD how far tnMon might be committed
•gunit onB of the Unitoil States separately considered. It the same crime sniouDted
to trruoD against the United States, the iiclnsiTe cognizance of the crime belonged
to the conrtB of the United Ststes. This was the doctriiie of the Sopreroe Court of
New York, in the case of The People v. Lynch, 11 Johns. SiS. Bnt it was agreed
in that case that treason might be committed against n state, as by opposing the
Um, or Foreibly attempting to usurp the goTeminent, and be not at the same time
merged in the crime against the United States. Bnt Uvyitig war against one state is
a levying of war against all in their federal c&pacity, and is a crime belonging eidn-
rively to the federal govemment. The limitation of treason against a state in ita
distinct capacity would seem to be confined to cases in which the open and armed
oppodtioQ to tlie laws is not accompanied with the intention of mbverting the govern-
meat However, the sUtnts laws in many of the stales by their language cover the
whole entaiged ground of treason, and the line of demarcation is not distinctlj defined.
See an able emay on this subject in the Amprican Law Magazine, ITo. 8, for January,
1846. The act of the l^islatara of New York, 1 N. Y. B. S. 170. 826, 8d ed., assumes
that treason, committed within the state, may be cognizable and puniBhahla by its
lawa. This was also the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Dorr's
Trial, and is the doctljue of such distinirniBbed elementary writers as Mr. Hawle and
Hr. BeiKOut. See Wharton's American Criminal Iaw, Phil. 1846, pp. S86-G92.
[In 1880 John Brown invaded the State of Virginia with a small armed force, for the
pnrpDse of liberating the slaves held under the laws of that state, and inbverting the
state goremment. He was convicted of treason, in one of the local tribunals, and
ezecDted. — c]
(b) S Hall's Lkw Journal, 118.
[6S7]
sObyGoOl^lc
•404 JDEISPHIJDENCE OP [PiBT II.
force its penal laws ; and it was not in the power of Congress
to vest such a juriadiction in the state courts. Upon the same
principle, the Court of Errors in Yii^nia, in the case of Tht
State T. Feely, decided that it had no jurisdiction to punish by
indictment stealing packets from the mail, as that was an offence
created by act of Congress, (c) And in Jackton v. Bmo, the Gen-
eral Court of Virginia made the same decision precisely as that
made in Nev York, in the case of Lathrop; and it held that
the act of Congress authorizing snch suits for penalties in
* 404* the state courts, was not binding. It was decided in
another case in Virginia, (a) that Congress could not give
jurisdiction to, or require services of, a state court, or magistrate,
as such, nor prosecute in the state courts for a public offence. In
Kentucky it was held, as late as 1833, (d) that no state court could
take cognizance of a penal case arising under an act of Coi^ress.
Such a jurisdiction would require an act of the state, and the
consent of Congress.
After these decisions in Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and New
York, the act of Congress of 3d March, 1815, c. 100, may be con-
sidered as essentially nugatory. That act vested in the state
courts, concurrently with the federal courts, cognizance of all
"complaints, suits, and prosecutions for taxes, duties, fines,
penalties, and forieitures, arising and payable under any act of
Congress, passed or to be passed, for the collection of any direct
tax or internal duties;" and it gave to the state courts and the
presiding judge thereof the same power as was vested in the dis-
trict judges, to mitigate or remit an; fine, penalty, or forfeit-
ure, (c) And here the inquiry naturally au^ests itself, can t^e
state courts, consistently with those decisions, sustain a criminal
prosecution for forging the paper of the Bank of the United
States, or for counterfeiting the coin of tlie United States? These
(e) Sergeant'i Conrt. Law, 372 ; Virgini» Cases, 821, a. o.
(a) Ex parU Pool, Sergeant'B Const. Uw, 273, 274 ; [2d mL 382, 287.}
ib) Huie; «. Sharp, I Dana (Ef.). 442.
(c) Ths act of Congress, of Febraaiy 28, 1S39, c. S6, tec 8, ootwithstanding th
«tate decigions, anthorized M ptamiary ptndltUt and farftiiuTtt under the lawioftlis
United States to be sued for before any coart of competent jurisdiction in the Aita
or district where the cause of action arisM, or the offender may be foond. It «u
Mid, in the case of PrJKS "• Corain. of P., Ifl Patera, C39, that the state msgistntn
might, if tbef chose, exerdse powers oonferrsd npoD them hj ant of Congra*, nnlea
prohibited b; state legislation.
[538]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. IVin.] THE UNITED BTATBS, "404
are cases arising under acts of Congress declaring the offence.
The state courts have exercised criminal jurisdiction over these
offences, as offences against the state ; but it is difficult to main-
tain the jurisdiction upon the doctrine of the Supreme Court of
New York, in the case of Latkrop ; and if it be entertained, there
are difficulties remaining to be definitively cleared. These diffi-
culties relate to the effect of a prosecution in one jurisdiction
upon the jurisdiction of the concurrent court, and to the effect of
the executive power of pardon of the crime under one govern-
ment, upon the claim of concurrent jurisdiction, (d)'
(>^ Id the cue of Tba SUte v. BaDd>U, 2 Aikena, SB, the Snpreme Court of Ter*
mout decided, in 1927, that the state caatti had concmrent criminal juriidietioli over
the offence* of connterfeitiug and pasdng eonntetfiit bills of the Bauk of the United
States. And in the cue of The State •. Wella, 2 Hill (S. C), SST, it trai held that
the itata comta had concurrent cogDtzauee of the indictable offence of opening a Utter
contnr; to the act of Congresi, and that Cnngreas might conetitDtionall; confer auch
% jnriadiction. On the other hand, it wm decided in Hiasouri, in Mattiion o. The
State, 8 Ho. 121, that their courts had no cogniisnce of the case of connterfeitilig
tha cnrrent coin, and that a statute of the stats, providing for the cognizance and
pnnislmMiit of sach ciimet, vas void. The doctrine was, that the states had no cod-
cnrrent legislation on the suhject, and that the pover lesided exclnsivelj in Congreaa.
So, the Constitntion of the United Stales (art 4, sac 2) having declared that peisons
beld to service or labor In one state, nnder the Iftwi thereof, and escdping into another,
ahonld be delivered up, on claim of the part; to whom such ssrvice or labor might be
dne ; the laws of Hew York, in fdrtheranee of tliis dnty, have provided for the arrest
of snch fugitives, on hahta* corjms, fonnded on due proof, and for a certificate in foror
of the ri^t of the claimant, and delivery of the fagitive to him to be removed. Bnt
tbe fugitive is entitled to his writ of lurmiiiie repUgiayide, notwithstanding the habea*
mrpiit and certificate. N. Y. Bevised Statutes, it GflO, sec 6-20. See ii. S2, on this
point, and see, in AnKtican Jnrist for April, 1837, ivii. BS-llS, the substance of the
report of the committee on the judiciary in the legislature of HassachusettB, respect-
ing tbe validity of the act of Congress of February 12, 17BS, providing for tbe seizure
and mmnder of fugitive slaves. It urges tbe right and duty of providing, by the
writ of hattai eorptti or of replevin, for the triai by jury of the question whether the
person seized be a freeman or k slave. The act of Congress authorizes the owner of
the fngitive slave, by himself or his ageot, to seize at once the fugitive slave, and
carry him befaie a judge of the United States, or any magistrate of ths county, city,
or town in the state where the slave is seUed, and, npon satiiifying the magistnte by
proof that the person seized is such fugitire slave, he is to give a certificate, which
amonnta to a warrant K remove the slave. This law is generally fonnd to be insaCB-
cient to give the claimant the requisite constitntlonal protection in his property, or
the fugitive dne protection of his liberty ; and its execution meets with embarrasa-
ment in tbe northern states, and several of them have endeavored, by local statutes,
> jtiUt, 402, n. 1. notei on tbe subject of fiigitivsa fnn la-
Sincs ths passage of ths thirteenth bor, note <i^), seem unnecessary. As t»
amendment to the ConstitntioD, further fugitives from justice, post, ii. S2, n.
[639]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 404 JUBISPBDDENCB O? [PABT U.
to toppl; the deftciNicy. The Constindon of the United SUtn, and the Kt of Con-
greas, eTideatly contemplated nuumaiy tninieteml lRt>ceediiigB, and Dot the ordiuij
course of judicial investigatiDn. Story's Comm. on the Const., iii. 677 ; Wtif^t*.
Deacon, B Serg. & Bawle, 62. In the last case it was held that the writ of Iuoum
reptegiando did not lie to try the right of the fugitive to freedom, thaogh on the letini
of the fugitive to the atata from which he fled bin right to fnedom might be trU.
See further, m/ra, ii. 82, uotce ((], (d). It eeeme to be an unsettled qneetioli whetLer
statute proTisiom leUtive to the surrender of fogitiTea from labor, in obedieoce to tlu
Constitution of the United Stales, be of exdunve Juiisdiction in the United Statci, or
may be tided b; auiiliaiy statute pronaiona in the atataa. But the caae of Prigg f .
The Comnwn wealth of Pennsylrania, IS Peters, 639, may be cooiideied u settlisg
the question in favor of the eiclusive jurisdiction of the United States. See injra,
ii. 82, 248. It was then declared that the nattonal govemmetlt, in the absence cJtU
positive provisions to the contrary, was bound, through its proper dspartmeat, le^
lative, executive, or jndidary, as the case might require, to carry into eSect all the
rights and duties imposed upon it by the Constitution. Any l^slation by Ctograt,
in a caae within its jarisdictioti, supersedes all stete legialaUon, and impliedly pto-
hibite it See Houston e. Moors, fi Wheaton, 21, 22 ; Sturgu «. CtowninalusU,
4 Wheaton, IE2, 1S8, a. P.
[640]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. ZIZ.] THE UNITED STATES.
LEO TUBE XIX.
OF coKSTtnrnoMAL bestbictiohs on the powebs of the BETEBAL
STATES.
We proceed to consider the extent and effect of certain consti-
tntional restrictions on the authority of the separate states. As
the Constitution of the United States was ordained and estab-
lished by the people of the United States, for their own gorem-
ment as a nation, and not for the government of the individual
states, the powers conferred, and the limitations on power con-
tained in that instrument, are applicable to tiie government of
the United States, and the limitations do not apply to the state
goremments nnleas expressed in terms. ' Thus, for instance, the
provision in the Constitution that private property shall not be
taken for pablic use without just compensation, was intended
solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government
of the United States, and doea not apply to the state govern-
ments, (a) The people of the respective states are left to create
sach restrictions on the exercise of the power of their particular
governments as they may think proper; and restrictions by the
Constitution of the United States, on the exercise of power by
the individual states, in eases not consistent with the objects
and policy of the powers vested in the Union, are expressly
enumerated.
"No state," says the Constitution, (6) "shall enter into any
treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marqae and
reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but
(a) BarroD v. The Mayor ud dtj ConncQ of BdtiiDare, 7 Paten, S4S. Sac liaa
la the mBtter of Smith, 10 Wendell, 4i9.
(t) Art 1, we. 10.
> TwltdiBll V. The CommonwMhh, 7 71 ; Fox p. Ohio, S How. 411. See The
VaU. 821 i FarrnT v. The Common- Jnstioe* •. Unmj, 9 Wall. 274, 27S ;
wealth, S Wall. 475 ; Withers v. Boekley, anta, S9fl, n. 1.
80 How. 84 ; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How.
[641]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 408 JDBIBPBUDENCB OF [PIBT II.
gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pasB any bill
of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts ; or grant an; title of nobility. No state shall, without
the consent of CongreBB, lay any impoBts or duties on imports or
exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executiag
its inspection laws, nor lay any duty on tonni^, keep troops or
ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or com-
pact with another state, or with a foreign power, or et^ge ia
war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will
not admit of delay. "
Most of these prohibitions would seem to speak for themselves,
and not to stand in need of exposition. I shall confine myself
to those cases in which the interpretation and extent of some
of these restrictions have been made the subject of judicial
investigation.
1. Of Bills of Credit — Billii of Credit, within the purview of
the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting the
*408 emission of them, are declared *to mean promissory notes
or bills issued by a state government, exclusively on the
credit ef the state, and intended to circulate through the com-
munity for its ordinary purposes as money redeemable at a future
day, and for the payment of which the faith of the state is
pledged. ((i)(x) The prohibition does not therefore apply to the
(a) Craig e. The Stitte of Miaunri, i Petera, 110. In th* ewe of BiImm c. Th*
Bftok of Eentuck;, 11 Peters, 267, the qoiatioa what wore MZb of credit, of whkh tba
BmuBian iru prohibited to the states waa eitenaiTely diacnaaed. Thej irera defiiud
to be papa- ittiial by Iht avAorOy of a stale <m (A« /aith of On date, and dengnti ti
drcttlaU ill money; and nnder thia definidon it waa adjudged that a bank of the Slati
of Eentncky, established in the Dune and on behalf of the state, ander the ditvetian of
a prcndent and twelre directon choaan by the l^ialatare, and the bank eidnalTdj
the property of tlie state, and with « capital of two milliona, and with anthoritj to
isaae notea payable to bearar on demand, and receire depoaits and make loani ; ud
the Dotea of which bank, by • eubseiiaeDt aot, were to be received on ezecatiDna bj
plaintiB*, and if refneed, further proceedinga to be delayed oa the jodftmetit (or twv
yean, ununot within ttit pnA^itiim in tie CotutittUian ofllie U%iUd SUUetatatndOn
emxatiim ofbiUt ofcrtdil. Mr. Juatiee Story diaaented from thia decision, and said that
the late Chief Juatice Uarshall waa of opinion with him, when the laine cue wn
before the court, and argued at a preceding tenn ; and he further aaid that he would
not distinguiah the case in principle from that of Craig d. The State of HitKnirL
It appeara to tae, with great submisaion to the Supreme Court, that thia decinw
(x) Coupons upon bonds isaued by a circulate aa money, are not "billi of
State, which are recelTable for taiea and cradit." Virginia Coapcn Cases (Pob-
n^tiaUe, bat which are not intended to deiter v. Greenhow), lU U. S. 270.
[642]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIX.] THE UNITBD BTATEB. *408
notes of a state bank, dravn on the credit of a particular fund
set apart for the purpose. (&) Throng all our colonial history,
paper money was much in use ; and from the era of our inde-
pendence down to the date of the Constitution, bills of credit,
issued under the authority of the confederation Congress, or of
the individual states, and intended for circulation from hand to
hand, were universally denominated ^^er money ; and it was to
bar the governmental issues of such a delusive and pernicious
substitute for cash, that the constitutional prohibition was intro-
duced. The issuing of such bills by the State of Missouri, under
the denomination of certijicatet, was adjudged to be unconstitu-
tional, though they were not made generally a legal tender, but
they were, nevertheless, made receivable in payment of taxes,
and by all civil and military officers in discharge of salaries and
fees of office. Instruments, however, issued by or on behalf of
a state, binding it to pay money at a future day, for services
actually received, or for money borrowed for present use, were
declared not to be bills of credit, within the meaning of the
Constitution, (o)'
■wentialljr orernilw Vbn cus of Cnig, and grMttlf impidn the foica ud tbIm of
tlie comtitQtdonal prohibition. In tb« c««e of Linn «. State Bank of llliuoiB, 1 Sciin.
87, dtoided by Uie Supreme Court of that sUte in 188S, it appearad that the Steto
Bank of lUinoii was owned by the atate, and anthorued to iune uotea or bUli in
■mall MUM from twentj dollan to one dollar, dnwing intcnat, and Tsceivabla in
payment of dsbti dne to the state ; and that the legislature were pledged to redeem
the hilla, and eraditora were atajed ftom collecting their debt* for three yean, unleaa
they would teeeive the bills in payment. The coort held that the analogy waa to
■farikinft between that institution and the Hissoori loan office, as to render the ded-
sion in Cnig v. The State of HiMouri in point, uid binding on the etatea ; and, cod-
■eqnently, it was >4Ji>dS^ that the act establishing the State Bonk of Dlinoia was
nnconstitutianal, and ' iti notes roid. And in the cose of HcFarlond v. The State
Rank, 1 Ark. H, the SnpTeme Cooit of Arkansas held itself bound and concluded by
the decision in Briscoe e. The Bank of Kentncky, thoogh it was admitted to be incon-
•latent with the doctrine and decision in the prior case of Craig v. The State of Mis-
aoari. The court evidently r^retted that On ewe of Craig had been oreimled, as it
oontolaed the sound and true constitntioDoI doctrine. The Bank of Arkansas stood
on the tune ground, end had the same essential qoolities, and its notes were btUs of
credit within the decision of Craig, and not bitla of credit within the decision ot Bria-
ooe, and the Utter decision they held themselves bound to obey.
{b) Billis adi. The State, 2 H'CoTd. 12.
(e) Craig e> The State of Hissoori, vlri tupra. Mr. Justice Story, in his CoanDen<
tuieaon the Constitution, iii. p. IB, seems to be of opinion, that, independent of long-
> Saelhrther, as to what are not bills SWall. Jr. 8S1: B^eyv.Hilner.l Abbott,
of credit, HcCoy v. Washington County, U. S. 261 i U Qa. ISO ; Danington v.
[MS]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 409 , JUBISPKODBHCE OP [PAKI H.
2. Bx. poat Facto Laws. — In Colder T. BtiUf (d) the qnestion on
the meaning of an ex post facto l&w, within the prohibition of tbe
Constitution, was ezteuaiTel; discnBsed.
The legislature of Connecticut had, by a resolution or law, set
aside a decree of the court of probates, rejecting a will, and
directed a new hearing before the court of probates, and the
point was, whether that resolution was an ex pott facto law
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
It was held that the words ex pott facto laws were technical
expressions, and meant every law that made an act done before
the passing of the law, and which was innocent when
*409*dono, criminal; or which aggravated a crime, and made
it greater than it was when committed ; or which changed
the punishment, and inflicted a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed ; or which altered the legal
rules of evidence, and received less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order
to convict the offender. The Supreme Court concluded that the
continued practice (rota the time of the adoption of the Constitntion, the itatea mnld
not, npon > aouDiI construction of the Cooatitntion, if the qaeaUoa iru rei inUjn, tw
aiithomed to incorporate butke, with a power to circnlate bank paper u eurrencx,
ioumuch u the; Ekni expresal; prohibited fram coining money. He cites the opuiiani
of Mr. Webeter, of the Senate of the Uiiited States, aod of Hr. Dexter, formeHy Stc-
rabtry of War, on the mora side. But the equal, if not the greater aathority of Hr.
Hamilton, the earliest Secretai; of the Treasaiy, may be cited in support of a difiennt
opinion, and the contempoiai; sense and uniform praetioe of the oation an deciiiTe
on the questioQ. Bank paper, like checks and negotiable notes, circnktet astinly
npon private credit, and is not acoerciTe circalatlon. It is at every person's oftioa
to receive or rqjsct it The Constitution evidently had in view UUe of credit tnoed
by law, in the name and on the credit of the state, and intended for circulation from
hand to band as money, and of which onr history famished so many pemiciaas eiiin-
plea. The words of the Constitutian are, tliat no ilate tkail emit bUlt ofmJil. Ths
prohibition does not extend to bills emitted by individuals, singly or collectively,
whether aesociated under a private agioement for banking pnrpoeea, as was the cm»
with the Bank of New York prior to its earliest charter, in the winter of 1791 , or art-
ing under a charter of incorporation, so long as the state lends not its credit, or obliga-
tion, or coercion, to sustain the cinmlation. la the ease of Briscoe v. The Bank af
ths Commonwealth of Eantacky, this question wss put at rest, by the opinion of the
court that there was no limitatioD in the Constitntion on the power of the states to
incorporate banks, and their notes were not intended to be inliibited, nor were omid-
miisbitU tfcrtda. 11 FeUrs, 2G7, 84G, 849.
(d) 8 Dallas, SS6.
Bank of Ala., IS How. 12 (same princi- what are. City N. Bank r. Hahas, I U
pie as Briscoe v. Bank of Ky.) ;
[544}
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIZ.] THE UNITED STATES. * 409
law or resolntioD of CooDecticut was not within the letter or inten-
tion of the prohibition, and vas, therefore, lawful, (a) After*
wards, in Fletcher v. Peck, (b) it waa observed that an ex poit facto
law was one which rendered an act punishable in a manner in
which it was not punishable when it was committed. This defi-
nition is distinguished for its comprehensive brevity and preci-
sion, and it extends to laws passed after the act, and affecting a
person b; wa; of punishment of that act, either in his person or
estate. Ex pott facto laws relate to peual and criminal proceed-
ings, which impose punishments or forfeitures, and not to civil
proceedings, which affect private rights retrospectively.^ Betro-
(a) strong v. Tlia 8tat«, 1 BUckf. (Ind.) IBS, «. P.
(») e Cnncb. 188.
> Be pod Facto Latot. — This is one of Smyne idiI DaTiB, J J., coiican«d, p. S82.
tlu great coiutitutioiul quwtiani whicli Bat then trere both easM of penoni vho
ha» ba«D reopened and mach diaduwd in had prsTtoiuIy been admitted to thui
oaan ariaing out of the TebellioD. reipeotiTe calling! ; and Hr. Pomen^
An act of Congreai prorided that no (ConiL Imi, { (SS) thinbi that as to
one ahoiild b« admitted m an attorns; or hitnn applicants the requirement of the '
connaallor to the bar of any United States tent oath waa constitutional, and cites Bx
oonrt, or ahonld be allowed to appear'by parU Uagnider, Sapieme Ct. D. C, to
viitne of in; prerioiu admisaioD, anleea that effect, j S34. Further cases on the
lie ahonld have first taken an oath that he aabjeot are Sx parte Ijlk, 86 Oa. 386 ;
had not done certain acta of treason The Uurphjr k GIotbt Test Oath Cases,
against the United States, had not held 41 Mo. 83S.
offloe nnder, or yielded Tolnntaiy snpport Bat in seTeral cMes it has been held
to, any antbority hostile to them, and that thoM who had taken part in the re-
vonld sapport and bear tme allegiance bellion might be constitutionally deprived
to the Constitution. It waa held that this of the right to rote. Andereon v. Raker,
act, which was, of conree, directed at 33 Hd. S8I ; Bidley d. Sberbrook, SColdw.
those who had taken part in the rebellion, 560; Blair c. Kidgely, 11 Ho. 68. And
waa both a bill of attainder and an es pott it is very clear that an act exempting all
/ittto law, snd therefore nnconstituHDnal. persons from prosecation for acta done by
Sxparit Qarland, i Wall. 833. 8ee Ex rirtoe of military aathorily of the United
parte I^w, 3G Qa. 286. So, in Cammings States or of the eUte daring the late war,
«. Hissonri, t Wall. 277, a pronsion in and made pleadable in bar of all action*
a elate constitulJon that no clergyman then instituted or thereafter to be against
iboold be peimitted to teach, preach, or any pereon for such acts, waa coostitn-
tolemniie marriage, nnlese he should first tionaL Drebnjan ■. Stifle, 8 WaU. 59S.
t^e an oath that he had not done certsin A taw imposing a less penalty than a
ipeciGed acts, some of which at the time former law which it repeak is not ex poet
of doing tfaem were not criminal, waa held facto as to offences nommltted before it*
void tor like reaaons. See, however, the passage. Commonwealth «. Wyman, 12
very able dissenting opinion of Hr. Jus- Cosh. 237 ; Bt»tc v. Arlin, 39 N. H. 179,
tke Hiller, in which the Chief Jostice sad ISO. As to the general question, what ia
VOL. L — 86 [645 J
;abyG00<^lc
•409 JOBISPBDDENCE OP [PART IL
spective laws and state laws, deresting vested rights, nnless a
pott facto, or impairing the obligation of coutractB, do not fall
within the prohibition contained in the Conatitution of the United
States, however repugnant they may be to the principles of sonnd
legislation, (c) (x)
(e) Calder v. Ball, S DhUm, S8S ; Sfttterleo v. Hatthewaon, S Pstan, tlS ; Vatm
v. HenMr, S id. S8.
•n eatiMMf/odo law, BeeHartuDgi^Peopls, 606; People e. Lord, IS Hon, !S1. A
22 N. Y. 9G ; State r. Sallirm, 14 Eioh. lavraqniriog lew eridcooe to coBTiettliw
(S. CI 281 ; State v. Paal, E R. I. 186 ; vbeo the act ww oommitted it cr ^
Lord V. Chadbonrae, 12 He. <29 ; Coffin /iMta. United 3UtM b. Hogho, S Bat.
V. Rich, ti He. G07 ; &ieh b. Flanden, S9 29. In Kiing n. Jfiaaomi, 107 D. S. 211,
N. H. 304 ; Gut n. The State, G Wall. SG. a peiBon was convicted of muider Id Ibc
[A itatnte renoTing the hai of the itatnte second di^ree ; and the eannutimt wu Kt
of limitatione where it hia alieady run ia aside on hi« appeal, wbieh operated u u
txpott/adc. Moore v. State, 48 N. J. L. acquittal of the crime of morder in tba
203, OTemUing a. c. 42 N. J. L. 208 ; firat degree. Held, that a itatnU duog-
Dinckerlocker c. Harah, 7S Ind. 648. ing the effect of anch rerersal wai a fol
Held etnUra, ae to an extension of the fado. Though the change nia; be one (f
time allowed by the stitnte where it has procedure, it affecte a subetantial ri^t of
not yet run. Com. o. Dufl^, 90 Pa, St defendant, aud this is the teat — ■.]
(z) Sea The Energia, 60 Fed. Rep. prohihitton againat ratroactiTe lawi. Ga-
e04 ; Sean b. Hahoney, id. 860 ; Uoitad ger v. Proat, 48 Ohio St 89 ; Hett t.
States 0. 64 Barrels of Spirita, 8 Cliff. Bagerty (Ohio), 38 N. E. RepL 11 ; Rj—
308 ; Eille *. Beading Iron Works, 134 v. State, fi Neb. 278. 3o penaltica which
Penn. St 225 ; Mitchell d. Campbell, 19 have accrued for non-payment of a tai,
Oregon, 198; HcLane d. Boon, 70 Iowa, but which have been swept away by a re-
762 ; Demoville v. Davidaou Coonty, 87 peal of the tax law, cannot be rsrivcd by
Tenn.214; St«t«)ni).HalI, 8S Haine, llOj new legislation. State v. Jersey Qty, 37
Foster r. Police Coinmissionera, 102 Cat. N. J. L. 39. An additional penalty nay
483 ; Re Wright, 3 Wyom. 478 ; People t>. lawfully be prescribed for an set pn^
Spic^r, 99 N. Y. 226 ; People *. Hayes vionsly nnlawfu). Uackey v. Hohnaa, &S
(140 N. Y. 484), 37 Am. St Rep. 672, Ped. Rep. 722.
and note; Pepole d. Maiwell, 83 Hun, An act which imposea an inenued
167; People e. Hawkins, 81 N. Y. 3. HS. punishment or penalty is ex pott fide is
It is competent for Congress to im- to offences committed before its'enactDunt
poae taxes retrospectively. Stockdale v. In re Medley, 134 U. fi. 160 ; T% n Sar-
ins. Cos, 20 Wall. 323. A statate sge, id. 176 ; see Fourth Nat Bank p.
which, after annnal settlements, anthor- Francklyn, ISO U. 3. 747 ; Holdcn >. Uin-
ized county auditors in Ohio to extend neeota, 137 U. 3. 483 ; People v. Me-
back, for four years, inquiries ts to prop- Nnlty, 98 Gal. 427 ; Sx parte Hunt, 28
erty returnable for taxation, «ai held con- Tex. App. SSI. An habitual criminal Act,
atitntional. Starges v. Carter, 114 U. 3. made applicable to [»«Tious and nib-
Sll. But penalties added for Sttch pre- sequent offences, does not violala oonltitii-
TiouB years are within a constitational tional prohibitions against both ex fed
[546]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. HI.] THE CNITED STATES. •410
3. ni* States fluinot eontrol th« ExerolM of Fsderal Poww. — The
state legislatures cannot aonal tlie judgments, nor determine
the extent of the jurisdiction, of the courts of the Union. This
was attempted by the legislature of Pennsylvania, and declared
to be inoperative and void by the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the case of The United States v. Peters, {d) Such a
power, as we have heretofore seen, necessarily resides in the
supreme judicial tribunal * of the nation. It has also been * 410
adjudged that no state court has authority or jurisdiction
to enjoin a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States,
or to stay proceedings under it. This was attempted by a state
court in Kentucky, and declared to be of no validity by the
Supreme Court of the United States, in liTKim v. Voorkiee. (o) *
<rf) 5 Ciuch, lis. {a) 7 Cranch, 27B.
I Rijaip V. Jolmtoa Coant;, fl Wall. CodtI. Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 460,
lefl, sUted anU, 322, n. 1 ; Th« Mayor t>. 4S8 ; Bnck ■>. Colbath, 3 Wall. 3S4, 341.
Lord, 9 WalL 109 ; Sapenison v. Dunmt, The nile now laid down iM, "thBtwben-
ib. 41E ; Ainy e. The Sapervisora of Dea erer propert; has been uiz«d bj an officer
Hoiuea, 11 WalL 186; anU, 401, n. 1. of the court, by virtue of ita process, the
The last statemeDt in the text of thii property ia to be considered as in the cna-
page (•410) baa beeu twice referred to tody of the conrt, and under its control
uid denied to he law by the 8upi«me for the time beiDK ; and that no other
fOOo and retroactiTe laws. Blackburn o. «. Utah, 110 U. 8. (74 ; nor b a law
Slate, SO Ohio St 428 ; Com'th n. Oravea, changing the trial court : State •. Welch,
16S Han. 163; Sturtenut v. Com'th, S5 Vt. 50; State v. Cooler, 30 S. C.
1G8 Haas. G98. A State statote proriding 10S ; or the place of trial : Cook v. United
that eTery colored child preriously bom Statei, 13S U. S. 1G7 ; orthe partiee nec-
thall be the legitimate child of hia colored easory to enits upon cootracta: Torap-
&ther, if acknowledged by him, though kins v. Forreetal, G4 Minn. 119 ; or one
retrospectiTe in conferring a privilege, ia partially doing away with grand juries;
not ionlid as an «z prat fiuio law or as State v. Hoyt, 4 Watih. St. S18 ; Lybar-
impairing the obligatioD of contracts. Cal- ger v. State, 2 id. £G2; see People n.
lahaD 9. Call&han, 36 S. G. 4G4. Vested Tisdale, £7 Cal. 104 ; or one affecting
ri^ts under contracts cannot be impaired only the remedy. DiKke v. Jordiio, 73
by new enactments. Eoebkonong ». Bur- Iowa, 707. Cnrstive statutes are not
ton, 104 U.S. 608; 8tetMin«. Hall, BS objectionable on this gronnd when the
Hsine. 110. A oonetitntional amendment defect is not in matter of substsuee.
making changes in the trial court after Smith v. Hard, 59 Vt. 13 ; Bartlett v.
the crime was committed is not an ex Wilson, id. 23 ; Johnson r. Wells County
poaC fiieto Ihw : Ihrncui d. Hissouri, Com 'rs, 107 Ind. IS; Coles v. Washing-
IG2 U. R. 877 i nor U one pasud after ton County, 35 Hinn. 124 ; Thwsatt *.
a crime was committed, and before trial, Hopkintrille Bank, SI Ey. 1.
enlarging the capacity of wituesoe* ; Hopt
[647]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 410 'JDHISPBODENCE OP [PABT H.
Xo state tribunal can interfere Tith seizures of property mode b;
revenue officers, under the lavs of the United States ; nor inter-
rupt, by process of replevin, injunction, or otherwise, the exer-
cise of the authority of the federal officers ; and any intervention
of state authority for that purpose is unlawfuL This was so
declared by the Supreme Court in Sloeum v. Mayberry. (fi) Nor
can a state court issue a mandamus to an officer of the United
States. This decision was made in the case of M'Clunyv. SSU-
man, {e) and it arose in consequence of the Supreme Court Id
Ohio sustaining a iurisdictiou over the register of the land office
of the United States, in respect to his ministerial acts as register,
and claiming a right to award a mandamus to that officer to com-
pel him to issue a final certificate of purchase. The principle
declared by the Supreme Court was, that the official conduct of
an officer of the govemment of the United States can only be
controlled by the power that created him.
If the officer of the United States who seizes, or the court whicb
awards the process to seize, has jurisdiction of the subject-matter,
then the inquiry into the validity of the seizure belongs exclu-
sively to the federal courts. But if there be no jurisdiction in
the instance in which it is asserted, as if a marshal of the Umted
(i) 2 Wheiton, 1. Any restraint by state authority on itate officer* in tbe eieca-
tion of the process of theit coorts is altogsther iuopentire npon the oEcen of tin
United States in the eiecation of the nundatea which iasne to tbem. Baldwin, i., ia
HcNutt V. Bland, 2 How. 17.
(«) 8 Wheaton, 6SS.
eoDrt hu a right to interfeie with that other band it has been decided, qnalilyiiig
poBMBsian, nnlesa it be some conrt which some ezpressions in Freeman d. Hove,
mny hare a direct Buperrisary control over that ttvspus does lie in a state conrt
the conrt whose (inicess has first taken against a marshal for taking goods nadM
poaseedoD, or some superior jutisdictlou a writ of attachment from a TTnited 6tst(*
in the premises." Hiller, J., in Back v. oonrt, which did not belong to tbedelbid-
Colbath, supra. See Rigga tr. JahnsoB ant in the attachment suit. Back v. Col-
County, B Wall. l«6, 196 ; Taylor v. Car- bath, fujm ; Ward r. Henry, 19 Wis. 78 ;
ryl, 20 How. CSS, S9G. On thii principle Booth v. Ableman, 18 Wis. Mb.
it was held that replevin did not lie in a TroTer will lie in the state courts against
state conrt against a marshal of the United a pcatmaster for improperly detaining a
States for property attached by him on newspaper, although anch detention is
mesne process from a United States court under color of tbe laws of the United
against a third person. Frenmano. Howe, States, and the regulations trf' the pos^
(U}>ra(retemngs. o. llQra;,Ir66) ; Hun- office department. Teall ». Fellon, IS
son V. Harroun, S< 111. 4S2. See also How. 281 ; afGrming s. c 1 Comst 537.
Taylor c. Carryl, wu^ra. Bnt on the
[648]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZIZ.] THE UNITED STATES. * 411
States, under an execution in favor of the United States against
A, should seize the person or property of B, {d) then the atate
courts have jurisdiction to protect the person and the prop-
erty BO illegally invaded ; and it is to be observed that the juris-
diction of the state courts in Rhode Island was admitted by
*the Supreme Court of the United States, in Sloeum v. '*411
Mayherry, upon that very ground.
In the case of The United Statet v. Barney, (a) the district
judge of Maryland carried to a great extent the exemption from
state control of ofHcers or persons in the service of the United
States, and employed in the transportation of the mail. He held
that an innkeeper had no lien on the horses which be had fed,
and which were employed in the transportation of the mail. The
act of GoDgress of March, 1790, prohibited all wilful obstruction
of the passage of the mail ; and a claim for debt would not justify
the stopping of the mail, or the means necessary to transport it,
either upon principles of common law, or upon the statute. The
judge stated, in this case, that even a stolen horse found in the
mail stage could not be seized; nor could the driver, being in
debt, or having committed an offence, be arrested, in such a way
as to obstruct the passage of the mail. But in a subsequent case
in the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania, (h) it was held that the act
of Congress was not to be so construed as to endanger the public
peace and safety. The carrier of the mail, driving through'a
populous city with dangerous rapidity, and contrary to a munici-
pal ordinance, may be stopped, and the mail temporarily detained
by an officer of the city. So, if the officer had a warrant against
a felon in the stage, or if the driver should commit murder in the
street, and then place himself on the mail stage box, he would
not be protected from arrest, though a temporary stoppage of the
mail might be the consequence.* The public safety in one case is
of more moment than the public inconvenience which it mi^t
produce in the other, (c)
id) BruBD V. <^a, « Hilat. 870 ; Danii s. VtU, J Uaitin <La.), iU.
(a) 8 Hall's Uw Joanutl, 12S.
(t) UnitadStatM e. Bart, 1 Peters, a C. SSa
{«) A toU-gata keeper, on a natJonal roed panitig throagli a atatr, cuinat itop the
coach caiTTiDf; the United 8t«tM mail, for a refusal to pay tolL The Tcmedf, if any,
ii ^ action agaimt the coDtractor. Hopkins v. Stockton, 2 Watta ft Seif^. ISS.
1 United StotM V. Eitbj, 1 Wall. 482.
[549}
;abyG00<^lc
*412 JUBISPBDDBNCE OF [PABT U.
Bat while all interference on the part of the state authorities
with the exerciae of the lawful powers of the national govern-
ment has been in moat cases denied, there is one case in
•412 which any control by the federal over the state •courts,
other than by means of the established appellate jurisdic-
tion, has equally been prevented. In Digga and Keith v. Wol-
coit, (a) it was decided generally, that a court of the United
States could not enjoin proceedings in a state court ; and a decree
of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Con-
necticut was reversed, because it had enjoined the parties from
proceeding at law in a state court. So in Ex parte Cabrera, {b)
it was declared that the circuit courts of the United States could
not interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts of a state. These
decisions are not to be contested ; and yet the district judge of
the Northern District of New York, in the spring of 1823, in the
case of Lansing and Tkayer v. The North River Steamboat Com-
pang, enjoined the defendants from seeking in the state courts,
under the acta of the state legislature, the remedies which those
acta gave them. This would appear to have been an assumption
of the power of control over the jurisdiction of the state courts,
in hostility to the doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United
States, (c) In the case of Kennedy v. Earl of Ca8nUia,{d) an
injunction had been unwarily granted, in the English Court of
Chancery, to restrain a party from proceeding in' a suit in the
Court of Sessions in Scotland, where the parties were domiciled.
It was admitted that the Court of Sessions was a court of compe-
(ffi) 4 CrttDch, 176. s. p. in Kittredga v. Emewon, [15 N. H. 327,] and m Dndley'i
Caw, C. C. If. S. for PennByljaaia, 1 Pennsylvania I^w Joamal, 802 ; Carrell «. F. &
H. Bank, Har. (Mic^h. ) Ch. 197. Neitbar the United State* nar the state courts can
inWriere or control the operations of each other. The coarta of the United State* can
only interfere by their appellate jorisdietian, and the state conrts hare no porer to
interfere by injunction. S Story's Comm. on the Const. 824, 625.
lb) 1 Wash. S32 ; United States «. French, 1 OsU. 1, s, P.
(c) The assumed jurisdiction was not afterwards sustained ; and a bill in equity in a
state court for an injanction, though against an alien or citizen of another state, was
held not to be such a sait as was removahle to a circuit court of the United Statea. 1
Pnige, 183.
(i) SSwanst. 313. But in the sabseqnent case of BiuhV- Uunday, 5 Had. 397,
the Vice- Chancellor granted an injanction, under special drcmnBtaoceo, to restnin
proTPedings in the Court of Sessions in Scotland. The New York Court of Chanceiy
has disclaimed any such jurisdiction, in respect to a foreign saitpreTionsljoommsnccd,
though it was in possession of juriidiotiou over the penon of the party. Head i>.
Hwiitt, 2 Paige, 402.
[650]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. ZIX.] THE UNITED STATES. * 418
-teat jurisdiction, and an independent foreign tribunul, though
subject to an appeal, like the Court of Chancery, to the House of
Lords. If the Court of Chancery could in that way restrain pro-
ceedings in the Court of Sessions, the Sessions might equally
enjoin proceedings in chancery, and thus st^ip all proceedings in
either court. Lord Eldon said he nerer meant to go further with
the injunction than the property in England ; and he, on motion,
dissolved it i» toto. (e)
*4. The Btatea caimot Impair the Obligation of Con- *418
tnota.^ (a;) — We come next to a prohibition of great moment,
(«) It hu been uramsd uid userted bj official anthoHty, tbat the jndieUl powsr
of ths United States had qi) po*er to ety'oin the execatiTe brtuch of the governnieDt
tmia the execatioa of a coDstitotioEiBl duty or of a conititDtioiial law, any more than
thej could arrett the l«^al«tan itaelf in faaang the lav. OpinioDa of the Attomeji-
Oenena, i. G07, EOS ; [aiOi 296, n. 1 ; 823, n. 1.]
1 pMt, 419, D. 1.
(2) The followlDfc iiRp«irthe obliftatioti U. S. 67 ; Citizena' Water Co. «. Bridge-
of contiacta : LegialatiaD affecting the port BydTanlic Co., 5G Conn. 1 ; a law ■
prerionB siemptioD of a railroad &om tai- changing the achcme of a public charitable
•tion until its net eaminga equal a certain bequest without the consent of all partiss
per cent ; Com'th s. Philadelphia & E. B. in interest : Ctiy Library d. Bliss, IGl
Co., 161 Penn. 3t. 2G2 ; Barnes v. Kome- Uaas. 361; an act transferring the right
gay, 63 Fed. Bep. 671 ; Williamson «. to fix water or gas rates from the water or
New Jersey, 180 U. S. 189 ; see Louisyille gas cranpany to the city or town ; Hew
Water Co. t>. Claric, IIS U. S. 1 ; New Or- Orleans Qaa Co. u. Lanisiana Light Co.,
leans City & L. B. Co. c. Kew Orleans, US U. S. SSO ; New Orleans Water
id. 192 ; St. Paul, M. A M. Ry. Co. v. Works Co. v. RiTers, id. 874 ; SanU inna
Todd County, 112 U. S. 282.; Judcra' Water Co. v. San QuBnaTentQi*, S6 Fed.
Opinion, SS n. E. 623 ; a law decreasing Bep. SSS ; see WslU WalU Water Co. b.
the It^at rate of interast, as to prior con- Walla Walla, 60 id. 9S7 ; a law impair-
tracts : Getto n. Friend, 46 Kansas, 24, ing the State's own contract* : Osolgia
SI ; Botler v. Bockwell, 17 Col. 290 ; Pen. Co. r. Helms, 71 Oa. SOI ; or mate-
Bobertsons. Van Cleave, 129 Ind. 217; OT rially altering nncooditional corporation
takingaway the right to foreclose previoai charten: Bryan v. Board of Edneation,
mortgagas : O'Brien e. Erenz, 36 Hinn. 1G1 C. S. 680 ; Eagle Ins. Co. v. State,
ISe 1 see Edwards v. Johnson, lOG Ind. 153 V. S. 446 ; Uschias Boom Proprietors
G94 ; a law aboliahiog a private corpora- v. SoUiTan, 86 Maine, 843 ; in re Brook-
tioo, like the State hoard of agriculture, lyn, 148 N. Y. 686 ; Chicago, B. ft Q.
and transfernng its property to another E. Co. e. Jonea, 119 III. 361 ; Barnes v.
inatitutiou : Downing v. State Board, 129 Eomegay, 62 Fed. fiep. 671 ; Smith v.
Ind. 143 ; see Essex Public Road Board v. AtehisoD, Ac, R. Co., 61 id. 272 ; Ttr-
Skinkle, 140 U. S. 834 ; Tammany Water pnia Dot. Co. p. Orocer I. Co., 90 Va. 126 ;
Works v. New Orleans Water Wo^ 120 Shields c Clifton H. L. Co.,e4Tenn.l3S.
IT. a 64 ; St«in r. Bienville W. 8. Co., 141 A State constitntdon is a law within
[661]
D.qilizMbyG00>^IC
* 418 JXmiSPRITDEKCE OF [PABT II.
and affecting eztensiyel; and deeply the legislative authority ot
the states. There is no prohibitory clanae in the Conatitntion
tli^ meaniDg of this claose of the f sdeiKt Texas, fil8 ; by a law radndng the ntc
coDStitutioil, and ■ State can do more oT interest on jadgmentB apon eontncb
impair the obligation of a contract by her which do not proride for iotenat : Kntcf
o^anio law than bj her statutes. New v. Lake 8bon k H. S. B7. Co., 1*6 V. 8.
Otleane Oas Co. v. LoulaiaDa Light Co., ISS; by laws nqoiring insnrance eon-
IIS n. 8. 050, 672 ; Sheehan v. Treaaorer, panies already chartered to nuke lOllltl
S9 N. Y. S. t2S. When a foreigu nil- rtatentents of ite eonditiou : Xigh lu.
mad corporation ia empowered by a State Co. b, Ohio, 153 U. S. IW ; by a change
Blatate to couatnict and operate its road in the laws relating to maniage : State f.
throDgh the State on payment of a certain Tntty, 41 Fed. Bep. 768 ; by a law an-
annoal »nm and other conditions, which it thorizing the abolition of grade crotringt
folhls, the coiltra«t ia impaired by a later at large expense : Kew Yoik & If . E. B.
Act which reqoireeit to dedact &om inter- Co. r. Bristol, 151 U. S. G60 ; orteqairiaj
est on its bonds, payable in the State of its a railroad to be fenced : Minneapolii 4 St
creation, and pay to the State, a tax im- L. By. Co. d. Emmona, 14S U. S. 104 ; u
poeed on the bonds owned by reddente of act changing the aalaiiea of pnUic oSoen :
die State. Kew York, L. E. & W. R. Co. Commonwealth «. BaUey, SI Ey. SW ;
V. PenneylTKoia, 1G3 U. 3. fl2S. Harvey v. Bosh County CinnmiaDOBen, M
See also Shreveport ir. Cole, ISS U. 3. Kansas, 1G9 ; by laws affecting mnnidpil
S0; MeOahey D. Virginia, 1S6 IT. B. 662; corporations: New Orleans v. New Orieua
People «- Squire, 11617.8. 176; Brown r, Water-worka, 14B U.a79; see Citizens'
Smart, id. 4S4 ; Hamilton Oaa Co. u. Ham. St. K. Co. v. City By. Co., 66 Fed. Bep. 7U;
ilton, 146 U. 8. 258 ; People c. Cook, 148 Baltimore T. k Q. Co. n. Baltimore, 64 ii
U. 8. 3S7; Bier e. McOehee, id. 187; 153; or exercising the right of eminent do-
Bryan V. Board of Ddocation, 161 U. S. main: AtlantaUnLv. Atlanta, S3 Ga. 468;
939 ; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. BalUmore & F. T. Kosd >. Baltinoret Ik.
PennsylTania, 168 U. 8. 628; Baltimore Co. (Md.), 31 AtL Bep. 864 ; or enlarg-
Tmit Co. D. Baltimore, SI Fed. Bep. 1S3 ; ing mechanice' liens : Albri^t r. Smitb,
Tattle V. Block, 104 Cal. 443 ; Dowell v. £ S. D. 677, 687 ; bya change in deciiiras
Taibot Paring Co., 138 Ind. 675. of the eourls apon the faith of which con-
The obligaUon of contracts is not im- tracts hare been made ; Springer e. (M-
paired by the repeal of ■ lottery frsnchiae : ecds Natnnl Oas Co. 145 Peim. SL 430 ;
Stone r. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814; Com. Allen d. Allen, S6 Cel. 1B4 ; eee Wood i.
monwealth n. Douglass (By.), 24 S. W. Brady, 160 U. S. 13 ; by the abolition of
Bep. 388 ; by a 8Ute statute admittedly dower: Hamilton 0. Wirach, 3 Wash. SIS ;
valid, bat constrned erroneously : Central by a change of r«medira, or in the mlts of
Land Co. v. Leidley, 159 U. 8. 103; evidence: DaviesH.L. Co. ». Gottschalk,
by a change in a State constitntion, 81 Cal. 641 ; State v. New Orieans Ci^ 4
restricting the payment of claims against L. R. Co., 48 La. Ann. 560 ; Ward *. Hnb-
the Sute : Baltzer v. State, 109 N, C. bard, 02 Texas, 669 ; People v. Common
187 ; 104 N. C. 266 ; by an insolvent law Cooncil, 140 N. T. 300; Heniy v. Henry,
discharging prior debts : Pomeroyr. Greg- 81 S. C. 1 ; Texas Uex. Ry. Co. *. Locke,
ory, Se Cal. 674 ; Porter v. Imos, 79 CaL 74 Texas, 870 ; Biddle v. Hooven, ISO
183 1 Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Needles, Penn. St. 221 ; Raid s. Hart, 46 AA. 41 ;
113 U. B. 674; Sloane v. Chiniqny, 22 Stockwel]i'.BobiDaon,9HoBSt<DeL),311
Fed. Bep. 313; Keating d. Van^, 61 The contnct, to tain a Fedanl qH»
C652]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZIZ.} THE DHITED STATES. * 414
which has given rise to more various and able discussioas, or
more protracted litigation, than that which denies to any state
the right to pass any law impairing the ohligatlon of contracts.
I shall endeavor to give a full and accurate view of the judicial
decisions defining and enforcing this prohibition.
The case of Fletcher v. Peck (<z) first brought this prohibitory
clause into direct discussion. The legislature of Georgia, by an
act of 7th of January, 1795, authorized the sale of a large tract
of wild land, and a grant was made, by letters-patent, in pursu-
ance of the act, to a number of individuals, under the name of
the Georgia Company. Fletcher held a deed from Peck for a part
of this land, under a title derived from the patent; and in the
deed Peck had covenanted that the State of Georgia was lawfully
seised when the act was passed, and had good right to sell, and
that the letters-patent were lawfully issued, and the title has not
since been legally impaired. The action was for breach of cove-
nant; and the breach assigned was, that the letters-patent were
void, for that the legislature of Georgia, by act of 18th February,
1796, declared the preceding act to be null and void, as being
founded in fraud and corruption. One of the questions presented
to the Supreme Court upon the case was, whether the legislature
of Geoi^a could constitutionally repeal the act of 1795, and
rescind the sale made under it
*The court declared, that when a law was in its nature *414
a contract, and absolute rights have vested under that con-
{a) 0 Cnncli, 87-
tion, mart bo K Ttlid ime, c*p*ble of being v. State, la N. T. 3M. Hods* of pro-
impaired. New OrlsBiu r. New Oileuu oedore in the eonrta of a rt&ts Mxe ao tax
Wtter-workg, 112 U. 8. 79. A jadgment nithiQ ite control tlut & particiilar ranuidy,
tot a tort ia aot * eoDtnut under tbi4 eiiMiagat tbe timeofthenukingofacon-
coiutitationBl restriction. Freeland v. tract, may be abrogated altogetfaer iritboat
WtUiams, ISI U. S. W6 ; McAfee ti. Cor- impairing the obligation of the contivct, if
ingtoD, 71 Ga. 272. Statntei which limit another and eqoaUj adequate remedy for
the creditoT*! right to enfbree bix claim the entorcemeDt of that ohligation nmaina
•gainit the debtor's property are part of or ia substitated for the one taken away.
«U eabaeqaent contracts and do not impair Conn. Life lui. Co. v. Cuahman, 108 U. 8.
their obligation. Denny d. Bennett, 128 61, Si; McOahey e. Yiiginia, 13E TT. S.
U. S. 489. A mfaaeqneut legialatnra may ASS, 698 ; New Orleani, Ac, K. Co. •.
rerohe a contract or grant made by a pre- New Orleaoa, 157 U. S. 219, S34 ; Walker
vione one whan not within the limits of *. Olenn (Kansas}, 10 Pae. Bep. 8111.
the powetB poesMged by the State. Coze
[668]
sObyGoOl^lc
•414 JDBISPBUDENCB OP [PABT H.
tract, a repeal of the lav could not devest those rights, nor aimi-
hilate or impair the title so acquired. A grant was a contract-
vithin the meaning of the Constitutioo. The words of the Gon<
stitution were construed to comprehend equally executory and
executed contracts, for each of tbem contains obligations binding
on the parties. A grant is a contract executed, and a party is
always estopped by his own grant. A party cannot pronounce
bis own deed invalid, whatever cause may be assigned for its
invalidity, and though that party be the legislature of a state. A
grant amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor,
and implies a contract not to reassert that right. A grant from
a state is as much protected by the operation of the provision of
the Constitution, as a grant from one individual to another ; and
the state is as much inhibited from impairing its own contracts,
or a contract to which it is a party, as it is from impairing the
obligation of contracts between two individuals. It was accord-
ingly declared that the estate held under the act of 1795, having
passed into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for a valuable con-
sideration, the State of Georgia was constitutionally disabled
from passing any law whereby the estate of the plaintiff could be
legally impaired and rendered void.
The next case that brought this provision in review before the
Supreme Court was that of The State of New Jersey v. Wilton, (a)
It was there held, that if the legislature should declareby law
that certain lands, to be thereafter purchased for the nse of the
Indians, should not be subject to any tax, snch a legislative act
amounted to a contract, which could not be rescinded by a subse-
quent legislature. In that case, the colonial legislature of New
(a) 7 Cnnch, 164. In Bramter c. Hough, Ifl N. H. ISS, it mt held that tiie
l^(Ulature of & state coald not effectniJIy devest itself of the power of tkzstion, tor
it was essentially a powet of soTeretgntj ot nninent domain, and the oonrt eoomd-
ered the cate of New Jenej a. Wilson might be eiutained on the gnmnd that it km
in the nature of a treatj with the IndUns. Ch. J. Hanhall, in the case of ProTidence
Bank 0. Billings, i Peters, Sfll, coniidered that it was not to ba inferred, without
poaitire stipolation, that a state had sgreed to relinqviah ita power of taxation. Bat
in Gordon u. Appeal Tax Court, 8 How. 18S, it was adjudged that the legialature of
a state might make a binding contract not to be impaired, to refrain from impoaing
any tax upon a bank or its Btoehbolders. This wonld seem to remore the donbt
snggeated in tlut ease in New Hampshire, and to show that a state may, in relation
to any particular subject, and for reasons of public policy or consideiatioD, contract
that the BOrereign power shall not be ezeroined. This point is ably disonased in the
n Iaw Magazine for January, 181S, art 4.
[664]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZIS.] THE UNITED STATES. •416
Jersey, in 1758, authorized the purchase of lands for the
Delaware "Indians, and made that stipulation. Lands "415
were accordingly purchased, and conveyed to trustees for
tiie use of the Indians, and the ludians released their claim to
other lands, as a consideration for this purchase. The Indians
occupied these lands until 1803, when they were sold to indi-
viduals under the authority of an act of the legislature, and, in
1804j the legislature repealed the act of 1758, exempting those
lands from taxation. The act of 1758 was held to be a contract,
and the act of 1804 was held to be a breach of that contract, and
void under the Constitution of the United States.'
The Supreme Court went ^ain, and more lately, into the con-
sideration of this delicate and interesting constitutional doctrine,
in the case of Terret v. Taylor, (a) It was there held that a legis-
lative grant, competently made, vested an indefeasible and irrevo-
cable title. There is no authority or principle which could
support the doctrine that a legislative grant was revocable in its
own nature, and held only durante bene placito. Nor can the
legislature repeal statutes creating private corporations, or con-
firming to them property already acquired under the faith of
previous laws, and by such repeal vest the property in others,
without the consent or default of the corporators. Such a pro-
ceeding would be repugnant to the letter and spirit of the Consti-
tution, and to the principles of natural justice.
But it was in the great case of Dartmouth College v. Wood-
ward, (6) (*) that the inhibition upqn the states to impair by law
the obligation of contracts received the most elaborate discus-
sion, and the most efficient and instructive application. It was
there held that the charter granted by the British crown to the
trustees of Dartmouth College in 1769 was a contract within
the meaning of the Constitution, and protected by it ; and that
the college was a private charitable institution not liable
to the control of the legislature; *and that the act of the *416
legislature of New Hampshire, altering the charter in a
material respect, without the consent of the corporation, was an
(a) 9 Cranch, 4S. (i) 4 Whcston, 618.
> Pad, il9, n. 1.
D 27 Am. L. Rev. 71, S2G i 38 id. 3SS, 440 ; «
[555]
;abyG00<^lc
• 417 JDBIBPBUDEHCE OF [PABT IL
act impairing the obligation of the charter, and consequentlj
unconstitutional and void.^
The chief jiiBtice, in delivering the opinion of the co«irt,
observed, that the provision in the Constitution never had been
understood to embrace other contracts than those vhich respect
property, or some object of value, and confer rights vhich may
be asserted in a court of justice. Dartmouth College was a
private eleemosynary institution, endowed with a capacity to
take property for objects unconnected with government, and its
funds were bestowed by individuals on the faith of the charter,
and those funda consisted entirely of private donations. The cor-
poration was not invested with any portion of political power,
nor did it partake, in any degree, in the administration of civil
government It was tlie institution of a private corporati<Hi for
general charity. The charter was a contract to which the donors,
the trustees of the corporation, and the crown, were the original
parties, and it was made on a valuable consideration, for the
security and disposition of property. The legal interest, in
every literary and charitable institution, is in trustees, and to
be asserted by them, and they claim or defend in behalf of the
religion, charity, and education, for which the corporation was
created, and the private donations made. Contracts of this kind,
creating these charitable institutions, are most reasonably witbia
the purview and protection of the Constitution. This contract
remained unchanged by the Revolution; and the duties, as veil
as the powers, of the government devolved on the people of New
Hampshire ; but the act of that state which was complained of
transferred the whole power of governing the college from
trustees appointed according to the will of the founder expressed
in the charter, to the executive of New Hampshire. The will
of the state was substituted for the will of the donors, in every
essential operation of the college. The charter was reor-
■417 gauized in such a manner as 'to convert a literary InstitD-
tion, moulded according to the will of its founders, and
placed under the control of private literary men, into a machine
entirely subservient to the will of government This was, cod-
sequently, subversive of that contract, on the faith of which the
donors invested their property; and the act of the legislature
1 Foil. M, n. 1.
[666]
;abyGoO<^lc
LBCT. XIX.] THE UNITED STATES. •418
of New Hampshire was therefore held to be repugnant to the
Constitution of the United States.
The same course of reasoning, and leading to the same con-
clusion, was adopted and expressed b; some of the other judges.
In the opinion given by Judge Story, he added some new and
interesting views of the nature of the contracts which the Consti-
tution intended to protect. He denied the power of the legisla-
ture to dissolve even the contract of marriage, without a breach
on either side, and against the wishes of the parties. A dissolu-
tion of the marriage obligation, without any default or assent
of the parties, may as well fall within the prohibition of the
Constitution, as any other contract for a valuable consideration.
A man has as good a right to his wife aa to the property acquired
under a marriage contract; and to devest him of that right with-
out his default, and against his will, would be as flagrant a
violation of the principles of justice as the confiscation of his
estate. (<i) The prohibitory clause he also considered to extend
to other contracts besides those where the parties took for their
own private benefit. A grant to a private trustee, for the benefit
of a particular cestui que truBt, or for any special, private, or
public charity, cannot be the less a contract, because the trustee
takes nothing for his own benefit Nor does a private donation,
vested in a trustee for objects of a general nature, thereby become
a public trust, which the government may, at its pleasure, take
from the trustee. Oovemment cannot revoke a grant even of
its own funds, when given to a private person, or to a corpora-
tion, for special uses. It has no other remaining authority, but
what is judicial, to enforce the proper administration of
the trust. Nor *is a grant less a contract, though no* 418
beneficial interest accrues to the possessor. Many a fran-
chise, whether corporate or not, may, in point of fact, be of no
exchangeable value to the owners, and yet they are grants within
the meaning and protection of the Constitution. All incorporeal
(a) In Maguire v. Uagnirc, 7 Dana, 184, Gh. J. Robertson conudsred the contnct
of mHrriage to be lai gmerU, and nnUke oTdinary or commercial contracta. It wm
publid jvru. Bad created by tfae pnblis law, anbject to the public will, and not to that
of the partias, who coold not dimolTe it by mntnal content. It was much more than
a contract. It established fundomsntal domMtic relations, and hs did not think it
ma embraced b; the constitatiooBl interdiction of le^lative acts impairing the
obligation of coDtracttL This appeara to be the sonndeat construction of the conitl'
tntionftl piOTision alloded to. [Oteen v. The State, SS Ala. 190.]
[667]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 419 JURISPKDDENCE OF [PABT IL
hereditaments, as immunitieB, dignities, offices, and franchiites,
are rights deemed valuable in law, and whenever they are the
subject of a contract or grant, they are just as much within the
reach of the Constitution as any other grant All corporate
franchises are legal estates. They are powers coupled with an
interest, and corporators have vested rights in their character at
corporators. Upon this doctrine it was insisted that the tmstecg
of Dartmouth College had rights and privileges under the char-
ter, of which they could not be devested by the legislahne
without their consent
The act of the legislature did impair their rights, and vitally
affect the interest of the college under the charter. If a grant
of franchise be made to A, in trust for a special purpose, the grant
cannot be revoked, and a new grant made to A, B, and G, for the
same purpose, without violating the obligation of the first grant
If property be vested by grant in A and B, for the use of a
general charity, or private eleemosynary foundation, the obli-
gation of the grant is impaired when the estate is taken from
their exclusive management, and vested in them in common
with ten other persons.
I have thus stated the substance of the argument of the Su-
preme Court in this celebrated case, and it contains one of the
most full and elaborate expositions of the constitutional sanctity
of contracts to be met with in any of the reports. The decieion
in that case did more than any other single act, proceeding from
the authority of the United States, to throw an impregnable
barrier around all rights and franchises derived from the grant
of government; and to give solidity and inviolability to the
literary, charitable, religious, and commercial institutionB of our
country.
*419 * The same prohibitory clause in the Constitution came
again under discussion in the case of Green v. Biddle. (a)
It was observed by the court, that the objection to a law, on the
ground of its impairing the obligation of contracts, could never
depend upon the extent of the change which the law effects in it
Any deviation from its terms, by postponing or accelerating the
period of performance which it prescribes, imposing conditions
not expressed in t^e contract, or dispensing with the performance
(a) 8 WlieatoD, 1 ; 4 MiU«r (La.), 64, a. f. 8«e alto Bronson «. Kinas, 1 Bmr.
Bll, ind iii^i, iT. 434, a. f.
[658]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. HZ.] THE UNITED STATES. '419
of those which are expressed, however minute or apparently im-
material in their effect upon the conti'act, or upon any part or
parcel of it, impairs its obligation. To deny any remedy under a
contract, or by burdening the remedy with new conditions and
restrictions, t« make it useless or hardly worth pursuing, is
equally a violation of the Constitution, (b) Upon this principle
it is that if a creditor agrees with his debtor to postpone the day
(t) It MeDird to be admitUd, in the case of Bronson d. Einzie, that tbeie might
be legitiniate slterationa of the remedy, if they did not aeriotiBly impur the remedy.
Something to the name extent wai aaid by Ch. J. Marshall, in Sturges v. Crowniil-
shield ; bnt tba admisaioD is rather dangerous, from its liability to miscoDstmction
and abuse ; and still more so is the langaige of ths court in the case of Evans v,
Montgomery, 4 Watts & Serg. 218. In the ease of Woodlin e. Hooper, i Humph.
(Tsnn.) 13, it was held that the right of the creditor to imprison a debtor, eziiting
at the time of the fonnation of the contract, was no part of the contract. Bud that
remady might afterrrardn be repealed, and the defendant even discharged from priaon, _
under an execution upon ths contract. But to take away by legialatiTe act the
existing remedies for enforcing the ohligation of the contnct, so as to leave the
creditor without redrese, would be a mockery of justice, and repugnant to the Coii-
atitntion of the United States. The courta do not undertake to go go far, nor do
they undertake to draw the line between remedies that may and remedies tliat may
not be taken away. The danger ia, that the permisaion may be used so ■< to abolish
all efficient remedies — UUir permitni — tt demo unurn, demo ttiam un»ni, ifum cadat.
It ic nnfortniiate that the loose language, in Rome cases, of the Supreme Coart of the
United States has encouraged the state legislatures to deal in discretion with lawful
remedies existing when contracts were made. The better doctrine is, that all eOect-
nal remedies affecting the interests jnd rights of the owner, existing when the con-
tract was made, become an essential ingredient in it, and are parcel of the creditor's
li^t, and ought not to be disturbed. The constitution of New Jersey of 1S44 (ait. i,
sec. 7), declarea that the legislature sbstl not deprive a party of any remedy for
enforcing a contrw^t which existed when the contract was made. This is a wise
provision, giving additional snd material securities to the sanctity and efficacy of
oontrvctB. All suspension by statute of remedies, or any part thereof, existing when
the contract was made, is more or less impairing its obligation. The true doctrine
of the Constitution on this subject is to be found in Bronson v. Kinzie, HcCracken
V. Haywood, and Lancaster Saving Institution p. Reizart, i«/ra, iv. 4S4, n. (c). In the
case of Cbadvrick e. Moore, S Watta & Serg. 49, it was held that a statute of Penn-
sylvania, in 184S, suspending for a year a sale on execution for less than two thirds
of the appraised value, was not unconstitutional. Hr. Ch. J. Oibeon, who delivered
the opinion of the court, seemed to hold that a temporary i^straint on the remedy,
when not to an unreasonable degree, was within the sound discretion of the legisla-
ture, and he preferred such a qnalilied doctrioe to one that went for the absolute
integrity of the constitutional ]irinciple in the entire eiistiog remedy. Vide infra,
4SG, 456. And see James v. Stall. 9 Barb. 4S2 ; Baugher v. Nelson, 9 Gill, 290 ;
Stocking e. Hunt, 3 Denio, S74 ; Smith n. Horse, 2 Cal. G24. The sounder state
doctrine, at it seems to me, is that declared by Ch. J. Bronson, in the case of Qnack-
enbnsh b. Danke, 1 Denio, 12S ; for. as be observes, laws which in form go only to
the remedy, may have the practical effect of nullifvittg the rontnct.
[659]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 419 JtJRISPKDDENCB OP [PART II
of pajmeut, or in any other way to cbauge the terms of the con-
tract, without the consent of the surety, the latter is discharged,
although the change was for his advantage.
The material point decided in that caae was, that a compact
between two etatea was a contract within the constitutional pro-
hibition. The terms "contract" and "compact" were symm;-
mous ; and a contract is an agreement of two or more parties to do
or not to do certain acts. The court declared that the doctrine
had been already announced and settled, that the Cmstitution
embraced all contracts executed and executory, and whether
between individuals, or between a state and individuals; and
that a state had no more power to impair an obligation into which
she herself had entered, than she had to impair the contracts of
individuals. >
* (a) fTfiat tmpairs tht Obliffatim of follow the later lUte deciaioii h to m-
a Contract t — In th« prolonged litigation traota made after it, it i« hard to we bo«
ai to tliB validity of certain weateni county they can logically avoid doing ao ta to
bonda, the Supreme Conrt hare gone thoie made before. Hoiraver, in tin
Tery far in thair efforts to uphold the above cases there were prior decimoui et
•anctity of contraeta. It is aaid that if the itate courts which were made the
bonds are execated or contracts made ground for diaregarding their aabMquent
after and in reliance upon a constniction determinations. In • later etat tba tit'
of the lawB and oonatitation of the slato inent was wanting. For when a dtj
by the highest etato court, in accordance iemed bonds and afterwarda the itav
with which such bonds or contracts wonld conrts conatnied a statato in force at the
be valid, " their validity and obligkttOD time of issue so as practically to take
cannot be impaired" by a sobseqaeut away the remedy of the enditon, the
oonttSTf decision. Gelpcke e. Dubnqne, Supreme Conit orerniled the coostme-
1 Wall. 176 ; HaTemeyero. lowaConnty, tion, althongh there were no itatederi-
S WalL 29i ; Thomson v. Lee Connty, ib. sions in accordance with their view. Boti
827 1 Lee County e. Rogera, 7 WaU. 181 ; v. HascatiQ^ 8 Wall. G7C ; oMt, UX
Chicago V. Sheldon, B Wall. GO. This u. 1.
principle, if aound, seems to stand, not on A more obriona decision is that a de-
the ConatitCtion, as the nbore language claratoiy law cannot modify the aettled
migbt indicate, but on the general grounds construction of a etstutn, as to coatnctt
of justice on which it was put by Taney, alitady made under it Aof, 456, n. (() ;
C. J., in Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Debolt, Ifl Reiser d. WQliam TeU Saringa Asa., M
How. 416,431. Biitoa Mr. Justice Miller Penn.St.137; ih. IS4; Dundasv. Bowler,
points out, 1 Wall. 211, the le>!al doctrine 3 HcL. 397 ; [Koahkonong t. Barton,
is that the law was always the same as 104 U. S. S68 ; McNichol d. XJ. S. Bef
expounded by the later decision, not that Agency, 74 Mo. 457.] See Lamberlaoa
the state court makea a new law {see «. Hogan, 2 Barr, 22. And it is equally
Stockton p. Dundee Mauut Co., 7 C £. dear that a change of oonatitation cs9-
Oieen (22 N. J. Eq.) 66) ; and if, aa ad- not release a state from contnctB made
mitted, the United States court would undRi a constitution which permits tbm
[6601
D.qilizMbyG00>^le
I.ECr. ZIZ.] THE UNITED STATES. * 419
Another case, which led to a very extensive inquiry into the
operation and effect of the constitutional prohibition upon the
to b« Bude. Dodge p. Woolaey, IS How. How. SM ; bdow. So, the lien of one
ftSl ; Bailroad Co. r. HcCliiTe, 10 Wall, who lui lent money for a canal, on tlie
Sll ; White «. Hart, IS Wall. 846, 652. fkith of an act pledging the same with ita
Another c«8e on ft atate constitution ia tolls, Ic., cannot be devested or poet-
Cnmmingst. Hiaeoiiii, 4 WalL 277, stated poned by a aubeequent act. Wabaah k
aMt, 409, n. 1. Erie Canal Co. ■>. Been, 2 Black, 44S.
(b) What CoTdToda. — Then ia only So, the power ol local taxation, giTcn to a
room for a brief statement of other point* dty by a atatnte anthoming it to issoe
which have arlMU nnder this head. There bonds and to nae this power to pay them,
are naiDeroos later decisions upholding cannot be abridged as to those who have
the principle of the Dartmouth College bought bonds inued under the act Von
caae, that a state cannot impair the obli- HoRman r. Quincy, 4 WalL G35 ; see 10
pUon of its own contracts. Thus it haa Wall. 6C3 ; but see Oilman v. Sbeboy-
been repeatedly decided that a state may gan, 2 Black, 510 ; [Lonisiana o. PillS'
disable itseir by contract from exerdsing bury, 105 U. 8. 278 ; Durkee n. Board of
it* taxing power in parttcolar casn ; and Liqnidation, 103 U. S. S4S ; Saloy v.
perhapa the question is to be r^arded as New Orleans, 88 La. Ann. 70 ; State d.
finally settled, although some of even the Brown, 20 La. Ann. SS3. See New Orleans
later decisions were not unanimons. Hone v. Harris, 106 U. S. 600. A statute
of the Friendless v. Rouse, S Wall. 430 ; passed as an execctioD of the police power
ib. 441 ; Wilmington R. B. v. Beid, 13 of a state may be repealed at any time.
Wall. 2S4 ; Wright v. Sill, 2 Black, 544 ; Stone v. Hissieeippi, 101 U. S. 814 ; Cres-
JeSlmon Bank «. Skelly, 1 Black, 436 ; cent City, Ac. Co. v. New Orleans, 33 La.
State Bank of Ohio I. Knoop, 16 How. Ann. 934. For the origin and hisUiry of
869 i Ohio L. Ins. Co. v. Debolt, ib. 41S ; the clanae fonnd in moHt state ntatute*
Dodge D. Woolsey, 13 How. 3S1 ; UcGee reserving the power to alter, enirnd, or
V. Hathis, 4 WalL 143 ; Von Hoffman v. repeal charters, see Greenwood r. Freight
City of Qoincy, ib. G3fi, 564. [University Co., 106 U. S. 13. Such reservation does
V. People, 99 U. S. 309.] And see Christ not give the right to impose taxes which
Chat«h V. Philadelphia, 24 How. SOO, were pTOvided against in tbs charter,
stated below. Bo, a provision in the char- Asylum v. New Orleans, 106 U. S. 362.
ter of a bank, the stock of which is owned See also Bailroad Co. e. Georgia, SS U. S.
1^ the state, that the bills of the bank 369 ; Weidenger v. Spruance, 101 111. 2TS.
ahall be received in payment of debts due The eit«Dt of this reserved power waa con-
the state, is a contract, and cannot be aidered in the Sinking Fund Cases, 90
repealed as to Inlla already issued. [Erith U. S. 700. The question arose nnder the
V. Clark, 97 U. S. 464] ; Woodruff n. acta incorpontiog the Union Pacific Rail-
Trapnall, 10 How. ' 190. See Panp. v. road Company, in which the power was
Drew, ib. 31B ; Trigg v. Drew, ib. 224; reserved to Congress at any time to "alter,
Fnrman v. Nichol, B Wall. 44. So, a amend, or repeal this act." It was ad-
ttatute making the stock of the sharehold- mitted that such reserved power did not
era in a railroad liable for the debts of the include a power to take away propertj
corporation cannot be repealed as to exist- which had been acquired nnder the act.
l&g creditor*. Hawthorne v. Calef, 2 Nor could amendments be made which
WaU. 10. See Curran v. Arkansaa, 16 wen coutnry to the original scope and
TOl. I. — 86 [561]
;abyG00<^lc
• 419 JURISPBODENCB OP [PABI D.
states not to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts, wu
that of Sturget v, Oroteninshield. (c) The defendant was sued
(<) 4 WhraUo, 122.
oljeot of the ineoTpontion. Bailnwd Co. to belong to Mid hospital, ihall be ud
V. Haine, 9S U. S. 499; ahielda r. Ohio, ramain free fram taxes," is not a oontnct
QG U. 8. SI9. — B.] protected by the Consdtation, Christ
On (Ac <ilA«r Aon^, an appointment to a Chnrch d. Philadelphia, 21 How. SOO;
public office Tor a definite term at a fixed nor is a state bonnty law. Salt Ctinpanj
taluy is not a contract within the pro- v. East Saginaw, 18 Wall. STt ; dot is a
tectioQ of the constitntion, Butlet v. state lieeoae («. g. to sell liquon], althoo^
Pennaylrania, 10 How. t02 ; Conner v. a fee was paid for it, Caldci c. Kurb;, 6
Uayor of New York. 1 Setd. 285 ; People Onj, 6B7 ; State n. Holmen, 3S N. B.
«. Devlin, as N. T. 369 ; Swaun c. Back, 325 ; Hetropolitao Boatd of Excise ■■
10 Hiss. 2SS, 802 i Coffin v. Slate, 7 Porter Bairie, 84 N. Y. 6C7. A aUtsta alloviig
(Ind.), 1G7 ; BaAer c. Pittaborgh, 4 Ban, a state to be sned ma; be modified hj a
49 i nor is a limited exemption from snbaeqnent act imposing fnTtber coodi-
toxation Tor service in the rolmtteer mill- tioDs, even as to snits already tttgaa.
tia, People v. Roper, 36 If. Y. 629 ; Dor, Been o. Alabama, 30 How. G27 ; Bank rf
it seems, are legislative grants ot power Washington v. Alkanvs, ib. MO. Of
to public mnnicipal corporatione. The coone, when, as is now usual, a power to
People 0. Pinokney, 32 N. Y. 377. [But repeal or alter the charter of a oompasy is
a contract made by a state with sn indi- reserved by geuersl law or the special set
vidusl, whereby the state is to pay a cer- of incorporation, a suhaaqaent repeal or
tain snm for definite services, is within alteration will be constitutioDal. In n
the protection of the Constitntion. Hall Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank, 31 N. T. 9 ; A
V. Wisconsin, lOS tT. S. 5 ; infra, (e). — re Reciprocity Bank, 23 N. Y. 9 ; Stats
a] So, the grant of a feiry right to such a. Mayor of Jersey City, 3 Troom (31
a oorporation may be repealed at any time. V. J.), G7G ; State t>. Hiller, ib. Sil;
East Hartfoid «. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 Comm. v. Eaatem R. R-, 103 u... ±(4.
How. fill. See further, Darlington v. See, as to state insolvent lawa, 432, n. 1.
Mayor of New York, SI N. Y. 164. But As to marriage, see ii. 107, n. 1.
see Atkins v. Randolph, 31 Tt 226. (c) Dutinetion betvieen On Oontnd mi
(Otherwiee, of a like grant to a private tit Memedy. — See ii. 46S, n. 1; Eaw-
peraon. HcRoberta v. Waahbume, 10 theme v. Calef, 2 WalL 10 ; Too HolT-
Minn. 23. ) Again, the mere inoorpora- man v. Qniuoy, 4 WslL Ci3G, stated ebon,
tion of a turnpike compan; withont an; In the last named caae it is said thai if
express agreement not to charter another these doctrinea were re* vUegnt, the snmd-
in its neighboriiood, does not preclude a nras of the reasoning vrhieh imintain* a
ttate from doing eo. Turnpike Co. v. diatinctian between the amtraet and the
State, 8 Wall. 210 ; Hartford Bridge Co. remedy might [MThapa well be donbted.
«. Union Ferry Co., 29 Conn. 210 ; pot. But they are ref^orded as settled. (4 Wall,
iii. 469, n. (o). (Otherwise, where there 654.) SeetheremaritaofCockbani, C J.,
isaneipreas contract The Binghamton as to the statute of limitationa. Harris*.
Bridge, 8 Wall, fil.) A simple enactment Qaine, L. E. 4 Q. B. 6C8, SG7. Bnt we
without conaideiBtion that " the real prop- Aast. Jurisp. Lect. 4G, Sd ed. 7S8 t Pcn-
erty now belonging to Christ Chnrch Hob- eroy's Const, l^w, } 609 et teq.
pital, so loDg as the same shall oontinne The objections to the dirtinetjon, if
[662]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XII.J THE UNITED STATES. • 419
in ODe of the federal courts upoD two promissory notes given
in March, 1811, and he pleaded his discharge under an insol-
•ound, an diminiBlied bf the deeiBionB in Minn. IBS. So a law which tdds a new
which Broiuon v. Kimie, »upra, n. (fi), ia condition pTec«dent to tha enforcement of
foUowad. But! v. Hiucatine, 8 WaU. the contract Olnistnd c. Kelli^g, 47
675, 583, itated abore. To take aWKj aU Iowa, MO. But a law which merely
reoiady ii of couraa nnoonatitutioQel, changes the rorm of the retuedj, or de-
White V. Han, 13 WalL 6U ; and it hai atroTe one of two or more equally eff«ctiTe
been held that a statute of Alab«nw, an- remedies, is valid. TenneMee v. Saeed,
thoming s redemption of mortgaged prop- S6 U. 8. es ; Hnndaj' v. Bahway, 48 N.
erty in two years after a sate under a J. L. 388 1 Long's App., 87 Fa. St
decreu, was Toid aa to sales made under 114 ; Watta v, ETsratt, 47 Iowa, 369 ;
mortgages executed before the act was Newark Savings lost c. Fonnan, 83 N- J.
passed. Ualrardit. Bugbee,24 How. Ml. £q. 486 (aee note of reporter). A law
So a slate la« depriving the crediton of a limiting the time within which suits may
bank of all legal proceia against its real be brongbt on existing oauvet of action is
property, afiecti the remedy in auch a way valid, if a reasonable time after the paa-
aa to imf«ii the obligation of the contract sage of the act be allowed to begin snch
Cnrran «. Arkanwa, IE How. 804, 81S. suits. Eoshkonoug v. Burton, 104 U. 8.
See Hawthorne o. Calef, 2 Wall. 10, 6S8 ; Terry v. Anderson, 65 U. S. 028 ;
sUted above ; Danks t>. Qoaekenhnsb, 1 Sohn e. Waterson, 17 WaU. 69«. So
Comst. 120. Bat see Morse n. Ooold, 1 a statute of limitationii may be repealed.
Kern. 28 ; Mede ti. Hand, 6 Am. L. K%. Pearaall v. Kenan, 79 N. C. 473. It has
M. e. 82 ; Bockwell d. Hubbell, 3 Dougl. also been held that whera ■ right has been
(Hich, ) 1S7 ; Cusic c. Douglaa, 3 Eansaa, given withont any means to enforce it («. g.
123 ; Root V. HcQrew, ib. 215. So the a right to sue a state without any right of
atay laws passed in many southern states exeoution), the right itself may be taken
in consequence of the late war have bean away. Railroad Co. r. Tennessee, 101 0. S.
generoUy held unconstitutiaDa]. Wood 387. See generally on this snbjoct, Oliver
V. Wood, 14 Rich. (S. C.) 148 ; State n. e. HcCkre, 28 Ark. 656 ; United Stete*
Carew, 18 id. 4B3 ; Coffinan e. Bank of v. Lincoln Co., 6 Dill. 184 ; NationU
Kentneky, 40 Hiaa. 29 ; Burt *. Williams, Bank v. Sebastian Co., ib. 414. The n-
24 Ark. 91 ; Bennett b. Worthington, ib. striction against impairing coutracte doea
487 ; White r. HcEee, 19 La. Ann. Ill ; not apply to public laws, — t. g., locating
Barnes v. Barnes, S Jonea (S. C), S6fl ; aconntyseat. Newton t>. CommissioDers,
Taylor v. Steama, 18 Gratt 244 ; Fenroae 100 U. 3. 513. It does not apply to pub-
V. Erie Canal Co., GO Feun. St. 4S, 49. lie officers. Wyandotte f. Drennan, 40
Bat see Be parte Follard,. 40 AU. 77 ; Hich. 478; Donohne i>. County of Will,
Watson B. Stone, ib. 451. [Any law 100 111. 94; Opinion of the Jnstlces, 117
whicb lessens or impairs the efficacy of Haas. 803. — B.]
the remedy to enforce the obligation of a Ort ttie oQitr hand, an act limiting the
contract as it existed when the contract time for suits on judgments obtained in
was mtered into, is void. Lonisiana o. the conrts of other states before ite pas-
New Orleans, 102 U. 8. 203 ; Memphis c. sage to two years is valid. Bank of Ala-
Unil«d 8tatt«, 97 U. 8. 293 : Edwards v. bama v. Daltou, 9 How. 522. See Bacon
Eeaney, M U. 3. 596 ; McClain r. F^ss- d. Howard, 20 How. 22 ; Chiutmaa *.
by, 4 Baxt 630 ; Hillabert *. Porter, 28 BosmU, G Wall 300 ; CnrtU ». Whitney,
[568]
;abyG00<^lc
* 420 JDBISPBUDENCE OF [PIBT O,
* 420 vent set of Nev York, passed in April, * 1811. This
insolvent act vas retrospective, and discharged the debtor
upon his single petition, and upon his surrendering his property
in the manner therein prescribed, without the concurrence of taj
creditor, from all his pre-existing debts, and from all liability and
reBponsibilit; by reason thereof.
The Chief Justice, in the opinion which he delivered on behalf
of the court, admitted, that until Congress exercised the power
to pass uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, the individual
states may pass bankrupt laws, provided those laws contain no
provision violating the obligation of contracts. It was admitted
that the states might by law discharge debtors from impri8(Hi-
ment, for imprisonment was no part of the contract, but only a
means of coercion. It was also admitted that they might pass
atatutes of limitation, for such statutes relate to the remedy, and
not to the obligation of the contract, {a) It was further stated by
the court, that the insolvent laws of far the greater number of the
states only discharged the person of the debtor, and left the obli-
gation to pay in full force, and to this the Constitution was not
opposed. But a law which discharged the debtor from bis con-
tract to pay a debt by a given time, without performance, and
released him without payment entirely from any future obligation
to pay, impaired, because it entirely discharged the obligation of
that contract, and, consequently, the discharge of the defendant,
under the act of 1811, was no bar to the suit.
The court held that the obligation of a contract was not ful-
(a) In the cms of BnmgudDer v. Circuit Court, t Ho. liO, it wu il«cidM] tbit t
statute directiiig a st*; oF execution on jadgoieut* was unconititutioiisl, both sa it te-
guded the coDstitution of Hisaomi aod of the United States,
IS Wall. S8 ; see farther, a* to BtAtntes of onmont for debt maj be made *[fIi£aUt
limitatiouB, Brnoa v. Schuyler, 4 Oilm. to exjadng contract*. Brouaon ■■ Ne*-
(Ul.) 391 ; Edwarda v. HcCaddon, 20 beirj, 2 Donffl. (Mich.) S8 ; DoiiDallj *.
Io»a, S2D ; Barry e. Buuddl, ^ Met. Corbett, 8 Seld. BOO ; Oriental Bank v.
(Kj.) 293. It has evea been held that an Frsaze, 18 Maine, 109 ; Fiaher c. lack;.
act pioliibiting any action on a promiae to S Blackf. (Ind.) 37S, [Penniman's CaM,
paj a debt from which the debtor had lOS IT. 8. 714 : Ware v. Miller, 9 3. C.
been diaobatged in bankruptcy, anlesa IS.] So a statute aboliihing diatrm for
anch promiae waa in writing waa Talid aa rant ia Talid aa to leaaes made before tba
to promiiea made before the act, bat auad act waa paaaed. Conkey b. Har^ 4 Sera.
on afterwarda. Eingley *. Conaina, 47 23 ; Van Beawelaec v. Snyder, S Ken.
Maine, 91. So an act abolUhing impri*- IBS.
[684]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZIZ.3 THE UNITED STATES. * 421
filled by a eeaiio honorum, for the parties had not merely in view
the property in poBBeBsion when the contract was made, but its
obligation extended to futnre acquisitions ; and to release them
from being liable impaired the obligation of the contract. There
was a distinction, in the nature of things, between the obliga-
tion of a contract, and the remedy to enforce that obligation, and
Uie latter might be modified, as the wisdom of the legislature
should direct But the Constitution intended te restore
and preserve public * confidence completely. It intended * 421
to establish a great principle, that contracts should be
inviolable.
The case in which this decision was made was one in which
the contract was existing when the law was passed; and the court
said that their opinion was confined to the case. A distinction
has been tahen between the case of a contract made before, and
one made after, the passing of the act. It was taken by the
Supreme Court of New York, in Mather v. Buah, (a) and by the
Chief Justice of MaBBacbusetts, in Blanchard v. Mugsell, (b) and
was relied on as a Bound distinction by the Court of Chancery of
Kew York, in Sicks v. Sbtchkiss. (c) The doctrine of these cases
is, that an insolvent act in force when the contract was made did
not, in the sense of the Constitution, impair the obligation of that
contract, because parties to a contract have reference to the exist-
ing laws of the country where it is made, and are presumed to
contract in reference to those laws. It is an implied condition of
every contract, that the party shall be absolved from its perform-
ance if the event takes place which the existing law declares shall
dispense with the performance. The decision in Sturgeg v. Crown-
iiukield is supposed to be consistent with that distiDCtion, when
it establishes the principle, that an insolvent act, discharging a
debtor from his contract existing when the law passed, so that his
future acquisitions could not be touched, is unconstitutional, and
the dischai^ obtained under it void.
But the Supreme Court of the nnited States, in M'Millan v.
M'Neill, {d) went a step further, and held that a discharge un-
der a state insolvent law existing when the debt was contracted
{a) le Johiu. 23S. {x) (b) 13 Haas, 1.
(«) 7 Johns. Oh. 297. {d) 4 Wbeaton, SOS.
(x) AIm 8 Am. Dec 818, uid not«.
[666]
;abyGoO<^lc
•422 JDEISPEUDENCE OP L^^*' "-
waa equally a lav impairing the obligation of contracts, and
equally within the principle declared in Sturgea v. CrotDnitukield.
This was a discharge under the insolvent law of a different gov-
ernment from that in which the contract was made. It remains
yet to be settled, whether it be lawful for a state to pass
•422 an insolvent law, •which shall be effectual to discharge the
debtor from a debt contracted after the passing of the act,
and contracted within the state making the law. The general
language of the court would seem to reach even this case ; but
the facts in these cases decided do not cover this ground, and the
oases decided are not authority to that extent (a) It will be per-
ceived that the power of the states over this subject is, at all
events, exceedingly narrowed and cut down; and, as the deci-
sions now stand, the debt must have been contracted afUr- the
passing of the act, and the debt must have been contracted witMn
the state, and between citizens of the state, or else a dischai^
will not extinguish the remedy against the future property of the
debtor. (J) *
(a) In the case of BroDBon v. Einzie, 1 Hov. 311, it wu conceded that ooQtnctt
made sabsequeDt to the stay laws of IlliaoU wera to be govenied bj them, if made to
be eiecDtcd in the state ; for every state maj preacribe the legal and equitable obliga-
tions of a coatract to be made and execated within it.
(b) In Smith V. Parsons, 1 Obio, 23fl, and in Hempataad d. Bead, S Conn. 4S0, the
power of the states over routracts wms nnderatood and declared to be confined vithiB
the precise limita mentioned in the text. See also ii. 36i, 393. The reaalt of the de-
cisions, sajs Jadge Story (3 Comm. Const. U. S. IS, 25e), is, that slate inaolTent Ian
lawfully apply, (1 ) to all contracts made within the state, between citizens of the state :
(2) they do not apply to contracts madn within the state, between a citizen of the stal«
and a citizen of another state ; (3) nor to contracts not made within the state ; and the
contracta so protected are equally so from proepective as well as letroepective legisla-
tion. But if a creditor od( of the state voluntarily makea himself a party to the pro-
csedings under the inaolvent law of the state, and accept) * dividend, he is hound by
> State Iiuolvmt Law*. (,x) — Baldwin of Hasaachusetts, msde a note in Boatoo,
V. Hale, 1 Wall. 223 ; Same v. Bank of payable there to H., a citizen of Vermont.
Newbary, ib. 234, have done much to After the date of the note, and before suit
settle the law on this point. B., * dtizen brought, B. obtained a discharge ander
(x) InHaBsachnsettssvoluntat7asB[gn- if it ia designed to aerve, and does serre,
ment tn pait for the benefit of creditors precisely the same end at the insolvent
may h« set aside as a fraudulent mnvey- law, is not lepugnant tliereto unleaa
once or preference nnder the State insol- tainted with aetnal Irand on the part of
vent law. Steel Edge Stamping k B. both the debtor and thetivstee. Pfaffv.
Co. V. Manchester S, Bank, 163 Mass. 2G2. Ptag, 7B Hd. 860. See S Harrard L.
In Haryland, such a voluntary conveyance, Ber. 2SS.
[666]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECI. ZIX] THE [TNITBD STATIC. * 422
And wbile on this point it may not be amiss to observe that
the ceano bonorum of the Koman lav, introduced by Julius Ceesar,
and which prevails at present in most parts of the continent of
Europe, only exempted the person of the debtor from imprison-
ment It did not release or dischai^ the debt, nor exempt the
future acquisitions of the debtor from execution for the debt (c)
The English statute of 82 Geo. II., conmionly called the Lords
Act, and the more recent English statutes of SS Geo. III., 1
Ilia own act, tai i» d««m«d to bare wtiTod hii Bictn'tsnitorul iminiiiiity. Id 8att«r-
1m d. HktdwwMu. 2 Peten, SSO, the 8npi«me Court of the United State* held that
no part of the ConatitDtioil ci the United States applied to a dale laui wAtcA devttUd
ri^itt viKielt v>ert vetUd by tavi in an imUvidnal, provided its effects be not to impair
the abligatitui of a amtrael. It WM farther held that relroipedivt lava were not nitbin
the con«tJtutioiiat prohibitioD, provided they did not impair the abligatioii of amlraett,
or partake of the character of ee pott fiuto laws. It has also been decided that a state
goremmeDt may tax state benka, lo nomine, at discretion, and that it would not be a
Tiolation of the contracts creating the banks, for no contract wu to be implied not to
impoae inch a tax. Prondence Bank v. Billings, 1 Feten, S14. It has been adjudged
in Louisiana and Mississippi, that a state law requiring a bank to raceire at par,
though under par, its own notes, in payment of debts due to it, ia eouEtltntional. 13
Bob. <U.> 12G ; SSmedes & Harsh. eSl.
(c) According to the Spanish law (Fartidas, L 8, tit. IS, part 6), the debtor's prvp<
erty, acquired subsequently lo the ousio boHorwii, was only liable so far sa it exceeded
the amount necessary for his support. But ths law of Loaisiana coutaini no such
exception. 8 Martin (La.), 688 ; i id. 292, 298.
his state insolrent laws, which were in cited; and see the dissenting opinion of
force when the note was made. The payee Hunt, C. J., 89 N. Y. 345.) Soule v.
took no port in the insolvency proceed- Chase, 89 N. Y. 842 ; Kelley v. Dniiy, 9
ingB, and it wsa held that this discharge Allen, 27. And it does not matter that
was no bar to a suit by him in the Circuit the debt has passed into judgment.
Court of Hasaachusetta. Scribner v. Worthington v, Jerome, t> BUtchf. 27S ;
Fisher, 2 Oray, 48, was oTermled. See Easterly v, Goodwin, 85 Conn. 279. Bat
also Oilman e. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 409 ; a discharge in Massachusetts will not be
Kelley v. Drory, S Allen, 27 ; Donnelly r. prevented from barring a contract made
Corbett, 8 Seld. GOO ; Crow v. Cuoua, 27 with a cttiMn of that state by his becom-
Mo. G13 ; Beer v. Hooper, 82 Hiss. 24S ; ing a citizen of another state. Stoddard
Easterly e. Goodwin, 8S Conn. 279 ; Foe v. Harrington, 100 Mass. 87. Compare
•. Dnck, G Md. 1 ; Whitney t>. Whiting, Hawley v. Hnnt, 27 Iowa, SOS. And it
SG N. H. 467 ; Stevenion ef. King, 2 Cliff, has been held that a Massacbusetta dls-
1 ; Hawley r. Hunt, 27 Iowa, 803 ; Felch charge is a bar to an action on a contract
p. Bngbee, 4S He. 9. It has been held between two citizens of that state, al-
fhrUier, that a discharge under like cir- though it was made and to be performed -
eomstancM is no bar to a suit in the courts in another state. Marsh v. Putnam, S
of the sUte granting the discharge. <The Gray, 6GI. See Whitney v. Whiting, 8S
United SUtes court would rather seem to N. H. 4G7, 472.
have held an sppoaita opinion tn the oasea
[66T]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 424 JTJRI8PBDDENCE OP [PART II.
Geo. IV., 8 G«o. IT., and 5 Geo. IV., have gone no further
*423 than to diBchat^ the debtor's person; *and it maybe laid
down aa the law of Germany, France, Holland, Scotland,
England, <&c, that tnsolTent lawe are not more extensive in their
operation than the cesno bonorum of the ciTil law. (a) In many
parts of Germany, as we are informed by Hubems and Heinec-
eiuB, (b) a aeiiio bonortwi does not even work a dischai^ of the
debtor's person, and much less of his future property. The ccb-
sion under the Roman law did not extend to protect the debtor
from personal responsibility, for penalties accruing on the com-
mission of crimes. Si in rare non babeat, in pelle luit But in
Germany the ceaeio bonorum has the severe operation of depriving
the insolvent of his remedy for a personal trespass, committed
prior to the cession, so far as pecuniary compensation is in
question, (c)
5. Thft StatM oannot paw NatoraliBatlOD Lam. — By the Gonsti*
tution of the United States, Congress have power to establish a
uniform rule of naturalization. It was held, in the Circuit Court
of the United States at Philadelphia, in 1792, in CoUet v.
Collet, ((2) that the state governments still enjoy a concurrent
authority with the United States upon the subject of naturaliza-
tion, and that though they could not contravene the rule estab-
lished by Congress, or " exclude those citizens who had been made
such by that rule, yet that they might adopt citizens upon easier
terms than those which Congress may deem it expedient to
impose." But though this decision was made by two of the
judges of the Supreme Court, with the concurrence of the district
judge of Pennsylvania, it is obvious that this opinion
"424 * was hastily and inconsiderately declared. If the con-
struction given to the Constitution in this case was the true
one, the provision would be, in a great degree, useless, and the
policy of it defeated. The very purpose of the power was exclu-
sive. It was to deprive the states individually of the power of
naturalizing aliens according to their own will and pleasure, and
(a) Code, 7, 71, 1 ; Dig. 42, 3, 1, uidfl ; Vtwt, ad Fand. 42. 3. S ; Heiiiecc Op.
V. 020 ; Ti SS4, SS7 ; Code de Commeroe, So. 668 ; TUpertoira UniTeTMl et Busonne
de Jarisprudence, p«r H«rlla, tit. Ceanoo de Bieas ; Esprit dea Loia, L 111 ; 3 Bdl'i
Comm. 580-597 ; IS JobnB. 241, notf.
(i) Hab. Pnrlec. ii. 14S4; Heinecc. Elem. Jar. CIt. secoiid. ord. Pud. pp. 9, I,
42, tit 3 ; Etem. Jar. Oer. lib. 2, tit. 18, aec S87.
(«) Voet, ad Pand. 42, 3, 10. (<i) 2 Dallaa, 201.
[668]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XIX.] THE UNITED STATES. •425
thereby giving them the rights and privileges of citizens in every
other state. If each state can naturalize upon one year's reai-
dence, when the act of Congress requires five, of what use is the
act of Congress, and how does it become a uniform rule ?
This decision of the Circuit Court may be considered aa, in
effect, overruled. In the same circuit court, in 1797, Judge
Iredell intimated, that if the question had not previously oc-
curred, he should be disposed to think that the power of natu-
ralization operated exclusively, as soon as it was exercised by
Congress, (a) And in the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania, in
1814, it was the opinion of Judge Washington, that the power to
naturalize was exclusively vested in Congress. (6) Afterwards,
in Chirac v. Chirac, (c) the Chief Justice of the United States
observed, that it certainly ought not to be controverted, that the
power of naturalization was vested exclusively in Congress. In
Houtton v. Moore, {d) Judge Story mentioned the power in Con-
gress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization as one which
was exclusive, on the ground of there being a direct repugnancy
or incompatibility in the exercise of it by the states. The weight
of authority, as well as of reason, may, therefore, be considered
ae clearly in favor of this latter construction.^ {x)
*6. Tho fitat«i oumot tax Nfttloaal Banlca or Stock*. — *42&
He inability of the States to impede or control, by taxation
(a) United StaUa v. Tillito, 2 Dillu, 370.
{h) Golden p. Prince, S Wash. 818.
(e) 8 WheatoD, 266. [d) 5 Wheatan, 19.
1 [Ths obicnritj on this sat^ect will • footang with iti own dtizens, u to polit-
be Temoredby kttending to thediatinction ical rights and privileges to be enjoyed
bttween local rights of citizenship within within its own dominion. Bnt etate regn-
■ atstesnddtizenshipor the United States UtioniofthiB chanctar do not make the
according to the Constitntioa. Undout>t- persons on whom sncb riglits are conferred
•d)y citizenship at large, in the sense of citizens of the United States, or entitle
the Constitntion, can be conferred on a them to the privileges and immnnities of
foreigner only tiy the natnializatioii lawi citizens in another state. Dred Scott's
of Congress. But each state, in the eier- Case, 19 How. 339, — c] See the Four-
cise of it* local and reserved sovereignty, teenth Amendment to the Constitution of
may place forelgneTB or other persons on the TJnited States.
(«) ApMttrora the appellate jnrisdic- courts tc act npon applications for nattuil-
tioD, Congress, under its constitutional ization. State v. Judges (N. J.), 82 Atl.
authority to establish a uniform role of Rep. 748. See State v. Nome, 87 Nefa>
iMtnnliiation, cannot require the State 3B9.
C669J
;abyGoO<^lc
• 426 JcaisPKUDENCE OP [part il
or otfaerwise, the lavful institutions and meaanres of the national
government, was lately discuBsed and strongly declared in the
case of M' OvUoch v. The State of Maryland, {a) In that case the
State of Maryland had imposed a tax upon the Branch Bank of
the United States established in that state, and assuming the
"bank to be constitutionally created and lawfully established in
that state, the question arose on the validity of the state tax. It
vas adjudged that the state governments had no right to tax any
of the constitutional means employed by the government of the
Union to execute its constitutional powers, nor to retard, impede,
bnrden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitu-
tional laws enacted by Congress, to carry into effect the powers
vested in the national government.
To define and settle the bounds of the restriction of the power
of taxation in the states, and especially when that restriction was
deduced from the implied powers of the general government, was
a great and difficult undertaking; but it appears to have been, in
this instance, most wisely and most successfully performed. It
was declared by the court, that it was not to be denied tiiat the
power of taxation was to be concurrently exercised by the two
governments; but such was the paramount character of the Con-
stitution of the United States, that it had a capacity to withdraw
any subject from the action even of this power; and it might
restrain a state from any exercise of it which may be incompatible
with, and repugnant to, the constitutional laws of the Union. The
great principle that governed the case was, that the Constitution,
and the laws made in pursuance thereof, were supreme, and that
they controlled the constitution and laws of the respective
*426 states, and could not be controlled *by them. It was of
the very essence of supremacy to remove all obstacles to
its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power
vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own opera-
tions from their influence. A supreme power must control every
other power which is repugnant to it. The right of taxation in
the states extends to all subjects over which its sovereign power
extends, and no further. The sovereignty of a state extends to
everything which exists by ite own authority, or is introduced by
its permission ; but it does not extend to those means which are
employed by Congress to carry into execution their constitutional
(a) 4 Whcaton, SIS.
[670]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIX.J THE DNITED STATES. • 42T
powers. The pover of state taxation is to be measured by the
ezte&t of state sovereignty, and this leaves to a state, the com-
mand of all its resources, and the unimpaired power of taxing
the people and property of the state. But it places beyond the
reach of state power all those powers conferred on the govern-
ment of the Union, and all those means which are given for the
purpose of carrying those powers into execution. This principle
relieves from clashing sovereignty; from interfering powers;
from a repugnancy between a right in one government to pull
down what there is an acknowledged right in another to build up;
from the incompatibility of a right in one government to destroy
what there is a right in another to preserve. The power to tax
would involve the power to destroy, and the power to destroy
might defeat and render useless the power to create. There
would be a plain repugnance in conferring on one government the
power to control the coustitntional measures of another, which
other, with respect to those rery measures, was declared to be
supreme over that which exerts the control. If the right of the
states to tax the means employed by the general government did
really exist, then the declaration that the Constitution and the
laws made in pursuance thereof should be the supreme law of the
land would be empty and unmeaning declamation. If the states
might tax one instrument employed by the government in
the execution of its powers, they might tax " every other *427
instrument They might tax the mail ; they might tax thfi
mint; they might tax the papers of the custom-house ; they might
tax judicial process; they might tax all the means employed by
the government, to an excess which would defeat all the ends of
gorernment.
The claim of the states to tax the Bank of the United States
was thus denied, and shown to be fallacious ; and that there was
a manifest repugnancy between the power of Maryland to tax,
and the power of Congress to preserve, the institution of the
Branch Bank. A tax on the operations of the bank was a tax on
the operations of an instrument employeJ by the government of
the Union to carry its powers into execution, and was conse-
quently unconstitutional. A case could not be selected from the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, superior to
this one of M'CuUockv. The State of Maryland, for the clear and
satisfactory manner in which the supremacy of the laws of the
[671J
sObyGoOl^lc
* 428 jueubpbddence: of [pabt it.
UnioD have been maintained by the court, and an undue aasertion
of state power overruled and defeated.
But the court were careful to declare that their decision was
to be received with this qualification, — that the states were not
deprived of any reeourcea of taxation which they originally pos-
aessed, and that the restriction dici not extend to a tax paid by
the real property of the bank, in common with the real property
within the state ; nor to ft tax imposed upon the interest which
the citizens of Maryland might hold in that institution, in com-
mon with other property of the same description throughout the
state, (a) (z)
The decision pronounced in this case against the validity of the
Maryland tax was made on the 7th of March, 1819 ; and it was
on the 7tb of February preceding that tiie legislature of the state
of Ohio imposed a similar tax, to the amount of fifty thousand
dollars annually, on tbe Branch Bank of the Unit«d States estab-
lished in that state. Notwithstanding this decision, the officers
of the State of Ohio proceeded to levy the tax, and that act
brought up before the Supreme Court a renewed discus-
* 428 sion and consideration of the legality * of such a tax. (u)
It was attempted to withdraw this case from the influence
and authority of the former decision, by the suggestion that the
Bank of the United States was a mere private corporation, engaged
in its own business, with its own views, and that its great end and
principal object were private trade and private profit. It was
(a) In Bemey v. Ttx Collector, & Bailej (S. C], SGi, ■ sUta tax on dindcndi
arisuDg from stock in the Bank oE the United States, owned by a dtizec of the ititr,
«u adjudged to be conatitntional. And in the case of The Union Butk «. The State,
9 Yeiger, 490, it wai held that state bank atock, an individual propertj, might t«
taxed, when owned by reaidenta of the state ; bat that the stock held by non-rasideDt
atockbolders wa.^ not subject to the taxing power of the state, for it mast be a tax ui
perxmam, and stuck ia a chose in action, and has no locality, and follows the pamn
of the owner.
(a) Oebom v. Bank of the United SUtea, 9 Wbeaton, 738.
(z) Taxation hy a State of stockhold- naHonal hank cannot be attached by pro-
era in natiooal banks within its limits ia cess from a Slate court before final jadg-
▼alid. Tan Slyke V. Wiaconaiu, IM U. S. ment, thongbthe bank is inaalrent U.S.
581 ; First Nat Bank r. Herbert, 44 Fed. Bev. SUta. j G248 ; NationsI S. Bank v.
Bep. IGS. National bank stock may be Bntler, 129 U. 3. 323 ; Baynor e. Pacific
told on execution under state legislation. Bank, 93 If. Y. 371 ; Planlera' L. & S.
In Tt Braden'a Estate (Fenn.), 30 AtL Bank v. Berry, »I Ga. 804.
Bep. 746 (Jan. 'SS,) The proper^ of a
[6T2]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIX.] THE UNITED STATES. •429
admitted, that if that were the case, the bank would be subject
to the taxing power of the state, as any individual woald be.
But it was not the case. The bank vas not created for its own ,
sake, or for private purposes. It has never been supposed that
Congress could create such a corporation. It was not a private,
but a public corporation, created for public and national purposes,
and as an instrument necessary and proper for carrying into effect
the powers vested in the government of the United States. The
business of lending and dealing in money for private 'pui-poaes
was an incidental circumstance, and not the primary object; and
the bank was endowed with this faculty, in order to enable it to
effect the great public ends of the institution, and without such
faculty and business the bank wonld want a capacity to perform
its public functions. And if the trade of the bank was essential
to its character as a machine for the fiscal operations of the gov-
ernment, that trade must be exempt from state control, and a tax
upon that trade bears upon the whole machine, and was, conse-
quently, inadmissible, and repugnant to the Constitution. In
Weston V. The City Council of Charleiton, {h) it was decided that
a state tax on stock issued for loans made to the United States
was unconstitutional. The court considered it to be a tax on the
power given to Congress to borrow money on the credit of the
United States, and thereby to diminish the means of the United
States used in the exercise of its powers, and that it was, con<
seqnently, repugnant to the Constitution. By declaring the
powers of the general government supreme, the Constitution
has shielded its action in the * exercise of its powers from * 429
any restraining or controlling action of the local govern-
ments, (a) ^ (x)
(i) 2 Peten, 440.
[a) A dacuion apon the Mine principle wu mujt in the cue of Dobbiii* v. The
Commignonen of Erie County, 16 Peters, 48C, when it irai lield th*t an officer of
the UniUd 8tat«s wm not lisble to he rated and »s«s8«ed for hit office by itate rates
and levie* ; for this wonhl he to diminiih the reoompeiue Mcnnd by Uw to the
> Slate and Unittd SUUa Taxet. — He- power of a itate to tax operatioiia of the
CnlToch c. Haryland leems to he some- government, or iDBtmmentt of the gov-
wbmt limited by other deddont. The emmcnt, created by itself for pablie and
(x) "The onlywayin whicheommerce ita police powar, and ita jnrisdictioD over
hetweon the St«tea can be legitimately at- persons and ^operty within its limita, a
fKt«dhy State lam, 1« when, by virtne ol State provldeafor theiecorityof theliTet^
[673]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 429 JOBISFRtJDEMCE OF [PABT II.
7. Nor exMolM Power over Cad«d PUom. — The state gorem-
ments ma; likewise lose all jurisdiction over places purchased hf
officer. In the cub of MaloHer r. The City of Barton, in the 3ap. JudicUl Conrt of
llsuu:huwitta, MMch, 164C, [9 Hetoalf, 7S,] it mi Btatvd as > qneetian undsdJcii,
whedMT • tax uaeooed upon tlu ineonu of an officer of Uie United Stataa would dM
be lawful, and not within tha can of Dobtnut. It w» dsdded m the Maasachuaetti
caae, that a dert in a poll-qffltt was not an officer exempted from taxation of hk
conititntional ends, ia still denied. Bnt the proprietor*, w«a nnconstitatiiMal, ww
it will be obaerred that later caaea (Na- pat by ths majority ^ the conrt Uigslj
tioual Bank b. Commonwealth, and Lion, on the giound that t^e power to lay loeh
beiger v. Boom, hereinafter giren) corns a tax carrisa with it the power to prohibit
very near the line, and in the caae of the the paaaage of government officers, boopa.
Union Pacific Railway Company it wm Ac, or of citizens, thiongh the state. Bnt
held not enough to exempt their road the Chief Justice ( who delivered the o^on-
ftom state taxation that it was coustmcted ion in Pacific R. B. case, Mnpra) thought
onder the directioti and authority of that the tax was only void aa inoonsiateDt
Congress for the uses and pnrpaw« of the with the power of Congress to ragulala
United States, as a part of a system of ccsnmerce. Pott, 439, n. t ; Woodruff r.
roads thns constmcted ; the difference Pariiam, 8 Wall 12S, 138 ; Hinson r.
being that ttui corporation, unlike the Lett, ib. US, 152. The mere fact that a
Bank of the United States, was created boslnesa has been taxed I7 Congiesi dot*
and exercised its fntnchise under state not prevent a state from taxing or pre-
law, and held ita property within state hibiting it. Pervear v. Commoowealtb, 5
jurisdiction and under stAte protection. WalL 476, 47S ; License Tax Oases, ik
Thomson r. Fadfio B. R.,' 9 WaU. S7S.' 4S2 ; post, 439, n. 1.
The earlier decision of Crandall c Nevada, Several important easee hare aiiten
0 WalL SC, that a state tax on ereiy per- under the preeent nstionsl currency and
sou Icving the state bj any vehicle banking sdi. In the first of these the
employed in the bonnest of transport- New York Court of Appeals took a dis-
ing psssedgBTB for hire, to be paid by tinction between a tax on United Slate*
limbs, health, and comfort of persons and longing to its population, and upon BTOca-
the protection of property , or when it tions and employmenta pursued therein,
does those things which msy otherwise not ditwitly connected with foreign or
incidentally affect commerce, such as the interstate commerce or with some other
establishment and regnlation of highwsys, employment or business exercised under
canals, railToads, wharves, ferries, and aathont; of the Caustitution and laws of
other commercial facilities ; the pasaage the United States ; and the impodtion ef
of inspection laws to secure the due qnsl- taxes upon sU property within the State,
ity and measure of products and commod- mingled with and forming port of the
ities ; the passage of laws to regnlate or great mass of property theteio. Bat is
restrict the aale of articles deemed ii^ari- making sach internal rpgalations a State
oua to the health or morals of the com- cannot impose taxes upon persons passing
munity ; the impoBition of taxes upon thrangh the State, or coming into it
persons redding within the State or be- merely for a temporary purpose, rsnecialiy
[674]
sObyGoOl^lc
erectioD of forts, dock-yards, light-houses, hospitals, militarj
Btdck to nomwu, which wm the case of IS62, uid Jaly 1], 1833 ; Bonk o. Supcr-
'Wtstcn D. Charleatoii, ud one on tbe ruors, 7 Wall. 26 1 »ee 87 N. Y. 21. The
•ctoftl valae of the capital itock of a state, however, can tai a bank on ita
tiaiik, port of whose property was in fact franchise, and the Supreme Court have
inveated in United States stock, and held gone very far in tnstumug taxes on this
a tax of the latter description valid. This gronnd. Thnt, a tut on savings banks of
decision was revened in Washington, "a tnm equal to three-fourths of one per
People V. CoDUnissioiiers of Taxes, 2 cent on the total amonnt of deposits," hM
Black, 620 1 B. c. 28 N. Y. 1S2 : 26 N. Y. been held T^d, aJthoogh part of sadi
168. A statute was then passed by the deposits were invested in Unit«d State*
■tate legislatnre taxing the banks "on a stocks. Society for Savings d. Coite, 6
valtmtiim equal ta the amount of their Wall 694 ; Provident Iiutitntion v. Mas-
capital stock paid in, or secnred to be Mchosetts, ib. 611 ; Hamilton Co. v.
paid in, and their aurplns earainga," &c. Maseachnsetts, ib. 632. So, a tai on the
This also, after having been apheld by "exceas of the market valne of all the
the courts of the atate, was declared by capita] stock " of & corpontion " over
the Supreme Court to be a tax on the the value of tta real estate and maohin-
property of tbe banks, and therefore, like ery," tbe two latter being taxed separ-
the previoaa one, invalid, when that prop- ately. Hamilton Co. v. Masuchusetti^
erty consisted of United States stock. 6 Wall 632 : b. c. 12 Allen, 298. See
Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. 200. further. Monroe Savings Bank v. fioches-
On like principles, it has been further ter, S7 N, Y. SAG.
held, contrary to the opinion of the New Taxes on tbe shareholders in national
Yorkjodgea, that certificates of indebted- banks stand on a different footing fhtm
oess inoed by the United States for mp- taxes on the banks. By the act of June
pliea, bearing interest, and payable in a 3, ISfll, % 41, and act of Feb. 4, 1868, { 1,
year, or earlier at the option of the gov- shares in sncb a bank may be included in
emment, are exempt tlrom state taxation, the valuation of tbe personal property of
The Bank n. Tbe Mayor, 7 WaU. 16 ; see their owner in the asaessment of slata
87 N. y. S 1 as are also legal-tender trees- taxes in tbe state within which such bank
nry notes issued under the acts of Feb. 2E, is located, and not elsewhere. It has been
if connected with interstate or foreign com- over tbe sul^ect." Bradley, J., in Rob-
merce ; nor can it Impose such taxes upon bins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U. S.
property imported into the State from 489, 498. Upon such power to tax, »ee
abroad, or from another State, and not yet also Philadelphia & S. 8. Co. v. Pennsyl-
become part of the common maaa of prop- vania, 122 U. 8. 326 ; Leloup v. Molnle,
arty therein ; and no discriminitioD can 127 U. S. 640; Western U. T. Co. v.
be made, by any such regulations, ad- Alabama, 182 U. S. 472 ; Aahley e. Byan,
Tenely to the persons or property of other 1G8 U. 8. 486 ; Postal T. C. Co. v. Charles-
Slates ; and no regulations can be made ton, id. 692 ; Cleveland, Ac By. Co. v.
directly aActing intergtata commerce. Backus, 1S4 U. S. 489 ; New York, Ac,
Any taxation or tegolatiou of tbe Utter By. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S. 481 :
character woold be an onauthoriied inte> Pittsburgh ft S. Coal Co. v. Bates, 156
terence with the power given to Congress C S. 677.
[676]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 4:^9 JDKISPRDDBMCE OP [PAKT U.
academies, and other needful buildings, (h) The qnestion which
baa arisen on the subject was as to the effect of the proviso or
reservation, usuall}' annexed to the consent of the state, that all
civil and criminal procesB, isaued under the authority of the atate,
might be executed on tlie lands ao ceded, in like manner as if the
cession had not been made. This point was much discussed in
the Circuit Court of the United Statea in Bhode Island, in the
caae of The United Statet v. ComtU. (e) It waa held that a pur-
chase of lands within the jurisdiction of a state, with the conseut
of the state, for the national purposes contemplated by the Gou'
stitution, did, ipso facto, by the very terma of tiie Constitution,
fall within the exclusive legislation of Congress, and that the
state jurisdiction was completely ousted. What, then, ia the tme
intent and effect of the saving clause annexed to the cesaions?
It does not imply the reaervation of any concurrent jurisdiction
or legialation, or that the atate retained a right to punish for acta
done within the ceded lands. The whole apparent object of the
proviao waa to prevent the ceded landa from becoming a sanctuary
(i| Const «! 1, «ec S. V
(c) -i Mmod, 80, 91 ; UaiM State* t. Davla, S Huod, 3H, a. r.
held tbat thU fisctioii mbjecta the ihuoa First National Baakof PittBtHiTg,G5 Penn.
to at»te tazattoD without regard to the St. 15.
filct that a part or the whole of the capital The principle of eelf-ptMenrntion, which
■rf the hank is inrmted in iu.tlotiaI eecn- van held in HcCalloch c. Uarrland, Ic.
rities iuued under statutes exempting to invalidate atteraptu b; the state to tax
them from sach taxation. Vau Allen n. certain iastrnments and operatioDs of ihe
The Araesmra, S Wall. 673 ) s. c. 33 N. general government, is consideivd to al»
Y. 161 ; People v. The CommiBaionen, 4 limit the power of the United Stata to
Wall, 241 } 8. 0. 35 N. Y. *23 ; State v. tw instramenta and operations of t!»
Haight,2Vrooin<SlN. J.), S9S. Further- states; and it hw been held thst Con-
more, it amy lawfOlly be provided that the gresi nnnot coDstitutional]; tax the
officer* of the bank ahall pa; the tax on salai; of a state jndge. The Collects
the shares. National Bank n Common- (BuSngton) t>. Day, II Wall. 113. And
wealth, f> Wall. 363 ; Lionberger n. Rouse, tiie mne priuciple has been thought by
ib. 4S8. But the act provided against seveml state oourtato apply to the leqniie-
nnfavorable discriniination, and therefore ment at a stamp oa the records of state
sharea in national banks cannot be taxed, judicial proceedings, &c. Hoore r. Koore,
when atate banks u« taxed only on capi- 47 N. Y. 467.
taL Bradley v. The People, 4 Wall. 459 ; On the other hand, a tax on drenlatiiiB
B. 0. 89 111. 130 ; Ytm Allen v. The As- by banks of state bank notes, ao beavyai
aeesota, tupra. See Austin v. The Aldnr- to pot an end to it, has been upheU.
men, 7 WalL 494 j Hubbard b. Board of Veaiie Bank n, F«dd(^ 8 Wall. »3.
Supervisors, 2S Iowa, ISO; Pittsburg v.
[676]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. .XIX] THE DHITED STATES. * 431
for fugitives from justice, for acts done within the acknowledged
junsdictiou of the state ; and such permisaion to execute process
is not incompatible with excltiBiTO sovereignty and jurisdiction.
The acceptance of a cession, with this reservation, amounts to an
agreement of the new sovereign to permit the free exercise
of such process, * as being quoad hoc his own process. This * 430
construction has been frequently declared by the courts of
the United States, and it comports entirely with the intention of
the parties ; and upon any other construction the cession would
be nugatory and void. Judge Story doubted whether Congress
were even at liberty, by the terms of the Constitution, to pur-
chase lands with the consent of a state, under any qualification
of that consent, which would deprive them of exclusive legisla*
tion over the place. The courts of the United States have sole
and exclusive jurisdiction over an ofFence committed within a
ceded place, notwithstanding the ordinary reservation of the right
to execute civil and criminal process of the state. That was no
reservation of any sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Congress, in exercising powers of exclusive legislation over a
ceded place or district, unite the powers of general with those of
local legislation. The power of local legislation carries with it,
as an incident, the right to make that power effectual. Congress
exercises that particular local power, like all its other powers, in
its high character as the legislature of the Union ; and its general
power may come in aid of these local powers. It is, therefore,
competent for Congress to try and punish an offender for an
offence committed within one of those local districts, in a place
not within such jurisdiction; or to provide for the pursuit and
arrest of a criminal escaping from one of those districts after com-
mitting a felony there; or to punish a person for concealing, out
of the district, a felony committed within it. All these incidental
powers are necessary to the complete execution of the principal
power; and the Supreme Court, in Cohent v. Virginia, (a) held
that they were vested in Congress.
It follows, as a consequence, from this doctrine of the federal
courts, that state courts cannot take cognizance of any
* offences committed within such ceded districts; and, on *431
the other hand, that the inhabitants of such places cannot
exercise any civil or political privileges under the laws of the
(a) 6 Wluaton, 429-129.
VOL. I. -87 [5773
;abyG00<^lc
* 431 JUBiaPBUDENCB OP [PABT n.
Btate, because they are not bound by those laws. This has been
so decided iu the state courts, (a) But if, in stay case, the United
States have not actually purchased, and the state has not, in point
of fact, ceded the place or territory to the United States, its juris-
diction remains, notwithstanding the place may have been occu-
pied, ever since its surrender by Great Britain, by the troops of
the United States, as a fort or garrison. The Supreme Court
of New York accordingly held, in the case of The People v. God-
frey, (6) that they had jurisdiction of a murder committed by one
soldier upon another within Xiagara fort. Nor would the pur-
chase of the land by the United States be alone sufficient to vest
them with the jurisdiction, or to oust that of the state, without
beii^; accompanied or followed with the consent of the legislature
of the state. This was so decided in the case of Th« Common-
wealth of Penntylvania v. Tonng. (e) («)
(a) Commonirealth «. Clti;, 8 Hu*. 7S ; Bmim t>. Yowig, 1 Hall'a Joonul d
Jnraprndence, CS.
(i) IT Johni. 22S.
[c) 1 Hall's JoDrnal of Juruprudence, il. [It aeeiii* that tbsre must be an act of
Congress Testing the jariadictjon in the United States courts, /k re O'Consor, 37
Wis. S79. — B.] The jnriadictioii of the United States over the Ituids within ptices
ceded by a state vas fully and learnedly ezsmined by Hr. Juitica Woodbary, in the
Circuit Court of the United States is Uaaaachoaetts in October, 18i!>, in the case of
The United States v. Ames, Law Reporter for November, 1S40 [1 Woodk k Minot,
76.] It was adjudged that if the United State* own lands in any state, and there be
no cession of the jurisdiction, the lax ret aitte applicable to the laod-DWDBis of the state,
governs, a* to rights and remedies, equally applying to non-residents and citiKiu,
whan the laws of Congress hare not otherwiae provided ; such, for iiistuic«, is the can
under an analogooe principle, when the United States are the holders of a bill of ex-
change. United States i>. Barker, 12 Wheatoo, 661, and when liable to damages on
(X) See tupm, 288, n. (*). Art. 1, Co. v. McOlinn, id. 6*2. In New York
Sect. 8, cl. 17 of the XJ. 9. CouBtitu- it hat been held that where the United
tion applies to laud actaally purchased. States leased part of the land ceded to it
jurisdiction over which has also been for the Brooklyn Navy Yard to the city of
ceded by the State, but not to such Brooklyn for a market, and the city nib-
land s8 'Fortress Honroe, which was leased to the plaintifr, an actiou for tns-
ceded directly by the State of Virginia pass committed on the land would lie in
to the United States. In each case the the Stste courts. Barrett b. Palmer, lU
land is held only at prescribed b the set N. Y. 336 ; IS N. Y. S. 94. Upon ces-
of cession, and State laws reaaonably ap- sion by a State to the United Stat« at
plicable coutinne in force. Crook t. Old jnrisdictian over land within its limita.
Point Comfort Hotel Co., &i Fed. Rep. acceptance of the gnmt, if beneficial, pre-
004 ; Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, sumed. Benson b. United States, US U.
lU U. a 622 ; Chietgo, E. L * P. Rj. 8. 82S.
[678]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XIZ.J THE UNITED STATSa * 4S2
6. Power to ragnUto CoBunwoa. — I proceed next to examine the
jadicial deciBiona under the power given to Congress to " regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several Btates ; "
and it will be perceived that the questions arising under this
power have been of the utmost consequence to the interests of
the Union, and the residuary claims and sovereignty of the
states.
The first question that arose upon this part of the Constitution
was respecting the power of Congress to interrupt or destroy the
commerce of the United States, by laying a general em-
bargo, without any limitation as to time. By the act *of *482
Congress of 22d December, 1807, an embai^o was laid on all
ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States,
and a prohibition of exportation from the United States, either
by land or water, of any goods, wares, or merchandise, of foreigu
or domestic growth or manufacture. There were several supple-
mentary acts auxiliary to this principal one, and intended more
effectually to enforce it, under certain specific exceptions. In
the case of The United States v. The Brigantine WUliamy in the
District Court of Massachusetts, in September, 1808, (a) it was
objected that the act was unconstitutional, for that Congress had
DO right, under the power to regulate commerce, thus to annihi-
late it, by interdicting it entirely with foreign nations. But the
court decided that the embargo act was within the constitutional
provision. The power of Congress was sovereign relative to com-
mercial intercourse, qualified by the limitations and restrictions
expressed in the Constitution; and by the treaty-m.aking power
of the President and Senate, Congress had a right to control or
foreign Ulb of «xcha»Ke, u see mpra, 297 ; Mid as to liability to gaueril tTeTag^ see
infra, ill. 171, n. (a) ; »nd m to allnvioos and IhuU depomta, 10 Peters, BBS, 717 ; sad
(a to oet-off, see rupra. 2S7. But if tlie wded land? hsva been accompwiied with a
ceanon of the jurisdiction, the lands are subject to the Ibwb of Congreaa, and not lo
those of the state; and thow aUte lawa cannot be pennitted to thwart at einbsrrasa
the olgect of the ceasion by tares, or by oTetflowing the land with water, or olherwlBO
in any degree to conflict with what is required or provided by the general goTcmment
of the United Statoa, which may puniah offences and trespasses, and remove iotmdera
thereon. On the other hand, if ConpeM have not provided any adequate and eiclu-
aive remedy for injuries to public property, then the common law or laws of the aUte*
apply. But the United Statoa have jurisdiction over iU lerrUary, though the partico-
Ur lands bare not been ceded, inasmuch as the landa are held for speda) pnrposea, and
■re to be protected.
(o) 2 Hall's Law Journal, 29S.
[679]
sObyGoOl^lc
*4S3 JUBISFRDDENCE OP [PABT IL
abridge commerce for the adTancemeot of great national par-
poses. Xon-intercourse and embargo laws are within the range
of legislative discretion; and if Congress have the power, for
purposes of safety, or preparation, or counteraction, to suspend
commercial intercourse with foreign nations, they are not limited
as to the duration, more than as to the manner and extent of the
measure, {b)
A still graver question was presented for the consideration of
the federal judiciary, in the case of Gibboni t. Ogden, (e) decided
by the Supreme Oourt of the United States, in February term,
1824. That decision vent to declare that several acts of the
legislature of New York, granting to Livingston and Fulton the
exclusive navigation of the waters of the state in veasels pro-
pelled by steam, were unconstitutional and void acts, and
•488 repugnant to the power given to "Congress to regulate
commerce, so far as those acts went to prohibit vessels
licensed under the laws of Congress for carrying on the coasting
trade, from navigating the waters of New York.
It had been decided in the Conrt of Errors of New York, in
1812, (a) that five several statutes of the state, passed between
the years 1798 and 1811, inclusive, and granting and securing to
the claimants the sole and exclusive right of using and navigating
boats by steam, in the waters of the state, for a term of yean,
were constitutional and valid acts. According to the doctrine of
the court in that case, the internal commerce of the state by land
and water remained entirely and exclusively within the scope of
its original sovereignty. It was considered to be very difRcutt
to draw an exact line between those regulations which relate to
external, and those which relate to internal commerce, for every
regulation of the one will, directly or indirectly, affect the other.
But it was supposed that there could be no doubt that the acts of
the state, which were then under consideration, were not within
any constitutional prohibition, for not one of the restrictions upon
state power, contained in the 9th and 10th sections of the 1st
article of the Constitution, appeared to apply to the case; nor
was there any existing regulation of Congress on the subject of
(6) Mr. Jnstice Story ujs th&t the mcMtin of a genenl emlMrgo, indofinite u to
tioie M that laid in 1807, went to tlta ntmoat verge of implied coiutitutioail pome.
Commentaries, iii. p. 1S3.
(e) 9 Wheaton, 1. (a) livingstoD v. Vaa Ingen, G Johoa. EOT.
[580] . .
;abyGoO<^lc
LEOT, XIX.] THE UNITED STATES. "434
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,
Thich was deemed to interfere with the grant. It was declared
to be a very inadmissible proposition, that a state was devested
of a capacity to grant an exclibiTe privilege of naWgating a steam-
boat within its own waters, merely because Congress, in the plen-
ary exercise of its power to regulate commerce, might make
some future regulation inconsistent with the exercise of that
privilege. The grant was taken, undoubtedly, subject to such
future commercial regulations as Congress might lawfully
prescribe; and to what extent they might lawfully "pre-* 434
scribe them was admitted to be a question within the ulti-
mate cognizance of the Supreme Court of the United States. The
opinion of the court went no further than to maintain that the
grant to Livingston and Fulton was not within any constitutional
prohibition upon the states, nor was it repugnant or contradictory
to any existing act of Congress on the subject of commerce ; and
under those two restrictions every state had a right to make its
own commercial regulations. It was generally declared that
Congress had not, in the understanding of the court, any direct
jurisdiction over our interior commerce or waters ; and that they
had concurrent jurisdiction over our navigable waters, only so far
as mjght be incidental and requisite to the due regulation of
conuoerce between the statesiand with foreign nations.
In this case, in 1812, the defendants, who objected to the valid-
ity of the state grant, did not set up any patent right, or any other
right under any particular act of Congress. They rested entirely
on the objection, that the statutes conferring the exclusive privi-
lege were absolutely unconstitutional and void. But afterwards,
in the case of Ogden v. Cfibbont, (a) the defendant set up, by way
of right and title to navigate a steamboat upon the waters of New
York, in opposition to the grant, thathia boats were duly enrolled
and licensed under the laws of the United States, at Perth Amboy,
in the State of New Jersey, to be employed in carrying on the
coasting trade. The question in that case was, whether such a
coasting license conferred any power to interfere with the grant;
and it was decided in the Court of Chancery, and afterwards in
the Court of Errors, (() that the coasting license merely gave to
the steamboat an American character for the purpose of revenue,
and that it was not intended to decide a question of property, or
(i) 4 Johns. Ch. ISO. (») 17 Johns. 488.
[681]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 486 JDBISPBUDENCE OF [PABT II.
to confer a right of property, or a right of navigatiott or
*435 commerce. * The act of Goagreas regulating the coaeting
trade irae never intended to aseert any supremacy over state
regulations or claims, in respect to internal waters or commerce.
It was not considered by our courts as the exercise of the pover
of Congress to regulate commerce among the states. The lav
concerning the coasting trade was passed on the 18th of Febmary,
1793 ; and it never occurred to any one, during the whole period
that the state laws were under consideration before the legislature,
and in the council of revision, and in the courts of justice, from
1798 down to and including the judicial investigations in 1812,
that the Coasting Act of 1798 was a regulation of commerce amoug
the states prohibitory of any such grant Such latent powers
were never thought of, nor imputed to it The great objects and
policy of the Coasting Act were to exclude foreign vessels from
commerce between the states, in order to cherish the growth of
our own marine, and to provide that tiie coasting trade should be
conducted with security to the revenue. The register and enrol-
ment of the vessel were to ascertain Uie national character; and
the license was only evidence that the vessel had complied with
the requisites of the law, and was qualified for the coasting trade
under American privileges. The license did not define the coast-
ing trade. Free trade between the states then existed, subject to
local and municipal regulations. The requisitions of the Coast-
ing Act were restrictions upon the general freedom of that com-
merce, and not the grant of new rights. Steam vessels were
subject to those regulations equally with any other vessels. If
Congress had intended that a coasting license should confer power
and control, and a claim of sovereignty subversive of local laws
of the states within their own jurisdictions, it was supposed they
would have said so in plain and intelligible language, and not
have left their claim of supremacy to be hidden from the observa-
tion and knowledge of the state governments, in the unpretend-
ing and harmless shape of a coasting license, obviously intended
for other parposes.
•486 "It was, therefore, upon considerations like these that
the courts of justice in New York did not consider the
grant to Livingston and Fulton as disturbed by a coasting license
under the act of 1793. They did not eitiier in the case of Ogde*
V. O^bont, or in any of the cases which preceded it, deny to Con-
[582]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECr. ZIX.] THE aNITGD STATES. * 437
gresB the power to regulate commerce among the statee, hy express
and direct provision, so as to control and restrict the exercise of
the state grant They only insisted that, without some such
explicit provision, the state jurisdiction over the subject remained
in full force. This cause was afterwards carried up by appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States, and the decree reversed,
on the ground that the grant was repugnant to the rights and
privileges conferred upon a steamboat navigating under a coasting
licenae. (a)
In the construction of the power to regulate commerce, the
court held that the term meant not only traffic, but intercourse,
and that it included navigation, and the power to regulate com-
merce was a power to regulate navigation. Commerce among
the several states meant commerce intermingled with the states,
and which might pass the external boundary line of each state,
and be introduced into the interior. It was admitted that the
power did not extend to that commerce which was completely
internal, and carried on between different ports of the same state,
and which did not extend to or affect other states. The power
was restricted to that commerce which concerned more states
than one, and the completely internal commerce of a state was
reserved for the state itself. The power of Congress on this
subject comprehended navigation within the limits of every
state ; and it might pass the jurisdictional line of a state, and be
exercised within its territory, so far as the navigation was con-
nected with foreign commerce, or with commerce among
the several states. This power, like all *the other powers *43T
of Congress, was plenary and absolute within its acknowl-
edged limits. But it was admitted that inspection laws relative
to the quality of articles to be exported, and quarantine laws,
and health laws of every description, and laws for regulating the
internal commerce of a state, and those with respect to turnpike
roads, ferries, &c., were component parts of an immense mass of
legislation, not surrendered to the general government. Though
Congress may license vessels to sail from one port to another in
the same state, the act is supposed to be necessarily incidental to
the power expressly granted to Congress, and it implies no claim
of a direct power to regulate the purely internal commerce of a
■tate, or to act directly on its system of police. The court con-
(a) Qibboiu V. Ogdra, 9 Wheaton, 1.
[688]
;abyG00<^lc
* 488 JDHlfiPBUDENCE OF [PABT IL
strned the word reg^date to imply fall power over the thing to be
regulated, ajid to exclude the actione of all others, that would
perform the same operation on the same thing.
After laying down these general propositions, the court pro-
ceeded to observe that the acta of New York, granting exclnsive
privileges to certain steamboatB, were in collision with the acts
of Congress regulating the coasting trade, and that the acta of the
state must, in that case, yield to the supreme and paramount
law. If the law of Congress was made in pursuance of the Con-
stitution, the state law must yield to the eupremacy of it, even
though they were enacted in pursuance of powers acknowledged
to remain in the states. A license under the acts of Congress
for regulating the coasting trade was an authority \x> carry on
that trade. The words of the act of Congress, directing the
proper officer to grant to a veasel qualified to receive it, **a
license for carrying on the coasting trade," was considered as
conveying an explicit authority for that purpose. It waa the
legislative grant of a right, and it conferred all the right whii^
Congress could give in the case, and it was not intended to con-
fer merely the national character. It wae further held that the
power to regulate commerce extended to navigation, car-
*438 ried on by vessels exclusively * employed in transporting
passengers, and to vessels propelled by steam, as well as
to vessels navigated by other means.
This is the substance of the argument of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the steamboat case. The only great
point on which the Supreme Court of the United States and the
courts of New York have differed, is in the construction and
effect given to a coasting license. They did not differ in any
general view of the powers of Congress ; and the Supreme Court
expressly waived any inquiry or decision on the point, whether
the exercise of the power assumed by the steamboat laws would
have been illegal, provided there was no existing regulation of
Congress that came in collision with them. The decision in
Livingtton v. Van Ingen rested upon the assumption that thero
was no such regulation.
The Court of Errors of New York, since the case of Q^>bon» v.
Ogden, have given to this constitutional power a very liberal
extent, by the construction put upon a coasting trade. In that
decision, the power to regulate commerce ** among the severaJ
[584]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIZ.] THE UNITED STATES. * 439
states" vaa anpposed to be **Tery properly restricted to that
commerce which coDcems more states than one ; " and that it did
not "comprehend that commerce which was completely internal,
which is carried on between man and man in a state, or between
different parts of the same state, and which does not extend to
or affect other states." But in the case in New York alluded
to, (a) the Court of Errors held that the coasting trade meant,
amongst other things, commercial intercourse carried on between
different districts in tJie same state, and between different places
in the same district, on the sea^oast, or on a navigable
river; and that a voyage from New York to Albany 'was *489
as mnch a coasting voyage as from Boston to New Bed-
ford, (a)
Under the power to regulate commerce, it has been further
decided, (b) that a state lav, requiring every importer of goods
la) Stsamboat Compuiy v. LiTingrtoQ, 8 Cowen, Ti7. See al*o 1 Wendell, HO.
(a) Tbia power in Coagrmt to legnUte "commeroe unotig the Mrenl tUtM"
was well and ablj diacnsud in the United States Diatrict Court in UiBsonri, in the
CMe of The United SUtes e>. The Staamboat Jamee Uonuon, in 18i6 (reported in
ths New York Legal Obeener for Beptember, IMfl), and the doutrine establiihad in
Qibbona o. Ogden wai reviewed, illnatrated, and enforced, with tbia qua]ifl»tton, not
inconailtent with the principla of that leading case, viz., that a iteamboat emplojed
aalj a« a fsny-boat on the river Hiaaoari, within the limita of the State of Hiaaonri,
waa not bonnd to take out a Ucenae from a United 8tate« officer, ondsr the a«t of
CongreH of 7th Julj, 1838. The power to regulate oommerca with foreign nation*
and among the aevenl atatti did not extend to a navigation *o perfectlj intenud, and
BO totally diaconnected from commerce ont of the atate. The licenae referred to waa
one to "cany on the coasting trade," and that ferry biwineaa had no connection with
the coasting trade. It was admitted, hower^, that a coutinf; trade was not lesa part
of commerce among the tevera] atatsa, thongb a venal ahonld only naviple from
one port to another in the nme state, np and down a navigable river, when snch com-
merce was a connected and divisible part of one general commerce between and
among two or more states. Bat there WM an earlier decision, directly contratr to
tbi* in Hiaaoari, in the case of The United States e. Jackson, in the Sonthem Dis-
trict of New York, in November, 1841 [N. Y. L^ Observer for December, 1S46).
It waa in that case aflJQdged, npon an elaborate diacntaion of the anbject, that the
act of Congrees of 7lh Jnly, 18SS, embraced alt veeeali of all desoriptiona, propelled
wholly or in part by steam ; and that ateamboats reqniml to be licensed or inapected,
without regard to the bounesa they fallow, or the place[s] they ran between ; and
that ataamboata wholly engaged on ferries within a state, and owned in snch state,
•ra within the requisition of the license taw.
(i) Brown v. State of Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419 ; Wynne v. Wright, 1 Dev.
4 Batt. (N. C.) 10, 8. r. See also the ease of The People v. Hnntington, N. T.
L^al Observer for Hay, 16M, p. 187. It was adjudged, in the Ontario sasaionB, in •
New York, that e st«tnte prohibiting the sale of spiritnons liqaors, to be drank in
certain places, was not repognant to tlie Constitntion of the United Slates ; for that
[686]
sObyGoOl^lc
*489 JDEISPRCDEHCE OP [PABT D.
b^ wholes&le, bale, or package, to take out a license, and pay for
it, under certain penalties or forfeitures for neglect or refusal,
vas repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and
void ; inaamuch as it belonged to Congress to regulate foreign
commerce, and no state can lay a duty on imports. But it was
admitted in that case that, after the goods had become mtied
with or incorporated into the general mass of the property of
the state, they were liable to state taxation, (c) The restriction
does not apply to goods imported and in the hands of the retail
trader. In comiection with this subject it may be further ob-
served, that, by the Constitution of the United States, no " state
shall, without the consent of [the] Congress, lay any imposts, or
duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely neces-
sary for executing its inspection laws ; and all such laws shall be
subject to the revision and control of [the] Congress." {d) In-
the power of Congresa had no application to the purely intarntl commeiee of ■ tUte,
and wu to be confined to the period of time daring irhich the act of imporlatioii,
introdnction, and incorpotstiou oT a roreign commodity into the man of Oie property
of the atata waa going on. The principles involTcd in this caw were drawn boat
the decieione of the fedenl courts, and I have referred to it principally on the graand
of the dear and able condeneation and review of the federal doctrine on the snlgeet,
by Judge Smith, who predded in that inferior jurinliction.
(e) In Cnmming v. Corporation of SavaDnah, it waa decided, by one of the atiperiar
conrts of Georgia, in 1816, that a levy of a tax under a city ordinance, fonnded on a
■tate law, on all goods not the produce of the ttaXe, and sold on commission, wai
lawful, as not being a dnty on Imports. R. M. Charlton, 26. It waa further decided,
in Oreen e. The City of Savannah, ib. 368, that the right to Ux imports as well as
exports, for the purpose of ezwuting iiuptdiim laws, resided in the states. So it hal
been decided that a state act imposing a duty on the retailers of forei^ merchandin
was not repugnant to the Conatitntioo of the United States, thongfa the act applied
aa well to the importer as other sellers of foreign merchandise. Biddle e. The Com.
moowealtb, 18 Serg. & Rawle, 40S. Bnt this decision may be considered as otct-
ruled by the decision in Brown v. State of Maryland, above mentioned, so far as it
goes to prohibit the importer from selling the imported article in bulk, tot the rigbt to
sell is inseparably connected with the law permitting importatiDn. The act of Penn-
sylrauia, on which the decision in S. & R. was fonnded, was unexceptionable aa it
originally stood, without the supplementary amendment ; for it contained an excep-
tion in favor of importers of goods, who sold them in the original bnlk or package in
which they were imported.
{di Constitation, art. 1, sec. 10. By act of Congress of 27th Febmary, 1801,
c 83, the assent of Congress was declared to an act of the legislature of Uaryland
appointing a health officer for the port of Baltimore, so ^ as to enaUe the state to
collect a dnty of one per cent per ton on all vessels coming into the district ut Balti-
more from a foreign voyage, for the purpose intended in the act. This act of Con-
gress is evidence of the restricted sense given to the clansa in the ConstitDtion rated
in the text
[586]
D.qitizeabyG00<^lc
LECT. ZIZ.] THE UNITED STATES. * 489
spection laws are not, strictly speaking, regulationa of commerce.
Their object is to improve the quality of articles produced by the
labor of the country, and to fit them for exportation or for domes-
tic use. These laws act upon the subject before it becomes an
article of commerce. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and
health laws, as well as laws for regulating the internal com-
merce of a state, are component parts of the immense mass
of residuary state legislation, and over which Congress have no
direct power, though it may be controlled when it directly inter-
feres with their acknowledged powers, (e) It has been held, (/)
that if Congress, in the execution of the power to regulate com-
merce, should pass a statute controlling state legislation in erect-
(«) Htnhall, Ch. J., in Oibbona n. Ogdea, 0 Wheaton, 20S. In the case of The
City of New York u. Miln, 11 Peters, 102, it wm decided that a law of Now York,
«f Febniarr, 1S24, requiring, nnder a penalty, the maatcT of every veaael from any
port ont of the state to report in writing, within twenty-four hours after hU arrival,
the names, ages, and la«t IsgU aetttement of the paaaengsra, and that the master or
owners ahonld give bond with anretiea to indemnify the city againtt the fnture chaises
of paMengen who were not citizens, was not a regnlation of commerce, bnt of police,
■nd waa a constitntional and valid law. The case received a very elaborate discns-
alon ; bat it is rather difficult, aa I apprehend, to exempt the New York Uw from
the ohatacter of a regnUtion of commerce, or to withdraw the case out of the reach
of the former doctrines of the court, that the power to regulate comnierce with far-
mgn naUoQS is, and necessarily must be, exetariTe in the government of the United
States. In pnTsnanca of the principle of thia last decision, it was held, in Norris d.
City <it Boston, 4 Metcalf, 282, that a state law prohibiting the landing of alien pas-
aeugen, until the owner, master, or consignee of the vessel paid two dollan for each
paasenger, for the eopport of foreign paapers, was not repugnant to the Coastttution
of the United Statea. It was a rpgulation of municipal police, and not of commerce.
[Pod, 48B, n. 1.] So, in the case of Voreley v. Second Municipality of K. 0., 9 Bob.
(La.) 324, it lits been sdjadged that an ordinance of the mDoicipality of New Orleans,
Imposing a wharbge on all packages landed in or shipped from the limits of the sanie,
waa valid, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. The Cousti-
tntioo of the United States never intended to authorize Congress to interfere with the
laws of the statea in relation to wharves and other instruments of trade, and in the
preservation of harbors, Ac. A contribution to defray the expense of constrncting
bridgee or causeways, or removing obstructions in waterconraes, and a retribution
for this expense, to be paid by those who ate benefited, are not an impost, tax,
or duty.
Again, in the case of Howelt v. The State of Maryland, before the Court of Appeals,
io December, 1S4G. [3 Gi)l, 14,] it wu decided that a sUte tax on the interest in aU
•hips Of odier vessels, whether in or ont of port, owned by persons resident of the
state, was a valid tax, and not protected by the act of Congress licensing vessels, nor
npognant to the Constitatimi or laws of the United 8l«te«.
(/) Wilson V. The Blackbird Creek Harsh Company, 3 Peters, 24S ; Thompson,
J., 11 Peters, 1«, 150, ». p.
[687]
sObyGoOl^lc
*4S9 JUBISPBITDENCE OP [pABT U.
ing dams over small navigable creeks where the tide ebba and
flows, it would be valid and binding. But until Gongresa had
actually exercised their power over the subject, the state legisla-
tion in that case was not considered as repugnant to the power
in Congress in its dormaiU state to regulate commerce, (x) It is
(z) See supra, 268, Dat« (z). Com- PitUborgh ic. Rj. Co. tt. Bwkn*, lb* V.
merce uneng the States is both traffic uid S. 421 ; CleTeland, kc. By. Co. *. Pi^kni^
iat«rcourae, embneiiig ereiy (pecias of id. 43S ; Coviugtoa &c. Uiidge Co. w. Ken-
commeTcial intercoune betWMn the United tacky, 1G4 U.S. 204; WatetbooMB.CoiMr,
States and foreign nations and among tha GS Fed. Rep. liS ; I* re Sch«ehtw, •> id.
States, and iadading anch trade or traffic, 695 ; S3 Cent. L. J. SOT ; SO id. 181, n.,
buying, selling, and interctiange of oom- 802 ; 82 id. 73 ; 2G Am. L. Rev. 170 ; 2t
moditiei a* directly affect or necessarily id, 2E ; 4 Harr. L. Ber. 221, Thna qoar-
inTolve the interests of the people of tha antine laws, thoogh regnlatioDs of c«n-
DDited States. Okacesttr Ferty Co. e. merce, belong to the class wUch the Statss
PennsylTSDta, 114" C. 8. 1(W ; Kidd v. may enact tmtil Congren l^islatea open
Pearson, 128 U. 8. 1 ; United States e. Z. the salgect or forbids State laws. Hor-
C. Knight Co., 156 U. 8. 1 ; Pittabnigh gan's La. Ac & Co. o. Board of Health,
A S. Coal Co. V. LoQiilana, id. 600 ; 118 U. 8. 4G6i see 2 Harr. L. Ber. 267,
People «. Wemple (ISl N. T. 64), 27 2B8 ; 25 Am. L. Rer. 45 ; Hinne^mlii,
Am. St. Bep. 642, and note. Under the Ac., Ey. Co. «. Hilner, 57 Fed. Sep. 27a
power to regnUte commerce. Congress can But State pilot taws cannot discriminats
construct, or anthorize the construction of, between the Teasels of ita own port* and
railroads across the States and territories, those of s4joining States. Spraigne «.
California v. Central Padflc R. Co., 127 Thompson, 118 U. 8. 90 ; State v. Penny,
U. 3. 1. To exclude State legielation, 10 S. C. 218. So a Stata occnpation tu
Congress roust have acted, if the matter is invalid, if it ia so franied as to enate a
is loc«t and only Inddeutklly affecta com- disctiminstive burden upon the citizens oi
meroe, since intaratata commerce properly producta of other States. WsUing «.
relates only to national maUers or to mat- Uichigan, 116 IT. 8. 440. The oonslitn-
tera which Tequire rt^latiou and nnl- tional prohibition against the lerying of
formity in the Torloue States. Rhea c. State dntiss on imports or exports relates
Newport, Ac. B. Co., 60 Fed, Bep. IS ; to foreign, not to interstate, oommelce.
Cardwell r. American Bridge Co., 118 U. Brown v. Honston, 114 U. S. 822.
S. 205 ; Ueui7 v. Roberta, BO Fed. Rep. lotetstate oommerce Is interfered with
902 1 Bobbins v. Shelby C. Taxing Die- by a State sUtnto which imposea a license
trict, 120 U. 8. 489 ; Walling v. Hichigui, tax on tnvelling salesmen, so far a« non-
lia U, 8. 448 ; Brown v. Honaton, 114 U. residents' "goods are exclnded or tared :
S. 622; Philadelphia *c. 8. Co.*. Pennsyl- Cnitoher ». Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47:
vwiia, 122 U. S. S2S ; Wartatn U. T. Co. Bobbins v. Shelby County Taxing Die.
». PeudletaD, Id. 847 ; Bowman v. Chicago trict, 120 U. S, 48B ; Brsnnan n. Titus.
t N. W. Ry. Co., 12G U. 8. 46fi ; Smith Tills, 16S U. S. 389 ; /n re Mitchell, 61
D. Alabama, 124 U. S. 46G i see also Hen- Fed. Rep. G76 ; Ex parte Hough, 69 id.
derson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 141 U. S. 880 ; see 7n r« Spain, 47 id. 908 ; Jb
679 ; Postal Tel. Co. v. Charleston, 163 pari* Brown, 48 id. 43G ; State v. Fntt,
n. S. 69S ; Luxton v. North Rirer Bridge G9 Vt. 590 ; Ex parit Bliss, «8 N. H.
Co., id. 525 ; Ashley e. Byan, id. 486 ; ISfi ; State k. Sterenacm, lOB H. a 7S0 i
[6883
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. X1X-] THE DNITEp 8TATEB. " 439
admitted, however, (^) that the grant to Coogress to regulate
oommeroe on the navigable waters of the several states contains
(9) Gorfleld t>. CotjeO, 4 Wuh. 371-
Ficklsn V. Shelby Coanty, liS U. S. 1 j nhiaco, aes Wutani U. Tel. Co. r. Hubs-
Oretton v. Vicksbaig, 70 MUa. &G8 i Bx chnsetti, 12e V. 8. SSO ; 8t. Louis t>.
parU Thomas, 71 CoL 204 ; £>: parU Western U. T. Co., 118 D. S. BS ; McCall
BowDbUtt, 19 Nev. 430; or an Act pro- v. Califomia, 136 U. 8. 104 ; Sua Frui-
hibitiDg peddling without a liceiwe u ciaco v. Weatern U. T. Co., SO CbL 140 i
agaimt the agent of a foreign maoDbo- People v. Wemple, 6G Han, 2S2 ; by a
turer who baa with him the gooda oSered law exdading horn a Stats a coipoimtion
for sale : Emert v. MuMuri, IM U. 8. engaged in inteistate or foreign oomnwree :
396 ; AisericaD Harrow Co. v. Shaffer, 68 Postal Tel. Cable Co. t>. Adams, 1G6 U. a
Ftid. Bep. 760 ; by an Act requiring gaod< 608 ; Cooper Hannf. Co. «. 7etgaaaa, IIS
made b7 convict labor in other States to U. 8. 727 j but not including the bnii>
be ao labelled when exposed for aale: neas of luaiiue inaunnce. Hooper v,
Feopla V. Hawkins, SI V. Y. S. US ; by California, 166 U. S. 64S. StaU Uwa pro-
a 8tate Chineae exduaiou law i Sx pari* Minting the aale of imported intoxicatiiig
Ah Cue, 101 Cal. 1B7 ; or one that re- liquors, &c., in their original packagea are
strict! fordgn commerce : Cuban 3. Co. v. invalid prior to tbe Act of Congnss of
FitziMitrick, 66 Fed. Rep. 38 ; by an Act Aog. 8, ISM (26 St at L. 313), which de-
probibitiiig the tranaportation of diseased dared that such liqaora ahall, on arrival
cattle through the State : Orlmes n, Eddy, in a State, be subject to the police pow-
1S6 Ho. 16S ; Rouse «. Youard (Kansas), ers of the State. I^isy v. Hardin, 186 U.
41 Fac. Bep. 426 { by State iuspectioii or S. 100; Bowmsn s. Chicago & N. W. Ry.
license Uwa, which discriminats against Co., 12G D. 9. 465 ; In re Bahrer, 140 U.
goods from other States or impose onerous 8. 564 ; In re Spickler, 48 Fed. Rep. 658 ;
fees Dpon such goods : Minnesota c. Bar- /n rt Sanders, GS id. 802 ; Cantini v. Till-
ber, 136 U. S. 313 ; Brimmer v. Rebman, man, 54 id. 969 ; In re Langford, G7 id.
ISS U. B. 78 i Voight «. Wright, 141 U. 670 ; ExparU Edgertoo, 69 id. 116 ; In rt
8. 02 ; HuSman v. Harvey, 128 lod. 600 ; Minor, 69 id. 2S3 ; State v. Lord (K. H.>,
Geoigia Packing Co. n. Uacon, 60 Fed. SOAtL Bep. GSfl; Durkeec. Moses <N.H.),
Bep. 774 ; In n Schechter, 68 id. 696 j by 2S Id. 798 ; Indianapolis v. Bieter (Ind. ),
an Act requiring separote raflroad cws for 8fl N. E. B«p. 867 ; State e. Kibling, SS
aU colored and white passengers, tbongh Vt. 686 ; State v. Parsone, 124 Mo. 436;
paasing throngh the Stata : Anderson v. Harrison i.. State, 91 Ala. 62 ; Hopkins
Louisville ft N. R. Co., 62 Fed. Bep. 46 ; «. Lewis, 84 Iowa, 690 ; State o.Wheelock
br « State law authorizing lands to be re. (lo"")- «* ^- ^- ^^ ^''°'
claimed nnd^r important tidal channels : The following do not unlawfolly in-
Coxe D. State, 144 N, Y. 388 ; by an Act terfere with interstate commerce: State
operating boyoi'l the Stats and making a inspection, fish, and game hiws not dis-
carrier liable for connecting carriers' neg- criminatingsgainatother States: Patapeoo
ligence : McCann ». Eddy, (Mo.), 27 B. Gnano Co. e. Bo«ird of Agricnlture, 63
W. Bep. 541 ; by a dty licpnae fee for Fed. Rep. 690 : Glover v. Floor Inspec-
vesseU already licensed under V. S. Bev. tow, 48 id. 848 1 Minnesota v. Barber,
Stats, g 4821 : Harmon v. Chicago, 147 136 IT. 8. 313 ; Manebertar e. Hassacbn-
TJ. S. 896; by applying atete-tajt laws aetts, 189 U. 8. 240 ; O^an v. State, 66
to corpontioaa possesBing national tnn- Ark. 267 ; Stata v. Oer. 61 Conn. 144 ;
[589]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 439 JUBIBFBDDENCB OF [PABT U.
no cessioD of territory, or of public or private property; and
that the states may by law reflate the use of fisheries and
Bennett v. Americsn Expi«n Co, 8S tbereTor : Braas u. North Dakota, 153 U.
Maine, S3S ; the Uouachoaetti oleomat- 3. 8BI ; Budil i>. New York, 143 U. S. 617 ;
gaiine law of 1891 to prevent decep- State lawi taxing the Tiuichue of foreign
tion by imitating batter : Plnmley v. corporatioiia, or thsir capital uaed in thi
MMsachuaettB, 1&9 U. S. 161 ; aee In rt State : People c. Wemple, 131 N. T. 61 ;
Worthen, S8 Fed. Bep. 187 ; £e parte Hom S. H. Co. e. New Tork, 113 D. S.
Scott, 06 id. 16; Com'th if. Scholleu- SOS; Lehigh Valley K. Co. v. PenoiylTa-
berger, IGS Penn. St. 201 ; Com'th d. nia, 145 U. 8. 1G2, 205 ; Maine v. Grand
HnnUey, 15S Maw. 28S ; an Act impoa- Tmnk By. Co., US U. 8. 217 ; Pacific
ing a penalty for delay in delivering a Eipreei Co. b. Seiliert, id. 330 ; Pnll-
telegnun: Western V. T. Co. d. Bright, man'a Palace Cu Co. v. FeaDijlvania,
SO Va. 778; an Act forbidding certain 141 U. S. 18; AtL-Oen. i>. WMtera U.
kinds of fiab canght within the State to T. Co., id. 40 ; Fickaid v. Pullman 8. Car
be ihipped oat of the State : Ibid. ; State Co., 117 D. S. 31 ; Wabash, &c. Ry. Co.
V. NortbemP. E. Co. IMinu.), B9N. W. «. lUioMS, 118 U. S. ES7 ; Onachita
Kep. 1100 ; sniti against carriers in Stata Packet Co. s. Aiken, 121 U. a (44 ;
conrta after ligislatioD by Congresi npon Fargo e. Stevens, id. 220 ; Pembiiia 0. S.
the sabject : Munay d. Chicago A N. W. M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 13S U. S. 181 ;
Ry. Co., 02 Fed. Rep. 24 ; St. Joseph & Hew York, jbc. R. Cu. v. Pennsylvania,
Q. I. B. Co. f. Palmer, 38 Neb. IBS ; 158 U. S. ISl ; Soathem Ry. Co. ■.
State laws prohibiting the sale of foreign Asheville, 69 Fed. Rep. 3E9 ; Sanford v.
bonds, which are a species of lottery : Bal- Poe, id. 516; or relief granted b; the
lock V. State, 78 Hd. 1 ; Acts r^nkting ooarts to protect a lawful stmctan like a
the running of ttwis ; Chicago & A. R. bridge across navigable waters. Texas i
Co. V. People, lOS IlL 657 ; State t>. Olad- P. Ry. Co. v. Intentate Trans. Co, 15G
•on (Minn.), fiS N. W. Rep. 187 ; Lake U. S. G85.
Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. r. State, 8 Oiiio The 14th Amendment does not gnai-
Cir. Ct 220 ; or rates on lailroada within autee to the citiien of a State the right to
one State : Wabash, &c,, Ry. Go. v. Illi- contract therelu in violatioa of Its laws ;
nois, 118 U. S. G67 ; Stone n. Trust Co., and such a businen as that of insurance,
116 U. S, S07 ; Chicago & Q. T. Ej. Co. including marine insnrsnce, ia not eom-
r. Wellman, 118 V. S. 331 ; an Act im- inerce in such s sense as to prevent s State
posing penalties for neglect to fencs a rail- from prescribing and enforcing conditauia
road : Uinneapdis & St. L. By. Co. e. on which a foreign insurance company can
Beckwjtb, 139 V. S. 2S ; or in delivering do badne«a in the State. Hooper e. Cali-
telegnuna: Weatera U. T, Co. v. Jamas, fomis, 15G U. S. 618; State r. Phippo, 50
90 Ga. 251 ; or allowing damigea against Kansas, 609; Philadelphis Fire Ass'n •.
a railroad for injury by fire; HcCandleas New York, US U. 8. 110. The powers
c. Richmond & D. R. Co., 38 S. C. 103 ; conferred npon the general government
service of a sammoos on a non-resident with respect to intarstate commerce and
passing thnmgh the Stata to attend court the pcatal service are not domant, having
in another State as a witness : Holyoke &c. been the subject of legislation by Con-
Co. V. Ambden, GG FtA. Rep. 563 ; an grass, and it may exercise such powers by
Act making grain elevators public ware- forcibly removing obstructions to their
houses, and prescribing rates of chaigea exercise or a^eal to the dvil conito for
[690]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIX.] TBE UNITED STATES. " 489
ojster-beds within their territorial limits, though upou navigable
iraterB, provided the free use of the waters for purposes of navi-
gation and commercial intercourse be not interrupted, {hy
(A) In the Mse of Grorea v. Slaughter, IS Peters, MS, there wu no opinion of the
eoort on the question of the inteniBl uominerce of the atatea aa to the alave-tnule ;
bat tiro of the jndgea (Ch. J. Taney and Mr. Justice MeLean) declared their opinion
to be, that the power to regulate traffic iu alavee between the different states resided
in the etatea aeparatel; and exclaaively ; that each fasd & light to decide for itaelt
Wbether it would or would not allow slaves to be brought within ite limita from
another state, either for sale or otherwise, and to presctibe the manner and mode of
their introduction, and the conditions ; that the Conatitutian did not consider slavea
■a merchandise, and that the action and regalation of the several states on this subject
did not trench upon the power of Congress to regukte commerce " among the several
statee," and could not be controlled by it. It may not be amiss to observe, that in
the above case of Groves v. Slaoghtet it was held that the clause io the constitution of
the State of Mississippi, of 1S32, declaring that the introduction of alaves into that
atate as merchandise or for sale *&<7uU bt prohibUed after the 1st of Msy, tSSS, waa not
operative per ae, so as to invalidate a contntct of aole of a slave introduced in violation
1 A. JtegKljOwn of Camnurte.— {a) v. Hudson R. Bridge Co., * Blatchf 74,
I'omnqfCongratand(ifaeSlaia. — T:be Z96 ; 1 Black, G82 ; 2 Wall. 103 ; Works c
power to r^ulate commerce in matters Junction R.,R., 5 HcL> 42G; Hinsnn v.
requiring a general aystem and uniform Lott, 8 Wall. 14S, 151 ; United States v.
rule is in Congnsa exclusively, Cooley Dniuth, 1 Dillon, 4S9. But it is difficult
V. Board of Wardsns, IS How. 29S, SIS ; to determine in some cues whether Con-
Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148, 152 ; Oil- gress has acted in such a way aa to ez-
man c. Philadelphia, S Wall. 713, 72fl, elude state legislation or not. Thus, in
7S7 i Swamsbip Co. o. Portwardens, 6 the esse of Pennsylvania o. Wheeling
Wall. SI ; Cnindall e. Nevada, ib. K ; Bridge Co., 13 How. CIS, it appeared that
Erie Railway v. State, 2 Troom (81 N. J.), Congress had regulated navigation on the
KSl, MS ; and in al) cases the power of Ohio River by licensing vessels, establish-
Congren i« pwamonot when exercised, ing porta of entry, imposing dutiea on
Wheeling Bridge Case, ij^ra; SOliman masters of boats, Jbc., and had sanctioned
relief by injunction, even though such Baltimore A 0. R. Co., 127 TJ. S. 117 ;
obstroction* consist of acta which violate Fullman't Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania,
the criminal law. /« « Deb», 158 U. S. HI U. S. 18 ; Cleveland ic. Ry. Co. c.
e<4. The police power of a State does Backus, 164 U. S. 4SS.
not enable it to regulate, at points beyond The obligations assumed by a common
the State, telc^^phic messages received carrier engaged in interatate commerce are
within the State. Wsstem U. T. Co. e. determined by the ocmmon law where it
Pendleton, 122 U. S. 8*7. While a State has not been changed by competent legis-
eannot impose s tax or bnrden npon the lative action. Hnn«y v. Chicago tt N.
privilc^ of doing the business of inter- W. By. Ca, 92 Fed. Bep. 21. The Inter-
state commerce, it can place a property state Commerce Act (24 St. at L. 870 ;
tax on the instrumentalities engaged in 26 id. 855) limits railroads engaged in
auch commerce, the value of the property intaistate commerce to the freight charges
being the basis of taxation. Marye v. named in their pablinlipil schedules, and
[691]
sObyGoOl^lc
•489 JDEISPEUDENCE OF [PAST H.
9. ProgTMa of th« ITktlonal Jnrlapradanoe. — I have nov finished
the Becond general division of this course of lectures, relating to
of the constitntional proviaioa, uid that it wu 011I7 mBiulitorj npoD the ctate l^iik-
tnre, and required their autioD to gir« it effect. The dedtiaiu in the ttate eontt* of
MisBiuippi wen contrary, and thej held that tlie prohiUtion in the constitalion wu ■
declantiou of s principle, uid bindlDg M a Buprema law, without the addition of
legislative saDctian, and that a contract of sale of a lUve in Tiolatiou of it waa nM.
Thii qoestioQ waa disctuaed in » DtBtterl; manner hy CIl J. Sharkejr, in the caas of
Brian v. Williamwn, [7 How. 14J decided in Uke High Conit of Encra ud Appeali of
the 8tat« of Hiasisaippi, in Uarch, 1S43, in faTor of the oonibuctian and effect alradj-
given to the coiutitntion of that ttcta, I^ the state court*, and in apposition to that
given In the caae of Orovea c. Slaogfater. The case of Cotton «. Brien, S EoU (La.)
lie, is to the aame effect aa the dedaion in MisuasippL [1. Poaer o/Congmt. — Tba
a compact between Virginia and Ken- passed in conseqnence of the fonmr deei-
tQck; that the use and naTigation of the don, was held lawftd. (Oray v, dinton
river ebonld be free *nd commoD to the Bridge, 7 Am. Law Beg. n. b. 146 ; The
dtizena of the United Stales. Defend- Clinton Bridge, 10 WaU. 454.) Gilnun
aiita, however, bj anthority of Virginia, e. Fliiladelphia, S WalL 713, was vny
put a bridge acroaa the river which at cer- like the Wheeling Bridge caae, bat waa de-
tain states of the water obatrurted navi- cided the other way. Hr. Justice Clifford
gation. The 3apreme Court held that makes it pretty dear by his able disKiit-
Congress had acted suffidimtly in the iug opinion that Congress had regulated
premieea, that the power of Congress to navigation on the waten wbich woe
regulate conunerce included tbe power to crossed by the bridge complained of, and
regulate navigatiou, and that the court the decision, ifoonaistent with the Wbeel-
had jurisdiction to decree the removal of ing Bridge case, would seem to stand m
the bridge at the enit of tbe State of Peon- the ground that in tbe Litter the proviaao
eylvania. In B. c, 18 How. 421, a atat- that the navigation of the Ohio ahonld
ute legaliring the bridge, which had been be free, waa directly contravened, whereai
state legislation not conaiBtent therewith 209) declares illegal unlawful monopolies,
is invalid. Gulf, C. A S. By. Co. v. contracts, and combinatious in reatiaint
Hefley, 168 U. S. 98. of trade or commeree among the several
Tribunals for a^jnatiiig discrimiaating States or with foreign nationa. See /a
and ontair interetate rates were provided re Greene, 62 Fed. Bep. 104; Fumen' L.
for by the Act of Congress of Feb. 4, 1887 T. &c. Co. d. No. Pac R. Co., SO id. 803 ;
(24St atL. 379.) See £1 parte Koebler, Thonuw n, Cincinnati, &c By. Co., 62id.
30 Fed. Bap. 8S7 ; Uissouri & Pac. By. 80S ; /» n Grand Jury, id. 838, 840 1
Co. IT. Texas k Pac By. Co., 81 id. 882. United SUtes n. Csasidy, 87 id. 898. The
Sect. IS of this Act, enabling the circuit Act of 18tN) is not an invasion of the ri^t
courts to use their proceea in aid of inquir- of trial by jury. Interstate Commerce
iea before the Interstate Comoieroe Com- Commisaion 0. Brimaon, 164 U. S. 447 ;
mission, ie constitutionaL Intentate United States d. Debs, 84 Fed. Bep. 7S4;
Commerce Comroission v, Bdmaon, 164 S3 id. 43S. An injunction against a con-
U. 8. 447. apirao; defined in the Act of Jnlv i, 1890,
The Act of July 2, 1890 (36 St. at L. % G, may be made DperariveBgainatpartie-
[692]
sObyGoOl^lc
LKT. XIX.] THE UNITED STATES. * 43d
the goTemmeat and constitutional jurisprudence of the United
States. Though I have considered the subject in a spirit of free
power v«Bted Id Congnea to regulate intentate and roreign commerce includen the
ri^t to regulate all the meaua and inatrumeDta by which ench commerc« is carried on,
•ad which might be naed b; the atAtes to diacrimiaate in any way igHiiut such com-
mene. Thna, it haa been held Uiat intentate talegtaphic communicatiao may be
r^nlatad by Congreaa. PcDaacola Tel. Co, v. Western Union TeL Co., 98 U. S. 1 ;
Telegiaph Co. n. Teiaa, IOC U. S. 4fl0. No deBnite rale haa been, or perhaps can be,
Uid down at to when the power ia ahaolntelj eiclusiTe, and when, on Ihe other hand,
it dependa upon an act of CoDgreaa aaanming to take control of the subject It has
been taid to be thna ezcluiive when the anlgect is national in charactai and admila of
• amtorm ngnlation. County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 V. 8. 881 ; Welton d. Mi»-
Mori, 91 U. S. 27G ; Henderson v. Hayot, 92 U. S. 2G9 ; HaU v. He Cnir, 96 U. 8.
in the other case the ragulationa of Con- Other decisions are that a state cannot
grew, if they applied to the waters in impow reetrictious od a licenaed coaster
qnestioD, were not inconaiatent with the in addition to thoae imposed by Congress,
eontinuance of the bridge. There ia a Sinnot o. Davenport, 23 How. 227 ; al-
fnrther distinotioD, that the whole of the tfaongb the veaael wa« at the time em-
Schaylkill Biver (the liver bridged in pk^red within the waten of a state in
Qilman's c«ae| lay within the State of lightering veeeela in the foreign or coast-
Pennsylvania ; but the Supreme Court wise trade, Foster e. Davenport, 22 How.
oxpreaaly aasert that the power to npi- Mi.
late commerfe comprehends the control When Congress has not acted, the
for that purpose, and to the extent necea- statea have more power, and, at leaat in
■ary, of bU navigable waters of the United matters of local interest, they may make
Statea which are acceadble fhim a state local n^^olations. Thna, it appears that
other than thoae in which they lie. 8 they ma; anthoriie the constrncdon of
Wall. 724, 7S6; The Daniel Ball, 10 bridges, &c., over navigable waters within
Wall. 6S7, GM. their limits. Gihnan v. Philadelphia, to-
Ipants nof named in the order, bnt within guine case (Plnmley d. Massachusetts, IGS
its terms, and served with the writ. U. S. 481), was that it ia within the power
United States «. Elliott, 84 Fed. Bep. of the States to exclude from their mar-
S7 ; 62 id. 801 ; see United States v. hots articlce of food of a deceptive or
Alger, id. 834. Irandnlent ehaiacter, which are likely or
The jndiciary are not entitled to enter liable to be sold or taken for what they
npcm such purely administrative duties as are not ; and that each articles, thongh
the framing of ntea for carriage, but may subjects of interstate commerce, are at all
TMtnin that which, in the form of regn- timea within the operation of the police
lating rates, amoQDta to a denial to prop- regulatioDB of the States. It is also within
erty ownen engaged in transportation of the police power of a State to require for-
that equal protection which is the consti- eign rags arriving at its principal port to
tntional right of owners of other kinds of he disinfected, and to make the expense
proper^. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan Trust thereof a lien on the rags. Train v. Boa-
Co., lU U. S. 8S2. ton Disinfecting Co., 114 Mass. 628.
The decision in the above oleomar-
VOL. t.— 88 [598]
;abyG00<^lc
*439 jniUBPRDDEMCB OP [PABT IL
and liberal inquiry, aa tihe series of decisions in the federal courts
have been brought under ezaminatiDn, I hare uniformly felt, and
4SS ; cues infra. It extends to commerce between poioti in the aune state, if nich
commerce involTea truuit throogh oatdde territory. Loid v. Steuniliip Co., lOS IT.
S. fill. — 2. Paaer 0/ Slat**. -•Ttie atates ht-ve eiclnaiTe control of ail tnatten rf
punly internU concern. Thiu, thay Iiave an onlimited right of taxing all the prop-
ertj within tbeii borden, provided they do not so eierciia the power aa to diecriminete
igainet property brought into the atate ^m outeide. The qnealiDn of if bether the
tax is laid on imported goods in otiguul pocbtgee or at a later atiga wonld leem to be
immaterial, providing the poipoee and effect of the tax is to diicriminate against neh
goodi. Thus, a law requiring a liuenae fee Atim agente selling imported goods which
waa not required &om agents aelling goods manafactnred in the state, has been hdd
invalid. Webber v. Virginia, 108 U. S. 844. See farther. Cook e. Pannaylrania, S7
U. 8. H6 ; Welton d. llitaonri, 91 U. S. 276 ; Harahalltown v. Blum, Iowa. 18SS ;
New Orleans v. Ton Boat Co., 33 La. Ann. 047 ; Higgina v. Lime, 130 Maaa. I.
Comp, Corson «. State, 07 Hd. 3S1, where there waa no such diseriminatioa. In gen-
eial, any reetrictions, direct or Indirect, npoo 4iu eDtry into, exit from, or paaa^
through a state, of peraona, property, or communicationa, ia beyond the limit of state
power. Cases tupra ; Chj Long v. Freeman, 92 U. 3. S7G ; State Freight Tax, IS
Wall. 232 ; Indians v. American Expreaa Co., 7 Biaa. 327 ; Conndl Blntb v. £., a
Ac. B. B. Co., 4S Iowa, 388. Bnt a state law is valid the primary pnrpose and efiect
of which is to regnlate a matter of purely internal concern, thongh it may incidentally
affect interstate and foreign commerce ; though Congreaa may at any time snpanade
such a law so far as it affects interstate or foreign commerce. Thns, state tcgolstiaa
of the rates to be charged by railmtds and warehomiea within the atata haa bean hdd
prtt. See Comm. o. Ne* Bedford Bridge, laws, for a breach of pnper state legn-
2 Gray, 8SB ; United States 0. New Bed- Utions. Smith v. Haryland, 18 Row.
ford Bridge, 1 W. * H. 401 ; Silliman v. 71.
HodsonR. Bridge Co., 4 Blatcbf. 74, 39G; Although, as haa been aald, a stroun
1 Black, G82 ; Albany Bridge Case, 2 may be entirely within one state and yet
WaU. 408 ; The Passaic Bridges, 3 Wall, be a highway for commerce with enothv,
788; Illinois R. Packet Co. v. Peoria and sul^ect to the n^fulatioiu of Congiesa
Bridge Ass., 38 IlL 467 ; Woodmsn v. for that pnrpoee, it seems to be consistent
Eilboum Han. Co., S Am. L. Beg. N. s. with this doctrine thst a state may giant
28S. They may regulate plotage and im- the exdnaiTe navigation of a river lying
pose penalties on veesels not taking pilots, wholly wiUiin its limits and ronnlng into
Cooley D. Board of Wardena, 13 How. 299. the aea, above the point of navigability
See Ciaco r. Boberts, S6 N. T. 292 1 Steam- from the sea, the waters in question not
ship Co. B. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 4S0. (But a
law entitling portwardens to a fee, whether ODtdde the s
called on for any servioe or not, from How. GflS.
every veesel arriving in that port, ia void. (t) Over what Oamnura. — Again, it
Steamship Co. v. Portwardena, A Wall. SI. is alwaya conceded that Omgress hsa no
See People s. Brooks, 4 Den. 4S9.) They oontrol over commBroe which is eanied
may protect their oyster lisheriea, even on entirely within the limits of a atat^
by inflicting the forfeitara of a vessel en- and which doea not extend to or altoet
rolled and licensed under United Statea other states (except, aoootding to Chaae,
[594]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. XII.] THE UNITED STATES. • 489
it has been my inrariable disposition to inculcate, a strong
sentiment of deference and respect for the judicial authorities
vaUd. HoDD e. lUinou, B4 U. S. 118 ; Chicago, kc. R. R. Co. t>. low*, ib. 105 ;
Peik V. Chicago, &«.&.£. Co., ib. ISl ; W., St. L., Ac. By. Co. v. The People, lOIt
111. 23S. A lUte may also, aatyact to the aapeiior right of Congt«ss, pus lavi in aid
of commerce where the enbject-nuitter is esBentiallj local in character ; e. g., for bnild-
iog bridges, improTing nangable watara, &c. Coanty of Mobile d. Kimbdl, 102 U. S.
«81 ; Pound a. Toiek, 9G 17. a 458 j Wisconsin o. DalQth, BS U. S. 879 ; Sooth
Carolina i>. Georgia, 93 U, S, i; Sheiiocb v. Ailing, ib. 96 ; Bridge Co. n. ITmted
States, 106 U. S. 470 ; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. e78 ; Miller «. Mayor
109 U. S. SaS. A state has the further power to pass such laws aa are reasonably
necessary to the regalation of Its internal police, though aach lawB may incidentally
affect iuteratate or foreign conutierce. Thus, it sia; pass iaspectiou laws, Turner ■>.
Maryland, 107 U. S. 88 ; s. c GS Ud. 240 ; may make reasonable n^nhtione aa to
landing-place* along the borders of naTigable tivfra. Packet Co. o. Catlettsburg, lOS
U. S. 669 : Packet Co. v. St Loois. 100 U. 8. 423 ; Yickabni^ e. Tobin, ib. 480 ;
Packet Co. V. Keokuk, 96 U. S. 80 ; may pronde that certain kinds of property shall
not be allowed within its borden in ancb a conditioii as to be dangerous, Harrigan d.
Conn. River Lumber Co., ISS Mass. 680 ; may impose license fees even upon Teasela
engaged in inteistste commerce, Traosportation Co. v. Wheeling 98 U. S. 278 ;
Wiggins Ferry Co. n. Em! St. Louis, 107 U. S. 806. Bat aach lawa mnit not iuTtde
the exelutiiK domain of CongreM, Foster d. Master. &c, 94 U. S. 246 ; Henderson •.
Mayor, S2 U. S. 269 ; Salzenstein n. Maris, 91 111. 891. See farther on sntgect,
Bailroad Co. v. Hichmond, 19 Wall. S84 ; King e. American Trans. Co., 1 Flip. 1 ;
Swestt t. Boaton, &c. R. B. Co., 8 Cliff. S39. — B.]
C J. , as a neceiMry and proper means the eontrcl of Congress, while the partien-
for carrying into execution some other lar commerce, as sach, ws« not. The
pawereipresslyglantedorTested. United Daaiel Ball, 10 Wall. G67, Gfl6 ; The
State* ■>. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41, 11; anU, Bright Star, 1 Woolw. 2Se, 27S. See
264, o. 1). On these principles a police State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 204,
regulation of sale* of inflammable oils 216.
was held to hare no constitutional opera- Bat a pretty liberal view is taken t^
tion on sale* within tlie serenl states, the Supreme Court of what constitutes
United State* «. Dewitt, t>tpra. So, a commerce between the several states, at
law requiring parsons not to engage in least when it consists of trsnsportation on
certain hinds of bnsiness, (och aa selling the navigable waters of the United States.
liquor b; retail, withont having obtained It is enough to subject a vessel to the reg-
a license from the United States, wm in- alatioiiB of Congress that she is engsged
terpreted as a mere form of impodOR a in carrying goods destined to a point ont-
tai, and it was iutimsted that each a side the stata over such waters, although
llcsnss conld not give antharity to cany she doe* not run in connection with any
on the basinesB within a stata. License of the lines leading to each points, and
Tax Cases, 6 Wall. 482, 471- It wontd the waters in question lie wholly within
not matter probably that commerce wholly the stata. The Daniel Ball, lo' Wall. 667
within one state was carried on by means Commtret by Land, j-e. — In the Daniel
of the navigable waters of the United Ball the conrt expressly refrained front
States. The waters might be subject to expressing an ojdnion npnn the power ft
[695]
50byGoO>^lc
*489 JUBISPBDDXNCE OF [PABT n.
of the Union. No point or question of any mcmteDt toochii^;
the conatruction of the powers of the government, and which
Congress otbt iDtorstkts comoMrM wbea salo by the impiHtar in tlw origilisl
carried on by land tnnsportation, but it packsgcs. License Cues, S How. NH.
has been Mserted elsevhera that the In Pervear v. Conunonwealtti, fi Wall,
power extends to tlie ragolatiDn of nil- iJ5, 476, it did not appear that the liqoor
Toada which have voluDtarilj beoome puia of which the sale in original packages
of lines of comDnmication between the was prohibited was not home-made (see,
states, or to the creation of nicfa loada. alao, Downham v. Alexandiu Conncil, 10
The Clinton Bridge, 1 Woolw. 160, 1S2 ; Wall. 17S), or in other hands than thoaa
8.0.8 Am. I«w Reg. h. a. 14&. Bat ae« of the importer, and a state may tax «!«
12 Op. Att-Gen. 337. So it has been of goods from abroad in the original pack-
thonght that it does to the case of the ages, by one not the importer, for instance,
Atlantic talagnphs, 12 Op. Att-0«n. 387 ; one who pnrchased them when at sea, but
and to telegraphs on land. Western Un. whosetitle did not accrue nntil the goods
Tel. Co. V. Pacific States T. Co., 5 Sev. were in port. Waring e. The Mayor, 8
102. The tight to establish feniee is Wall. 110. Under a nniform tax od all
reaerrsd to the states. Conway s. Taylor, sales made within its limits, it may tu
I Black, 603 ; Fanning v. Oregoire, IS goods imported from other states. Wood-
How. 624 ; Uuthall o. Crimes, <1 Uiss. raff v. Parham, 8 WalL 123 ; Hinann tr.
27 i Freeholden s. Stat^ 4 Zabr. 718. Lott, ib. 148. So it has been held by
(c) W/tai UangKlation of eomnune ia state court* that tajres on the grcaaanoant
a question which has arisen iu determining of bosiness of expnas companies within
the validity of some state laws. It but the state, &c., are valid. Wolcott e. The
bean held that a state may tax all money People, 17 Hich, 08 ; Southern Bxp. Co.
and exchange broker*. Nathan v. Loni- e. Hood, 16 Bich. (S. C.) 6S ; Beuling
nana, 8 Row. 78. And legades payable B. B. p. Pennsylvania, IS Wall. 281 1 t9
to aliens. Uager v. Qrima, 8 How. 490. Penn. St 380. Compare Erie B. Co. v.
So it may reqnire a depoait from insur- State, &c., infra.
■Dce companies incorporated in other Onlit oAerhand,^ state cannot impose
states before, they are licensed to carry a stamp dnty on biUa of lading for gold
on boainess within its limila. Panl o. and silver exported from the stale. Almy
Virginia, 8 Wall- 168 (this case also de- v. Califainia, S4 How. 189. This case
cided that coTporetious are not dtizens so was discussed as if it had been erne of ex-
far as to be entitled to the privileges of ports to a foreign oonntry, and a dnty cm
citiuns of another state than that wheron the MH was thought to be in eOiKt a
they are incorporated ) ; Dneat n. Chicago, dnty on the article exported, in a snbse-
10 WalL 410; Liverpool Ins. Co. e. qnent caas it was painted ont that the gold
Massaehnsetts, ib. 6S6. lliBCBseof Cran- waa only traniiported from one etate to
dall >. Nevada is stated mOt, 429, n. 1. another, althoogh over the high sras, and
And Norris v. Boston, stated 430, n. (e), the clanse prohibiting the states to tax
was revened in the Supreme Conrt, exports and imports waa tfaonght not to
Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283. A statu apply: but the ease wag said to be rightly
may enforce « law prohtbitiDg the sale of decided within Crandall s. Nevada, orIs,
lii^uara, either domestic or imported, in 499, n. 1 ; aodalsoon the ground that the
less than certain large quantities, with- tax was in conflict with the power of Cod-
ont a state linense, bat not affecting the gress to regnlate ounmercs. WoodrttlT >.
[596]
sObyGoOl^lc
lECT. XIX.} THE UNITED STATES. * 440
*has received an authoritative determination, has been* 440
iatentionsl); omitted. There are several important coQ-
Btitutional questions which remain yet to be settled ; but if we
recur back to the judicial annals of the United States since
the year 1800, we shall find that many of the most interesting
discussions which had arisen, and which were of a nature to
affect deeply the tranquillity of the nation, have auspiciously
terminated.
The definition of direct taxes within the intendment of the
Constitution ; the extent of the power of Congress to regulate the
power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform
laws on the subject of bankruptcies ; the power of Congress over
the militia of the states; the power of exclusive legislation over
districts and ceded places ; the mass of implied powers incidental
to the express powers of Congress, such as the power to institute
and protect an incorporated bank, to lay a general and indefinite
embargo, and to give to the United States, as a creditor, priority
Pftrlun, 8 Wftll. 123, 137. On the Utter of thxin u snch. Bat ■ sbta tax on aU
groand a dutinctiva state tax on the boei- Bteamboata and Tcaula plying the navi-
neaa of carrying from atata u> state, in the gabU wateis of the itate, levied on the
hands of foreign corporstioot habitually basis of their regiatered tonnage, wholly
doing bnsiness in the state, graduated by irrespective of their rajoe, ia void, al-
tbe weight of the goods and the nombei though the vnasoli ate owned by citizens
of paAengers carried, was held void. Erie of the itate, and trade only between ^ac«*
Railway Co. o. SUte, 2 Vroom (31 S- J.), within the state. State Tonnage Tax
esl ; Reading £. R. v. Peonaylvania, IG Cases, 12 Wall. 204. See also Steam-
Wall. 2S2. Compare Commouwealth v. ship Co. v. Portwardens, 6 Wall. SI, 35,
Phil. & Bead. E. B., S2 Fenn. St. 28S, tupra. [A state cannot impoae a tonnage
Ac, lujm. A atate cannot impose a die- tax to obtain tneuu to support polioe
criminating tax on non-reddents trading regolationB. Feele v. Morgan, 19 Wall.
within ita Umita ; but the migority of the 681. The text of the note it supported
eonrt put this on article 4, g 2, as to the by Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall.
priTileges of citizens of each state, which, 577; luman Steamship Co. v. Tinlier,
•s ha* be«n seen (Paul v. Virginia, mpra), 94 U. 3. 2S8. Comp. Packet Co. v. Eeo-
does not apply to the preceding case of hnh, 65 U. S, BO ; Packet Co. e. St. Lonis,
100 U. S. 428. The Utter cases hold
that a city may collect reasonable fees
B. The claute pmhOntimg Uu dtUtf to for the use of wbar&ge facilities which
lay iiHjf duty on totMoyt ia admitted by the have been erected by the city, and that
Supreme Court not to exonerate vessels such fees may be proportioned to the
owned by individnals and belonging to tonnage of the vessels tidng such wharves,
the commercial marine from being taxed See farther, Wiggins Feny Co. s. East
by the states as property, with other BLLonis, 107 C S. SS5. — l.]
property of the citiieiu, on a valuation
[5»7]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 441 JUBISPKUDENCB OP [PABT IL
of pajrment, — have all received elaborate discussion in the Su-
preme Court, and they have, to a certain extent, been ascertained
and defined by judicial decisions. So, also, the extent of the con-
stitutional prohibitions upon the states not to paas ex post facto
lawH ; and not to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts;
and not to impede or control by taxes, or granta, or any other exer-
cise of power, the lawful authorities, or institutions, or rights and
pririlegea depending on t^e Constitution and laws of the United
States, — has been explored and declared by a series of determi-
nations, which have contributed, in an eminent degree, to secure
and consolidate the Union, and to elevate the dignity and enlai^
the influence of the national government.
The power of the Fresideut to remove all executive officers in
his sound discretion has been settled, not indeed judicially, but
perhaps as effectually by the declared sense of the legislature, and
the uniform acquiescence and practice of the government
• 441 The absolute and uncontrollable • efficacy of the treaty-
making power has also been definitively established, after
a struggle against it on the part of the House of Representatives,
which, at one time, threatened to disturb the very foundations of
the Constitution.'
The comprehensive claims of the judicial power, as being co-
extensive with all cases that can arise under the Constitution and
laws and treaties of the Union, have, in several instances, been
powerfully and successfully vindicated. The appellate jurisdic-
tion of the Supreme Court, over the judgments and decrees of
the state courts, under certain circumstances, was defined with
great accuracy and precision in the 25th section of the act of
1789, establishing the judicial courts; and the free and indepen-
dent exercise of that jurisdiction, so essential to the maintenance
of the authority and efficiency of the government of the United
States, in criminal as well as in civil cases, has been hitherto
happily sustained. The means of enforcing obedience, when not
voluntarily rendered, to the decision of this appellate jurisdiction,
have not been required to be practically applied ; and therefore it
is a question which the court has not thought it incumbent on
them, as yet, to decide, whether the exercise of that jurisdiction
would permit compulsory process to the state courts, with the
^ Bat sea 311, n. 1, u to the President's power of ramond now, uid h to tha
tre&t7-mskiii|; power, 2S6, n. 1, anU.
[698]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZIX.] THS UNITBD 8TATBB. * 442
ordinary methods of enforciag proeesB. The act of Congress (a)
provided only that, on appeal from the judgment or decree of a
state court, the writ of error should have the same effect as if the
judgment or decree had been rendered or passed in a circuit court,
and the proceeding upon a reversal should be the same, except
that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause for a final
decree, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once
remanded before, proceed to a final decision of the same, and
avard execution. And with respect to other branches of
the judicial power, it may *be generally observed, that the *442
extensive sway of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ; the
character of the parties necessary to give cognizance to the federal
courts ; the faith and credit which are to be given in each state
to the records and judicial proceedings in every other state; the
sovereignty of Congress over all its territories, without the bounds
of any particular state; and the entire and supreme authority
of all the constitutional powers of the nation, when coming in
collision with any of the residuary or asserted powers of the states,
— have all been declared (as we have seen in the course of these
lectures) by an authority which claims our respect and obedience.
In the first ten or twelve years after the institution of the
national judiciary, or from 1790 to 1801, the scanty decisions of
the Supreme Court are almost all to be found in the third volume
of Dallas's Reports. The first great and grave question which
came before them was that respecting the liability of a state to
be sued by a private creditor; and it is a little remarkable that
the court, in one of its earliest decisions, should have assumed a
jurisdiction which the authors of the Federalist had a few years
before declared to be without any color of foundation. During
the period I have mentioned, the federal courts were chiefiy
occupied with questions concerning their admiralty jurisdiction,
and with political and national questions growing out of the
Revolutionary War, and the dangerous influence and action of
the war of the French revolution upon the neutrality and peace
of our country. It was during this portion of our judicial his-
tory that the principles of the doctrines of expatriation, of ex
pott facto laws, of constitutional taxes, and of the construction
and obligation of the treaty of 178S upon the rights of the
British creditors, were ably discussed and firmly declared.
(a) Scptnnber 24, 17SB, sec 26.
[599]
)vQyflfliie
• 444 JOBISPBODENCE OP [PAET n.
The reports of Ur. Cranch comm«nced irith the rear 1801, and
the nine volumes of those reports cover the business of a
•443 very active period, down to the year 1815. The "Supreme
Court was occupied with many great and momentous qnes-
tions, and especially during that portion of the time in which the
United States had abandoned their neutral and assumed a bellig-
erent character. It is curious to observe in these reports the rapid
cultivation and complete adoption of the law and learning of the
English admiralty and prize courts, notwithstanding those courts
had been the constant theme of complaint and obloquy in our
political discussions for the fifteen years preceding the war. In
the last three volumes of Ur. Cranch, the court was constantly
dealing with great questions, embracing the rights and the policy
of nations ; and the prize and maritime law, not of England only,
but of all the commercial nations of Europe, was suddenly
introduced, and deeply and permanently interwoven with the
municipal lew of the United States. We perceive, also, in these
volumes, the constant growth and accumnlation of cases on
commercial law generally, and relating to policies of insurance,
negotiable paper, mercantile partnerships, and the various cus-
toms of the law merchant. The court was likewise busy in
discussing and settling important principles growing out of the
limited range of other matters of federal ct^izance, and relating
to the law of evidence, to frauds, trusts, and mortgages, l^ey
were engaged, also, with the doctrine of the limitation of suits,
the contract of sale, and with the more enlarged subjects of
domicile, of the lex loci, of neutrality, and of the numerous points
of international law.
By the time of the commencement of Mr. Wheaton's reports,
in 1816, the decisions of the Supreme Court bad embraced so
many topics of public and municipal law, and those topics had
been illustrated by so much talent and learning, that, for the first
time in the history of this coimtry, we were enabled to perceive
the broad foundations aud rapid growth of a code of uatii^nal
jurisprudence. That code has been growing and improving ever
since, and it has now become a solid and magnificent structure ;
and it seems destined, at no very distant period of time, to
* 444 cast a shade * over the less elevated, and, perhaps, we must
add, the less attractive and ambitious, systems of justice in
the several states. The most interesting part of Mr. Wheaton's
[600]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. XtX.] THE UNITED BTAT&S. * 445
reports are those which contain the examination of those great
constitational questions which we have been reyiewing; and I
cannot conceive of anything more grand and imposing in the
whole administration of human justice, than the spectacle of the
Supreme Court sitting in solemn judgment upon the conflicting
claims of the national and state sovereignties, and tranquillizing
all jealous and angry passions, and binding together this great
confederacy of states in peace and harmon)-, by the ability, the
moderation, and the equity of its decisions.
There are several reasons why we may anticipate the still
increasing influence of the federal government, and the con-
tinual enlai^ment of the national system of law in magnitude
and value. The judiciary of the United States has an advantage
over many of the state courts, in the tenure of the office of the
judges, and the liberal and stable provision for their support
The United States are, by thene means, fairly entitled to com-
mand better talents, and to look for more firmness of purpose,
greater independence of action, and brighter displays of learning.
The federal administration of justice has a manifest superiority
over that of the individual states, in consequence of the uni-
formity of its decisions, and the universality of their application.
Every state court will naturally be disposed to borrow light and
aid from the national courts, rather than from the courts of other
individual states, which will probably never be so generally
respected and understood. The states are multiplying so fast,
and the reports of their judicial decisions are becoming so
numerous, that few lawyers will be able or willing to master
all the intricacies and anomalies of local law, existing beyond
the boundaries of their own state. Twenty-six independent
state courts of final jurisdiction over the same questions,
arising upon the same general *code of common and of * 445
equity law, must necessarily impair the symmetry of that
code.
The danger to be apprehended is, that students will not have
the courage to ent«r the complicated labyrinth of so many
systems, and that they will, of course, entirely neglect them,
and be contented with a knowledge of the law of their own
state, and the law of the United States, and then resort for
further assistance to the never-failing fountains of European
wisdom.
[601]
50byGoO>^lc
* 446 JUBIBPBDDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES. [PABT H.
But though the national judiciary may be deemed pre-eminent
in the weight of its influence, the authority of its decieiona, and
in the attraction of their materials, there are abundant considera-
tions to cheer and animate us in the cultivation of our own ]ocsI
law. The judicial power of the United States is uecessarilj
limited to national objects. The vast field of the law of propertr,
the very extensive head of equity jurisdiction, and the principal
rights and duties which flow from our civil and domestic rela-
tions, fall within the control, and we might almost say the exclu-
sive cognizaace, of the state governments. We look essentially
to the state courts for protection to all these momentous interests.
They touch, in their operation, every chord of human sympathy,
and control our hest destinies. It is their province to reward
and to punish. Their blessings and their terrors will accompany
us to the fireside, and " be in constant activity before the public
eye. " The elementary principles of the common law are the same
in every state, and equally enlighten and invigorate every part of
our country. Our municipal codes can be made to advance with
equal steps with that of the nation, in discipline, in wisdom, and
in lustre, if the state governments (as they ought in all honest
policy) will only render equal patron^e and security to the
administration of justice. The true interests and the permanent
freedom of this country require that the jurisprudence of the
individual states should be cultivated, cherished, and exalted,
and the dignity and reputation of the state suthoritiea
* 446 sustained with becoming 'pride. In their subordinate
relation to the United States, they should endeavor to dis-
charge the duty which they owe to the latter, without forgetting
the respect which they owe to themselves. In the appropriate
language of Sir William Blackstone, and which he applied to
the people of hia own country, they should be " loyal, yet free;
obedient, and yet independent."
[602]
;abyGoO<^lc
PART III.
OP THE VARIOUS SOUECES OF THE MUNICIPAL
LAW OP THE SEVERAL STATES.
LECTURE XX.
OP STATUTE LAW.
MuKiCiPAL LAW is a rule of civil conduct, presoribed by tJie
supreme power of a state. Municipal law, or the jv^ civtU, is
thus explained in the Institutes of Justinian. Quod qaisqae
populos ipse sibi jus constituit, id ipsius proprium est civitatis ;
Tocaturque jus civile, quasi jus proprium ipsius oiritatis. This
definition is less precise and soieotlGc than that given by Sir Wil-
liam Blaokstone. Municipal law is cooiposed of written and
unwritten, or of statute and common law. Statute law is the
express written will of the legislature, rendered authentic by cer-
tain prescribed forms aad solemnities.'
It is a principle in the English law, that an act of Parliament,
delivered in clear aod intelligible terms, cannot be questioned,
or its authority controlled, in any court of justice. *' It is," says
Sir Willmm Blackstone, " the exercise of the highest authority
that Lhe kingdom acknowledges upon earth." When it is said
in the books, that a statute contrary to natural equity and reason,
or repugnant, or impossible to be perfonned, is void, the cases
are understood to mean that the courts are to give the statute a
reasonable construction. They will not readily presume, out of
< For ui aconr&ts iDBtriu of the Americnn Law Review, ri. 723 tl teq.,
nature of law, tlie itudenC slionld conault may alio be referred Co.
Bentham'i Fragment on Government, The Jut deile at the Romans wu de-
Worki, i.,e<p. p. 208, note (&).and Anitin flned ai above In contraiC to the jw
on Jurbpnidenoe.Lect. L,and poiniR. A gmtiirm explained ante, I, a. 1,
■hort criUdNU of AuitUi'i views in the
)vGooi^lc
•449 80DBCE8 OP MUHlCIPiL LAW. [PABT III.
respect and duty to the lawgiver, that any very nnjuBt or absaid
consequence was within the contemplation of the law. But if it
should happen to be too palpable in its direction to admit of but
one oonstiniction, there is no doubt in the English law as
•448 to the binding " efficacy of the statute. The will of the
legislature is the supreme law of the land, and demands
perfect obedience, (a)
But while we admit this conclusion of the English law, we
cannot but admire the intrepidity and powerful sense of justice
which led Lord Coke, when Chief Justice of the K. B., to declare,
as he did in Doctor Bonham'i Ccue, (6) that the common law
doth control acts of Parliament, and adjudges them void, when
against common right and reason. The same sense of justice
and freedom of opinion led Lord Chief Justice Hobart, in Zhj/
V. Savage^ (c) to insist that an act of Parliament, made (gainst
natural equity, as to make a man judge in his own case, was
void ; and induced Lord Chief Justice Holt to say, in tiie case
of The City of London v. Wood, (d) that the observation of Lord
Coke was not extravagant, but was a very reasonable and true
saying. Perhaps what Lord Coke said in bis Reports on this
point may have been one of the many things that King James
alluded to, when he said, that in Coke's Reports there were many
dangerous conceits of his own uttered for law, to the prejudice
of the crown, Parliament, and subjects, (e)
1. Iiftwa Repngnant to the ConatitatlOD Void. — The principle
in the English government, that the Parliament is omnipotent,
does not prevail in the United States ; though, if there be no
constitutional objection to a statute, it is with us as absolute
and uncontrollable as laws flowing from the sovereign power,
under any other form of government. But in this, and all ot^er
countries where there is a written constitution, designating the
powers and duties of the legislative, as well as of the other
departments of the government, an act of the legislature
• 449 may be void as being against the con^itution. * The law
with us must conform, in the first place, to the Constitu-
tion of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitution
of its particular state, and if it infringes the ptovisions of eitlker,
[a) 1 BUckit. Comm. 91, laO, 186; Chrittian'* note to 1 Blmckat. Comm. 11.
{h) B Co, 118. (c) Hob. 87.
\i) 12 Mod. 667. (e) Bacon's Work*, vi. 138.
[604]
;abyGoO<^lc
LBCT. ZZ.] 80UBCES OF HDNICIFAL LAW. * 449
it is 80 far void. The courts of justice have a right, and are in
dutj bound, to bring every law to the test of the Constitation,
and to regard the Gonatitntion, first of the United States, and
then of their own state, as the psramount or supreme law, to
which every inferior or derivative power and regulation must con-
form. The Oonstitution is the act of the people, speaking in their
original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the
social alUance; and there can bo no doubt on the point with us,
that every act of the legislative power, contrary to the true intent
and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void, (x)
(x) AU lUtutes tie presnmably con- 414 ; Felt v. Pa;iie, SO AA. 687 ; State
■fcitatioaal. Orenadft Connt; SnperviMrt «. Jones, 6 Wash. 452. A statnto which
V. Biogden, 112 U. 3. 3S1. A itatnte is waa onconatitntionBl when enacted, ii not
not iinc«n«titutiaiial rimpi; because it reviewed and made iffectiTe by a inbae-
kppCMB to the court not to canfarm to the qnent change in the Gonatitntion author-
genend theory upon which the govern- izing luch l^id^tiou. Comttnck Ui)) Co.
inent ia founded or the spirit of onr ineti- «. Allen, 21 Nev. S2B. If nnconstitu-
totions. Beeves v. Coniiiig, G1 Fed. Bep. tional only in certain sectiona, which are
774 ; Foraythe c. Hammond City, 88 id. MpanUe twm the other sectiona and are
774. The courts will not inqnire into made valid by ameDdment, the whole
the qnestion whether, in enacting a law, becomes constitatfonal as If re-eiuu:t«d.
the legislature hod sufficient information Baldwin o. Frank, 120 C. S. S7S : Fres-
or was mialed by &lse npreaentations. ser t>. nUnois, 116 U. 8. 2^2 ; Pollock v.
Farmsn' Loan & T. Co. v. Chicago, Ac. Farmen' L. & T. Co., 15SU. S. SOI ; State
By. Co., SB Fed. Bep. 148 ; Soon Ring v. Cincinnati (Ohio), 40 N. E. Bep. SOS.
9, Crowley, 118 V. S. 708, 710. A person who volontarilj asks for the
The courts cannot annul a atatute on the benefit of a atatnte cannot in the same
ground that its passage was procured 'by proceeding aver its unconstitutionality :
frand. Bee Can- d. Coke (N. C), 82 B. E. Collier v. Morrow, 90 Ga. 148 ; nor can
Bep. 18 ; Wyatt t>. Wheeler A Wilson M. wie who has procured the passing of a
Co., id. lao ; 2» Am. L. Bev. 784. So special statnte. Treasurer r. Martin, fiO
the motive* of the l^islstare do not affect Ohio St. 167. A statnte which is consti-
the validity of its laws. Mayor of Balti- tutionally invalid, cumot be ratified and
more v. Board of Police, IG Md. 876 ; made valid by a constitutional ameud-
Barbiar v. Connolly, 118 U. S. 27 ; Soon ment. State v. Tnfly, 20 Nev. 427.
HiDg D. Crowley, id. 708; People t. Glenn The le^alatun cannot make its laws
Coanty, 100 Cat. 419 ; Parker v. State, dependent upon their acceptance by a
132 Ind. 419; Wichita «. Burleigh, 86 majority vote of the people. Stale v.
Santas, 34. When a statute is enacted Hayes, 61 N. H. 264 ; Justices' Opinion,
in accordance with the reqaiiementi of 160 Mass. G83 ; 28 L. R. A. 113, end
the Constitution, questions rehiting to note ; lee Armstrong v. Tiaylor, 87 Teias,
the ofaserranc* of legislative procedure S9S. The legislature cannot be compelled
are for the legislature and not for the to enact laws on a certain subject, though
oaurta. Lyons o. Woods, 1G8 U. S. S49 ; the State constitution requires it. In r«
Hunt V. Wright, 70 Miss. 298 ; McDonald State Census (S. D.), 62 F. W. Rep. 129.
*. Stnte, 80 Wis. tffj ; In it Byan, id. A State statute yields to a Federal
[606]
;abyG00<^lc
* 450 BODBCBS OF KDNIOIPAL LAW. [PABT m.
a. Power of the Jiidlalu7 to daalara thorn Void. — The judicial
department is the proper power in the goremment to determine
whether a statute be or be not constitutional. The interpretation
or constructioQ of the Constitution is as much a judicial act, and
requires the exercise of the same legal discretion, as the interpre-
tation or construction of a law. To contend that the courts of
justice must obey the requisitions of an set of the legislature
when it appears to them to have been passed in violation of the
Constitution, would be to contend that the law was superior to the -
Constitution, and that the judges had no right to look into it, and
regard it as a paramount law. It would be rendering the power
of the agent greater than that of his principal, and be declaring
that the will of only one concurrent and co-ordinate department
of the subordinate authorities under the Constitution was abso-
lute over the other departments, and competent to control, ac-
cording to its own will and pleasure, the whole fabric of the
government, and the fundamental laws on which it rested. The
attempt to impose restraints upon the exercise of the le^slative
power would be fruitless, if Uie constitutional proviaiona were
left without any power in the government to guard
* 450 * and enforce them. From the mass of powers neces-
sarily vested in the legislature, and the active and sover-
eign nature of those powers ; from the numerous bodies of wbieh
the legislature is composed, the popular sympathies which it
excites, and its immediate dependence upon the people by the
means of frequent periodical elections, it follows that the legisla-
tive department of the government will have a decided superiority
of influence. It is constantly acting upon all the great interests
in society, and agitating its hopes and fears. It' is liable to be
constantly swayed by popular prejudice and passion, and it la
diflicult to keep it from pressing with injurious weight upon the
constitutional rights and privileges of the other departments.
An independent judiciary, venerable by its gravity, its dignity,
and itfl wisdom, and deliberating with entire serenity and modera-
tion, is peculiarly fitted for the exalted duty of expounding the
Constitution, and trying the validity of statutes by that standard.
, It is only by the free exercise of this power that courts of justice
are enabled to repel, assaults, and to protect every part of tie
Matnto upon the ume mbject when it ktter. Oulf, &c. B7. Co. v. Hsflej, US
U coropctsnt for Coognaa to snact tli« U. 8. 98.
[606]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. ZZ.] BOnBCBS OF UUNICIPAL LAW. * 450
goremment, and every member of the community, from undue
and deBtructive inuovations upon their chartered righto, {a)
It has accordingly become a settled principle in the legal polity
of this country, that it belongs to the judicial power, as a matter
of right and of duty, t« declare every act of the legislature, made
in violation of the Constitution, or of any provision of it, null and
void, (x) The progress of this doctrine, and the manner in which
it has been discussed and established, is worthy of notice. It had
been very ably examined in the Federalist, (fi) and its solidity
vindicated by unanswerable arguments ; but it was not until the
year 1792 that it seems to have received a judicial consideration.*
(a) M. De Tocqaeville ia of opinioD, that if the free inxtitntionB of America are
to be deatioTed, it will b« owing to the tyrauu; of nugoritiei, drinng minoritie* to
deapemtioii. The m^ori^ eonadtatea public opinion, vhlcb beoomes a tjnut, and
contTola freedom of diacnsdon and iodeprndence of miod. This i> hia view of tha
qaeatioti, and Eugliah writen on the inatitatioDa of aociety in thia ooontr; have
ezpreafcd the same opinion. If there was no check npon the tyranny of legialativa
nu^oritieB, the prospect before ns would be f^oomy in the eitreme. Bnt in addition
to the indirect check* of the liberty of the preaa, and of popniar inatmctioD and of
mannan, religion, and local inatitationa, there are fnndamental righte declared in the
conatitDtiona, and there are constitntioDal checka upon the arbitrary will of m^joriliea
confided to the int^rity and independence of the judicial department. U. De Toeqne-
rilla aeenu to ba deeply impreased with the d&Dgers in a democracy, of the corrupting
■ad controlling power of disciplined bction, and well be may be. The moat dan-
geroDB and tyrannical of all cmfts is party or political craft The equal rights of a
minor puty are diir^rded in the animated competitioiis for power ; and if it were
not for the checks and barriers to which I have alluded, they would bll a lacrifice
to the paeeions of fierce and vindictin migoritie*. See Tocqueville'e De la IMmo-
oratie en Amdrique, li. c. IB. The whole work is interesting, startling, profoond,
liheral, and inetmctive. The anthor is remarkably fearleaa, candid, and unprejodioed
in hill diBCUBsione and reflectiona.
(t) No. 78.
1 In Den dem. Bayard ». Singleton, Hay term, 17S7, "the oonrt, after every
Martin (N. C), 48, citizen* of the United reaaonable endeavor had been used in
States brought an ejectment for lande vain for avoiding a disagreeable differ-
lield by the defendant under a conveyance ence between the li^pslature and the
from a commiBBioner of forfeited estatea. judicial powers of the state, at length.
An act of the Mate l^lature required the with mncb apparent reluctance, bnt with
eoQtts, in all cases whn« the defendant great deliberation and tirmneas, gave their
made affidavit that he held the disputed opinion separately, but unanimonaly, for
property nnder a sale from soeh a com. overmling the aforementioned nkotion,"
■uBriouar, to dismiss the anit on motion, on ihe ground that the act was onconiti-
The defendant made mch an sffldavit, tational and void aa depriving the dlizen
andmoved that the soil be dismissed. At of hie li^t to a trial by jury.
(i) See npro, 3M, note (i) ; Thayer's Cmss on Const. Iaw, IMl
[607]
;abyGoO<^lc
• 452 BOtTECBS O? MUMICIPAL LIW. [PAET HI.
In Sa}/bum'g Oate^ which came before the Circuit Court of the
United States for the District of New York, in April, 1791,
*451 the judges proceeded with the utmost delicacy and 'cau-
tion to declare an act of Congress, assigning ministerial
duties to the circuit courts, to be' unconstitutional. The court
laid down the position, that Coi^ress cannot constitutionally
assign to the judicial power any duties which are not strictly
judicial ; and that the act in question was not obligatory npon
the court. But they nerertheless proceeded, voluntarily and ex
gratia, as commiesioners, to execute the duties of the act
In Pennsylvania and North Carolina, the circuit courts of the
United States, within those districts, equally held the act not
binding upon them, because the legislature had no right or power
to assign to them duties not judicial ; but they were not so accom-
modating as the Circuit Court of New York, for they declined to
act under the law in any capacity, (a)
In 1792, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in the case of
Bowman v. Middleton, (6) went further, and set aside an act of
the colony legislature, as being against common right and the
principles of magna akarta, for it took away the freehold of one
man and vested it in another, without any compensation, or aur
previous attempt to determine the right. They declared the act
to be ip»o faeto void, and that no length of time could give it
validity. This was not strictly a question arising upon any special
provision of the state constitution ; but the court proceeded upon
those great fundamental principles which support all government
and property, and which have been supposed by many judges in
England to be sufficient to check and control the regulations of
an act of Parliament. The next case in which the power of the
judiciary to disregard or set aside a statute for being repugnant
to the Constitution, was one that came before Judge Pater-
son, at Philadelphia, in April, 1795. (e) He asserted the
* 452 duty of the court, and the paramount authority* of the
Constitution, in remarkably clear and decided language.
That was a case of an act of Pennsylvania, which he held to be
unconstitutional, and not binding. He insisted that the Consti-
tution was certain and fixed, and contained the permanent will
of the people, and was the supreme law, and paramount to the
(a) 2 Dnllas. 110, 411, 413. (») 1 B*ij, 262.
(c) Van Home v. DonauM, 2 D«Uu, 304.
[6083
;abyG00<^lc
LECr. II.] SOUBCEB OP MUNICIPAL LAW. *' 45Z
power of the legislature, abd could only be revoked or altered
bj the authority that made it; that the legislature was the
creature of the Conatitutiou, and owed its existence to the Con-
BtitutioD, and derived its powers from the Constitution, and all
its acts must be conformable to it, or else the; will be void.
The same question afterwards arose before the Supreme Court
of South Carolina, in the case of Liridsay v. Tke Charleston Com-
mitioneri, (a) and the power of the legislature to take private
property for necessary public purposes, as for a public street, was
freely discussed; and though the judges were equally divided on
the question whether it was a case in which the party was entitled
to compensation, those who held faim so entitled held also that
the law was unconstitutional and inoperative until the compensa-
tion was made. The judges, in exercising that high authority,
claimed to be only the administrators of the public will ; and the
law was void, not because the judges had any control over the
legislative power, but because the will of the people, declared in
the Constitution, was paramount to that of their representatives
expressed in the law. In Wkittington v. Polk, {h) it was decided,
in 1802, by the general court of Maryland, with great clearness
and force, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Consti-
tution was void, and that the courts had a right to determine
when it was so void.
Hitherto this question, as we have seen, was confined to some
of the state courts, and to the subordinate or circuit courts of
the United States. But in Marbury v. Maditon, {c) the
subject was brought under the consideration * of the * 453
Supreme Court of the United States, and received a clear
and elaborate discussion. The power and duty of the judiciary
to disregard an unconstitutional act of Congress, or of any state
legislature, were declared, in an ai^puneut approaching to the
precision and certainty of a mathematical demonstration.
The question, said the chief justice, was, whether an act repug-
nant to the Constitution can become a law of the land, and it was
one deeply interesting to the United States. The powers of the
legislature are defined and limited by a written Constitution. But
to what purpose is that limitation, if those limits may at any time
be passed ? The distinction between a government with limited
and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confino
(a) 2 Bsf, 83. {») 1 Hur. * Johu S86. (c) 1 CraDoh. 137.
VOI,l.-S9 [609]
;abyG00<^lc
* 464 socBCES OP MinnciPAL lav. [past m.
the persons on wbom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited, and
acts allowed, are of equal obligation. If the Gouatitution doe»
not control any legislative act repugnant to it, then the legisla-
ture may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act The theory
of erery goTemment, with a written constitution, forming the
fundamental and paramount law of the nation, must be, that an
act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. If
void, it cannot bind the courts, and oblige tiiem to give it effect;
for this would be to overthrow in fact what was established in
theory, and to make that operative in law which is not law. It
is the province and the duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is; and if two' laws conflict with each other, to de-
cide on the operation of each. So if the law be in opposition to
the Constitution, and both apply to a particular case, the court
must either decide the case conformably to the law, disregarding
the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding
the law. If the Constitution be superior to an act of the legisla-
ture, the courts must decide between these conflicting rules ; and
how can they close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only
the law ?
This great question may be regarded as now finally settled,
and I consider it to be one of the most interesting
* 454* points in favor of constitutional liberty, and of the
security of property, in this country, that has ever been
judicially determined, (a) There never was any doubt or diffi-
culty in New York, in respect to the competency of the courts
to declare a statute unconstitutional, when it clearly appeared to
be BO. Thus, in the case of The People v. Piatt, (h) the Supreme
(a) See decinonB in tlie state conils to the nine point, in 1 N. H. 199 ; 12 Sar^
& Bftwl«, 830, 339 ; Charlton, [175,] 176 ; 1 Han. & Johas. 236 ; 1 Hstw. 2S ; 3
Hayw. 310, 374 ; 1 Marphy, GS ; 3 Demiu. 470 ; 1 Conat. B. [Tnodway] (S. a) S47 ;
Le Breton e. Morgan, 16 Martin (La.), 138 ; Hoke i>, Henderaon, 4 DeT. (K. 0.) 7.
When a. law reqnirBs a conatitutionaL majority of more than a men nameni nujoritj,
the conrta of justice may look beyond the law into the proceedinga of the legialatnre,
to aee that the prerequiaites have been complied with, and that it has paaaed hj tbe
constitutional m^joritieg. The 8ta.te v. McBride, 4 Mo. 803. Bnt thia laat ptnnt waa
left in doubt, in B. 4 N. F. Railroad v. City of Buffalo, B HiU (N. Y.), S09. [9o
they may to detennioe the date of au act. Thu^ eitrinaic evideDce of the year in
which an act waa signed, "Approved, December 24, Abraham Lincob," waa b«ld
sdmLBBJble. GardDer o. The Colleetor, 6 Wall. 49B, citing Purdy e. The People, 4
Hill, 884 ; De Bow v. The People, 1 Denio, B, and other caaea.]
{6> 17 Johns. 196.
[610J
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. XZ.] 80UKCE8 OF UUNICIFAL LAW. * 456
Court held that certaiD statutes afFectiug the right of Z. Piatt
and his assiguB to the excluBive enjoyment of the river Saranac
were in violation of vested rights under his patent, and so far
the court held them to be unconstitutional, inoperative, and roid.
The control which the judicial power of the state had, until the
year 1828, over the passing of laws, by the institution of the
council of revision, anticipated, in a great degree, the necessity
of this ei^ercise of duty. A law containing unconstitutional pro-
visions was not likely to eacape the notice and objection of the
council of revision; and the records of that body will show
that many a bill which had heedlessly passed the two houses of
the legislature was objected to and defeated, on constitutional
grounds. The records to which I refer are replete with the
assertion of salutary and sound principles of public law and con-
stitutional policy, and they will for ever remain a monument of
the wisdom, firmness, and integrity of the council, (c)
3. Whan ■ Btatuta tak«B effect. — A statute, when duly made,
takes effect from its date, when no time is fixed, and this is now
the settled rule. It was so declared by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Matthews v. Zane, [d) and it was like-
wise so adjudged in *the Circuit Court in Massachusetts, *455
in the case of The Brig Ann. (a) I apprehend that the
lame rule prevails in the courts of the several states, and that it
cannot be admitted that a statute shall, by any fiction or relation,
have any effect before it was actually passed. A retroactive
statute would partake in its character of the mischiefs of an ex
pott facto law, as to all cases of crimes and penalties ; and in
every other case relating to contracts or property, it would be
(c) An act of Congresa having given to th« Secretary of the Treaaury the tight of
appeal ^m ths collector of the dutomi, on his decUion relative to unascertained
datias, or duties paid under a proteat, it waa held that the aggrieved merchant was
confiDsd to that remedj, and conld not sastsin a unit at law against the r^llector.
Cary p. Curtia, S How. 236 ; [CnrtU «. Fiedler, 2 Black, *fll.] The strong ohjaction
to the decision is, that it takes the final construction of statute law from llie eaUb-
liihed conrta, and placea it in an executive officer, holding at the pleaanre of the
President. It is the common-lai* right nf the citizen to appeal to the courts, on the
anthori^ of laws, and to seek there redrew fram wrong and oppression. The decision
of the same court, in Bend v. Hoyt, 13 Peters, 283, recognlied principles that aeem to
he at variance with the above decision.
(d) 7 Wbeaton, 161.
(d) 1 QalL flZ ; (1 Fed. Caa. 937.] The aune rale ia declared in New Jersey \ij
•tatnte. Mmei's Digest, 694.
[611]
qilireawGoOl^lc
* 455 SODBCES OF MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT 111.
against every aound principle. It ^ould come within the reach
of the doctrine, that a statute is not to have a retrospective
effect ; and which doctrine was very much discussed in the case
of Daah T. Van Kleeck, {b) and shown to be founded not only in
English law, but on the principles of general jurisprudence, (e)
A retrospective statute, affecting and changing vested rights,
is very generally considered, in this country, as founded on
unconstitutional principles, and consequently inoperative and
void, (d) ' But this doctrine is not understood to apply to re-
(i) 7 Johns. *77.
{c) Nemo potast maUre conulinm saam in dterim iitjarUm, Dig. 60. 17. TS ;
Tkflor'g ElemeotB of the Civil Law, 168 ; Cods, 1. 14. 7 ; Bncton, 1, 4, fa 228 ;
Code NKpoleoD, Mt. 2.
(d) Tenoenee Bill of Rights, ut. 20 ; Neir Hampthira Bill of Right*, art. 23 i
Osborne v. Eager, 1 Bay, 179 ; Ogdeu v. filackled^ 2 Craoch, 272 \ Ikdronl r.
ShilUog, 4 Serg. & Hawie, 101; Duncan, J., in Eakiu v. Baub, 12 id. 363-372;
Society d, Wheeler, 2 GalL 105 ; Washington, J., in Society for Propagating the
Ooepel v. New Haven, 8 Wbeaton, 493 ; Ueirill v. 3herbuine, 1 N. H. ISfl ; Ward b.
Bamacd. 1 Aikeos, 121; Brunswick v. Litchfield, S OreanL 28 ; Proprietors of Ken.
Pur. u. Labaree, ib. 27E ; Story, J., in Willcinson c Laland, 2 Peten, 667, US ; Lewis
r. Brackenridge, 1 Black. (Ind.) 220; Jones e>. Wootten, 1 Ear. (Del.) 77; Fonjth
u. Merbuiy, B. M. Charlton, S33 ; Boyce v. Holmes, 2 Ala. G4 ; Williamson v. Field,
2 Sendf. Cb. 534. [The following are examples of curative statutes held valid. Ban-
dall c Ereiger, 23 Wall 137 ; Weed v. Donovan, 114 Uiea. 181. Statntea changini;
the remedy only have been held valid'. Wellshear v. Eelley, 69 Mo. 843 ; Rallnm!
Co. V. Commissionen, 35 Ohio SL 1. See SimpeOB n. City Saving Bank, 56 "S. H.
4SS. The legislature cannot make a contract where there wae none, N. T., to. R. R.
Co. IT. Van Honi, 67 N. Y. 473 ; nor validate a transaction which the conrts have
held void, Forater v. Forsler, 12B Haas. 559 (where the cases are oollected and class-
fied) ; nor validate void judicial proceediage, Haxwell v. Goetachina, 40 N. J. L. 183 ;
Lane v. Nelson, 79 Pa. St 407. — B.]
' Sttrotpeetive Laua. — A retrospective of contracts partiftlly invalid for nenrj,
state law is not, as such, contrary to the Savings Bank c. Allen, 28 Conn. 97 ;
Constitution of the United States. 456, even, in one case, of a conveyance of a
n. (c) ; Baltimore and Susquehanna S. B. married woman's land, void as to her.
V. Neabit, 10 How. 39S ; Locke v. New Goahom r. Purcell, 11 Ohio St «41.
Orleans, 4 Wall. 172 ; Drehoian v. Stifle, See farther, Thomsoa v. L«« Coanty, 3
8 Wall 695, 603. Laws curing defecU Wall. S2T; Shaw v. Norfolk County R-R.,
have been held valid in many casea. 6 Gray, 1S2, 180. On the other hand, in
ThoB, in case of an asaeasment made Hubronck v. Milwaokee, 13 Wia. 37, it
under an ordinance void for informality, was held, and it would seem on aonnd
Sohenley v. Commonwealth, 3S Penn. St. reason, that a contract of a municijial
29, 67 ; see Miller e. Grahnm, 17 Ohio corporation, void as uZtravuviv could BOt
St. 1 ; Abbott V. Limlenbower, 42 Mo. he ratified by the l^islatnre so as to in-
162 ; Conway e. Cable, 37 111. S2 ; of a pose a burden on the corporation withoot
deed made in good faith, bnt to the wrong its assent
person, Eeamey b. Taylor, 15 Sow. 464 ; The constttations of aome states ex*
[612]
sObyGoOl^lc
user. XX.] aouBCES of hukicipal law. * 466
medial statutes, which may be of a retrospective nature, provided
they do not impair contracts, or disturb absolute vested rights,
and only go to confirm rights already existing, and in further-
ance of the remedy, by curing defects, and adding to the
means of *enforcii^ existing obligations, (a) Such stat- *4S6
(a) Dnnon, J., in Underwood v. Lillj, 10 Ssrg. ABawIe, 101 ; Tate d. Stooltzfoot,
IS id. 35 ; BIcakney *. F. lb 11. Bonk, 17 id. 64 ; Hepbuni v. Cnrts, 7 Watti, 800 ;
FMrter v. Ebmz Bank, IS Hus. 24G ; Locke b. Dane, 9 id. SSO ; Oriental Bank v.
Frasae, 18 He. 109 ; Townaend v. Townaend, Peck (Tenn.}, Id, 17 ; ib. 2Sa ; SUte «.
Bennadei, 22 L«. S55. In Patdn c. Prejeon, 7 La. 801, it was admitted that righta
acquired nnder a contract coald not be affected or modified by a mbseqnent statnte ;
bat then it waa aaid that the means of enforang ot inaiuing the eujoTmeDt of aaeh
rights might be extended or reatriutedbjtbe legialatnrti, aa circomitaaces may reqnire.
Thin ia a Ioom and dangeroos admiaaion. The kngnage of the gnfireme Court of New
To^, in Batler v. Palmer, 1 Hill, 825, ii equallj ao ; and it anema to be there con-
ceded, that the legialatore haa unlimited power to interfere with vested righta, unleaa
they be aaTed by some restriction to be foond in the fedeist or state constitntioD 1 t
Ch. J. Uaraball, in Stargea d. Crownin shield, i Wbeeton, 300, 207, spoke on this inb-
ject in a general and latitndinaiy msnnei, which was rather hazatdons. Be says, tlist
the dislincticin between the obligalum of a contract and the remtdy given to enforce
that obligation eziita in the nature of thinga, and that without impairing the obliga-
tion of the contract, the remedy may be modified as the wisdom of the nation shall
direct iDipriwnment of the debtor ia no part of the contract, and he may be released
tnm imprisonment by the l^Utore, without impairing the obligation. So statute*
ot limitarion relate to the temediea. It, however, asema to me, that to leaaeii ot take
away from the extent and efficacy of the rantedy to enforce the contract, legally exist-
ing when the contikot was made, impaiis its value and ohligKtion. The Sopreme
Conrt of the United States, in Uaaon v. Haile, 12 Wheaton, 878, adopted and e*tab>
liabed the above dictum of Ch. J. Hanhall, but not without a frank and just ottjection
prenly prohibit retKM[»ctive laws. See B. R. v. Cilley, 44 N. H. 57S ; Hannnm
Rich V. Flanders, SB N. H. 804 j Ooshom v. Bank of Tenneeeoe, 1 Cold*. 898 (
». Purcell, 11 Ohio SL 841 ; De Cordova Broom's Legal HaiimB, Nova anulUvtit
V. Qalveaton, * "^xaa, 470. And it is fiUurit firmam impimere d^ti mm pneter-
•Iwaya Uid down as a rale of constmetion Mt. Bat see Paido d. Bingham, L. R. 4
that, to avoid ii^nstioe or nneonstitatioD- Ch. 785.
ality, a statute Is to he taken aa prospective Farther restrictions are sometimea im-
only, unless its language is incoDMrtent poaed by the state conatitutioaa forWd-
with that interpretation. [9 Q, B. D, ding the l^alatiire to eiercise judicial
873 ;] McEwen r Den, ii How. 242; fanotions. On this ground it haa been
Qmj:kenbosht'.DBBkB,lDenio,12S;B.c. held, for instance, that the legislature
SDenio, 594; I Comrt. 129 ; Atkinson v. cannot confirm and declare valid pro-
Dunlap, 60 Maine, 111 ; Harvey tr. Tyler, ceedinga tn mvUvm in insolvency held
2 Wnll. 328, 847 ; Plumb r. Sawyer, 21 before a peiwin having no jurisdiction.
Conn. 851 : Taylor r, Keeler, 80 Conn, which the supreme conrt of the state had
824, 826 ; Torroy s. Corliss. 88 Maine, 888 ; adjudged to be void, Denny v. Hattoon,
Bopkins B. Jones, 22 Ind. SIO ; Sesmana 2 Allen, 801. See also Bichards v. Rote,
•. Carter, IS Wis. S48 ; Boctm k Maine 88 Pean. St 48.
[618]
sObyGoOl^lc
*4£6 souBCES OP HmnciPAL law. [pabt in.
utes have been held valid when clearly just and reasonable,
and conducive to the general welfare, even though thej mi^t
operate in a degree upon existing rights, as a statute to confirm
former marriages defectively celebrated, or a sale of lands defec-
tively made or acknowledged. The legal rights affected in tfaoae
cases by the statutes were deemed to have been vested subject to
the equity existing against them, and vhich the statutes recog-
nized and enforced. (6) But the cases cannot be extended be-
yond the circumstances on which they repose, without putting in
jeopardy the energy and safety of the general principles, (c)
on the part of Hr. Justice WuhinRton. He obaerred, that the great aod intelligible
priodple upon which the cases of Sturgea v. CrawDinahieid and Ogden n. Sannden
were decided, waa, that a retro^ttetipe state law, ao &t aa it operated to djsehalge or my
the terms of an existing oontnut, impaired its obligation, aai. that a proipeefiM law in
its opention had not that effect ; and that in the last case cited this prindpte was sab-
vetted, and the distinction between retroipeclire and proepecttTe lawa, in their appli-
cation to uontiBcts, disregarded, and that to abolish imprisonment for debt, aad applj
it to eziiting contracts, impaired their obligatioQ. Jn the snbseqaent case of Jaclumi
V. Lampbira, 3 Petete, 2S0, it was observed that state legislatarea had the nndonbted
right to pass recording acta, bj which the elder grantee should be postponed to a
yoDDger, if the prior deed was not recorded within a limited time. They hare the like
power to pass limitation laws affecting the time of the Tenwdy on existing contncts.
[Curtis D. Whitney, 13 WaU. flS ; atUt, ilB, n. 1.]
(6) Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. 209 ; Wilbinson t>. Leiand, 3 Peters, S27 ;
Laugdon o. Strong, 2 Vannont, 2S4 ; Watson n. Mercer, S Peten, S8 ; i Story's Conm.
on the Conititntion, 267.
(c) Setroipeetivt laws, ai used in the coDititations of Tennessee, North CaroliiM,
and Maryland, mean laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Peck (Tenn.), IT.
^he Supreme Court of the United States, in Satterlee r. Matthewson, 2 Peters, 411,
snd in Wstson v. Mercer, 8 id. 110, declared that the Constitutiou of the Dnitrd
States did not prohilat the states from passing retrospectiTs laws, derestdng snte«e-
dent vested rights of property, provided SDch laws did not impair the obligation of
contracts, or partake of the chaiHcter of et poit /ado laws. The same doctrine was
declared by the Chief Justice of the United States, in Charles Biver Bnd^ v. Wanen
Bridge, 11 Petera, S3S, 610. But though the Constitution of the United State* does
not rsach such stste laWs, they remain, nevertheless, to be in most cases strongly oni-
damued, as being contrary to right and justice-
It seems to be settled, as the sense of the courts of justice in this conntiy, that the
legislature cannot pass any dedaraimy law, or act declaratoty of what the law waa
before its pssssge, so as to give it any binding weiglit with the oourta. It is only evi-
dence of the sense of the legislature as to the pre-eiisting law. (See the case of theacla
allnded to, poA, ii. 28, 34.) Thepowersof government in this country are diatiibntad
in departments, and each department is confined within its constitotional limita. The
power that makeii is not the power to construe the law. That latter tmst beloDgs t»
the judicial departmeut eiclosivety. Kent, Ch. J., in Jukaon «. Phelt*, 3 Cainei^
flBi Ogden b. Blaokledge. S Ctanoh, 273; Jones v. Wootten, 1 Harr. (Del.) 77;
Field V. The People, 2 Scam. (lU.) 79 j Cotton v. Brien, 6 Bob. (U.) 115. Whan
[614]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XX.] 80nBCE8 OF MUNICIPAL LAV. * 457
The English rule formflrl; was, that if no period was fixed by
the statute itself, it took effect by relation, from the first day of
the seasion in which the act was passed, and which might be some
weeks, if not months, before the act received the royal sanction,
or even before it had been introduced into Parliament, {d) This
was an extraordinary instance of the doctrine of relation, working
gross injustice and absurdity ; and yet we find the rule declared
and oniformly adhered to, from the time of Henry YI. (e) All
the judges agreed, in the cose of Partridge v. Strange, in the 6th
Edward VL,(/)that the statute was to be accoimted in law a
perfect act from the first day of the session; and all per-
sons *were to be pmiished for an offence done against it *467
after the first day of the session, unless a certain time was
appointed when the act should take effect In the case of The
King T. Thurtton, ^) this doctrine of carrying a statute back by
relation to the first day of the session was admitted in the K. B. ;
thoi^h the consequence of it was to render an act murder which
would not have been so without such relation. The case of The
Attorney- General v. PanUr (i) is another strong instance of the
application of this rigorous and unjust rule of the common law,
even at so late and enlightened a period of the law as the year
1772. An act for laying a duty on the exportation of rice there-
after to be exported, received the royal assent on the 29th of June,
1767, and on the 10th of June of that year the defendants had
exported rice. After the act passed, a duty of one hundred and
fifteen pounds was demanded upon the prior exportation, and it
was adjudged, in the Irish Court of Exchequer, to be payable.
The cause was carried by appeal to the British House of Lords,
on the ground of the palpable injustice of punishing the party for
an act innocent and lawful when it is done ; but the decree was
affirmed, upon the opinion of the twelve judges, that the statute,
Lord Bacon composed bii admirable aphorisma, De Fontibiui Jnria, lie aaaamed tha
propositEoii that docUWitory itatntea communicated an interpretation that waa aaaffica-
ciona aa if it had been rontemporaiy with the pBavgn of the atatate. Bnt in his age,
the ptrtitinn of power araong departmetitH was not accaratelj nndentood, ot precisely
defined, or oonatitatianallj limited ; and he held, notwitfaitanding, that thej ought
not to be paued, except in case* in which a retroapective opention to a statute wonld
b« joat, — legoa dsclantoriaa ne ordlnato m«i in cadbaa nbi legea cnm juatidk retro-
■[Hcen poannt. Baoon'a Worka, viL 150, Aphorism 61.
id) « Inst. 2S. <«) 83 Hen. TI. 18 ; Bto. Exposition del Terau, 83.
(/) 1 Plow. 7». (a) 1 Lev. 91. (6) fl Bro. P. C. BBS.
[616]
sObyGoOl^lc
•458 B0DBCE8 OP MONICIPAL LAW, [PABT in.
by legal relation, commenced from the first day of the aeasion.
The K. B., also, in Latlest v. Holmes, (c) conaidored the rule to
be too well aettled to be shaken, and that the court could not
take notice of the great hardship of the case. The voice of
reason at. last prevailed; and by the statute of S3 Geo. IIL c. 18,
it was declared that statutes are to have effect only from the
time they receive the royal assent; and the former rule waa
abolished, to use the words of the statute, by reason of " its great
and manifest injustice."
There is a good deal of hardship in the rule as it now stands,
both here and in England; for a statute is to operate from
•468 the very day it passes, if the law itself does not "establish
the time. It is impossible in any state, and particularly
in such a wide-spread dominion as that of the United States, to
have notice of the existence of the law, until some time after it
has passed. It would be no more than reasonable and juBt, that
the statute should not be deemed to operate upon the persons and
property of individuals, or impose pains and penalties for acts
done in contravention of it, until the law was duly promulgated.
The rule, however, is deemed to be fixed beyond the power of
judicial control, and no time ia allowed for the publication of the
law before it operates, when the statute itself gives no time.
Thus, in thewaae of The Brig Ann, (a) the vessel was libelled and
condemned for sailing from Newburyport, in Maasachusetts, on
the 12th of January, 1808, contrary to the act of Congress of the
£Hli of January, 1808, though it was admitted the act was not
known in Newburyport on the day the brig sailed. The conrt
admitted that the objection to the forfeiture of the brig was
founded on the principles of good sense and natural equity ; and
that unless such time be allowed as would enable the party, with
reasonable diligence, to ascertain the existence of the law, an in-
nocent man might be punished in his person and property for
an act which was innocent, for aught he knew, or could by
possibility have known, when he did it. (J)
(c) 4 T. R MO. [3m TotalinBon «. Bollock, 4 Q. B. D. 2S0. A procUmatiDo trr
the PnsideDt was held to go into affact when «i^ed and sealed, in Lkpejra r. Unitad
Statev, IT Will 191. Seo ftlao Utiited BUtea v. Kortoa, S7 U. S. 164. — b.]
(a) I OftU. 42.
(£] Jnd|[e Livingitoti, in 1810, beld that the embargo law of Docamber, 1807, did
not operate npon a Tesael which sailed from (leorgia on the IGth Jkookj, 1S08,
before notice of the act had arrived. 1 Paine, 23.
[616]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XX.] 80UBCE8 OF MDNiaPAL LAW. * 459
The Code Napoleon {c) adopted the true rule on Hhia subject
It declared that laws were binding from the moment their pro-
mulgation could be known, and that the promulgation should be
considered as known in the department of the imperial residence
one day after that promulgation, and in each of the other
departmenla of the French empire • after the expiration of •469
the aame space of time, augmented hy as many days as
there were distances of twenty leagues between the seat of gov-
ernment and the place. The New York Revised Statutes (a)
have also declared the very equitable rule that every law, unless
a different time be prescribed therein, takes effect throughout the
state on, and not before, the 20th day after the day of its final /
passage. (6) "^
If the statute be constitutional in its character, and has duly
gone into operation, the next inquiry is respecting its mean-
ing; and this leads us to a consideration of the established
rules of construction, by which its sense and operation are to
be understood.
4. Acts, PnbUo and PrtTat«. — There is a material distinction
between public and private statutes, and the books abound with
cases explaining this distinction in its application to particular
statutes. It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between a
public and private act, for statutes frequently relate to matters
and things ttiat are partly public and partly private. The most
comprehensive, if not the most precise, definition in the English
books is, that public acts relate to the kingdom at large, and pri-
vate acts concern the particular interest or benefit of certain indi-
viduals or of particular classes of men. (c) Generally speaking,
statutes are public ; and a private statute may rather be consid-
ered an exception to a general rule. It operates upon a particu-
lar thing or private persons. It is said not to bind or include
strangers in interest to its provisions, and they are not bound to
take notice of a private act, even though there be no general
saving clause of tbe rights of third persons. This is a safe and
(e) Art. 1. (o) VoL L 167, sec 12.
(b) By the RerUed SUtntai of HatMchnaetts, in ISSfl, it ia tba thirtieth day ifter,
and by the eoostitatioii of HiMinippi, ai cteclaied in 18SS, it i« aizty dayi thereattw.
{See Bialiop on Written Laws for Bimilar proviaioiu in other atatea, ]
(<) Dwairia on Statute* [2d ed. 464) ; Gilbert on £t. 80. [See Holland on Uh
Fonn of the l^w, London, BatterwMtha, 1870, pamai, gap. p. 108.]
[61T]
sObyGoOl^lc
*460 B0UBCE8 OP mnnCIPAL U.W. [PABT m.
just rule of construction; and it vae adopted hj the English
courts in very earlj timeB, and does great credit to their liberali^
and spirit of justice, (d) It is supported by the opinion oi Sir
Matthew Hale, in Luctf v.Levington, («) where he lays down the
rule to be, that though every man be so far a party to a private
act of Parliament as not to gainsay it, yet he is not so far
* 460 a party as to give up his interest. To take the * case stated
by Sir Matthew Hale, suppose a statute recites that whereat
there icaa U controverty eoneeming land beltoeen A and B, and enacti
that A shall enjoy it, this would not bind the interest of third per-
sons in that land, because they are not strictly parties to the act,
but strangers, and it would be manifest injustice that the statute
should affect them. This rule, as to the limitation of the opera-
tion of private statutes, was adopted by the Supreme Court of
New York, and afterwards by the Court of Errors, in Jackton v.
Catlin, (a) ' It is likewise a general rule, in the interpretation
of statutes limiting rights and interests, not to construe them to
embrace the sovereign power or government, .unless the same be
expressly named therein, or intended by necessary implication. (&)
<<Q S7 Hen. Vt. 16 ; Bro. Pulfuneiit, pL 27 ; BoaweU'i Cue, SE & 28 Elix., dtsd
in Burington's Case, 8 Co. 1S8, a. [Laeai and Special Zaun."— A» to when conrta
will take notice of, aee Alton v. Stephen, 1 App, Cat. IGII ; Psiry v. New Oiiettu, tc.
B. B. Co., E6 Ala. 113. Local and special le^;islation U forbidden b; couatitnlional
provinon in mmaj «t»tea. Van Biper ■>. Fanona, 40 N. J. L. 1 ; People «. Harper, 91
111. 3i>7 ; caaea infra. For farther diBcosaion u to whxt constitntaa ipedal It^illation,
■M Van Biper e. PartMna, 40 N. J. L. ISS ; Sutterl; v. Camden Comiaon Pleaa, 41 N.
J. L. 4BG ; Wheelei «. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. S38 ; Eerrigan s. Force, 88 N. Y. 381.
In Gardner v. Newark, 40 N. J. I.. S97, it is said that the tendenejr has been tD en-
krge the clus of public actn, &nd to make it apply to all acta which in any way afleet
the pnblio at large. So, Village of Winooski v. Ookey, 49 Vt, 283. — b.]
(«) 1 Vent. 17G. (a) 3 Johns. 208 ; 8 Johns. 620, a. o.
(6) 1 Blackst. Comm. 2fll ; Comyns's Dig. tit Parliaaient, B. 8; The King tt
AUen, 16 East, 333 ; The King v. InhaUtuita of Camberiaud, 8 T. B. 194 ; 8tot7, J.,
1 Haaou, SI 4 ; Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 1 Watts, G4 ; The People c. BossitXT, 4
Cowen, 143 ; United Statea v. Hewes, U. S. D. C. for PennayUanu, Febraaiy, 1840,
1 UcEionon v. Bliaa, 31 K. T. 306 ; chope, 8 CL & Fin. 710, 724. It ia net-
Earl of ShrewBbnT;«. Scott, S C. B. if. s. ticaable that in uZfra rim caaea thaBnglith
1, IC7. Bnt if a prirate act in positive coortB are aometimes careful to state that
and expreas taima propoiea to affect and the act of incorporation in qnestion is a
does affect the rights of parties not before public act, of which all are honnd to tiha
the legi^atnre, a conrt of law is boond to notice. Eut Anglian By. Co. d. Kutrm
give effect to the provisian. 6C. B. h. a. Gonntiafl B j. Co., U C. B. 776, 811.
167-160; EdinbiughBai]wayCo.D. Wan-
[618]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. 3X.] 80UBCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. * 460
There is another material diatinction in respect to public and pri-
vate statutes. The courts of justice- are bound, ex officio, to take
notice of public acta without their being pleaded, for they are
part of the general law of the land, which all persons, and par-
ticularly the judges, are presumed to know. Public acts cannot
be put in issue by plea. Nitl tiel record cannot be pleaded to a
public statute ; the judges are to determine the existence of them
[Ciabbe, S07-] In case* of gnats by the kingi in virtoe of his preiogatiTG, the old
Tola was said to be, that nothing passed without clear and dataiminata words, and the
gnot w«* oonttnied nioet strongly agunst the grantee, though the rule was otherwise
as to private grants. Stanhope's Case, Hob. 243 ; Tamer & Atkyns B., Haid. SOS ;
Bra. Abr. Patent, pi. 92 ; 2 Blacbst. Comm. 317. But the rule was and is to be
lAkeii with mnch qnaliltcatioD, and applied tn doubtFul cases, where » choice is lairly
open without any violatian of the appareut objects of the grant. This was the doctrine
in Sir John Molyu's Case (II Co. S), where it was held that the king's grant should be
taken beneficially for the honor of the king and the relief of the autyect ; snd Lord
Coke obserred in that case on the gravity or wisdom of the ancient sagea of the law,
who construed the king's grsnts beneficially, bo as not to make any strict or literal
construction in subTemoD of guch grants. He also obeeired, in his commentary on
the ststate of ?uii uumtnto (IB £d. I., 2 Inst. 496, 107), that the king's patents, not
only of liberties, bnt of lands, tenements, snd other things, should have no strict or
narrow ioteqiretation for tbe overthrowing of them ; bnt a liberal and favorable con-
structioD for the making of them available in law, usjtie ad plaiitudiineni, for the
honor of the king. And it was always conceded in the cases, that if the grant was de>
ciarod to be made as certa tdenUct et mero molu, they were to be construed beneficisUy
for the grantee, according to the intent expressed in the grant, and according to the
common anderBtanding and proper signification of the words. Alton Wood's Case,
1 Co. 40, b. In the case of Sutton's Hospital (10 Ca 27), the doctrine wss, that a
grant (or a charitable pnrpose is taken most favorably for the object, and that the
osnal incidente to a corporation are held to be tacitly anneied to the charter.
And if the royal grant was not in a case of mere bounty or donation, bnt one
founded npon a valuable consideration, the st«m rnle never appliea, and the grant is
expounded ss a private grant, fovorable for the grantee, or rather accoiding to its fair
meaning, for the grant is a contract. See a clear and full view of the ancient law on
the construction of royal grants, by Mr. JusCiee Story, in his opinion in Charles River
Bridge V. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters. 68B-S98. See also in/ra, ii. BBfl.
In addition to the restrictions which the common law has imposed upon (he opera*
tion of private statutes, they are usually laid under special checks by legislative rules,
or by law, as to the notice requisite before a private bill can be introduced. See the
notice reqnisite on the applicatian to the legislature of New York for private purposes.
N. Y. B. S. 8d ed. i. p. 161. The constitution of New York (art 7, sec. B) requires
the assent of two thirds of the members elected to each house, to every bill appropriat-
ing public moneys or property for private purposes. So the legislature of North Car-
olina is prohibited by their constitution, as amended in 1SS6, from passing any privsta
law, without thirty dsys' previous notice of application for the law. The caution,
checks, and course of proceedings, in the English Parliament, on passing private bills,
are deteiled at large, and with great precision and socnlaoy, in May's Treatise upon
the Law and Proceedings of Psrliament, 383-460.
[619]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 460 SOUBCES OP HUNIClPAl, U.W, [PABT m.
from their own knowledge, {c) But they are not bound to take
notice of private acts, unless they be specially pleaded, and shown
in proof, by the party claiming the effect of them. In England
the existence even of a private statute cannot be put in issue to
be tried by a jury on the plea of nul tiel record^ though this may
be done in New York under the Revised Statutes, (d)
5. Rnlw for tba Iiit«ipi«tatlon of Btatutea. — The title of the aCt
and the preamble to the act are, strictly speaking, no parts of
it. (e) They may serve to show the general scope and purport
of the act, and the inducements which led to its enactment They
may, at times, aid in the construction of it;(/) but generally
they are loosely and carelessly inserted, and are not safe exposi-
tors of the law. The title frequently alludes to the subject-
matter of the act only in general or sweeping terms, or it alludes
only to a part of the multifarious matter of which the statute is
composed. The constitution of New Jersey, in 1844, has added a
new and salutary check to multitudinous matter, by declaring (9)
that every law shall embrace but one object, and that shall be
expressed in the title, (x) So also in New York, by the revised
constitution of 1846, art. S, sec. 16, no private or local bill shall
embrace more than one subject, and that sball be expressed in
the title.' The title, as it was observed in United State$ v. ■
(e) The Prince's Cue, 8 Co. 38, a.
(d) Dwuns on SUtnte^ 520 ; TrottflT o. Will, 6 Wend. 012.
(f) The EiDg V. Willtenu, 1 W. BL 96 ; Milli n. WUkins, 6 Mod. 62.
(/ ) Sntton't HospitU, 10 Co. 23, 24, b ; Bonlton o. Boll, 8 H. Bl. US, 50(L
(S) Art. i. MC. 7.
* Tha constitntionB or manf other although tre«it«d an only directory in Cil<
•tetet coubun > nmilu provision, which, iTomis sad Ohio, Wuhington v. Honaj,
(x) The statntee are now often re- v. Taylor, M Hich. E7fl : SUte v. Eolien,
qoired by the State CoDstitatioa to em. ISO Ind. 134. So penalties impoeed by a
brace hut one antgect which is to be clearly at«tnte, but not mentioned in its title, an
ciprsswd in tlie title, the ol^ect being to not obnoxions to this provisioD. State v.
prevent snrreptitioqs legislation. Van Eosbland, 2S Or^on, 178. If a statute
Home V. State (]7eb.), 64 N.W. Bep. SSB. has one title and two nabject-matten, it
Under this provision an Act is not invalid is invalid only as to the one not expreMed
when ita principal object only is then ei- in the title. Ex partt Cowert, 92 AIa. M.
preMed, and other incidental objects ger- A title or preamble explains the Act only
mane thereto and included Uierein are when the letter is of donbCfnl meaning,
not so expreased. SUte n. Minea, 88 W. Tripp >. Goff, 16 R. L 299 ; Wilam •.
Ta. 12G ; State v. Brookover, id. 141 ; Spaolding^ 19 Fed. Sep. S04.
Gaines v. Williams, 148 HI. 4G0 ; People
[620]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XX.] B0DRCE8 OF MUNICIPAL LAW, • 461
Fisher, (A) when taken in connection with other parts,
may* assist in removing ambiguities where the intent Is* 461
not plain ; for when the mind labors to discoTer the inten-
tion of the legislature, it seizes everything, even the title, from
which aid can be derived. So the preamble may be reBorted to
in order to ascertain the inducements to the making of the stat-
ute ; but when the words of the enaoting clause are clear and .
positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble. Notwith-
standing that Lord Coke {a) considers the preamble as a key to
opeo the understanding of the statute, Mr. Barrington, in bis
Observations on the Statutes, (J) has shown, by many instances,
that a statute frequently recites that which is not the real occa-
sion of the law, or states that doubts existed as to the law, when
in fact none had existed. The true rule is, as was declared by
Mr. J. Buller and Mr. J. Grose, in Creipigny v. Wittenoom, (c)
that the preamble may be resorted to in restraint of the generality
(A) 2 Cnmcb, SSO. <a) Co. Litt. 7>, t.
(*) P. 800. (c) 4 T. B. 78S.
4 Cal. 3S8 i Pirn n. TficholaoD, S Ohio, H U. 8. 312 ; Albrecht v. Btat«, 8 Tex.
K. s. 176 ; Ohio e. Covingtoii, 39 Ohio SL App. 216 ; Donsy'i App., 72 Pum. St
102, is raid to have been generally con- 1B3 ; Bader e. Township of Union, SB
lidered u muDdator;. Cooley, Const. N. J. l> SOB. In conatrning a atatDte,
Lim. c. 4, p. 82 ; c 6, p. ISO j poM, 4S5, the title ouij be resorted to at leaat to
n. 1. And it it accordingly laid down remoTe ambiguities in the act Coomber
that when the dtle embraces mors than v. Jiuticea of Berks, B Q. B. D. 17, 32,
one object the whole act wiU be void, ib. 33 ; In the matter, &c. Village of Uiddls-
148 ; and wliea the act contained matters town, 82 N. Y. IBfl ; In tbe matter of
not connected with the olgect named in Boston, Ac, Co,, 61 Csl, 624.-8.]
the title, it haa been held to be void as to The title of an act of CoDgress has
them, Byerson o. Utiey, 16 Mich. 289 ; been said to be of especially little weight,
Hewherter h. Price, 1 1 Ind. IBB ; Savan. owing to the uotorions cnatom of inserting
nah IT. Georgia, 4 Oa. 24. [The whole aet proviaions which have nothing to do with
wai held void in Stoto ir. McCann, 4 Lea, tbe snbject-matter of the act as it appears
1, beranse more was embraced in the act in the title. Haddea f. The Collector, 6
than was referred to in the title. But the WaU. 107. But the reasoning of The
better rjew wonld seem to be that if the Eagle, 8 Wall. IS, 24, looks the other way.
part sufficiently referred to can be iep«- [Hadden v. The Collector is approved in
rated, it should be held valid. Van Riper United BUtcs v. Union Pac. R. B. Co.,
■. North Plainfield, IS N. J. L. 84S ; In 91 U. a 72, 82.] See Little d. Watson,
theroatter ofHet. GasLightCo.,86N.Y. 82 Maine, 214 ; Commonwealth o. 81ifer,
G2fl; Jones e. Thompson's Rxr., 12 Bnsh, SS Penn. 8t 71; Ogden v. Btrong, 3
SB*. See generally, Hootclair v. Bams- Paine, S84 ; Eidder o. Stewartatown, 48
deU, 107 r. S. 147 ; Unity v. Burrage, N. H. 290, 262.
lOS U. S. 447 ; San Antonio v. Hebaffey,
[621]
sObyGoOl^lc
*462 SOUBCES OP HIJNICIPAL LAW. [PAPT ni.
of the enacting clause, when it wonld be iuconyenient if not
reBtrained, or it may be resorted to in explanation of the enact-
ing clause, if it be doubtful. -This is the whole extent of the
influence of the title and preamble in the construction of the
statute. The true meaning of the statute is generally and prop-
erly to be sought from the body of the act itself. But such is the
imperfection of human language, and the want of technical skill
in the makers of the law, that statutes often give occasion to the
most perplexing and distressing doubts and discussions, arising
from the ambiguity that attends them. It requires great expe-
rience, as well as the command of a perspicuous diction, to frame
a law in such clear and precise terms as to secure it from am-
biguous expressions, and from all doubt and criticism upon its
meaning.
It is an estahliBhed rule in the exposition of statutes, that the
intention of the lawgiver is to be deduced from a view of
* 462 the whole and of every part of a statute, taken and * com-
pared together, (a) The real intention, when accurately as-
certained, will always prevail over the literal sense of terms, (b) (z)
(a) Co. Litt. SSI, Si Marshall, C. J., 12 Wheatoa, S32 ; Mason v. Finch, 2 Scun.
S24.
(b] Thomp»o&, C. J., in Th« People o. Utica In«. Co., IG John*. 380 ; Wbitsey *.
VhiUiey, 14 Mau. E)2. [It is well settled that a more literal meaning of WOTda in a
statute! will yield to a, lesa literal, where auch meaning is shown by the act itself
Tiewed with the aid of the ontside hclpi which are allowed to the coart, to have been
the le^ative intent. Caledonian By. Co. e. North Britiah Ry. Co., 6 App. Caa. 114,
per Lord Selbome. But it would se«m dear that no avidenoe abauld be allowed to
■how a meaning which the worda themsdlves ate Incapable of bearing ; >. <., to show
that the legiaktnte intended to enact something else than what they hare expreasid
in the law. Yet the langnafte of some of the coarts of this eonntry seemi to go almeet
to this extent. Oates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. SS9 ; Penr Connty v. JeSeraon
Connty, 64 III. 214. But that when the meaning of the worda ia clear it ia condnan,
see Water Commiaaioners v. Brewster, 42 N. J. L. 125 ; Bentley n. Board of He^th, 4
Ch. D. 5S8. Statates sbonid be construed, where the wards permit, so as to work ben-
eficially rather than injnrionily ; e. ;.,S0M Dot to take away reated rights, llitro-
politau Aaylom INst. t>. HUl, 6 App. Caa. IBS, 208 ; Diion v. Caledonian, &c. Ccm-
paniea, fi id. S20, 827. — B.]
(f ) Every statnte is to be so interpreted The state of the law when a statnte was
and applied, so far as its tangnage admits, enacted may be considered in mnstming
as not to be inconsjatant with the comity it, but the history of the Act is immaterial
of nations or with the eetablished ralea of when its language ia clear. Philippe «.
intematioDal law. Maxwell on Statates, Bses, 24 Q. B. D. IT ; B^. v. London, id.
122; Bloxam d. Parre, 8 P. D. 101, 107. 218; Sxparit Byrne, 20 id. 314; Cooper
[622]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XX.] S0DBCE8 OF HOKiaPAL LAW. * 462
When the expresBion in a statute is special or particular, but the
reason is general, the expression should be deemed generaX (c)
(e) 10 Co. 101, b.
V. AduQB, [18ei]2Ch.C57; UDitadStatca Bat the jadid^ constructiou giren to »
V. Tnmt. Mo. F. Co., Hi Fed. Rep. SS. particnlaT form of woniU may be epplied
So the policy of k st&tDte ii aat miterial if to ditfereot etAtnte*. Barlow r. Teal, 16
snch policy is open to doabt and coatro- Q. B. D. 403. Statutes should b« limited
veray. Municipal Building Society d. Kent, in intent to thinga and peraona within the
S A. C. 273. In int«rpretiDg a codified jariadiction of the legislature. Colquhoun
law the earlier law and decisions can only v. Heddon, SG Q. B. D. 129.
be nsed to conatnie provisions which are Common words have their ordinary
donbtfnl, or which have already acqaired a popular meaning in a genenLl act ; but in
t«chaic«l meaning. Bank of England v. Acts relating to a particular trade, buai-
Vagliano, [1S91], A. C. 107 ; Bobinaon n. nesa, or transaetiou, the worda have the
Canadian Pac By., [1892] A. C. 481. But meaning given to them therein. Unwin
in a mere act of consolidation the original e. Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B. 116 ; Homaey
proriaions have prima faeie their meaning Local Board v. Monarch I. B. Society, 24
oontiDaed. Mitchell v. Simpaon, 2G Q. Q. B. D. 1 ; Barlow r. Roai, id. SSI ; Life
B. D. 1S3 ; 2S id. 37S. Ins. Aas'n v. Tucker, 12 id. 186 ; Hough
The legiilatore is preaamed to know the o. Windna, id. 221 ; Salmon v. Duncombe,
deciaions existing when a law was enacted. 11 A. C. 627 ; PieterniaritEburg e. Natal
£e parU Kent County Council, [ISSl] 1 Land Co., 13 id. 478 ; The Dunelm, 9
Q. B. 725. The conrte, in detanniiUDg the P. D. 164. A change in the words relating
intent, cannot revert to the Tiewa expressed to the saoM anbject.matl«r is prima facia
by ntembersof die legialatnre in debate, or inteatiooal. Brighton Gnardians c. Strand
receive teatimony from them M to what waa Union, [1891] 2 Q. B. 166.
intended, although they may consider state- In case of doubt, that constraction will
ineDta made in debate as to current history, be adopted which will have the leaat
or the apecial meuiing of words employed, collateral effvct, injurious to third parties.
United States v. Oregon li C R> Co., 67 beyond the purpose and policy of the Act:
Fed. Rep. 426 ; United States r. Wilson, Bailton e. Wood, 16 A. C. SflS ; or whick
SS id. 768 ; Stewart B. Atlanta Beef Co., will not impair rights witboat compensa-
93 G«. 12 1 Sackrider v. Saperrisors, 79 tion : Att-Qen. d. Bomer, 14 Q. B. D.
Mich. 69 ; Cumberland Connty i>. Boyd, Sfi7 ; London, Brighton, & S. C. By. «.
113 Penn. St 62 ; 87 Albany L. J. 428, Trnroan, 11 A. C, 46 ; or which »-ill not
449. So the snpposed policy of legislBtara enable a peieon to defeat the obligation of
will not prevail against the plain langoage his contract by his own acte. Gowan «.
of a statute. Bate SefiigentiiiR Co. t>. Wright, 18 Q. B. D, 201. So a reading
Sntlbei^r, 167 U. S. 1 ; Tompkins v. First will be adopted by which one Act will not
Nat Bank, 18 N. Y. S. 234. In case of conflict with others, if it is reasonably
conflict, the enrolled copy of an act of capable of beingso read, thoogb the words
Congress prevula over the printed volume, are not thereby given their ordinary mean-
McLsaghlin k. Menotti, 106 Cal. 672. ing. Beg. v. Tnnbridge OverMera, 13 Q.
A statute made with one intent cannot B. D. 342. "Or" sboald be read as
be nsed in construing anothrr statute mnde " and " only when the context taaksa that
with a different intent. Reg. b. Income thenecessarymeaning. Halsbury, L. C, in
Tax Commissioners, 28 Q. B. D. 296. Msiaey Docks v. Hendenion, 13 A. C. 696,
[628]
;abyG00<^lc
" 462 SODBCES OF HONICIPAL LAW. [PABT ID.
Scire leges, non hoe eit verba earum tenere ted vim ac potettatem,
and Uie reason and intention of the lawgiver will control ihe
403 ; United 8tet«s d. Fisk, 3 Wdl. 447 ; eipmidoiu in a st&tate which hu a certain
DuQiODt f. United SCsteg, 93 U. S. 143. and definite scope will, in the abaanos at a
In a penal atatnte "or" will not be pven oontmy int«nt clearly indicated, be limi.
that interpretation when the effect is to ted to it* olyecC and piirpoae. United
aggnTate the offence. State v. Walters, States v. CiattfDrd, 6 Usckef, 819;
97 N. C. im. Electro-Magnetic U. & D. Co. e. Tan
A special section of a statnte, which Anken, 9 CoL 204. Endnce •rf tile
limits the general words of a prior aeetioD, pnetioeof the LegistatureM to taking the
gorems the latter. Sb porta Johnson, oath of all^ianca waa admitted to explain
[18S3] 1 Q. B. 21. In general the whole the statutes relating to oaths upon the
Act is to be considered together. Col- trial of an information against ■ member
qnhoan d. Brooks, 14 A. C. 49S. Pa1p«ble for voting without having taken the oath,
iigustice or abeurdit; will not be deduced in Att-Oen. d. Bradlangh, 14 Q. B. O.
from a literal reading wlun that intention SST. Bat neither asage nor long-contitiiied
is not manifested by axprsaa words. The practice can be proved to explain atatatei
Dnke of Buccleuch, IS P. D. 86 ; BiepttrU reUting to toUa. Northam Bridge Co. ■.
Dunn, 23 Q. B. D. 461 ; Reg. e. Clarence, The Queen, 95 L. T. 759.
22 id. 66 ; Co1(]uhoun v. Brooke, 14 A. C. Aa Americane are hiatoticaUja religioui
493 i Rector of Holy Trinity Chnrch d. people by their early grants, oonstitutiona
' United States, 113 U. 3. 4S7, reversing and history, an intention to act agBinat
S6 Fed. Bep. 303. But for this pnrpose a religion will not be imputed to any of our
etrong case of injustice must sppear. In l^islatnres. Hector of Holy Trinity
Tt Hall, 21 Q. B. D. 137; Plumstead Cbai«h *. United SUtee, 143 U.S. 457.
Board of Works v. Spackman, IS id. 878. The long-continued, uniform practice of
New privilege or powers conferred upon a the executive department, having the duty
company iocorporated for profit will not to execute a atatnte, ii entitled to great
be extended by implication beyond what is weight in its construction, especially if ac-
conferred expressly or by neceasarj infer- quiesced in. Brown «. United States, 113
ence. Scottish Drainage Co. v. Cunpbell, U. S. G08 ; United States o. Philbriek,
14 A. C. 142; Altrincham Union v. 120 U. S. 53; Same v. Hill, id. 169;
Cheshire Lines Committee, 15 Q. B. D. Wertibrook v. UiUer, SB Hich. 244.
597. So power* conferred apon a 1oc«l Statutoiy authority to eieeuta certain
authority will, in case of doubt, be con- works includes everything rMaonaUir
Btrued to include such only aa are necessary uecessaiy for their execution. Haniaon >.
to carry out the objects of the atatnte. Sonthwalk & V. W. Co., [1391] 2 Ch. 40C.
Wandsworth Board of Works n. United Statntoiy powers conferred npon a corpon-
Telephone Co., 13 Q. B. D. 904. A casna tion, which exjet of common right apart
oniiasus will be created by interpretation from the statute, are interpreted as a pro-
only in a case of etrong necessity. Uer- hibition against the exercise of the more
sey Docks v. Hendenon, 13 A, C. &B5, extensive rights which the company mi^t
S02. hare had as an owner. Shipowners' Lod-
A general expression following certain don Ass'u v. London k I. D. J. Comniittee,
words, but applicable aleo to others, appliRs [1893] 3 Ch. 24S. When land or rights are
prima fiicU to all. Great Western Ey. v. granted by statate for the conatmction of
Svriiidon ft C. Ry., 9 A. C. 787. Oeneral certain work* which necessarily requin
[624]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XZ.] BOUBCBB OF HUNICIPAL LAW. * 462
strict letter of the l&w, when the latter would lead to palpable
injuBtice, coutradictioii, and absurdity. This waa the doctrine of
Modestinus, Scsevola, Paulua, and Ulpianus, the most illus-
trious commentators on the Roman law.((j) When the words are
not explicit, the intention is to be collected from the context,
from the occasion and necessity of the law, from the mischief
felt, and the objects and the remedy in view ; and the intention is
to be taken or presumed, according to what is consonant to reason
and good discretion, (e) These rules, by which the sages of the
law, according to Plowden,^/) have ever been guided in seeking
for the intention of the legislature, are maxims of sound inter-
pretation, which have been accumulated by the experience, and
ratified by the approbation of ages.
The words of a statute, if of common use, are to be taken in
their natural, plain, obvious, and ordinary signification and im-
port; {g) and if technical words are used, they are to be taken
in a technical sense, anless it clearly appears from the context,
or other parts of the instrument, that the words were intended
to be applied differently from their ordinary or their legal accep-
tation, (k) The current of authority at the present day, said Mr.
Justice Bronson, (t) is in favor of reading statutes according to
(i) Dig. 1. S. 17 ; ib. lib. ST. 1. IB. 2. Haledicta intarpratatio qua corrodit tumm
taitL LordCoke^
(*) 10 Co. C7, b ; 3 Co. 7 ; Plowd. 10, G7, SGO, 3SS ; Eyre, C. J., in Bonltob «.
Bull, 2 H. Bl. IM ; Musb&ll, C. J., S Whesfam, 1S9.
if) Plowd. 206.
(g) Story, J., 1 Wbeaton, 328 ; ]»rd Tentorden, 8 B. & Aid. S32.
(A) ptrbunt; to a oerttin intent in general ii oidinuil; snfflcient in tbe coiutrnction
of statutcB. The ironla are to be taken in theieuNV say tbe judges in Venuont, tbat
would convey tbe meaning required, to all men of ordinary diuumment dike, and that
may be called eeriain witbont recnrring to poasible facta which do not appear. FairlM
o. Corinth, B Vermont, 266.
(t) 20 Wendell, 661. In Ualkn <r. Hay, 13 He««. t W. 611, the ordinary rale of
constniction was declared to be, that words were to be eonftrned according to their
Bbriet and primary acceptation, nnlen from the contszt of the instmment, and the
intention of the partiee, t« he collected from it, tbe; appear to be tued in a different
•enee, or nnlew in their strict sann they are incapable of being carried into effect
■npport, the right to neoeawry rapport ia ia no longer aTaiUble, tbe oompenaatioii
implied, if tbe context doea not lead to a may he determined and enforced by rait
contrary conatmction. London t K. W. Bentley u. Uauoheater, Jkc. By., (1891]
fiy. V. Evane, [1893] 1 Ch. 14. If a 8 Ch. 223.
ipeoifd tribunal created to asaeaa damage*
TOL. I.-M [6S6]
sObyGoOl^lc
*468 aouBCEB OF MmnciPAL lav. [past m.
the nataral and most obvious import of the language, vithoat
reBorting to subtle and forced constructions, for the purpose of
either limiting or extending their operation. A saving clanse in
a statute is to be rejected, when it is directly repugnant to the
purview or body of the act, and could not stand without render-
ing the act inconsistent and destructive of itself, (j) Lord Coke, .
in AUon Wood's Case, (k) gives a particular illustration of
this rule, by a case which would be false doctrine with us, bat
which serves to show the force .of the rule. Thus, if the manor
of Dale be by express words given by statute to the king, saving
the right of all persons interested therein, or if the statute vests
the lands of A in the king, saving the rights of A, the
* 468 interest of the owner is not * saved, inasmuch as ihe sav-
ing clause is repugnant to the grant ; and if it were allowed
to operate, it would render the grant void and nugatory. But
there is a distinction in some of the books between a saving
clause and a proviso in the statute, though the reason of the dis-
tinction is not very apparent. It was held by all the barons of
the Exchequer, In the case of The Attorney- Qeneral v. The Gov-
ernor, and Company of Chelaea Waterworks (a) that where the
proviso of an act of Parliament was directly repugnant to the
purview of it, the proviso should stand, and be held a repeal of
tiie purview, because it speaks the last intention of the lawgiver.
It was compared to a will, in which the latter part, if inconsis-
tent with the former, supersedes and revokes it But it may be
remarked upon this case of Fitzg&>hon, that a proviso repugnant
to the purview of the statute renders it equally nugatory and
void as a repugnant saving clause ; and it is difficult to see why
the act should be destroyed by the one, and not by the other, or
why the proviso and the saving clause, when inconsistent witJi Uie
body of the act, should not both of tiiem be equally rejected, (fi)
(;) Plowd. fiSE ; 8 Tannt 18-18. (t) 1 Co. 47, m.
(a) Fitzg. 196 ; 4 Oeo. II. ; [Townsend c. Brown, 4 Zitit. BO.]
(i) In SaTingB InsHtntiaii n. HiJcin, 28 Hiiae, 360, it wan held, in tlie caae whi^
led to t, great and sble duonadon, that a saving clauae In a ttatato, in Ou Jarm of •
proniao, rwthcting in certain caaei the openttion of the general langoaga of the fT'i'ting
clanse, was not void, though the proviso be Tepngnant to the geoenl langnage of the
enacting clanse. The tni« principle undonbtedl; ia, that the loand intffpratatian and
meaning of the rtatate, on a view of the enacting clause^ eaving clanse, and [oovisok
taken end constrned together, i« to prenil. If the principal objeot of the act can be
accomplished and etud, nnder the restiiotian of the aaring claoee or pnviao, tka MB*
ia not to be held void for repugnancy.
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XZ.] SOUBCBS OP HUKICIPAL LAT. * 464
There is also a technical distiaction between a proviso and an
exception in a statute. If there be an exception in the enacting
clause of a statute, it must be negatived in pleading; but if there
be a separate proviso, that need not, and the defendant must
show it by way of defence, {c)
Several acts in pari materia, and relating to the same subject,
are to be taken together, and compared, in the construction of
them, because the; are considered as having one object in view,
and as acting upon one system.' This rule was declared in the
cases olRezv. Loxdale, and TheSarlqfAile»burf/v. Pattiton ; (d)
and the rule applies, though some of the statutes may have
expired, or are not referred to in the other acts. The* object of
the rule is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention ;
and it is to be inferred * that a code of statutes relating " 464
to one subject was governed by one spirit and policy, and
was intended to be consistent and harmonious in its several parts
and provisions. Upon the same principle, whenever a power is
given by a statnte, everything necessary to the making of it
effectual or requisite to attain the end is implied. Quando lex
aliquid concedit, concedere videtur et id, per quod devenitnr ad
illud.
Statutes are likewise to be constmed in reference to the prin-
ciples of the common law ; > for it is not to be presumed that the
legislature intended to make any innovation upon the common
law, further than the case absolutely required. This has been the
language of the courts in every age ; and when we consider the
constant vehement, and exalted eulc^y which the ancient sages
bestowed upon the common law aa the perfection of reason, and
the best birthright and noblest inheritance of the subject, we
{c) Spisrai «. Parker, I T. R. Ill ; Abbott, J., IB. & Aid. 99; Thibaalt e. Qibwn,
I! Heea. i W, 88 ; ib. 740. The office of a proTuo U either to except •ometliing from
the eoactiDg cUoae, or to qnsUfj or rMtrsin its geDenlit;^, or to exclude tome pouible
gTonnd of miainterpratition of ita extent. Story, J., Minia t>. United Statea, IB Peten,
US ; Boon it. Juliet, 1 Scam. 268.
(d) 1 Burr. 416 ; Dong. 27. See alao Temon's Caae, 4 Co. 4 ; 4 T. R. 447, 4G0 ; E id.
417 ; Dvarria on Statntaa, fi69 ; Thompaon, C. J., 16 Johna. 880, a. r.
I Hnber v. Reilj, 63 Fenn. St. 113. of Congren ti the Mme, although there U
Thia ia eapecUUf ao in tbe case of the do common lav of the United 8tat«a.
teTenne lawa. United Statea v. Collier, 8 Bioe r. Bailioad Co., 1 Black, S68, S74.
BUtchr. 826. See McCool e. Smith, ib. 469.
' The rale for the conttraetioD of acta
[627]
50byGoO>^lc
* 465 SOOBCES OF HUHICIPAL LAW. [PABT HI,
cannot be eurprieed at the great sanction given to this rule of
conetruction. It vas observed by the judges, in the case of
Stowell T. Zouehe, (a) that it was good for the expositors of a
statute to approach as near as they could to the reason of the
common law; and the resolution of the barons of the Exchequer,
in Eeydon's Cote, (b) was to this effect For the sure and true
interpretation of all statutes, whether penal or beneficial, f<Hir
things are to be considered : What was the common law before
the act; what was the mischief against which the common law
did not provide; what remedy the Parliament had provided to
cure the defect; and the true reason of the remedy. It was
held to be tJie duty of the judges to make such a construction as
should repress the mischief and advance the remedy, (c)
In the construction of statutes, the sense which the con-
temporary members of the profession had put upon them is
deemed of some importance, according to tlie maxim that
• 466 • contemporanea expotitio ettforHtsima in lege, (a) Statutes
that are remedial, and not penal, arc to receive an equi-
table interpretation, by which the letter of the act is sometimes
restrained, and sometimes enlarged, so as more effectually to
meet the beneficial end in view, and prevent a failure of the
remedy. They are construed liberally, and ultra but not contra
the strict letter, (b) This may be illustrated in the case of the
registry acts, for giving priority to deeds and mortgages, accord-
ing to the dates of the registry. If a person claiming under a
registered deed or mortgage had notice of the unregistered prior
deed when he took his deed, and procured the registry of it in
order to defeat the prior deed, he shall not prevail with his prior
registry, because that would be to counteract the intent and
policy of the statutes, which were made to prevent and not to
(a) Plowd. 886. (i> S Col 7.
(e) Thii in upecuU; the can as to aUtaite* vhich relate to irutten of pnblic
utility, u to eatiblishiiMDl* of piet;, cbarity, edncadon, and pablic improremcaiti.
UagdaleD CoUege Case, 11 Co. 71, b.
(a) Where the pCDning of a statute is dabious, lonj; asage is a just mediiim to
eipODod it by ; for ^ui it nc/rma loqumdl ars governed b; DMge. The tneauing <rf
things spoken or written mnat be, as it hath been constantly received to be, takea
finm common acceptation. Cb. J. Vaaghan, in Sheppaid v. Gosnold, Tangh. 16S.
A. contemporary exposition, even of the ConstitntioD of the United States, practised
and acqaiesced in for a period of years, Gies the oonstmction. Stosrt v. I^ird, I
Crancb, 299 ; Hsrtin v. Honter, 1 Wheaton, 304 ; Coheiu r. Virginia, 6 Whaaton, 3St.
(b) Dwarris on Statutes, SIS c(m9.
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. XS.] BOnBCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. * ^5
uphold frauds. Statutes are sometimes merely directory, and,
in that case, a breach of the direction works no forfeiture or
invalidity of the thing done; but it is otherwise if the statute
be imperative, (c) '
6L Effeot of TemporuT Btatntes. — If an act be penal and tem-
porary by the terms or nature of it, the party offending must be
prosecuted and punished before the act expires or is repealed.
Though the offence be committed before the expiration of the
act, the party cannot be punished after it has expired, unless a
particular provision be made by law for the purpose, (d) If
(r) To mterpret ■ Btatnts ntrictly, is to Bdhere praciMljr to the vords or letter of
tlie law, which icclDde, of conrae, fewer particalori than a freei conatnictioii. To
ioterpret it liberally, largely, or coiu[)iebeiuively, u to carry the meaning of the law-
giver into more complete effect than a confined interpretntioil wonld allow. Itmay
be temed the ratiooal interpretatioo. Butheribrth's Inst. b. 2, c 7, sees. 8-11. The
general rule, eren in the conitruction of a amstiiuiuni, it, that where it gives a general
power, or enjoins a duty, it givea by inipIicstioD every particnlar power uecessary for
the exerciM of the one, or the perfonnance of the other. But if the means for the
eieruise of the power be also granted, no other or different nftane or powers can he
implied. Field v. The People, 2 Scam. 70 ; [ante, 264, n. 1.]
(d) Miller's Case, 1 Win. Bl. iBl ; MaiBhall, C. J., in Yeaton v. United States.
6 Crunch, 2S1 ; The IrreeLstible, 7 Wbeaton, fiSl ; The United States v. Pasamore,
1 Dallas, 372 ; United States v. Preston, 8 Peters, S7 ; The State «. Cole, 2 HcCord,
1 ; Anon., 1 Wash. 81 ; The State o. The Tombecbee Bank, 1 SUwart (Ala.), 3*7;
Pope B. Lewis, i Ala. 487 ; Commonwealth v. Hanhall, 11 I^ck. 3fi0 ; Allan e.
Furrow, 2 Bayley (3. C.) 68*. The same as to jndicial proceedings ieyun nnder
an act, and not finished when it is repealed. They cannot be pnisaed. 1 Wm. Bl.
> People D. Cook, 11 Barb. 2G9, 280 ; porUnt, snd perhaps decisive when the
B.C. i Seld. 67; Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 error is not plain. Union Ins. Co. r, Eoga,
111. lOS ; State r. Lean, S Wis. 279, 292, 21 How. 3t>, <tS. See United States D.
Bnt it is said that it is difficult to treat The Recorder, 1 BUtchf. 218 ; United
any eoiuttfuftono/ provision *s merely di- States v. Qilmon, S Wall. 380 ; United
rectory and not imperative. People v. States v. Lytle, 6 McLean, 9. po, a con-
lAwrence, 36 Barb. 177, 186 ; Cooley, strnctioa which has been adopted by the
Const. Limit, c. 4, p. 74 et ttq. Cases of inferior oourts. Plummer e. Plummer, 87
legislative construction of a state oonsti- Uiu. ISG. And it hti become a principle
tution are Mayor of Baltimore v. State, of general adoption that when a statnte of
16 Md. 376 ; MoeiB v. Beading, 21 Penn, one state has received a conatraction there,
St. ISS ; State d. Mayhew, 2 Gill, 4S7 ; and ie afterwards adoptnl by another, the
Johnson P. Joliet i Chicago R. R., 28 oonstmction is part of the law. Common-
lU. 202, 207. Bnt see Sadler e. Langham, wealth e, Hartnett, 8 Oray, 460 ; Adams
S4 Ala. 311. The contemporaneous con- t>. Field, 21 Tt 266 ; Whitcomb v. Bood,
■tnietioii of a statnte by public officers, 20 VI. 49 ; Myrick tp. Hasey, 27 He. 9 ;
including the Attomey-GiMieral, who are Hess v. P^g, 7 Nev. 23.
required to aid in carrying it on^ is im-
;abyG00<^lc
• 466 BOtJBCEB OP MDNICIPAL LAW. [PABT m.
a statute be repealed, and afterwards the repealing act be
■466 "repealed, thie reyiveathe original act;(a)' and if astatate
be temporary, and limited to a given number of years, and
expires by its own limitation, a statute which had been repealed
and supplied by it is ipso facto revived, (i) If, before the ex-
piration of the time, a temporary statute be continued by another
act, it was formerly a question under which statute acts and pro-
ceedings were to be considered as done. In the case of the C<d-
lege of Phyneia-nt, (c) it was declared, that if a statute be limited
to seven years, and afterwards by another statute be made per-
petual, proceedings ought to be referred to the last statute, as
being the one in force. But this decision was erroneous, and
451 ) 4 Yestea, 892 ; Whartoo's Dig. {tit. Stetates, A.] n. 6 ; Butlar e. Pilmer. 1
Hill (N. Y. )i 324. The proceeding must have been executod, kml not eifcntOTj, to
■are it from being lost bj the repeal. Bnt it saem« thftt^ aeuoui in the narj, pot
iuid«t nrmt before his term of Berrice expired, m>; be retained for trial b; a court-
martial after hia term baa expired. This mle of conatruction it iodilpeiuabU
ti} the disciplioe of th; avij. Case of Walker on haieat corpus, American JnriM,
No. 6, p. 281. [The following are farther exampltB of the mcan^ ontaide ot tlM
words of the aCatnte, which may be resorted to to aid in ito interpretation : — (L)
Frerioni construction of similar laws. Oreavee v. ToGeld, 14 Cb. D. 5S3 ; Tha
Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440. (2.) Historj of theatatate, including circnmstanetB nndcr
which it was passed, prenoui state of law, Jkc Slate e. Nicholls, 30 !& An. Pt. 2,
SSO ; The Queen v. Host, 7 Q. B. D. 244 ; Yewens tr. Noakea, 6 Q. B. D. fiSO.
(3.) Long-eontinoed official osa^ Wetmore d. State, 55 Ala. 198 ; Hahn c. United
Statea, 14 Ct. of CI. 306 ; Swift, 4c Co. r. United Stetea. ib. 481. Comp. In tbs
matter of Manhattan ^vings Inatitntian, 82 S. Y. 142. (4.) Legialatire conatmetim].
Oeorgia, &c. Co. v. Nelms, S5 Ga. 67 ; People v. Dajton, 55 N. Y. 3S7. ~ b.]
(a) Case of the Bishops, 12 Co. 7 ; a luat. SSS ; Dob e. Naylor, 3 Rlackf. (Ind.) 33 ;
H'Nair d. B^land, 1 Bad. & Dev. Eq. 625 ; Commonwealth d. Chaichill, 2 Meteslf,
IIS ; Wheeler v. Boberta, 7 Cowen, E36. A statate in Ohio, of Febrairy 14, 1S09,
and of IlliDois, of 19th of Jannaij, I82S, abolished the rule of the common law stated
in the text, as to the constrnctdve rerlTal of repealed statntes.
(b) Collins V. Smith, S Wharton, 294. {e) Littleton's Bep. 212.
1 Hastings n. Aiken, 1 Cray, 163. Bot With regard to the repeal of a aiatnte
it is not infreqnently provided that the by disuse, mentioned in note (t), aw
repeal of a repealing act shall not have O'Hanlon t. Myers, 10 Rich. (S. C.) 128,
the effect mentioned in the t«xt. Cases a case standing on its peenliar ciicnm-
of repeal by implication arising from the stances, and not to he extended in iti
passage of later acts eontiiiiing provisions application. An act of ISBl, which had
repugnant to or the same as those in the been declared obsolete by an anthorita-
act repealed are United States v. Tynen, Hre comi^latiDn of 1786, and which pi«-
II WalL 88 ; Commonwealth v. Eelliher, scribed a manner of punishment which
13 Allen, 4S0. See The Beform, S WalL coald not now be followed, was Iwld
817, S8S. inopetktire.
[630]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. ZZ.] BODBCIiS OF HUNICIFAL LAW. * 467
coDtraty to what had been said by Popham, Ch. J., in Singley
T. Moor; (d) and all acts, civil and crimiaal, are to be charged
under the authority of the first act. Thus, in the case of Rex t.
Morgan, (e) on an indictment for perjury, in an affidavit to hold to
bail, it vas laid to have been taken by virtue of the statute of
12 Greo. I., which was a temporary law for five years, and which
was afterwards, and before the expiration of it, continued by the
act of 5 Geo, II., with some alterations. Lord Chief Justice
Hardwicke said, that when an act was continued by a subsequent
act, everybody was estopped to say the first act was not in force ;
and as the act in question was not altered in respect to bail, the
offence was properly laid to have been done against the first act.
In SMpman v. Setii>e8t,(f) the King's Bench held, that if a
statute be permitted even to expire, and be afterwards revived
by another statute, the law derives its force from the first statute,
which is to be considered as in operation by means of revivaL
If, however, a temporary act be revived after it has expired, the
intermediate time is lost, without a special provision reaching to
the intermediate time. (^)
*7. Btatato PeiwltlM. — If a statute inflicte a penalty for *467
doing an act, the penalty implies a prohibition, and the
thing is unlawful, though there be no prohibitory words in the
(d) Cro. Elw. 760. (<) Str. 1088.
(/) 4 T. R. 108.
Ig) Btatntas ire Di>t coosidersd to be rapekled by implic&tiou, nnlna the repog.
nancy betweeo the new proTiaioD and a fonner atatato b« plain and onavoidabls.
FoBter'a CaM, 11 Co., Gfl, 68 a ; 1 BoL 91 ; 10 Mod. US, org. -, Bacoa'a Abi. tit SUt-
nte, D. A cinistnictioii which Tepeala fomwr statates or lawi b; implicatioii, and
dereata long'ApproTed reniediei, is not to be fa<rored in an; casa. Cowen, J., 3 Hill,
472. A Btatntc cannot be Tspealed by non-oaer, WhiU v. Boot, 2 T. R. 274 ; Dwuria
on Statntea, 673 ; thongh it ia aaid to have been held in the Scotch law that ttatate*
loae their force by desuetade after sixty yean. See Dr. Irring's IntrodnettDn to the
Study of the CiTil Law, 123-127, on the doctrine in Scotland derived tiom the ctril
l«w, that laws may be abrogated l^ long dianae. [Riptal by Implieatioa Bepeal by
implication ia vary mnch diafavored. Dobhe v, Qnind Junction WatsrworksCo., 9
Q, B. D. 161, 168 ; Wragg c. Penn Townahip, 64 IIL 11. In general, the later law
mutt be ao repugnant to the earlier that they cannot rsasonably stand together.
Walker r. The State, 7 Tei. App. 246. It has a]»i been held that where a later law
appears to be intended to cover the aame eutject as a Tonner, the fonner ia impliedly
repealed. United States v. Claflin, 97 U. 8. 646 ; Unitfd State* ». Tjnen, 11 Wall.
88. See Bishop on the Written Iawi^ Jf 168-162. A repeal anspenda tile penaltiea
Impoeed, even in reepeot to cases pending at the time. Speckert e. Lonisville, 78 Ky.
337. Aa to the effect of Tenaion and consolidation, see Scheftelt v. Tabert, 48 Wis.
4S0. — B.]
[631]
^cibyGoQl^lc
* 467 SODBCEB OP HDNICIPAL LAW. [PABT IIL
statute, {x) Lord Holt, in Bartiett t. Vinery {a) applied this mle
to the case of a statute inSicting a penalty for making a particular
contract, such ae a Bimoniacal or usuriona contract; and he held
(a) Ciutli. 261 ; Skumer, S23.
(z) St&tnte* in derogatiDii of common- minga d, Bomrd, 93 0*1. GOS. Prima
Uw rigbta, wpecially when permiam*e /ocwdllUitatesueproBpectin only. AU-
only, are nsutll; conatmed strictl]'. Met- lnuon v. BrookiDg, 26 Ch. D. 604- So a
npolitao Asylum District e. Hill, S A. C. statnte will not be lo conBtrned as to baye
19S ; London, Brighton, A 8. C. By. «. a grutet retrospectiTe operation Uiaa its
Trnman, 11 A. C. 46 ; Ke The Warkworth, language innden necemaly. Knight r.
9 P. D. 20. ProTinos in a statute are Loe, [ISSS] 1 Q. B. 41 ; £2: parit Board
•brictly eonttrned. Clark'a App^ G8 of Tnde, 2 id. BSB ; Dibb v. Walker,
Conn. 207. Penal statutw ore alio con- [1SB3] 2 Cb. 4aS ; £z parU Todd. 19 Q.
Btmed strictly. ScoU t>. Moriey, 20 Q. B. ED. 196 ; Laari b. Benad. [189S] 3 Ch.
D. 120 ; Globe Pnb. Go. o. State Bank, 402 ; Beid v. Rdd, 81 Ch. D. 102. A
41 Neb. 1 76 ; /r rv HcDonough, 49 Fed. civil damage law does not, withont azpres
Rep. 3flO. Tbe mtithod prorided by a words, apply to peraoDe injured before it
■latute for recovering a penalty most be fol- was enacted. Beinhaidt d. fritische, 89
lowed with all powible atrictnesa. Smith Hun, EiS6. Dedantory acta may in gat-
V. Wood, 23 Q. B. D. 380; 24 id. 28. eral operate retroapectiTely. Jonea >.
Penalties incurred nnder a statnte prior Bennett, SS L. J. 706. 80 of Acts relat-
to ita repeal^ are aometimea enforceable ing to procedure : Cnrtia v. Stovin, 22 Q.
thereafter. 3ee North Dakota Nat Bank B.' D. 613 ; Singer v. Haason, GO L. T.
V. Lemke, S N. D. 1G4 ; HcCann e. Mort- 828 ; and of Acta intended to remedy an
pge Co., id. 172 ; Qonuan ti. HeArdle, existing evil and giving a new remedy to
87 Hna, 4S1 ; 0. 9. Bav. Stats. { 18 ; parties injared. R^, v. Binriatle, 68 L.
United States f. Keokuk & H. Bridge Co., J. M. G. IG8.
46 Fed. Rap. 17S ; Siiell v. Campbell, 24 Statutes of taxation are constrned in
id. 880 ; Com'th r. Sullivan. 160 Haas, (avor of the taxpayer. /» n Thoriey,
816 ; Pusey t>. Com'th, 84 Ky. 276. [1892] 2 Ch. 613 ; American Net k Twtat
In England, crimes are not created 1^ Go. n. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468 ; Rioe
the retrospectiTe operation of an act of t>. United States, 68 Fed. Bep. 910. Bnt
Parliament, nnleu such intention by the statntoiy grants of property, franchise^ or
Legislature is clearly eipreesed. Reg. v. privileges in which the goTernnent is in*
OriStbs, [1891] 2 Q. B. 146. Statutes terested, will be strictly construed in itz
penal in their nature are not construed fiiTor. Coosaw Mining Co. v. Statr, 144
tetroepectivsly, if their Ungnsge admits U. S. 660. Statutes relating to franda
of a proapectiTe effect only. Reg. n. Vine, npoo the revenue, thongh impceJng pen-
L. B. 10 Q. a 195, 199 ; In re Pul- alUes, are not construed atricUy in the
borough School Board, [1394] 1 Q. B. defendant's faTor, like penal laws, bot in
726. And, in general, a prospective con- encb manner as to cmrry out the intent of
atmction will always be preferred, when the l^ielature. United Statw d. Stowell,
poaaible. Warahungp. Hnnt, 47 N.J. L. 133 U. S. 1 ; United Slates r. Brown.
366 i McGeehan c. Borke, 37 La. Ann. 166. Deady, 606 ; United States v. The Coqnit-
Hence a statutory increase in the rate of lam, G7 Fed. Bep. 706.
interest aflecta only future rights. Cum-
[682]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XZ.] BODBCES OP HDNICIPaL LAV. " 467
that the contract was void under the statute, though there vm
a penalty imposed for making it The principle is now settled,
that the statutory prohibition is equally efficacious, and the illc'
gality of a breach of the statute the same whether a thing be
prohibited absolutely or only under a penalty. (&) The Nev
York Revised Statutes (c) make the doing an act contrary to a
statute prohibition a misdemeanor, though no penalty be imposed.
Whether any other punishment can be inflicted than the penalty
given by the statute has been made a serious question, {d) The
Court of K. B., in Rex y. Robinson, (e) laid down this distinction,
that where a statute created a new offence, by making unlawful
what was lawful before, and prescribed a particular sanction, it
must be pursued, and none other ; but where the offence was
punishable at common law, and the statute prescribed a par-
ticular remedy, without any negative words, express or implied,
the sanction was cumulative, and did not take away the common-
ib) Benalo; o. Bigooia, 6 B. & Aid. 836 ; De Begnia v. ArmUtud, 10 Bing. 107,
B. P. ; DwurU od Stetntea, [Sd ed. 6S6 ] ; Tbe SUte v. Tletcher, G S. H. 2G7. Every
•tstnte made to radrcsB an injnry, ^evuice, or miuhief givta an actioa to the pSiTtT
•ggrievsd, either eiprcnl; or b; impliotion. Vbd Hook o. Whitlock, 2 Edw. Ch.
804. AffimwtiTni in itatates th»t intraduw ■ Dew role imply a DSgatire of all that
ii not within the pomew. Hoh. 29S. And when a etatnte limita a thing to be done
ID a particular form, it inclndea in itself a negative, tik. that it shall not be done
ctherwiae. Plowd. 200, b. AffinnatiTe words in a statute da oometimee imply a
negatire of what is not affiimed, as stmngly as if eipressed, Nott, J., in Cohen v.
Hoff, 2 Tredway, 661. The word Tnay, in ■ statute, mwns muri or ahatl, when the
pnblic interest or rif^ts are concenied, or the public or third persous have a claim,
£e jure, that the power shall be eierdsed. [Snperrlsors v. United States, i WalL
ISG ; Oalena v. Amy, 6 Wall. 7DG ; Mason v. Pearson, 9 How. 848 ; ] Aldennan Black-
well's Case, 1 Vera. 162 ; King r. Barlow, ! Salk. 609 ; King n. Inhabitants of Derby,
Skinner, 370 ; The Kin;; v. Mayor of Hastjngs, 1 Dowl. A Hy. IIS ; Newburgh Turn-
pike Co. r. Miller, E Johna Ch. 113. See also 6 Cowen, 193 ; 1 Peters, 61 ; 9 Porter,
[Ala.] 390. Though penal statutes are said to be construed strictly, yet the courts
are bonnd to give effect to their plain and obvious meaning, and not narrow the con-
struction. The; must search oat and follow the true intent of the lawgiver. BuUer,
J., in 1 T. R. 101 ; Story, J., in 3 Sumner, 209 ; Pike d. Jenkins, 12 N. H. 2G&.
[Revenue laws are not penal taws in the sense that requires then to be construed with
great strictDMS in favor of the defendant Cliquot's Champagne, 8 Wall. Hi ; Tay-
lor D. United SUtes, 3 How. 197, 210.]
(c) ii. 6»6, sec. 39.
{df If a statnte creates an offence, and does not make it indictable, bat prescribes
a penalty, a naort to an iadictment is precluded. The State v. Hate, 6 Humph,
ffann.) 17.
(<) 2 Borr. 796 ; AJmy v. Hoiris, 6 Johns. 175; Stafford «. Ingenwll, 3 Hill, SB,
[683]
D.qitizeabyG00<^lc
•467 80UBCE8 OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT HI.
lav punishmeDt, and either remedy might be punue A. (/){]/)
The same distinction had been declared long before ; (^) and
the proper inqairjr in such cases is, was the doing of the thing
for which the penalty is inflicted lawful or unlawful, before
the parsing of the statute ? If it was no offence before, the
party offending is liable to the penalty, and to nothing else. (A) '
(/)!
made aaUtnU offence ud indictable. The Stata d. Williams, 7 Bob. (La.) 252.
{gi Caatle'B Case, Cro. Jao. 614 ; Begina n. Wtgg, 2 Salk. 4S0.
(A) A qneatJon waa laiaed in the S. Y. District Court of tlie United SUtea, in t^
cue of The United States v. Gates (New York L^ Obserror foe Januaiy, ISM),
bow far a penal atatoie waa to be deemed cninnlatiTe, or a mare repeal of a fiioi
statute, and oulj the sabatitntion of anothsr penalty, leaving both penaltiea or pm-
ishmenta to be inflicted. Tba question in most eases reaolves itself into an inqoir;
as to the intention of the sabeequent law. ComtilatiTe penalties ntetelj do not re-
peal a farmer statute ; but when new qualifications or modificationB are added, tbs
Tepea] may be inferred ; and if the case be not clear, such ooght to be tbe inlmuo^
lest a penoD might be twice punished for the same offence.
> That ia, to nothing else so far as S EL & BL 402 -, Atkinson v. Newnstle
the public wrong or criminal aspect of k Qateibead W. W. Co., L. B. 0 Ex. 404.
the act ia conoemed. But tlie oflender [Atkinson v. Vewostle Water Woiks was
ma; bIm be liable to a civil action at the rerened on appeal (2 Ex. D. 441), and
hands of a party in whose bvor the dnty Couch o. Steel was doubted. The ootnt
was imposed, and who has suffered special held that tbe mere hct of a statutory daty
damage by its infraction. Couch v. Steel, did not imply a daty to private persona.
ly) When a special form of remedy is Tallauce v. Fall^ IS Id. 109 ; see Bailey
given by statute for a comnwn-law UabJl- v. Bailey, id. 8S6 ; Pieteimaritzbatg >.
ity, the plaintiff has an election of reme- Natal Land Co., 18 A. C. 478. An cna-
diea in the absence of words excluding bling statute does not eoilail other pfevi-
that at common-law. Vallance v. Falle, onsly existing remedie*. Btockwell r.
13 Q. B. D. 109. If the statute creating Bullock, 22 Q. B. D. 667. Statutes an-
a liability provides no remedy, an aotion thoriiing towns ^a abate nnisanors do not
of debt, or other common-law remedy to preclude them from Ibeii common-law
euforce it, may be adopted. Vallsiice v. right to resort to the Coorts l<n tbe same
Falle, 13 Q. B. D. 109. Au aotion of purpose. American FninitDi* Co. r.
debt on a statnte is an ancient common- BatesTille, 189 Ind. 77. Tbe party f<w
law remedy, and a etatale may enable a whose benefit a statnte was enacted may
third person to sue upon an obligation waive it and thereby legalise a past act
which it creates. In re Rotherbam Alum in disregard thereof. Goldsmid v. Great
& C Co., 26 Cb. D. 103. When a stat- Eastern By., 26 Ch. D. S11 ; see Badddey
nte creating a new obligation gives a rem- e. Granville, 19 Q. B. D. 42S. Contra,
edy to compel its performance, this is when the statute is in pursuance of a gen-
generally excladre of other remedies, eral policy. Phinney v. Mutual L. Ina.
Lamplngb s. Norton. 22 Q. B. D. 4G2 ; Co, 67 Fed. Rep. 498.
[684]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XX.] SOOBCES OP HDNICIPAL LAT. * 468
The distinction between atatntory offenc^ [which are mala pro-
hibita only, or mcda in le, is now exploded, and a breach
of the statute law, in either * case, is equally unlawful * 468
and equally a breach of duty ; and no agreement founded
on the contemplation of either class of offences will be enforced
at law or in equity: (a)
There are a number of other rules of minor importance, rela-
tive to the construction of statutes, and it will be Bu£Gcient to
observe, generally, that the great object of the maxims of inter-
pretation is to discover the true intention of the law; and when-
ever that intention can be indubitably ascertained, and it be not
a violation of constitutional right, the courts are bound to obey
it, whatever may be their opinion of its wisdom or policy, (fi)
But it would be quite vieionary to expect, in any code of stiatute
law, such precision of thought and perspicuity of language as
to preclude all uncertainty as to the meaning, and exempt the
community from the evila of vexatious doubts and litigious
interpretations. Lord Coke complained, (c) that in his day great
(a) Anbert e. Hue, 2 Boa, &, Pull. 371 ; Caniun v. Biyro, S B. & Aid. 179 ; Dbd<
ieb, Bxparle, 14 Veaej, 191.
(i) Lord Mansfield, in Pta; d. Edie, 1 T. B. 313 ; Willas, S97 ; United Statoi v.
Fither, 2 Cnuich, 999. Qnoties in verbis nulla sat anibiguitas, ibi nulla expoaitia
oontra TSrbs eipraaa* fieoda tat. The English judg^a have frequently obserred, in
•Dswei to the Temark tiiat the lq[ialatar« meant so and so, that thej in that case
have not ao ezpnsaed tbemaelTes, and therefore the maxim applied, qvod noluil non
dixU, " Where I find the nords of a statute perfectly clear, I ahalt adhere to the
words," aaid Denman, C. J., in 4 Ner. t Van. 426.
<<!) Pi«f: to S Co.
See also GorrU v. Scott, 9 L. B. Ex. 12G. and pay " a sam spoken of as " a penalty "
Comp. Borough of Bathurat e. Hacphsr- to the use of an eleemosynary institution,
■on, 4 App. Cas. 256. — B.] was held to leave the employment optional
With, regard to a point mentioDed a few subject to a tax, — whether rightly or sot
•entences earlier, it is nndoubtedly a tme is immaterial here. See notes on Ship-
mte of conatruction that the inpoaition of ping in vol. iii. An act cannot be called
a penalty on a certain act leads to the in- illegal unless it is absolately prohibited
ference that it u absolutely prohibited, and pat outside the protection of the law
But it is only a role of constmctiou, for it in all connecttons, which is shown by auch
ia obrions that even wliat is called a pen- consequences as the iDTalidity of contracts
alty in a statute may b« no more than a to do the act in qnestion, the rule in pari
tax on a certain course of conduct which delielo potior at conditio defendeatie, and
is permitted if the tax is paid. Thus, in the denial of relief when the illegal act ia
The Creole, S WalL Jr. 486, a statute part of the plaintifTs case. See a fuller
providing that certain vessels should be statement, 6 Am. L. Bev. 723-725.
"obliged" to employ a pilot, or "forfeit
[6861
50byGoO>^lc
* 468 80UBCB6 OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PAkI III.
qaestioDg had oftentimes arisen ^'npon acts of Parliament, orer^
laden with provisos and additions, and many times on a sudden
penned or corrected, by men of none, or very little judgment in
Iaw."(rf)
(di In Danglua v. HowUud, 21 Wendell, 15-47, Mr. Jiutice Cowen hu eipnoasd
liiniMlf with a jmtice, streagtli, and tnith on the BBlt)Bct of the intarpreUtiDii d
■tttatea, worthy to be transcribed. " We cannot," he obseires, " eaa.pe the power of
conatruccioii, so long as we have a judicial lystem. Well known rnlee in the conatrnc-
tion of Btstutes ought not to be departed from. Statntea in affirmance of the connnon
law, or in afflmance of judiisial constraction upon a fonner statate, oD^t not to be
holden a deTiation from the former law, nnleae it be obnooilj so. There ii scaicely
anj branch of legal policy more worthy of being enforced, than that which aims to
keep the laws of a nation the game in all respects Ihim one age to another, except in
points when change becomes afaeolntely neceseary. Time, says Lord Hale, is wiser
tbaa all the wits in the world, and the Uw which has been tried by it ha* the hi^xat
possible evidence in its faror. l^e is the achoolmaster which teaches law moat
effectnally, and without which it cannot be generally known. In the New York
Revised statutes of 1830, a Tast deal is made op of enactments intended merely to
repeat what had been decided by onr own or the English conrts. But changes in the
langosge of the reports, or mlea of conr^ or the old statntes, occdj at every step of
the revision. All the general acts were remodelled. An arrangement more scientific,
a style improved in elt^snce and eimplidty, were songht to be introduced throa^ieat
the whole ; hence short paragraphs, made up of abort sentences, gennslitiea, ellqae^
complications, equivalent words or tranelationB, for old and well defined technical
terms. In short, the old costnme was dismissed, and tiiat of the oivil code of FraDoe
adopted as nearly as could be. Yet 1 take it that the main substance of what we bad
before was always intended to be retained. The revision was mainly a re-anactmoit
or codificatiou of the snbetanoe^ tbe principle of what we had before, thoogb I admit
the identity cannot easily be ascertained in very muiy instances. It cannot be that
the fonnal changes I have meotioned meant a change in subatonce. The tnuumnta-
tion of a principle of the common law, or a rule of practice, into a statute, or an old
statute, or its received construction \nta a new one, without a palpable design to depart
from tbe former, onght not to be considered ss a departure. We are tfaen left when
we were, with all the old helps about us, the old lights burning. ■ It has been a settled
role, in respect to the revision, in 1801, of the old statutes, that where the law was
antecedently settled by clear eipiessions or adjudication s, the nere change of phrase-
ology was not to be construed a change of the lav, nnless such phraseology evidently
pnrporfbd an intention to work a change. Cose of Yates, 4 Johns. 3G9 ; Taylor c.
Delancey, 3 Cainee'a Cssg8,'1S0, IGl. If such whs the rule of constructiou under tbe
revision of 1801, which proceeded by cautious and prudent step*, fearful to go even
beyond a change of orthography, what shall we say of'Sn age when there is literally a
mania for changing every law in some way I "
We are reminded by these remarks of the principles of Bolon, the Athenian law-
giver, that it was better to retain old laws, even though in some respects oljectioa-
able, than to be always esger to change them for new ones, though poambly superior.
Little or no confidence can be placed in the aathority of laws which are incessantly
altered, remodelled, and eicbanged ; and that those only which have been sanctioned
and established by long ussge, and nnder which the citiiens had, as it wen^ been born
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XX.] BOtJHCBa OF BONICIPAL LAW. " 469
Various and discordant readings, glosses, and oommentarieB
will inevitably arise in the progress of time, and, perhaps, as
often from the want of skill and talent in those who comment,
as in tliosfl who make the law. Though the French codes
digested under the revolutionary authority are distinguished
for sententious brevity, there are numerous volumes of French
reports already extant, upon doubtful and difficult questions
arising within a few years after those codes were promuU
gated.(«)
*The Emperor Justinian, in one of the edicta which he *469
published in confirmation of the authority of the Pandects,
and prefixed to that work, expressly prohibited the civilians of his
time, and those of all future ages, from writing any commentary
upon his laws, (a) The history of Justinian's reign shows the
folly and absurdity of this attempt to bar all future innovation.
Greater changes took place in a few years in the laws and juris-
prudence of Justinian, said Montesquieu, than in the three
hundred years of the French monarchy immediately preceding
his time ; and those changes were so incessant and so trifling,
that the inconstancy of the emperor can only be explained by
and edunted, tat likely to be reliRunul; ob«erved. Scharaut's Dusertetioni on the
AiwmbUes of -the AtheDiani, Ciuabridge, 1837, p. 240.
ft) The Joaraal da PalaU, prdsentant la jnrispnidence de la Conr de CumHod,
et dee Coots Boyalea, ear rappliotioa de toue lea codes franca aui questious
dontenaea et difScilea, had amonDted, in ISIS, to Gftj Tolomea and upwards. From
the time of the French BeTolotion down to 1828 there were one hundred Yolumea of
■tatatoiy law made in France.
{i) SecDDd* Pratfatio Digeotomm, sec. 21. In imitation of Justinian, the Sing
of Bavaria, by hia royal mandate of October 19, 1818, probiWtod the pobliahing of
any commentaries on hia penal code, by officers ot state or prirate aohoUre. The
code of Frederick II. of Prasda referred all dnbione coiutructiona of law to the inter-
pretetion of • law committee, and the proftwora of law wBi;e not allowed to lectoie
on the code. Doctor Lieher eayt that H. de ^avigny was the firat Pruaaian jurist
who delivered lectures on that code, and he justly observes that interpretation cannot
he dispensed with wherever human language is used, except in mathematics. The
necessity of it lies in the nature of things, of oor mind, and of our kngnage. No
code can provide for sU speoiflo CMeo, or be so constructed as to dose alt further
inquiry. In France, Bavaria, Austria, Pmwia, 4c., some anthority is always desig-
D*teJ, from which, in donbtful CMes, explanation* ahilt be obtained ; and in Franca
and Prussta many large volumea of additions and explanations have been officially
published and added to their codes. See Legal and PoUtical Hermeneutica, by Francia
Lieber, 2d ed., Boaton, 183B, pp. *0-*«, and wUch is a treatise replete with sccnrate
logic, and clear and sound principles of interpretation, applicable to the duties of the
lawgiver, and the science of jorispmdenoe.
[637]
;abyGoO<^lc
* 469 B00BCB8 OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT III.
.baring recourse to the secret history of Procopius, where he is
charged witii having sold equally his judgments and his
laws. (S) (x)
[b) QiHodeni dei Romiins it Ibot IMcadencw, c. 20. The bwt digest that I have
Been of the rulsi and of the exunples in the English Uw oonaeraing the conttraetion
of stsCntea i« to be found in Dwuris's Oeneral Treatise on Statates, London, 1S30, [2d
ed. 1848,] and published since the fint edition of these commrntariea. The mlee mm
illoetrated b; nimw drawn from the whole hod; of the reports, ascieut and modsni, in
a full and satiabcbny manner. See Dwanis, cl2 and 13, [c 9, 10,] from p. 6S8 to
780, [seO to 694.] Mr. (now Sir F.) Dirarns haa added to his work an czcaUant atat-
utory hiatory of English law, from Magna Charta down to Uie and of the reign of
George IV. It is a running commentarj on the principal itatotes, in which Lord
Coke'e celebrated ezposition of the atatatfs, in his 2d Inadtutea, aa &r aa it extetid^
ia essentially incorporated.
(z) Beptal of Statuiei. — A repeal by Council, id. CIS. But tlM fnoTinona o(
implication is edected only when the later special legiilatioQ an not nesMiarily t«-
enactment is so inconnstent with or re- pealed by subaeqaent general legialatioa
pugnant to an earlier one that the two incoDsistent therewith. In n East Lon-
cumot stand together. Eutner d. Phil- don Ry., 24 Q. B. D. 607 i Seward ■.
Ups, [1S91] 2 Q. B. 267 ; Fortesene d. St. The Vera Cra^ 10 A. C. 6S ; i« re Smith,
Matthew, id. 170 ; WeM: Ham r. Fonrth 3G Ch. D. CSS ; /•• t« Williams, U Cb. D.
City M. B. Society, [1882] 1 Q. B. 664 ; 67S ; McEenna v. Edmnndstone, 01 N. Y.
see /» r« Biufield, 83 Ch. D. 129 ; Wi- 231 ; State v. Cleland, 68 Maine, 168 ;
gram *. Frjer, 36 Ch. D. 87; Pollock b. Haniaborg o. Sheck, 104 Pona. St 63;
I^nd Imp. Co., 37 Ch. D. 661 ; B^. d. Com'th e. Maefteron, 16S id. 244 ; Coek
Licencing Jnsticea, li Q. B. D. 18. The County >. Gilbert, 146 lU. 268; 44 DL
party claiming eneb a repeal hse the bur- App. S9 ; Black River Imp. Co. r. I«
den of proof. Lybbe v. Hart, 20 Ch. D. Crosse Booming Co., 64 Wia. 669 ; Jim-
S. The repeal of a statute Dy implies- tioee p. Com'th, 81 Va. 309 ; Bogudni b.
tion is not favored, and different laws Qordon (N. J. Ch. ), 80 AtL Bep. 812 ;
npoD the same snl^eot will, if poadble, be State n. Archibald, 43 Minn. 8SS. Bot
permitted to stand blether. Eollenber- a general atatnte msde applicaUe to M
ger «. People, 9 Col. 233; Rt Hall. SS dties is bold to control apedal Btatirtn
Kansas, 670 ; Lyddy «. I«ng Island City, applying to perticnUr citiw. Kouedr
104 N. Y. 218 ; Heara r. Brogan, 64 p. Board of Edncation. 82 CaL 488. Par-
Mise. 834 ; People e. Gostin, 67 Mich, ties to ■ pending suit have not necMMrily
407. The later of two hopeleaaly repug- any greater vested right than othete under
nant laws most prevail. State v. Howe, ■ statute the terms of which are clear and
2S Neb. 61S. A statute ie not affected by express. Att.-Qen. o. Theobald, 24 Q. B.
a later one, which is oonstitDtiDnally in- D. 6G7.
valid, tiiODgh it contains a repealing A statute amending a prior Act "■>
claose. In n Bafferty, 1 Wash. St. 382. as to read as fo^ow^" and relating it at
A later special statute can repeal a length, does not repeal and re-enaet like
former genetal one only when thej cannot aections or elauaes, bat continnes tbMa.
be harmoniied, London County Council SUts n. Mines, SS W. Va. 141 j Com'th
p. London School Board, [1892] 2 Q. B. v. Eennnon, 14S Mass. 418 ; State p.
606 J City * B. L. By. p. London Coun^ Wish, 16 Neb. 448 ; see People •. Upeon,
;abyG00<^lc
LBCT. XZ.] B0DBCB8 OF MUNICIPAL LAT. * 469
79 Bod, 67. It impliedly repeals omittad ChangM in a geDsiml nTitioD of the
or ineoDKUtent proruioiu in the unended it&tate* m not coDitroed u changiiig
Act. In re Prime'a E>t>t«, 186 N. Y. the law, oiileaa manifestly to inteodad.
U7. I^ in each e**e, the unended ttitate Clark v. Fovsll, 62 Vt. 442. A itatute
liM prerioiulj been repealed, It is re- of general revlBiou, when clearly intended
anacted by the unending itatnts. People to be oomplete, repeals all prior Acta on
tame mtgect, even though not repng-
it thereto, and not containing wont* of
the above-quoted dauac^ and eipreuly le- repeal. Jemigan n. Holden, S4 Fla. GSO ;
peaU all laws confiicting therewith, i« not Litde v. Cogiwell, 20 Oragon, 846 ; £eeae
in pari materia with the amended Act, e. Denver, 10 Col. 112; Clay Connty
bat will be conitroed independently, finpervieon e. Chickaaaw County Super-
Cortaiy B. Territory (New Hex.), 83 Pac. vison, 64 Hiat. GS4 ; Com'th v. Haaon,
Bep. 604. DpoD the re-enactment of « 82 £y. SfiS. A new proceeding for a new
statute which had a uttled judicial con- offence created by atatata ia a bar to an
atmction, that conatmction ahonld be fol- indictment. Bag. e. Hall, [1891] 1 Q. B.
lowed. Hamy v. Tntrelera' Ins. Co., 18 747. A itatate making thoae who mia-
CoL 354. So when atatutca an adopted apply certain money liable to a penalty
from another State or country, the pn- and repayment on pain of impriaonmeDt
Tioua conitrnction thereof in that State ia makea a proceeding therenndar a bar to a
Undiug. Sanger v. Flow, 4S Fed, Bep. dvil suit to recover the nme moneys.
162; Coulter v. Staflbrd, id. 2M ; Inter- Temon ■>. Watwn, [1801] 3 Q. B. 28S.
tbtte Commerce Commiaaion «. Baltimore
4 0. B. Co., 4S id. 87.
[689]
;abyG00<^lc
SODBCES Of HDNICIFAL LAW. [PABT m.
LECTUBE XXL
OF BEPOBTS OP JUDICIAL DECIBIONS.
Hatino considered the nature and force of written law, and
the general rules which are applied to the interpretation of
statutes, we are next to consider the character of unwritten or
common law, and the evidence by which its existence is duly
ascertained.
The common law includes those principles, us^es, and mles
of action applicable to the government and securitj' of person
and property, which do not rest for their authority upon any
express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.
According to the observation of an eminent English judge, (a) a
statute law is the will of the legislature in writing, and the com-
mon law is nothing but statutes worn out by time ; and all the
law began by the consent of the legislature, (x)
(o) Lord Chief Jtutice Wiltaot, 2 Wih. 3«8, 351.
(x) Jndge Dillon, in hia I^m and Juris- Uis conviction of the gananl tniths wfcicli
prudence of England and Amarica, pp. IS, nnderlis the leading doctrinss td Sfttigo;
381, Bays ; " LegiaUtion b«long» to or is a and the historical jarista ; namely, tlial
branch of othioa ; the legislator in the ez- lav is largely the ontcrane of all of the past
erdse of the functioo of legislation not only conditions, circnmatanoea, and castoms of
regards ethical conaideiationB, bnt anch a people ; that it ordinarily originatea in or
considerations are generally the fonuda- is inUodaced by cnatont (nmng this vord
tion or animating principle of his enact- in the broad »anse of including jndiduy
ment. In niodera times the jadicial and law), and is supplemented by leguUtion,
legislatire fanctions are not only discrim- direct or oblique, when, and in genasl
inated, but separated. Yet the Beparatioo, only when, the law is otherwise inadcqaate
while tbeorsticall; completn, is perhaps to meet difRcolt and complex or new ait-
neTeractoall; so; and thereforejudges, in uationi and exigencies."
and by the very exercise of their duty of In an address befoi« the ^uerican Bw
adjudication, are obliged in many cases. Association at Saratoga Sprioga in August,
whsre the legislatiTO will is silent and 1888, Hon. Geo^ Hoadley said (38 -
the ease is novel, to legislate. . . . The Albany L. J. 16S) : "The duty to strive
eroltition of our law impresses me with for an ideal JDrisprndenoa, for a perfect
[640]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZXI.] S0IIBCB9 OF HUNICIFAL LAW. * 471, 472
1. Boorofl of tbe Common Law. — This is laying down the origin
of tho common law too strictly. A great proportion of the rules
procedure, u of perpetual obligation. ... are decUred b; soma person or body hav-
Lsirfers live too often intellectually in ing pennauentl;, or for the time being,
England only, tmd not in the world. They public aatbority for that purpose, and,
■le prOTincial, not coamopolitan. . . . when so declared, are conceived sa binding
No one can OTereatimata the ralaeofhia- themembetvof the conimunityin a apecial
turieal naeuch. Bat the cue Uffyer, in manner. In civilized states there are
oaing hialoric ezamplsa as patterns on ofiBcers charged with dnty and furnished
which to faahion, or moulds into which tn with the meang of enforcing them. Of tha
run, the conduct of ou' present and futare former kind are the common rules of
lives, is trying to turn time backward and morals and manners, in eo far as they do
arrest the progress of man. The real »tii- not coincide with rules of law. We shall
dent of legal history reada it with eyes find that in En^and, as elsewhere, and in
open to the faulta as well as to the merits times which must be called recent as
of the pKBt. But, with the case lawyrr, compared with the known histoT7 of
a caae in point once found, excludes all ancient civiliistion, many things wen
•Tgnment to the contnuy, and the only left to the rule of social cnatoiu, if not to
a^ieal ie to the l^;iBlature, and this of priTat« caprice or nncontrolled priTata
oonise without benefit to the suitors in force, which are now, as matter of eontse,
pending controversiea. , . . The reanlt is regulated by legislation, and eontrolled ~
pnotically that indiTidnals provide bws by the courts of justice. . . . Our lawa
for the oommunity, not the commanity hare been formed in the main fiom a stock
for individoalt. . . . The progre«a of man- of Teutonic custcms, with some additions
kind ia marked by the conversion of the of matter, and considerable additions or
unwritten into written law by the crye- modifications of fortn received directly or
tallizatlon of the uncertain into the indirectly Trom the Roman system."
definite." Common Lme. — " We have long given
In Pollock and Hoitland's recent and np the attempt to maintain that the oom-
valnable Hiatory of English Law it is man law is the perfection of reason. Ex-
said in the Introduction: " Tbe philosophi- isting human institutions can only do their
cal analyeis and definition of law belongs, best with the oonditionB they work in. If
in our judgment, neither to the historical tbeycandothat withinthereasonablcmar-
Dortothe dogmatic science of law, bat to gintobeallowedfoTmistakegandsccidenli,
the theoretical part of politics. . . . The theyarejustifiedintlieirgeneration. Even
matter at legal science is not an ideal their ideal ia relative. What is beat for
resnlt of etbical or political analysis ; it is one race or one society, at a given stage of
the actual result of facts of human nature civilization, is not necessarily best for
and hiatory. Common knowledge assures other races and societies at other stages.
OS that in erei; tolei&bly settled commun- . . . The courts cannot contradict what
ity there ars mlea by which men are has already been settled as law, but the
expected to older their conduct. Some power of taking up fresh material is still
of theae rules are not expressed in any alive." Sir Fiederick Pollock (Address
authentic form, nor declared with anthority at Harrard, 18SG), 11 Law Quart. Rev.
by any person or body distinct from the 328, S31 ; See also 10 id. S28 ; Holmes,
community at large, nor enforced by any Common Law, p. 2 ; 6 Harr. L. Ber.
poWBTconititatedforthatpurpose. Other* 17S ; S id. S28.
VOL. r. -41 [641]
aqitizecibyGoQl^lc
* 472 S0CBCE8 OF MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT m.
and maxims which constitute the immense code of the common
law grew into use by gradual adoptioii, and received, from time
to time, the sanction of the courts of justice, without any legisla-
tive act or interference. It was the application of the dictates ot
natural justice and of cultivated reason to particular cases, (y) In
the just language of Sir Matthew Hale, (b) the common law of
England is, " not the product of the wisdom of some one man,
or society of men, in any one age ; but of the wisdom, coonsel,
experience, and observatioa of many ages of wise and observing
men." And his further remarks on this subject would be well
worthy the consideration of those bold projectors, who can think
of striking off a perfect code of law at a single essay. " Where
the subject of any law is single, the prudence of one age may go
far at one essay to provide a fit law ; and yet, even in the wisest
provisions of that kind, experience shows us that new and un-
thought of emergencies often happen, that necessarily require
new supplements, abatements, or explanations. But the body of
laws that concern the common justice applicable to a great king-
dom is vast and comprehensive, consists of infinite particulars,
and must meet with varions emergencies, and therefore requires
much time and much experience, as well as much wisdom and
prudence, successively to discover defects and inconveniences,
and to apply apt supplements and remedies for them ; and such
(i) Pre&CB b» KoIle'B AbridgnwDt.
(y) In a laetnra deliTenid befoni thi the nnwritteii or common lav, Qw eaium
Senior I^v CUa of the UniTeraitjr of tbe uid the dvil law, so Ear a* oitfaer ««
City of New York, in April, 1891, Judge admitted in EngU«h coiuta of rcclcsiutical
CbarlM P. Daly uid (Pumphlet, pp. 21, and admiralty jnritdiction ;, not, thej eaj,
30) In approving this [ossage : "Accepting b«c«nae tbej were enacted or confinned
thiaaa conveying a tangible idea of what by imperiiJ or papal authority, bat becaow
it ia, it may, aa reapecta England, be said of tbdr having been received and admitted
to be the whole body of the £ngliah law by immemorial unge and cnatom, or tbe
with the exception ot that which hae, eince conaent of Parliament BlacketoDc doea
the begiooing of the reign nf Richard the so, he snye, aft«r the example of Sr
Firat, been of parliamentary origin, and Matthew Hale. . . . The common law
that which ia admtnietered in the eccleai. appears to have derived its name float the
aetical, equity and admiralty tribnnale ; bet that it became the general law of the
although Blackstone (1 Bl. Com. 79, 80) realm, aa eontndiatingiuahed from local
and a later writer, Fllntoff (Riae and Pro- lawa. that were difTereat, hot recognbed
giosa of the Lawi of England and Walea, aa continuing in force, in certain locali-
2, 3), embrace, nnder the general hend of ti"!'."
[6421
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZZI.] 80UBCES OF MUNICIPAL LAW. * 478
are tbo comoioQ lavs of England, namely, the productions of
mach wisdom, time, and experience. " {e}
But though the groat bod; of the common law consists of a
collection of principles, to be found in the opinions of sages or*
deduced from universal and immemorial usage, and receiving pro-
gressively the sanction of the courts, it is, nevertheless, true, that
the common law, so far as it is applicable to our situation and
government, has been recognized and adopted, as one entire
system, by the constitutions of Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey, and Maryland. It has been assumed by the courts of
justice, or declared by statute, with the like modifications,
as the law of the land in every •state. It was imported •473
by our colonial ancestors, as far as it was applicable, and
was sanctioned by royal charters and colonial statutes, (a) It is
(c) Cicero, in lilie nuDiier, ucribes the eicellcjit Institutea of tbe Bonian republic
to the gradual and lucceaaiTe imprnvement of time aud experience ; and he held
that DO ODe mind vbb eqaal to the task. Nostra reapuhlica non uniua eeset ingenio
■ed Tnultomm ; nee una hominu vita aed aliquot constituta ateculis et eetatibus —
Deque cunota ingenia conUta in anum tantuni poese uno tempore proTtdere, ut omnia
complecterentnr aine renini uau et retustate. De Itepab. lib. ii. 1. Nee temporia
nuioB nee bomioia esae constitutionem reipnblicte. lb. 2, 21. The RoiuBn ajstem
of law, gayi M. Valette, vaa not tbe result of philoaophical theories conceiTed a.
priori, but sloirl; elabonted by every-day experience, and confoimed, uDder the
iuflueDce of nagiatratea and jaiiscotumlta, to all tbe necessitiea of society.
la] Vide mipra, S42, S43, and the opinions of Judge Chase, in tbe caae of The
United States v. Woirall, 2 Dalks, SS4, and of M'Kean, C. J., in Morris «. Vacderen,
and Bespublica r. De Longchamps, 1 Dallas, 67, 111 ; Statutes of Peonsjlvania,
1718, 1777 ; Laws of Vermont, c. 6, p. 67 ; Statute of North Carolina, 1778, a. 6 ;
RoTieed Statutes of North Carolina, 18S7, i. 110; State e. Rollins, 8 N. H. 550;
Statute of South Carolina, 1712 ; Parsona, C. J., in Commonwealth b. Euowlton,
2 Ham. 63ii Story, J., in Town of Pawlet v. Clark, B Cranch, 333; State v. BachauaD,
G Harr. k Johns. 3S5, 350 ; McLeam v. McLellau, 10 Petera, SSI, 6Sfi. The conatitu-
tiou of New York, of 1777, declared that such parte of the common law of England,
and of the statute law of England and Oreat Britain, as, together with the acta of
the colonial legislature, fonoed the law of the colony on the 19th of April, 1776,
should continue to he tbe law of the state, subject, &c. So the common law and
atatnte law of England were referred to in Missouri by the stRtate of 14tb January,
1816, as part of tbe known and existing law of the territory, so far as the same was
eonsistant with the law of tbe territory, and which, in a modified degree, was the
Spanish law. The common and etitnte kw of England, prior to the fourth year of
Jamea I., and of a general nature, were adopted by the convention of Virginia, Id
1776, aod in 1796 and 1B05, by the goTemment of Ohio ; and sach is the sobstance
of tbe statute law of Arkansas. 2 Ark. 206. But the Ohio statute was repealed in
1806. In the Beriaed Statntes of Illinoia, published in 1829, it was declared that
the common law of England, and the English statutea of a general nature made in
aid of it, prior to the fourth year of James I., with tbe eiception of tboM 0(
[618]
sObyGoOl^lc
•478 B0OECE8 OF MUNICIPAL LAW. [PA8T III.
also the establiahed doctrine, that English statutes, passed before
the emigration of our ancestors, and applicable to our situation,
and in amendment of the law, constitute a part of the common
law of this country. (6) (x)
aiUTj, vera to be rates of deciaioa antil repealed. In 1818, the comuum law waa
adopted b; Htahite in the StaU of luduaa, and iu ISSS, in Hissoari, under the same
limitatiotia ; and it la understood that the common law and the alatute law of Eng-
land, down to the year 1776, and applicable to their constitution and circumstances,
are the law in the states of Mississippi and Georgia. In the latter state the bum
WM declared to b« in force by the statnte of Febmar; 2fi, 1784. So the common
law of England and the statnte law of England, prior to 17S0, were adopted hj
statute in VBrmoot, so far as the; were not repugnant to the eonatUntion or statute
lav of th« state.
(i) Patterson v. Winn, G Peters, 233 ; Sackstt e. Sackett, 8 Pick. SOQ ; Opniao of
Cranch, C. J., in the case Sx parU Watkins, 7 Peten, [576, B77 ;] BoganlDa c.
Trinity Church, 4 Paige, IBS; The Heirs of Girard i>. The City of Philadelphia,
4 Bavle, 833, Qibsou, C. J. Statota of North Carolina, 177S, and see the preface lo
the first Tolume of the Bevised Statutes of North Carolina, 1S37. About the year
17C>0, the general assembly of Rhode Island adopted the principal statutea of Englaod
nlatiTe to property and to the colony, from tbe statute of Merlon down to the 4th
and Gth Anne, c. 16. In Georgia, the principal Ecglisb statutes relative to the easential
(«) See McEsnnon e. Winn (Okls. ), tbe law of the Indian Territory, the Pod-
23 L. B- A. 601, and note. The general eral courts there sitting prranine it to
rule is that English acts of Parliament, apply in the absence of evidence. Pyeatt
when dealing with property in general, e. Powell, 51 Fed. Bep. 5G1. In the ab-
do not apply to foreign or colonial prop- sence of evidence as to the law of another
erty. Colqnhoun v. Brooks, IB Q. B. D. State, whose jurisprndence is founded npcQ
406 ; Jez r. McElnney, 14 A. C. 77 ; the common law, it is presumed to be the
Pitt V. Dacre, 3 Cb. D. 29fi. But when same as the common law of the domestic
the scope and purpose of an Imperial State in most jurisdictions. See, r. y., /n
statute show' that it was intended to n Hamiltca, 76 Hnn, 200 ; Brown t.
affect a colony, and the words used are Wright, 68 Ark. 20; Bollinger v. Gal*
calculated to bavn that effect, it will be ]agher, 144 Penn. St 305 ; Scrc^gin i:
so construed. Csllender v. Lsgos, [1S01] McClelland, 37 Neb. S44 ; Mortimer e.
A. C. 460, 4S6. If Congress adopts the Harder, 93 Cal. 172 ; Ufford v. Spaald-
langnsge of a foreign NtatuCe, it is pre- ing, 156 Mass. 65. As between the
snmed also to adapt the constmction States of the Union, a cause of M:ti<Hi
placed thereon by tbe local courts. In- which arose in one State, under the cont-
terstate Commerce CamniMion «. Balti- mon lew as there understood and ailmin-
more A 0. R. Ca, 145 U. S. 293. So of Utered, and which Rovems the eondnet
statutes adopted by one State froai an- of tbe parties, may be enforced in another
other. Duval u. Hunt. 34 FU, S5 ; Cof- Stats by whose law it would not be a
«eld V. State (^Teb.), 62 N. W. Kep. 875 ; cause of action, if the variance in thus
Everding v. McGinn, 23 Or^on, IS. laws does not amount to a fundamental
The common law is not prraumed to be difference of policy. Walsh n. New Totk
in force in the Creek nation. Davison v. & N. E. K. Co., ISO Uass. 671.
Oilnon, 56 Fed. Bep. 443. But as it is
[644]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XXI.j 60UBC&8 OF MUNICIPAL LAW. * 478
2. Force <rf Adjadged Cmbob. — The best evidence of the common
law is to be found in the decisions of the courts of justice, con-
nghl« of peraon md propertj, tttaa Magna Charto incluiiTB down to the period of
coloDul leguUtibn in tliii conntiy, hara been copied and adopted almoat litently.
It givea the appeanuGe oT atability, dignit;, and certainty to tbeir statutory juria-
prndence. Hotchkiaa'a Coditication ot the Statute Law of Georgia, IB46. The
Reviaed Statutes of Hew Jeney, published in IS47, constitute a pMn, practical, and
eicetlent code of statute law, incorporating all the essential parts of the English and
colonial statutes prior to our Rerolntton, applicable to our circumstancea, and leaving
the settled pnnciplea of the common law undiaturbed, or more acciuately defined.
This has been done in several of the other states, with great ability, and imdeT the
same enlightened and chastened spirit of moderation. It waa the aime policy that
dictated the statute rsTisiona of New York, in IBOl and 1629. The rage for bold,
reckless, and presniDptnous isDOvation, so prevalent at this day, acting in contempt
of the naages and wisdom of the common law , does not seem to have reached those
statesmen who adopted the statute codes to which I have alluded. A new and
improved digset of the statute taw is quite a practicable and salutary reform, and ia
to be whoUj distinguished Irom the viiionarj scheme and stCempt to disturb and
remodel the long-established institutions and usages of the whole body of the com-
mon law, as is now directed to be done by the revised constitution of New York, in
ISiS. (See ii^, «7G.) The Revised Statutes of Massachusetts, in 1886, famish an
instructive model of a revision of the statute law, with such anangementa and
improvements *s the reasonsbls spirit of refonn dictated. Though I would rather
prefer (perhaps from early prepoaseaBiona] the old and simple division of statutea
into chapters and sections, with the title and data of each law, in historical and
cbronolc^ieal order, to the complex subdivisiane into parts, and titles, and aectians,
with interminable nambecs, on the plan of the continental civilians. The Congrasa
of 1774 claimed to be entitled to the benefit, not only of the common law of England,
bat of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonixation, and
which they had by experience respectively found to be applicable to their several
local and other circumstances. Jonroals of Congress. October 14, 1774. This waa
only declaratory of the principle in the English law, that English aubjscts going to
a new and uninhabited country carry with them, as their birthright, the laws ot
England existing when the colonization takes place. Bluikanl ti. Qaldy, 2 Salk.
411 ; The Decision of the Lords of the Privy Council, 3 P. Wms, 75 ; Dutton r.
Bowell, Show. Pari. Ca. 81, SS ; 1 Blackst. Comra. 107. See also Commonwealth
e. Leach, 1 Man. 60 ; Same t>. Enowlton, a id. S34. The rule is different upon the
conquest of a country ; the conqueror may deal with the inhaUtantB, and give than
what law he pleases, but until an atteratian be made, the former laws contjune.
Calvin's Case, 7 Co. 17. The civil code of Louisiana, art. SCSI, and the slatota of
that state of 1828, repealed the Spanish, Roman, and French laws iu force when
Louisiana waa ceded to the United States. But it was held, in Reynolds it. Svsin,
IS Lonisiana Rep. 1S3, that this repeal only extended to the positive, written, or
statute laws of those nations, introdactory of a new rule, and not to those which
were merely declaratory, and that it was not intended to sbrogate those prinripltt
oflttui «hii:h had bren established or settled by the decisions of the courts of justice.
It was therefore the daily practice, in the courts of Louisiana, to resort to the laws of
Rome and France, and the commentariea on thoae laws, for the elucidation of prin-
ciplra applicable to analogons eases.
[646]
sObyGoOl^lc
*474 B0UBCG8 OF HDNICIPAL LAW. [PABT ni.
tained in aumerous Tolumes of reporte, and in tbe treatiseB and
digests of learned men, vhich have been multiplying from the
earliest periods of the English history down to the present
time, (c) The reports of judicial decisions contain the most cer-
tain evidence, and the most authoritative and precise application
of the rules of the common law. Adjudged cases become prece-
dents for future cases resting upon analogous facts, and brought
within the same reason ; and the diligence of counael, and the
labor of judges, are constantly required, in the study of the re-
porte, in order to understand accurately their import, and the
principles they establish. But to attain a competent knowledge
of the common law in all its branches has now become a very
serious undertaking, and it requires steady and lasting persever-
ance, in consequence of the number of books which beset
* 474 and encumber the path of the student {d} • The griev-
ance is constantly growing, for the number of periodical law
reports and treatises which issue from the English and Amer-
ican press is continually increasing; and if we wish to. receive
assistance from the commercial system of other nations, and to
become acquainted with the principles of the Roman law, as
received and adopted in continental Europe, we are in still
greater danger of being confounded, and of having our fortitude
subdued, by the immensity and variety of the labors of the civil-
ians, (a) It is necessary that the student should exercise much
(c) In ISiO, tlie iBgisUtura of Connecticut decki«d tlwt the Rporis of the jodiciil
(Uciaionit of other 9t>te« and countries ■hoold be judici&llf noticed u evidance of tlia
commoD Uw in guch atite or country.
(d) The number of Tolumea of Engliill reports, eicloiuTe of rgportt reUting to
the courts of luliuinltj, electiong, Mttlemant caasi, and Irish reports, smonnt (1836)
to 394 ; and to render their contents accessible, the digestMl ind«ieiof the modam
reports amonnt to 3S TotomeB. The text-hooks or treatises amonnt to 184 Tnlnmes,
and the digests and abridgments to 67 Tolmnes, making, in the nhola, a copious
libraiT of fl4S Tolnmea, in addition to the statnte Uw. See Hamphreys on Btal
Property, 163. To tbess, we may add upwards of 200 volnmei of American reprat^
treatises, and digests. In 1839, there were C30 Tolomes ot American reports.
(a) H. Camns annexed to hii Lettres sur la Profession d'Aroeat a catalogne of
select books for a lawyer's library, which he deemed the most uwfnl to posaea and
understand ; and that catalogue, in the edition of 1T7S, inolnded nearly 2,000 volnmei,
and many of them ponderous folios, SAd not one of then bad anything to do with thtt
English statute or common law. It is now a complaint in France, that tbn cniwd of
reports of decisions encumber the kw libraries ; and M. Dapin, in his Jaris|iradeiMe
des ArrSts, ed. 1832, alludes to the immensity of such collections, and tb* great abuaea
to which that species of jorispnidence is anbjeet. Eis select law Ubniy, for tb* vm
[646]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XXI.] BODBCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. * 475
diecretiott and akill in the aelectioD of the books which he is to
peruse. To encounter the whole mass of law publications in suc-
cession, if practicable, would be a melancholy waste or misappli-
cation of strength and time.
*Lord Bacon, in the aphorisms annexed to his treatise *476
De Augmentis Scientiarum, speaks of the necessity of a
revision and digest of the law, in order to restore it to a sound
and profitable state, whenever there has arisen a vast accumula-
tion of volumes, throwing the system into confusion and uncer-
tainty. He even made a proposition to King James, " touching
the compiling and amendment of the laws of England," and
offered his services " to compile a digest of the laws. " The evils
resulting from an indigestible heap of laws and le^al authorities
are great and manifest They destroy the certainty of the law,
and promote litigation, delay, and subtilty. The professors of
the law cannot afford the expense and time necessary to collect
and study the volumes, and they are obliged to rely too much 'on
the second-hand authority of digests — ipse advocatus, cum tot
libros perlegere et vmcere won poaait, compendia tectatur — glotta
fortaaie aliqua bona, (a) ' The period anticipated by Lord Bacon
seems now to have arrived. The spirit of the present age, and
the cause of truth and justice, require more simplicity in the
system, and that the text authorities should be reduced within
manageable limits; and a new digest of the whole body of the
American common law, upon the excellent model of Comyns's
of laiT stndenta ftod joaag ad*acatM, oontained 818 volnmM. One great abnse in tlia
pt«ctice of reporting is, that thers i« so very canfbl selection of decitions which are
only n-orthy U> beraported, hat evei^ •4jud><^tioi), thongh npon commonplace learn-
ing, and upon points which haro been s^in and again decided, is nsually given la
one promiscQoDS mast. Lord Bacon, in his proposition for the amendment of the
law, wisely recommended " that homoKi/mia, as Jnstinian ckUed them, that is, cases
merely oT iteration and repetition, be parged away."
(a) Bacon's Aphorisms, De aecmrndaiimu Ugv^a nimia, Aph. No. GS'fiS ; Dt nooir
digatii Ugum, Aph. So. 6B-64 ; Ik ter^^iloraut auHienHeii, Aph. Ho. 7S.
1 A short acconnt of the differeDt AnitiQ in his 89th lectare, and the note*
att«n]pts at codification may be ronud at the end of'hii puUiahed works, and
in ths Edinburgh Beview for October, by Lord Westbory's speech of Jane 12,
18SS, No. 268, reprinted among " Essays 1868. Hannrd, clzii. 776. [See also an
on the Form of the Law," by T. E. Hoi- essay on " The Proposed Codification of
land, London, Bntterworths, 1S70. The the Common Law," by James C. Carter,
salgect is paitiallT diacussed by Ur. of New York City.]
[647]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 476 aOOfiCGB OF MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT m.
Digest, and executed by a like master artist, retainiag what is
applicable, and rejecting everytbiag that is obsolete and inappU-
cable to our institutions, would be an immense public blessing. (6)
A solemn decision upon a point of law, arising in any given
case, becomes an authority in a like case, because it is the highest
evidence which we can have of the law applicable to the subject,
and the judges are bound to follow that decision so long as it
stands unreversed, unless it can be shown that the law was mis-
understood or misapplied in that particular case. If a decision
has been made upon solemn ai^;ument and matare delibera-
*476 tion, the presumption is in *favor of its correctness; and
the community have a right to regard it as a just declara-
tion or exposition of the law, and to regulate their actions and
contracts by it It would therefore be extremely inconvenient to
the public, if precedents were not duly regarded and implicitly
followed. It is by the notoriety and stability of such rales that
professional men can give safe advice to those who consult them;
and people in general can venture with confidence to buy and
trust, and to deal with each other. If judicial decisions were to
be lightly disregarded, we should disturb and unsettle the great
landmarks of property. When a rule has been once deliberately
adopted and declared, it ought not to be disturbed, unless by a
court of appeal or review, and never by the same court, except
for very cogent reasons, and upon a clear manifestation of error;
and if the practice were otherwise, it would be leaving us in a
(b) In the Beviaed CoDBtitDtion of New YoA, of 18U, ut. 1, mc. 17, there is ■
piOTuioii made for the digeat of the whole body of the Uwa of the state which nuka
it the do^ of the legiilatan to appoint three commiBdoners, to rednce into a written
and •yitetnatic code Lhe whole bodj of the law of the atatn, or bo mnoh and mch
parts thereof as to the commissioiian eball seem practical and expedient, and to repoit
thereon to the l^ialatnre. The legi^atute is likewise to appoint three commiaaionera,
who arc to raviae, refarm, simplify, and ahridge the rolee of practice, pleadinga, fonns,
and proceedinga of the courts of record iu New York, and report thereon. Art. S,
sec. 24. Id England, the statute of 1 b S Tict. c. 110, empowered the jndget to
devise and fnme the forms of writs to be OMd in the practioe of the eoDrts. This
proTiaton in the RngH'h itatote shows wiadom in the selectioQ of the agents who an
to Kfoim the practice, and a cantimu modentiou in guiding and limiting their discre-
tion. The Report of the Commiasioners appiunted to nvise the ciril code of Pmid-
■ylraoia, Jannai7, 1S3S, also showed much caation in touching the law of i«al proper^ ;
and Uiej appeared solicitons rather to expand and mould the old law and the old
actioiu to exlstiiig ciTcnmstaneee and the atate of society, thsn to abolish them.
Their object clearly appeared to reform and not U> innovate, and this is what good
s^nse snd nge experience dictate.
[648]
sObyGoOl^lc
tECT. XXI.3 B0DBCE8 OP MDKICIPAL LAW. " 477
state of perplexing uncertainty as to the lav. (a) The language of
Sir William Jones (6) is exceedingly forcible on this point. "No
man, " says he, " y/ho is not a lawyer, wonld ever know how to act ;
and no man who is a lawyer would, in many instances, know what
to adrise, unless courts were bound by authority as firmly as the
Pagan deities were supposed to be bound by the decrees of fate."
Throughout the whole period of the Year Books, from the
reign of Edward III. to that of Henry VII., the judges were
incessantly urging the sacredness of precedents, and that a coun-
sellor was not to be beard who spoke against them, and that they
ought to judge as the ancient sages taught. If we judge against
former precedents, said Ch. J. Prisot, {e) it will be a bad exam-
ple to the barristers and students at law, and they will not give
any credit to the books, or have any faith in them. So the Court
of King's Bench observed in the time of James I., {d) that
the point which had been often adjudged 'ought to rest* 477
in peace. The inviolability of precedents was thus incul-
cated at a period which we have been accustomed to regard as
the infancy of our law, with as much zeal and decision as at any
subsequent period.
But I wish not to be understood to press too strongly the doc-
trine of ttare dedtity when I recollect that there are more than
one thousand cases to be pointed out in the English and Ameri-
can books of reports, which have been overruled, doubted, or
limited in their application. It is probable that the records of
many of the courts in this country are replete with hasty and
crude decisions ; and such cases ought to be examined without
fear, and revised without reluctance, rather than to have the
character of our law impaired, and the beauty and harmony of
the system destroyed by the perpetuity of error. Even a series
of decisions are not always conclusive evidence of what is law;
and the revision of a decision very often resolves itself into a
mere question of expediency, depending upon the consideration
of the importance of certainty in the role, and the extent of
property to be affected by a change of it Lord Mansfield fre-
quently observed, that the certainty of a rule was often of much
<«) le Johiu. 4M 1 20 id. 722 ; Lord ChaDcdloi Parker, 1 P. Wnu. 4S3 ; Adihnnt,
J., 7 T. E. Hi i Lord Taittrden, 3 B. & Ad. 17 ; Beat, G. J., 3 Bing. 6S8 ; Cowan, J.,
2S Wendell, 841.
(b) Jones'! Eamj on BkOmenU, 48. (c) 33 Hen. TI., 41, (it) Cro. Jac fi27.
[049]
sObyGoOl^lc
*478 SOUHCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT lit
more importance in mercantile cases than the reason of it, and
that a settled rule ought to be observed for the sake of property;
and yet, perhaps, no EInglish judge ever made greater innovations
and improvements in the lav, or felt himself less embarrassed
with the disposition of the elder cases when they came in his way,
to impede the operation of his enlightened and cultivated judg-
ment The law of England, he observed, would be an absurd
science, were it founded upon precedents only. Precedents were
to illustrate principles and to give them a fixed certainty. His
successor. Lord Kenyon, acted like a Roman dictator, appointed
to recall and reinvigorate the ancient discipline. He controlled
or overruled several very important decisions of Lord Mansfield,
as dangerous innovations, and on the ground that they bad
departed from the precedents of former times, and disturbed the
landmarks of property, and had unauthorizedly superadded eqnity
powers to a court of law. "It is my wish and my comfort,"
said that venerable judge, " to stand taper antiqaai viaa. I
*4T8 cannot legislate, but by my 'industry I can discover what
our predecesors have done, and I will tread in their foot-
steps. " The English courts seem now to consider it to be their
duty to adhere to the authority of adjudged cases, when they
have been so clearly, and so often, or bo long established, as to
create a practical rule of property, notwithstanding they may feel
the hardship, or not perceive the reasonableness, of the rule.
There is great weight in tlie maxim of Lord Bacon, (u) that
optima eit lex, qwe minimum relinquit arbitrto jvdicis ; optimu*
judex, qui minimum tUn. The great difficulty as to cases consists
in making an accurate application of the general principle cou>
tained in them to new cases, presenting a chai^ of circumstances.
If the analogy be imperfect, the application may be erroneoos.
The expressions of every judge must also be taken with reference
to the case on which he decided; we must look to the prin-
ciple of the decision, and not to the manner in which the case is
argued upon the bench, otherwise the law will be thrown into
extreme confusion, (b) The exercise of sound judgment is as
necessary in the use, as diligence and learning are requisite in
the pursuit, of adjudged cases, (e)
(a) BacoD'B Works, a. 448, Apfaor. 46.
ib) Best, Cb. J., S Bing. 229 ; Hanhall, Ch. J., S WhatoD, 3BS.
(e) H. Dupin, in his JurisprodeDM dea An4t», hu gina lU muiy ezMlltnt rain
[660]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCr. XXI.] B0CBCE8 OP MUNICIPAL LAW. •479
CoDsiderlng the iufluence of manners upon law, and the force
of opinion, which ia silently and almost insensibly controlling the
course of business and the practice of the conrts, it is im-
possible that the fabric of our jurisprudence should * not * 479
exhibit deep traces of the prioress of society, as well as of
the footsteps of time. The ancient reporters are going very fast,
not only out of use, but out of date, and almost out of recollec-
tion. The modern reports, and the latest of the modern, are the
most useful, because they contain the last, and, it is to be pre-
sumed, the most correct exposition of the law, and the most judi-
cious application of the abstract and eternal principles of right to
the refinements of property. They are likewise accompanied by
illustrations best adapted to the inquisitive and cultivated reason
of the present age. But the old reporters cannot be entirely
neglected, and I shall devote the remainder of this lecture to
a short historical review of the principal reporters prior to the
present times. No one ought to read a book, said M. Lami, (a)
(and the remark has peculiar application to law books) unless he
knows something of the author, and when he wrote, and the
character of the work, and the character of the edition.
The division line between the ancient and the modern English
reports may, for the sake of convenient arrangement, be placed at
the revolution in the year 1688. The distinction between the old
and new law seems then to be distinctly marked. The cumber-
some and oppressive append^es of the feudal tenures were
abolished in the reign of Charles 11., and the spirit of modem
improvement and of commercial policy began then to be more
sensibly felt and more actively diffused. The appointment of
that great and honest lawyer. Lord Holt, to the station of Chief
Justice of the King's Bench gave a new tone and impulse to the
rigor of the common law. The despotism of the Stuarts was
abolished for ever, and the civil and political liberties of the Eng-
lish nation were more explicitly acknowledged and defined, at
find ofaMrvation* on tlie Tolae and on the abuse of the anthority of reporta of judicial
decUlona. He admite the force of them when corrMtl]' stated, and applied with dii-
eernmeDt and aobrietj ; and that they have the fortw of law when there has been
a aariaa of uniform dedaiotia on the lame point, becaase they then become conotnsiTe
eTidance of the law. The immeoH collection by M, Merlin, in bis TUpertoira, and
eapedally In hie Qnestione de Droit, he woald say, had the stamp of PapinUn, if it
were permitted to compare any lawyer to Papinion.
(a) £atmtieiiB tor les Saienoea et anr la Hanito d'etuilier.
[651]
sObyGoOl^lc
* 480 BOITBCES OF MDKICIPAL LAW. [PART DL
the accesBion of the house of Orange. The old reporters
* 480 * will include all the reports from the Year Books down to
that period ; and we will, in the first place, bestow upon
those of them which are the most distinguished a cursory glance
and rapid review.
3. Notloa of tbe Frlnolpal Reports at Law. — The oldest reports
extant on the English law are the Year Books, which consiBt
of elereu parte or volumes, written in law French, and extend
from the beginning of the reign of Edward IL to the latter
end of the reign of Henry YIIL, a period of about two hundred
years.
There are a few broken cases, which may be gleaned from the
old abridgments, and particularly from Fitzherbert^ which go
back to the reign of Henry III.^ The Year Books were first
printed in the reign of James I., and were again printed by sub-
scription in 1679 ; but they have never been translated, and tbey
are not wortii the labor and expense either of a new edition or a
translation. The substance of the Year Books was afterwards
included in the gre^t abridgments of Statham, Fitzherbert, and
Brooke, and those compilations superseded, in a considerable
degree, the use of them. The Year Books were very much occu-
pied with discussions touching the forms of writs, and the plead-
ings and practice in real actions, which have gone entirely out of
use. In a late case in the C. B., the judges spoke with some sharp-
ness of reproof against going back to the Year Books in search
of a precedent in the case of levying a fine, {a) The great
authenticity and accuracy of the Year Books arose from the man-
ner in which they were composed. There were four reporters
appointed to that duty, and they had a yearly stipend from the
crown, and they used to confer together, and the reports being
settled by so many persons of approved diligence and learning,
deservedly carried great credit with them, {b) But so great have
been the changes since the feudal ages, in the character of prop*
(a) 2 Taunt. 201. (&} Prehoe to Plowden'i Beporta.
> Year Books of 20 *nd 21, 80 and SI, etae of Battle Abbej, which ma heaid
32 and SS Edward I. have now bean pnb- bafore Henr; II. in peraon, with maoj tl
liabed, with a translation nndar tlM dine- bii magoatea, incloding the Chanoalkr
tion of tha Master of the RolU. Earlier Thomas i. Backet, will be found in 2 Pd-
■till is the Pladt^irani Abbreviatio, which grave's Enft- Comm. xzviiL-lxir. Vidi
goes back to the reign of Richard I. The ib. liv., Ixiiii.
[652]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. ZH.] BOTOCES OF MUNICIPAL LAW. ■ 482
«rt7, the business of civil life, and the practice of the courts,
that the * mass of curious learning and technical questions * 481
contained in the Year Books have sunk into oblivion ; and
it will be no cause of regret if that learning be destined never to
be reclaimed. The Year Books have now become nearly obso-
lete, and they are valuable only to the antiquary and historian, as
a faithful portrait of ancient customs and manners, (a)
The Year Books ended in the reign of Henry VIII., because
persons were no longer appointed to the taak of reporting, wit^
the allowance of a fixed salary. Private lawyers then undertook
the business of reporting for their own use, or for the purpose of
publication. Many English lawyers have regretted that the prac-
tice of appointing public reporters, with a stipulated compensa-
tion, as is now the American practice, was not continued, as it
would have relieved the profession from many hasty and inaccu-
rate reports, which have greatly increased the uncertainty of the
law. The reporta of Dyer relate to the reigns of Henry "VIII.,
Edward YI., Mary, and Elizabeth. They have always been held
in high estimation, for Dyer presided as Chief Justice in the C. 6.
for upwards of twenty years, and was diHtinguished for learning,
ability, and firmness. His reports were afterwards enriched by
marginal notes of Chief Justice Treby, and which are said, by Mr.
Justice Buller, (b) to be good law. The work was compiled in
law French, and poblished in an English translation, in 1793,
with the notes.
Plowden's Commentaries embraced the same period as the
reports of Dyer. They bear as high a reputation for accuracy
as any ancient book of reports, though Lord Coke said he had
discovered four cases in Plowden which were erroneous, {c)
PInwden gives the pleadings in thoee cases in • which judg- • 482
ment was entered, and the arguments of counsel, and the
decisions on the bench, very much at large. They were firat
published in 1578, and taken originally, as he says, for his private
use. But he took great pains in rendering his work accurate, and
he reported nothing but what had been debated and decided
upon demurrer or special verdict; and his reports were likewise
(a) Id 1 Bam. ft Creiu. 410, the Conrt of King's Bench decided n case chiefl; npon
the autfaorit; of a citation Irom the Ysar Book of i2 Edw. III., Lot rich ■ refecenc*
lb) a T. R. 84. (e) Bacon's Works, vi. 122.
[668]
;abyG00<^lc
• 483 80DBCBS OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT IH.
Bubmitted to the inspection of the eei^^eanta and judges. The
work is, therefore, distinguished for its authenticity and acca*
racy ; and though not of bo dramatic a character as much of the
Year Books, it is exceedingly interesting and instructive, by the
evidence it affords of the extensive learning, sound doctrine, and
logical skill of the ancient Snglish bar.
Lord Coke's Reports, in thirteen parts or volumes, are confined
to the reigns of Elizabeth and James, and deservedly stand at
the head of the ancient reports, as an immense repository of
commoD-la,w learning. The first eleven books of his reports con-
tain about five hundred cases, and were published in his lifetime,
and he took care to report and publish only what he calls leading
cases, and conducive to the public quiet Lord Bacon said, tliat
had it not been for Sir Edward Coke's Reports, the law in that
age would have been almost like a ship without ballast; and
that though "they had extrajudicial resolutiouB, they did con-
tain infinite good decieions." Much of the various and desultory
learning in these reports is law to this day ; and the most valuable
of the casea reported have been selected, and reconmiended to the
attention of the American student, by Professor Hoffman, of the
University of Maryland, in his " Course of Legal Study." When
these reports were published, between 1600 and 1615, there were
no other prior reports but the Year Books, Dyer, and Plowden.
Lord Coke said, that he endeavored, in his reports, to avoid
obscurity, ambiguity, and prolixity. It is singular that he should
have BO egregiouBly failed in his purpose. The want of methodi-
cal arrangement and lucid order is bo manifest in his
*483 reports, *and be abounds so greatly in extrajudicial dieta
and collateral diBCussions, that he is distinguished above
moat other reporters for the very defects he intended to avoid.
It IB often very difiicult to separate the arguments of counsel
from the reaaons and decisions of the court, and to ascertain pre-
cisely the point adjudged. This, probably, gave occasion to Ire-
land and Mauley's Abridgment of Lord Coke's Reports, in which
they undertake to detach from the work all the collateral discus-
sion and learning, and to give only the " very substance and mar-
row " of the reports. A work of this kind may be convenient in
the hurry of research, but I believe no accurate lawyer would
ever be contented to repose himself upon such a barren account
of a decision, without looking into the reason and authorities on
£664]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. ZZI.] SOURCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. * 484
vhich it was founded, (a) With all their defects, Lord Coke's
Reports are a staDdard work of that age, and they alone are suffi-
cient to have discharged him from that great obligation of duty
with which he said he was bound to his profession. When
Coke's Reports were first published, they gave much offence to
King James, as containing many doctrines which were deemed too
free and injurious to the prerogative of the crown ; and the king
commanded Lord Coke to strike out the offensive parts, and he
also referred the work to his judges to be corrected, (b) But
Lord Coke was too independent in spirit, and he had too high a
regard to truth and law, to gratify the king on this subject; and
he was, for this and other causes, removed from the office of
Chief Justice of the E. B.
Eobart's reports of cases in the time of James L were printed
in 1646, and, in a subsequent age, they were revised
* and corrected by Lord Chancellor Nottingham. Like * 484
the reports of Lord Coke, they are defective in method
and precision, and are replete with copions legal discussions.
Hobart was Chief Justice of the C. B. , and a great lawyer. Judge
Jenkins, the contemporary of Coke and Hobart, has given us, in
the preface to his reports, an exalted eulogy on those distin-
guished men, and the biographical sketch of their characters is
peculiarly animated and lively. Jenkins compiled his reports or
centuries (as he quaintly terms them) during the tumult of the
civil wars under Charles I. and the commonwealth, and they
resemble more a digest of decisions after the manner of Fitzher-
bert and Brooke than regular reports of adjudged cases. From
his intemperate lan^age and hard fate, it is evident he was a
zealous royalist, and had provoked the resentment of his enemies.
He composed his work, as he says, when he was "broken with
old age and confinement in prison, where his fellow-subjects,
grown wild with rage, had detained him for fifteen years, and
that he was surrounded with an odious multitude of barbarians."
He renders a just tribute of veneration to the memory of Lord
Coke and Lord Hobart, as two men who had furnished surpass-
(a) We ba7« Lord Coke's aathority on the veiy point. " The adviaed and orderiy
nading over of the books at Urge, I absolutely det«rmiDe to be the right way to en-
dnriog and perfect knowledge ; and to naa abridgQieDta as tablen, and to tnut only to
the booke at large-" Dedication of Coke's Reports to the Reader, 11.
(&> Lord Bacon's Works, tL 121, 128, 13S, 173-
[656]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 486 * SOUBCES OF MUNICIPAL LAW. [PAST IH,
ing light to the professore of the Uw. They were judges of great
authority and dignity, who to the most accurate eloquence joined
a superlative knowledge of the laws, and consummate integrity,
and whose names, he said, would flourish as long as the laws and
the kingdom should endure. Lord Hobart, as he continues to
observe, was adorned with the brightest endowments, and a pierc-
ing understanding, and he had always equity before hia eyes.
Lord Coke was a judge whom power could not break nor favor
bend. He received the smiles and frowns of the court by turns,
and possessed an immense fortune, which he had honestly ac-
quired. The only thing objected to him as a fault was, that he
was thought to go to too great lengths with the republican party ;
but he admits that he died in the highest estimation.
•485 *Croke'8 reports of decisions in the courts of law in
the reigns of Elizabeth, James, and Charles are a work of
credit and celebrity among the old reporters. They commenced
about the time that Dyer ended, and were first published under
the protectorate of Cromwell. From the character of the judge,
hia gravity, learning, diligence, and advantages, and from the
precision and brevity of his cases, these reports have sustained
their character in every succeeding age, and are, to this day,
familiarly referred to as an authentic depository of the rules of
the common law.
The reports of Yelverton are a small collection of select cases,
in the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth, and the first ten years
of the reign of James. He was a judge of the 0. B., and one of
the most eminent lawyers of that age, which was truly the
Augustan age of the old common-law learning. These reports
have been lately recommended to the notice of the American
lawyer by a new edition, published in this country, and eoricbed
with copious, valuable, and accurate notes by Mr. Hetcalf.
In the reign of Charles 11., the most distinguished of the
reports are those of Chief Justice Saunders. They are confine*'
to decisions in the K. B. for the space of six years, between the
18th and 24th years of the reign of Charles II., and contain the
pleadings and entries in cases decided, as well as the ailments
of counsel, and the judgments of the court They are recom-
mended for the accuracy of the entries, and the concise, clear,
and pointed method of decision ; and are particularly valuable to
the practising lawyer, as a book of precedents as well as of deci-
[656]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. XZI.I SODBCBS OF MUNICIPAL LAW. * 486
Bions. They have always been esteemed the moat accurate and
valuable reports of that age, and this is the character which has
been repeatedly given of them by the judges in modern times, (a)
A new edition of these report* was published in 1799, by Ser-
geant Williams, with very copious notes, which, in many
• instances, are distinct and elaborate essays on the sub- * 486
jecta of which they treat Lord Eldun has said, in refer-
ence to this edition, that to any one in a judicial situation it
would be suflSciently flattering to have said of him, that he was
as good a common lawyer as Sergeant Williams, and that no man
ever lived to whom the character of a great common lawyer more
properly applied. 1 have no doubt of the merit of the edition,
and of the great learning of the editor. The authorities, new
and old, applicable to the subject, are industriously collected and
methodically arranged. But with all the praise justly due to the
edition, it is liable to the great objection of making one of the old
reporters the vehicle of voluminous dissertations. They introduce
perplexity and confusion by their number and length. If such
treatises were published by themselves, the student would know
better where to find them ; but when appended to a plain reporter,
they seem to be out of place. Not«s would appear to be more
appropriate, if they were confined simply and dryly to the illus-
tration of the case in the text, and to show, by a reference to
other decisions, how far it might still be regarded as an author-
ity, and when and where it had been confirmed, or questioned,
or extended, or restricted, or overruled. The convenience and
economy of the profession would certainly be well consulted by
this course. This edition of Saunders so far surpasses in extent
and variety of learning the original work, as to become ft new
work of itself, which might properly be denominated Williams's
notes ; and the venerable simplicity of the reporter is obscured
and lost, in the commentaries of the annotator. (a)
The reports of Chief Justice Vaughan contain some very
interesting cases. He was a grave and excellent' judge, and his
reports consist chiefly of his own arguments and opinions deliv-
(a) Ban. 17S0 ; 2 Boa. Jc Pall. 28.
(a) The dutingniihed Reports of Sannden, edited bj Serjeant WilliMDi, ippeared
in L Eth editioii, bj Hr. Justice P&teraan, of tbe Q. B., and >fUtwud«, in 1S47, in a
0th editioii, by Edward Taoghan Williame, in 3 vols. octsTO. [In IS71, the notes
were pnhlished separately, coDtinned to date hj Ur. Justice E. V. Williams.]
VOL.1.— 42 [657]
;abyG00<^lc
* 488 B0UBCE8 OF MUNICIPAL LAT. [PABT m.
ered while he was Chief Justice, and they are distinguished lor
great variety of learning. The Reporta of Sir Thomas Jones,
who was also Chief Justice in the reign of Charles IL ; of
* 487 Sir Creswell Levinz, who was a judge of the • C, B. ; of
Sir Gefrey Palmer, who was Attorney-General under
Ciiarlea IL ; of Lord Chief Justice Follexfen, whose reports con-
sist of cases argued by him while he was at the bar; and of Sir
William Jones, who was for twenty-two years a jodge, are all of
them works of authority, though a considerable part of the dis-
cussions and decisions which they record ceases at this day to
escite much attention, or to be very applicable to the now and
varied course of human affairs. And, indeed, it may be here ob-
served, tliat a very large proportion of the matter contained in the
old reporters, prior to the English revolution, has become super-
seded, and is now cast into the shade by the improvement of
modern times ; by the disuse of real actions, and of the subtleties
of special pleadings; by the cultivation of maritime jurispru-
dence; by the growing value and variety of personal contracts;
by the spirit of commerce, and the enlargement of equity juris-
diction ; by the introduction of more liberal and enlightened views
of justice and public policy; and, in short, by the study and
influence of the civil law.
In perusing the old reports, we caimot but be struck with the
long, laborious, and subtle arguments, and the great delay which
accompanied the ioTestigation of pointo of law. Thus, for in-
stance, the case of Stowel v. Ztmch, in Plowden, was si^ed twice
in tlie C. B. ; and then twice in the Exchequer Chamber, before
all the judges in England. Calvin't Can, in Coke, was argued
Urst at the bar of the K. B. by counsel, then in the Exchequer
Chamber, flrst by counsel, and then by all the judges. It was
afterwards argued by counsel at two different tiines, and then by
all the judges at the next term, upon four different days; and at
another term thereafter by all the judges on foQr different days.
So again in Maniy and Richards v. Scott, in Levinz, the case
was argued at the bar three several times, by distinct counsel each
time, and afterwards by all the judges at tbe bench. It was quite
common in former times to have a case spoken to at two, and
three, and four several times, and each time at a different
* 488 term, before judgment was rendered. In • Lord Chief
Justice Willes's Reports, in the reign of Qeorge 11., we
[658]
;abyGoO<^lc
LEC?r. XXI.] B0DRCE8 OF MUNICIPAL LAW. •489
find a case which was argued five times, and at fire distinct terms,
and the judgment was not rendered until the space of five years
had elapsed from the first argument It was not until the time
of Lord Mansfield that such repeated arguments were disused,
and great despatch and unexampled facility and vigor given to
the administration of justice. There were some advantages
attending repeated discussions, which served as a compensation
for the delay and expense attending theuL They tended to dis-
sipate shadows and doubts, and to unite the opinions on the
bench, and prevent that constant division among the judges
which has much weakened the authority of some of our American
courts.
From tiie era of the English revolution, the reports increase in
value and importance ; and they deal more in points of law appli-
cable to the great change in property, and the commerce and
business of the present times. I shall not undertake to speak
critically of the particular merits of the modem reports, for this
would lead me into too extensive details. Those of Lord Ray-
mond and Sergeant Salkeld embrace the reigns of William and
Mary, and Queen Anne ; and during that period Lord Chief
Justice Holt gave lustre to the jurisprudence of his country. The
reports of Sir John Strange, of Lord Chief Baron Comyns, of
Lord Chief Justice Willes, and a part of the reports of Sergeant
Wilson, occupy the reigns of George I. and 11. ; and they are all
respectable, and the reports of Willes and Wilson, in particular,
very accurate repositories of the judicial decisions of those reigns.
The reports of Lord Raymond and of Sergeant Wilson are also
peculiarly valuable to the pleader, for the many useful entries
and forms of pleadings which accompany the cases. From that
period the English reports are to be read and studied with pro-
found attention. The reports of Burrow, Cowper, and Douglass
contain the substance of Lord Mansfield's judicial decisions, and
they are among the most interesting reports in the English
* law. All the courts of law at Westminster have been * 489
filled with very eminent men since the time of the acces-
sion of George III. ; and we need only refer to the Term Reports
and to East and his successors, as reporters to the King's Bench,
and to Wilson, Henry Blackstone, Bosanquet & Puller, Taunton,
and their successors in the C. B., for views and sketches of the
English law in its most correct and cultivated state.
[6591
^cibyGoQi^lc
*490 S0DRCB3 OP HOHICIPAL LAV. [PABT m.
A still deeper intereet must be felt by the American lawyer
in the perusal of the judicial decisions of his own country. Our
American reports contain an exposition of the common law, as
received and modified in reference to the genius of our institu-
tions. By that law we are governed and protected, and it cannot .
but awaken a correspondent attachment But I need not under-
take the invidious task of selection and discrimination among the
numerous volumes of the reports of American decisions. Their
relative character must be familiar to the profession, and it will
be sufficient to advise the student to examine thoroughly, and
obtain the mastery of the principles of law as expounded and
declared by our more important tribunals, whether they be of
federal or of state jurisdiction.
4, notloe of tb« PrtuoipBl RepoTta in Bqnlty. — We have hitherto
confined our attention to the reports of cases in the courts of
common law. But the system of equity is equally to be found
embodied in the reports of the adjudged cases ; and the rules
and usages of the Court of Chancery are as fixed as those which
govern other tribunals. They have been regarded as a kind of
secondary common law, framed or promulgated by the Court of
Chaucery within the two last centuries. That court is as much
bound as a court of law, by a series of decisions, applicable to
the case, and establishing a rule. It has no discretionary power
over principles and established precedents; and chancery has
grown to be a jurisdiction of so much strict technical rule, that
it is said by a distinguished writer on equity doctrines, that
there are now many settled rules of equity which require to be
moderated by the rules of good conscience, as much as the most
rigorous rules of law did, before the chancellors interfered
* 490 on equitable * grounds, (a) A court of equity becomes,
in the lapse of time, by gradual and almost imperceptible
degrees, a court of strict techaical jurisprudence, like a court of
law. The binding nature of precedents in a court of equity was
felt and acknowledged by Lord Keeper Bridgman, in the reign
of Charles II. ; (6) and in the case of The Earl of Mountague r.
Lord Bath, (c) soon after the revolution, Lord Chief Justice
Treby, who sat for the Lord Chancellor, declared that tiie Court
of Chancery was limited by the precedents and practice of former
(a) Sngden'i Letters to a Han of Property, 4.
(») 1 Hod. 307. (c) 3 Ch. Cu. 96.
[660]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XXI.] 80DBCES OP MDNICIPAL LAW. " 491
times, and that it vas dangerous to extend its authority further.
At tliis day, justice is administered in a court of equity upon as
fixed and certain principles as in a court of lav; and Lord Eldon
has secured to himself a title to the reverence of his countrymen,
by resisting the temptation, so oft«n pressed upon him, to make
principles and precedents bend to the hardship of a particular
case, {d) In this country it is at least as important as in any
other, that the administration of justice, both legal and equitable,
should be stable and uniform; and especially if there be any
veight in the opinion of an ancient English lawyer, that "variety
of judgments and novelty of opinions were the Cwo plagues of a
commonwealth." (e)
We have no reports of chancery decisions until subsequent to
the time of Lord Bacon.^ Anciently the Court of Chancery
administered justice according to what appeared to be the dic-
tate of conscience as applied to the case, without any regard to
law or rule ; and great inconvenience and mischief must have
been produced in the infancy of the court, by reason of the
uncertainty and inconsistency of its decisions, flowing from the
want of settled principles. The jurisdiction of the court was
greatly enlarged in the time of Cardinal Wolsey, who was
chancellor under Henry VIII. ; * and he maintained his • 491
equitable jurisdiction with a high hand, and exercised his
authority over everything which could be a subject of judicial
inquiry, and decided with very little regard to the common law.
This conduct in his judicial capacity was one of the grounds of
accusation against him when he was impeached. Under his suc-
cessor, Sir Thomas More, who is said to have been the first
(d) Lord Cbuicellor Hart ha« oburvcd, howaver (uid lie had bsen familiar with
tbe English Chancery practice), that Loid EldoD waa not the slave of authority, for
hi* doctrine wat, that eTsrytfaing in equity tama on the circnmstancea, and what the
court had to aee waa, irhethsr tbe circoniatanceH took the e«s« ont of the naoal mle.
In eqnity there is no rale so inflexible as not to hend to tbe special circumstancea of a
particDlar ease. Hoore v. Mc£ay, 2 UoUoy, 1S4. See also Mo&teeqnieu v. Sandys,
18 Tesey, 802.
(c) Pref. to Jenkins's Centnrica.
1 The British gOTernment has pub- calendara wen mncb refened to in Vid&l
liahad witli the calendara of the proceed- r. Qitard, 2 How. 127, 1B0, to prove the
inga in chancery during the rslgn of Queen jnriadidion of chancery over charitiea
Elizabeth ezamplea of snch proceedinga before the Statute t6 Eliz.
goinK beck a« far aa Richard II. Theie
[661]
D.qilizMbyG00>^IC
•492 80UECE8 OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PAET HI.
chancellor that ever had the requisite legal edacation, (a) hnai*
ness rose again with rapidity, and to such an extent as to require
the assistance of a Master of the Bolls. He allowed injunctions
so fraely as to displease the common ^law judges, though he acted
always with great ability and integrity. (() To show how won-
derfully business in chancery had increased by the time of Lord
Bacon, we need only recur to the fact which he girea ua him-
self, (c) that he made two thousand orders and decrees in a year ;
and yet we have not a single decision of his reported.
Those decisions, if well .and faithfully reported, would doubt-
less have presented to the world a clear illustration and masterly
display of many principles of equity aince greatly considered and
discussed; for even upon dry technical rules and points of law
he shed the illuminations of his mighty mind.
In West's Symboleography, a work published at the close of
Elizabeth's reign, we have divers curious and authentic prece-
dents of the process, and bills, and answers in chancery, prior to
the time of Bacon. We have, also, in the same work, a brief
digest of the powers and jurisdiction of the court, from which it
would appear, that equity was regarded in that day as a matter
of arbitrary conacience, unincumbered by any rules or principles
of law. No cases are cited to show what the authority was, bnt
such as were gleaned from the Year Books, and the trea-
* 492 tises of the Doctor ' and Student, and of the Diversity of
Courts, (a) It was not until after the restoration ihaA
any reports of adjudged cases in chancery were published. The
volumes entitled " Reports of Cases taken and adjudged in the
Court of Chancery, in the reigns of Charlra I., Charles 11.,
James II., William III., and Queen Anne," commence with the
reign of Charles I., and contain the earliest adjudged cases in
(a) But Lord Campbell, in hit Lives of tlie Lord CluiiceUoi*, mentions aoun di«-
tingnuhed. ahanoellorB t&ken from the oommoii-laiT courts id mncli iBrlier time*.
[And the eccle«ia«tical chanwllora were educated in the Bomiui law. 1 Spenoe, Bq.
Si7.]
(ft) Beevet's Hiator; of the English Law, it. 3S8-377.
(c) Bwwd's Works, ir. GSO.
(a) The Divenit; of Courts and theii JurisdictiDns is a very brirf treatise, com-
piled in law Frrach, under Henry VIII., and tranalated into English by William
Hughes, mider Charles I. It atated that in chancery " a man shall have remedy for
that for which he om have no nmedy at the common law ; and it ia called by tbo
common people the amrt oj tonadenet" It ia printed at the end of the Uinor of
[662]
;abyG00<^lc
LECI. XZI.] BOUBCES OF MUNICIPAL LAW. * 498
equity. Bat that work, and another contemporary work of the
same character, entitled "Cases ai^ed and adjudged in the
High Court of Chancery," are both of them, in their general
character, loose, meagre, and inaccurate reports, of not much
weight or aathority. The reports of some caaes decided by
Lord Chancellor Gowper, in the third and last volame of the
Reports in Chancery, and the great ease of the Jhike of Norfolk,
and the case of Bath and Mountague, at the conclnsion of the
Cases in Chancery, are distinguished exceptions to this com-
plaint, and those great cases are fully and very interestingly
reported. In the latter part ot the reign of Charles IT., Lord
Chancellor Nottingham raised the character of the court to high
reputation, and established both its jurisprudence and its juris-
diction upon wide and rational foundations. We have but few
reports of his decisions that are worthy of his fame. They are
dispersed through several works of inferior authority. It is from
his time, however, that equity became a regular and cultivated
science, and the judicial decisions in chancery are to be carefully
studied.
Temon's Reports are the best of the old reports in chancery.
They were published from his manuscripts, after his death, by
order of Chancellor King, and were found to be quite imperfect
and inaccurate. In 1806, Hr. Kaithby favored the profession
with a new and excellent edition of Vernon, enriched by learned
notes and accurate extracts from the register's books, so that the
volumes assumed a new dresB, and more unquestionable anthen-
ticity. Those reports include part of the judicial administration
of Lord Nottingham, and the whole of the time of Lord
Somers ; * but they give us nothing equal to the reputa- * 493
tion of those great men. They bring the series of equity
decisions down to the conclusion of Lord Chancellor Cowper's
judicial life.
Precedents in Chancery is a collection of cases between 16S9
and 1722 ; and the author of those reports, and of the first vol-
ume of Equity Cases Abridged, is generally supposed to be the
same person. They are works which contain very brief cases, in
comparison with the voluminons details of modem reports ; but
they are of respectable authority, (a) Peere Williams's Reports
extend from the beginning of the last century to the year 1786,
(a) 1 Tan;, G47 ; S Tmc?, 2S6 ; 6 Ttatj, 064.
;abyG00<^lc
•494 80DBCE8 OF KHHiaPAL LAW. [PIBT m.
and they embrace the period of the decigionB of a succession of
emineot men, who presided in chancery in the former part of
that century. The notes of Mr. Coz to the fourth edition of these
reports gave to that edition the character of being the best edited
book on the law. Bven before his learning and industry had
given new character and value to the reports of Peere Williams,
they were regarded as one of the most perspiououB, useful, and
interesting repositories of equity law to be found in the language.
Moseley's reports of cases during the time of Lord King have
received a various and contradictory character and treatment
Lord Mansfield said it was a book not to be quoted; but Lord
Eldon, who is presumed to have been a better judge of the merits
of the work, says that Moseley is a book of considerable accu-
racy, {h) It is fortunate that we have even so imperfect a view
of the decisions of Lord King, who was an eminent scholar, and
to whom Mr. Locke bequeathed his papers and library.
Lord Talbot presided in chancery but a very few years. He
was a pure and exalted character, who died in the vigor of his
age, and hia loss was lamented as a great national calamity. The
cases during his time, under the title of ** Cases tempore Talbot^"
are well reported, and have a reputation for accuracy.
•494 *Lord Hardwieke, the successor of Lord Talbot, held
the great seal for upwards of twenty years, and the present
wise and rational system of Ei^lish equity jorisprudence owes
more to him than perhaps to any of his predecessors. His deci-
sions are reported in the elder Vesey and Atkyns, and partly in
Ambler and Dickens; and though none of them are eminent
reporters, either for accuracy or precision in the statements of
the cases, or in giving the judgment of the court, (a) yet the
value of his opinions, and the great extent of his leamii^, and
the solidity of his judgment, have been sufficiently perceived and
understood. There is no judge in the judicial annals of England
whose judicial character has received greater and more constant
homage. His knowledge of the law, said a very competent judge,
was most extraordinary, and he was a consummate master of the
profession, {b) . His decisions, at this day, and in om: own courts,
(b) S AnEt. S61 ; 6 Bur. 26»i 1 Meriv. g2,
(a) Bailer, J, in e Eut, 28, n. ; Sir J. Muufield, to 6 Taonb U ; iToaay, 138,»
Fraface to Eden's Rep. ; 1 Sch. ft Lef. 240.
(S) Lord Eenyon. 7 T. R. «8.
[664]
;abyG00<^lc
LEtTT. XXI.] BOUBCEU OF HDMICIPAL LAW. * 495
do tmdoubtedty carry with them a more commaDding weight of
authority than those of any other judge ; and the best editions
of Qie elder Vesey and Atkyns will continue to fix the attention
and study of succeeding agea.
Eden's Reports of the decisions of Lord Northington, the suc-
cessor to Lord Hardwicke, are very authentic and highly esteemed.
They surpass in accuracy the reports either of Ambler or Dickens
within the same period ; and the authority of Lord Northington
is very great, and it arose from the uncommon vigor and oleamess
of his understanding. The next book of reports of deserved
celebrity is Brown, commencing with Lord Thurlow's appoint-
ment to the office of chancellor; and the high character of the
court at that period gave to those reports a very extensive
authority and circulation, for which they were indebted more to
the reputation of the chancellor than to any merit in the execu-
tion of tl;te work. Cox's Gases in Chancery give us the
* decisions of Lord Kenyon, while he was Master of the * 495
Bolls under Thurlow, as well as the decisions of the Lord
Chancellor during the same period. They were intended as a
supplement to the reports of Brown and the younger Vesey, so
far as those reports covered the period embraced by the cases,
and they are neat, brief, and perspicuous reports, of unquestion"
able accuracy. A new and greatly improved edition has lately
been published in New York, under the superintendence of one
of the masters in chancery.
The reports of the younger Vesey extend over a lai^ space
of time, and contain the researches of Sir Richard Pepper Arden,
as Master of the Rolls, and the whole of the decisions of Lord
Lougfiborough, and carry us far into the time of Lord Eldon.
These reports are distinguished for their copiousness and fidelity.
The same character is due to the reports of his successors ; and
though great complaints have been made at the delay of causes,
arising from the cautious and doubting mind of the present (a)
venerable Lord Chancellor of England, it seems to be universally
conceded, that he l)estowB extraordinary diligence in the investi-
gation of immense details of business, and arrives in the end at
a correct conclusion, and displays a most comprehensive and
familiar acquaintance with equity principles. It must, neverthe-
less, be admitted tiiat the reports of Lord Bldon's administration
(a) 1B2S.
[665]
;abyG00<^lc
•496 BOOBCES OP MUHICIPAI, LAW. [PABT HI.
ID equity, amonnttDg to perbaps thirty voliimeB, and replete
vith attenuated discussion, and loose suggestiona of doubts and
difficulties, are enough to task very severely the patience of the
profession.
There are recent reports of decisions in other departments of
equity -which are deserving of great attention. The character
of those branches of the equity jurisdiction is eminently sustained ;
and the reported decisions of Lord Bedesdale and Lord Manners,
in the Irish Court of Chancery, are also to be placed on a level,
in point of authority, with the best productions of the English
bench. (6)
Upon our American equity reports I have only to observe,
that, being decisions in cases arising under our domestic
* 496 * laws and systems, they cannot but excite a stronger
interest in the mind of the student; and from their more
entire application to our circumstances, they will carry with
them the greater authority.^
lb) The Lives of the Loid Cbineellon of Englind, from the earliMt tuae* till the
Tsign of George IV., in G Tola. 8vo, Landon, 1846, by Lord Campbell, ii the moat in-
Btmctive uid' attractLve work ou legal biography thxt is extant^ uid eqiully diatin-
gniahed for iti troth, iti candor, and its freedom,
' [The reports of judicial decisiona, to the science of the law in lo high and
which the attention of the American law- caltivated a state as at the joeMnt time.
yer ii directed, have became too aamec- If it be not pieenming in an American
on a even to be doBiguated in a limited annotator to pretend to discriminate anumg
note. The Eogliah nporta still retain the contemporary dedaiona, he may ptunt
their high rank in the lawyer's libmy. out to the atadon^ among the comnMm-
The altentiouB of oar forms of plead- law reports, the decisions of the Conrt of
iiigs, and in the rules of procedure, and Ei<dieqneT, since Bthni Parke and hii
the difierences of onr political systsma, rtrj learned aaaodates became Qie jndgea,
indeed, render many of the English deoi- aa worthy of the brightest period of Eng-
alons inapplicable to our circumstances ; liah jorisprudence.
but the mass of legal questions will J- Since the last edition of the Commen-
ways remain alike in both countries. The taries appeared, the Conrt of Cbancny
essential principles of civil liberty beloog of New Tork has ceased to exist, and
to both ; the mode of legislation in each with it hag cloeed a series <rf equity re-
is the same ; and the system of avidenca, ports which reflected loatie on the stsite,
the rights of persons, and the great body and the influence of which haa pemdsd
of commercial law, are common to Eng- the jnrisprudetice of the nation. The
land and America. The reports Of the reports containing the dedaioiis of die
oourta oF England seemed for a while to two most diatingnished chancellor* of
langoiah, after the retirement of Lord New Tork, Johnson's Beporta, Paige's
Ellauboroogh, hut they never exhibited Beporta, ud BarboDi's Chancery Report^
;abyG00<^lc
CBCT. XZI.] 80DBCES OF MUNICIPAL LAW. * 496
5. IntaraaUae Cbaraotar of RoporU. — I have now finished B. suc-
cinct detail of the principal reporters; and when the student has
been thoroughly initiated in the elements of legal science, I would
strongly recommend them to his notice. The old cases, prior to
the year 1688, need only be occasionally consulted, and the lead-
ing decisions in them examined. Some of them, however, are to
be deeply explored and studied, and particnlarly those cases and
decisions which have spread their influence far and wide, and
established principles which lie at the foundations of Ehiglish
jurisprudence. Such cases have stood the scrutiny of contem-
porary judges, and been illustrated by succeeding artists, and are
destined to guide and control the most distant posterity. The
reports of cases since the middle of the last century ought, in
most instances, to be read in course, and they will conduct the
student over an immense field of forensic discussion. They con-
tain that great body of the commercial law, and of the law of
contracts, and of trusts, which governs at this day. They are
worthy of being studied even by scholars of taste and general
literature, as being authentic memorials of the business and man-
ners of the age in which they were composed. Law reports are
dramatic in their plan and structure. They abound in pathetic
incident, and displays of deep feeling. They are faithful records
of those "little competitions, factions, and debates of mankind"
oompHsa the whole sTitctn of sqiiity law, mcoikcelT«ble rairidity in apprehending
and will alwayi be the reiort and study the apiniom of othera, from jndgiiig aocn-
crf the American lawyer. T«t«ly of their Tsasanahleues*." This crit-
Of the fint of thou ohancellan it ie iciuo, however, never approached his
ntmeoeseaiy to epeak to the reader of hia matared dedsioDi, embracing the whole
Tolamee. Moiit of hia deciMone hare circle of equity. Never, perhaps, were
heen traniferrpd to hia Commentaries, so many deciaioue made, where io few
"Lector, ai monQnientum requlrii cir- were inaccurate as to facts or erroneous
enmspice ! " '" '■'■
But it may be permitted to the editor If it was destined that the Conrt of
to render his tribute of homage to Chan- Chancery ehould &11 under a reform
cellor Walworth. It has been hie priri- which apparently designs to oblit^te
lege to practise under the Chancellor the history as well as the legal systems
during his whole term of office, and to ob- of the past, it is a oonsolation to reflect
ssrre those high judicial qualiiiea which that it fell without imputation on its
have rarely been equalled. If in his de- pnrity or nsefdlness, and that no court
meanor on the bench the Chancellor was was ever under the guidance of • judge
sometimes open to eritidrai, it was that purer in character or more gifted in tal-
only which has bean applied to kindred ent than the last chancellor of New York,
genius, that "he was prevented, by his — w. x.]
[667]
sObyGoOl^lc
engendered b; the lore of power, the appetite for wealth, the
allarements of pleasure, the delusiona of aelf-interest, the melan-
choly perversion of talent, and the machinations of fraud. Thej
give UB the skilful debates at tiie bar, and the elaborate opinions
on the bench, delivered with the authority of oracular wisdom.
They become deeply interesting, because they contain tme por-
traits of the talents and learning of the sages of tiie law.
* 497 * We should have known but very little of the great mind
and varied accomplishments of Lord Mansfield, if we had
not been possessed of the faithful reports of his decisions. It is
there that his title to the character of ^^ founder of the commer-
cial law of England " is verified. A like value may be attributed
to the reports of the decisions of Holt, Hardwicke, Willes, Wil-
mot, DeGrey, Camden, Thurlow, Buller, Kenyon, Sir William
Scott, Grant, and many other illustrious names, which will be
immortal as the Ehiglish law. Nor ia it to be overlooked as a
matter of minor importance, that the judicial tribunals have
been almost uniformly distinguished for their immaculate purity.
Every person well acquainted with the contents of the English
reports must have been struck with the unbending integrity &nd
lofty morals with which the courts were inspired. I do not know
where we could resort, among all the volumes of human com-
position, to find more constant, more tranquil, and more sublime
manifestations of the intrepidity of conscious rectitude. If we
were to go back to the iron times of the Tudors, and follow judi-
cial history down from the first page in Dyer to the last page of
the last reporter, we should find the higher courts of civil judica-
ture, generally, and with rare exceptions, presenting the image
of the sanctity of a temple, where truth and justice seem to be
enthroned, and to be personified in iheir decrees.
[668]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECTURE XXII.
OP THE PRINCIPAL PUBUCATIONB ON THE COMMON LAW.
The reports of adjudged cases are admitted to contain the s
highest and most authentic evidence of the principles and rules
of the common law ; hut there ai-e numerous other works of
sages in the profession which contribute very essentially to facili-
tate the researches and abridge the tabor of the student. These
works acquire by time, and their intrinsic value, the weight of
authority ; and the earlier text-books are cited and relied upon
as such, in the discussions at the bar and upon the bench, in cases
where judicial authority is wanting.
One of the oldest of these treatises is Glaoville's Tractatus de
Legibus Anglite, composed in the reign of Henry II., in which
he was chief justiciary, and presided in the aula regia. It is a
plain, dry, pei-splcuous essay on the ancient actions and the forms
of writs then in use. It .has become almost obsolete and useless
for any practical purpose, owing to the disuse of the ancient
actions ; but it is a curious monument of the improved state of
the Norman administration of justice, (a) It is peculiarly venera-
ble, if it be, as it is said, the most ancient book extant upon the
laws and customs of England. It has been cited, and commented
upon, and extolled, by Lord Coke, Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Henry
Spelman, Selden, Blackstone, and most of the eminent lawyers
and antiquaries of the two last centuries. Mr. Reeves says that
he incorporated the whole of Glanville into his History of the
English Law.
Bracton wrote his treatise, De Legibus et Consuetudinibua
(a) In the Rislory of the Boroughs And Municipal Corpontioni of the United
Kingdom, by MeMr». Merewether & Sippheni (i. Int IB), all that is contained in
the earlier Saxon lawi, and in thoee of William I. and Henry I-, and the charten of
those periods, is said to be in a great degree repeated in Glanrille. and again In
Britton. lb. i. 476. Dr. Irring, in his Introduction to the Study of the CiTil Law,
03, sayi that Glanrille's Treatise is under coniiderable obligation to the ciril law.
;abyG00<^lc
•500
80CBCE3 OP MUNICIPAL LAW. LPABT UL
Anglise, in the reign of Heniy II., and he is said to have been
a judge itinsrant in that reign, and professor of law at
• 500 • Oxford. He is a classical writer, and has been called, by
a perfect jiid<je of his merits, (a) the father of the English
!aw, and the great ornament of the age in which he lived. His
woik is a systematic performance, giving a complete view of the
law in all its titles, as it stood at the time it was written ; and it
is filled with copious and accurate details of l^al learning. It
treats of the several ways of acquiring, maintaining, and recover-
ing property, much in the manner of the Institutes of Justinian.
The style, clear, ezpressive, and sometimes polished, has been
ascribed to the influence of the civil and canon law, which he
had studied and admired ; and the work evinces, by the freedom
of the quotations, that he had drank deep at those fountains.
Sir William Jones says, he is certainly the best of our juridical
classics, though he is perfectly aware that Bracton copied Jus-
tinian almost word for word, (i) > lu the reign of Edward I.,
Bracton was reduced into a compendium by Thtmiton, which
-" shows, says Seldeu, (<;) how great the authorityWf Bracton was
in the time of Edward I. He continued to be die repodtory of
ancient English jurisprudence, and the principal source of legal
authority, down to the time of the publication of the Institutes
of Lord Coke.
Staunforde, in his Pleas of the Crown, published about the time
(a) Reevet'i Hiitiuy of the Eogllih Law, It. 670.
(i) Mr. Spence, In hU Equitable Jnriidictioii of the Court of Chancerj, L 118-
182, couidert that Bracton drew the leaming of hii treatise, not from the Anglo
Sazon or Anglo-Norman jiuiiprndence, bnt ewentially from the Hj*""" law.
(c) DiMenatioo annexed to Pleta, c. U. tec. 1.
I See the very intereitlng treatiM on In iti preaent fonn ai recent u tbe icign
Bracton and hii KelatioD to the Roman of Edward I., iucorpo»tei an earUer wwk
Law, by ProfeMor Carl Qnterbock, tnnt- of tbe age of Alfred." Vcrf. i. introdnc-
lated br Brinton Coxe. Philadelphia: tion, IzUi, d. !t. See alto p. a4,n. (b),aiid
Lippincott £ Co., 1866. eq>edBll7 ii. 232, n. (a). " On tbe wbola
A new and critical edition of BrittoD. there ii no book on the law of greater
b; Mr. f . M. Nichols, with Tariorum nw and valne to a legal hiitorian." Bat
readings and a translation, has been pub- He have the much greater autboritj of
Ushed from the Clarendon Pre«s. Palgnve (2 English Commonwealth,
Mr. Finlason, the editor of the last cxIt) that " we are compelled to TC-
edidon of Reeves'* Bigior; of the Gog- ject it as evidence concerning the early
Ush Law, inhia notes to that work, makes Juriiprndence of Anglo-Saxon En^and;'
very large use of the Mirror of Justice*, and he calls It " a very curioai apecinMn
pMf. fiOl, n. (e), which, he says, " though of the apocrypha of the law," ib. note.
[6-0]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIII.} B0DHCE8 OP MONiaPAL LAW, 'SOI
of Philip and Mary, bears strong testimony to the merits and to
the autliority of Bracton. It is stated in Plowdeo, (d) that
neither Glanrille nor Bracton were to be cited as authorities, but
I'ather as ornaments to the discourse ; and in several other books
the same thing was said, (e) But Mr. iteeves, in his His-
tory of the English Law, (/) justiy • vindicates the oharao- * ^''01
ter of Bracton from such unmerited aspersion ; and what
is as much, and perhaps more to the purpose, the learned Selden,
whose knowledge of English legal antiquities was unrivalled,
declares that this notion is founded in error. Glanville and
Bracton are authors of great service to all who apply themselves
to the study of the law, and are desirous of knowing its origin
and pn^ress from the very foundation, (a) They contain num-
berless things, said Selden, which in bis day either remained
entire, or were only partially abn^ated; and they contain such
information on ancient customs and laws, as to carry with them
authority as well as illustration. Lord Holt, in the great case of
Coggt T. Bernard, made &ee use of Bracton, and spoke of him as
an old author full of reason and good sense.
Britton and Fleta, two treatises in the re^n of E^dward I., were
nothing more than append^es to Bracton, and &om whom they
drew largely. Lord Coke says (ft) that Britton was Bishop of
Hereford, and of profound judgment in the common law, and that
Fleta was written by some learned lawyer, while in confinement
in the Fleet prison, (c) The dissertation which Selden annexed
to the edition of Fleta, printed in his time, is evidence of the high
estimation in which the work was then held ; and it is a littie
singular that President Henault, in his chronological abridgment
of the Hi;?tory of France, (d) should refer to this ancient English
treatise of Fleta as an historical authority, (e)
(d) P. 357, 358. («) 1 Show. 118; 11 8UI« Ttl&l*, 143.
(/) Vol. iT, 570, 571.
\a) Selden'i DUtertatiocu, c. 1, mc. 8.
(h) Pref. to 10 Co.
(e) Lord CuDpbell, In hia very intereiting Uve* of the Lord CbsDcellon, mti
tluC Britton let ths example of writing Un booki in French, which wu followed for
{d) Tom. 1. 25B. ,
(e) The Mirror of Justice* wu said, receatlr, b; Cb. J. Tindal [6 Biog. N. C.
237), to be a book of great anthurit;, and of the eaiUeat, though nncertt^ date.
Lord Coke ipoke of It* anthority and antjquitj hi high temu, and that inoet of it
WM written before the conqneit. Pref . to 9 Co. and Fref. to 10 Co. Hr, Keerei,
[671]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 502 SODBCBS 01^ MUNICIPAL LAW. [^PAKT III,
Sir John Forteacue'a treatise, De Lftudibus Legum Angliee, was
written in tlie leign of Henry VI., under whom he was Chief
Justice, and afterwards Chaucellor. It is in the form of a dialngne
between him and the young prince, and he undertakes to
* 502 show that the common law was the most • i-easonable and
the most ancient in Europe, and superior to the civil kw.
It displays sentLments of liberty, and a sense of a limited mtm-
archy, remarkable, in the fierce and barbarous period of the Lan-
castrian civil wars, and an air of probity and piety runs through
the work. He insisted, for instance, that the conTiction of crimi-
nals by juries, and without torture, was much more just and
humane than the method of the continental nations; and that
the privilege of challenging jurors, and of bringing writs of
attaint upon corrupt verdicts, and the usual wealth of jurors,
afforded that security to the lives and property of English sub-
jects, which no other country was capable of affording. He run
a parallel, in many instances, between the common and the civil
law, in order to show the superior equity of the former, and that
the proceedings in courts of justice were not so dilatory as in
other nations. Though some of the instances of that superiority
which he adduces, such as the illegitimacy of antenuptial children
and the doctrine of feudal wardships, are of uo consequence, yet
the security arising from trial by jury, and the security of life
and property by means of the mixed government of England, and
the limitations of the royal prerc^ative, were solid and pre-
eminent marks of superiority.
This interesting work of Fortescne has been translated from
the Latin into English, and illustrated with the notes of the
learned Selden ; and it was strongly recommended, in a subse-
quent age, by such writers as Sir Walter Raleigh and St. Ger-
main. And while upon this author, we cannot but pause and
admire a system of jurisprudence which, in so uncultivated a
period of society, contained such singular and invaluable pro-
visions in &vor of life, liberty, and property as those to which
Fortescue referred. They were unprecedented in all Greek and
Roman antiquity, and, being preserved in some tolerable degree
of freshness and vigor, amidst the profound ignorance and licen-
author of the Hiatar; of the Engliah law, ipeaki of it m a cnrioiu, and in lonie
degree aaihentlc tract, and as compiled b7 Home, under Edward II., from aome work
of that kind, and legal douumeoU la the Angl^Saion times. [Ante, GOO, q. 1.]
[672]
sObyGoOl^lc
LEGT. XZIL] SOURCES OF HDKICIFAL LAW. * 504
tioua spirit of the feudal ages, they justly entitle the common
law to a share of that constaut and vivid eulogy whioh the
Eogliah lawyers •have always liberally bestowed upon "SOS
their municipal institutions.
Littleton's Book of Teaures was composed in the reign of
Edward IV., and it is confined entirely to the doctrines of the
old English law, coQceming the tenure of real estates, and the
incidento and services relating thereto. In the first book, Little-
ton treats of the quantity of interest in estates, under the heads
of fee-simple, fee-tail, tenant in dower, tenant by the curtesy,
tenant for life, for years, and at will. In the second book, he
treats of the several tenures and services by which lands were
then held, such as homage, fealty, villensge, and knight service.
In the third book, he treats of divers snbjects relative to estates
and their tenures, under the heads of parceners, joint tenants,
estates on condition, releases, warranty, &o. He explained the
learning of that period on the subject of tenures and estates, with
a felicity of arrangement, and perspicuity and precision of style,
that placed him above all other writers on the law. Ko work
ever attained a more decided and permanent reputation for accu-
racy and authority. Lord Coke says, (a) that Littleton's Tenures
was the most perfect and absolute work, and as free firom error
as any book that ever was written on any human science ; and
he is justly indignant at the presumptuous and absurd censures
which the celebrated civilian, Hotman, was pleased to bestow on
Littleton's clear and accurate view of English feudal tenures.
He said be bad known many of bis cases drawn in question, but
never could find any judgment given against any of them, which
could not be affirmed of any other book in our law. The great
excellence of Littleton is his full knowledge of the subject, and
the neatness and simplicity of his manner. He cites but very
few cases, but he holds no opinion, sa;s his great commentator,
but what is supported by authority and reason. A great
part of Littleton is not now law, or is entirely * obsoletfl * 504
with us ; and particularly much of the matter in the chap-
ters on estates in fee-tail, copyholds, feudal services, discontinu-
ance, attornment, remitter, confirmation, and warranty. But,
even at this day, what remains concerning tenures cannot be well
understood without a general knowledge of what is abolished ;
(a) Fittfaoe to C«. Utt. ud to 10 Co.
Toui.— 48 [673]
;abyG00<^lc
• 505 BODBCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PAKT ID.
and even the obsolete part of Littleton can be etndied irith
pleasure and profit by all who are deuirous to trace the historv
and grounds of the law. It has been supposed by Mr. Butler
that Littleton's treatise would still be a proper iutroduction to
the institutes of the Euglisb law on the sulijeot of real estates.
Perkins's Treatise of the Laws of England, written in the reign
of Henry VIIL, has always been deemed a valuable book for the
learning and ingenuity displayed in it relating to the title and
coDTeyance of real property. Coke sud it was wittily and
learnedly composed ; and Lord Mansfield held it to be a good
authority in point of law. It treats of grants, deeds, feofEmente,
exchange, dower, curtesy, devises, surrenders, reservations, and
coaditioDS ; and it abounds with citations, and supports the posi-
tions laid down by references to the Teat Books, and Eltzberbert's
Abridgment.
The Dialogue between a Doctor of Divinity and a Student in
Law was written by St. Germain, in the reign of Henry VHI.,
and discusses, in a popular manner, many principles and pmnts
of common law. The seventeenth edition of this work was pub-
lished in 1787, and dedicated to the younger students and pro-
fessors of law. It has always been conmdered by the courts, and
the best of the juridical writera, as a book of merit and authori^.
The form of writing by dialogue was much in use among the
ancients, and some of the finest treatises of the Greeks and
Komans were written in that form, and particularly the remains
of the Socratic school in the writings of Xenophon and Plato,
and the rhetorical and philosophicfd treatiises of Cicero. The
three most interesting productions, in the form of dialogue,
on the English law, are Fortescae, already mentioned,
* 505 * this work of St. Germain, and the elegant and classical
work entitled Eanoraus, or Dialogues concerning the Law
and Constitution of England, by Mr. Wynne.
But the legal productions of the preceding ages were all sdt-
passed in value and extent in the reigns of Elizabeth and James
by the results of the splendid talents and Immense eruditioD of
Bacon and Coke. The writings of Lord Bacon on the municipal
law of England are not to be compared in reputation to his pro-
ductions in physical and moral science ; hut it is nevertheless troct
that he shed l^ht and learning, and left the impression of pro-
found and or^nal thought, on even' subject which he touched
[674]
sObyGoOl^lc
lECT. mi.] SODECBB OP MDMICIPAL LAW. *50ci
It was the ootuse of bin life to connect law with other studies,
aud, therefore, he admitted that his arguments might have the
more variety, and peihapd the greater depth of reason. His prin-
cipal law tracts are his Elements of the Common Law, contain-
ing an illustration of the most important maxims of the common
law, aud of the use of the law in its application to the protection
of person, property, and character, and his Reading upon the
Statute of Uses. Lord Bacoo seems to have disdained to cite
authorities in his law treatises ; and in that respect he approved
of the method of Littleton and Fitzherbert, and condemned that
of Perkins and Staunforde. (a) He admits, however, that in his
own private copy he had all his authorities quoted, and that he
did sometimes " weigh down authorities by evidence of reason ; "
and that he intended rather to correct the law than soothe re-
ceived error, or endeavor to reconcile contradictions by unprofit-
able subtlety. He made a proposal to King James for a digest
of the whole body of the common and statute law of Engknd ;
and if he had been encouraged and enabled to employ the
resources of his great mind on such a noble work, he would have
done infinite service to mankind, and have settled in his
J'avor the quetition, * which he said would be made with * 506
posterity, wlietber he or Coke was the greater lawyer.
The writings of Lord Bacon are distinguished for the perspicuity
and simplicity with which every subject is treated.
Lord Coke's Institutes have had a most extensive and perma-
nent influence on the common law of England. The first part is
a commentary iipon Littleton's Tenures ; and, notwithstanding
the magnitude of the work, it has reached seventeen editionti.
Many of the doctrines which his writings explain and iUastrate
have become obsolete, or have been swept away by the current
of events. The inSuence of two centuries must inevitably work
a great revolution in the laws and usages, as well as in the man-
ners and taste, of a nation. Perhaps everything useful in the
Institutes of Coke may be found more methodically arranged,
and more interestingly taught, in the modem compilations and
digests ; yet his authority on all subjects connected with the
ancient law is too gi'eat and too venerable to be neglected. The
writings of Coke, as Butler has observed, (a) stand between and
connect the ancient and the modem law, — the old and new juris-
(a) PrefMe to liit Law Tncb. (o) Fret, to Co. LilL
[675]
sObyGoOl^lc
■ 50f S0UBCE3 OP KDNICTPAL LAW. [^PABT III.
prudence. He explains the ancient system of law as it stood in
his day, and he points out the leading circumstaacea of the inno-
vation which waa begun. We have in his works the beginning
of the disuse of real actions ; the tendency of the nation to abolish
the military tenures ; the rise of a system of equity jurisdiction,
and the outlines of every point of modem law.
The second part of the Institutes of Coke is a commentary upon
the ancient statutes, beginning with Magna Charta, and proceed- .
ing down to the reign of Henry VIII. ; and his commentariea
upon the ancient statutes consisted, as he himuelf declared, of tlie
authentic resolutions of the courts of justice, and were not like
the glosses of the civilians upon the text of the civil law,
* 607 which contain so many diverbities * of opinion as to increase
rather than to resolve doubts and uncertainties. His com-
mentary upon Magna Charta, and particularly on the celebrated
29th chapter, is deeply interesting to the lawyers of the present
age, as well from the value and dignity of the text, as the spirit
of justice and of civil liberty which pervades aud animates the
work. In this respect. Lord Coke eclipses his contemporary and
great rival. Lord Bacon, who was a^ inferior to Coke in a just
sense and manly vindication 6f the freedom and privileges of the
subject, as he was superior in general science and philosophy.
Lord Coke, in a very advanced age, took a principal share in pro-
posing and framing the celebrated Petition of Right, containing
a parliamentary sauctioo of those constitutional limitations upon
the royal prerogative which were deemed essential to the liberties
of the nation.
The third and fourth parts of the Institutes treat of high treason
and the other pleas of the crown, and of the history and antiqui-
ties of the English courts. The harshness and severity of the
ancient criminal code of England are not suited to the taste and
moral sense of the present age ; and those parts of the Institutes
are of very inconsiderable value and use, except it be to enlighten
the researches of the legal antiquary. In this respect, Coke's
Pleas of the Crown are inferior to the work under that tide by
Staunforde, who wrote in the age of Philip and Mary, and was
the earliest writer who treated didactically on that subject.
Staunforde wrote in law French ; but Lord Coke, more wisely
and benevolently, wrote in English, because, he said, the matter
of which he treated concerned all the subjects of the realm.
[676]
sObyGoOl^lc
i-ECT. ZZII.] BOURCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. * 508
Before we quit the period of the old law, we mast not omit
to notice the grand abridgments of Stathani, Pitzherbert, and
Gi-ooke. Statham was a baron of the Exchequer, in the time of
Edward IV. His abndgmeot of the law wa» a digest of mout
titles of the law, compiising under each head adjudged cases
fi-ora the Year Books, given in a concise mnnner. Tlie cases were
strung together without regard to connection of matter-
It is doubtful whether it was •printed before or after •508
Fitzherbert's work, but the latter entirely superseded it.
Fitzherbert was published in the reign of Henry VIII., and came
out in 1514, and was, for that period, a work of singular learning
and utility. Brooke was published in 157S, and in a great degree
snperseded the others. The two last abridgments contain the
substance of the Year Books regularly digested ; and by the
form and order which they gave to the rude materials before
them, and the great facility which they afforded to the acquisi-
tion of knowledge, they must have contributed very greatly and
rapidly to the improvement of legal science. Even those exceed-
ingly laboiious abridgments were in their turn superseded by the
abiidgmenta of RoUe and his successors. Dr. Cowell, who was
contemporary with Coke, published in Latin an Institute of the
Laws of England, after the manner of Justinian's Institutes.
His work was founded upon the old feudal tenures, such as the
law of wards and HverieK, tenures in capite, and knight service.
While the writings of Lord Coke have descended with fame and
honor to posterity, it waa the fate of the learned labors of Dr.
Cowell to pass unheeded and unknown into irreclaimable ob-
livion, (a) And, with respect to all the preceding periods,
Reeves's History of the English Law contains the best account
thai we have of the progress of the law, from the time of the
Saxons to the reign of Elizabeth. It covers the whole ground
of the law included in the old abridgments, and it is a work
(o) Dr. Cowell poblUhed a Law Dictiooai?, or the Interpreter of Worda and
Term* need ellher in the Common or Statute Law, and in the Tenut«. Cowell'i
Interpreter ig frequent]; cited b; tha English antiquarisns, and Mr. Seldeo inalcei
much lue nf it in hia notea to Forlescue. It is one ol the authorities used by Jacob
in compiling hia Law DicLionarj- ; but the flrat edition under Jaioei I. met wi(li the
(ingular fate of being suppretaed by a proclamation of the King, at the inatance of
the Houae of Commana. for containing tlie heretical and monatroua doctrine that
tlie king was an absolute monarch, and above the law, whicli he might alter or an*
pend at hia pleasure.
[677]
sObyGoOl^lc
• SO") BOUBCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT HI.
* 509 deserving of the highest commendation. * I am at a loss
which most to admire, the full and accorate learning which
it contains, or the neat, perapicuous, and sometimes elegant style
in which that learning is conveyed.^
The treatise of Sir Henry Finch, heing a discourse in foor
books, on the maxims and positive grounds of the law, was first
published in French, in 1613 ; and we have the authority of ^r
William Blackstone for saying, that his method was greatly
superior to that in all the treatises that were then extant. His
text was weighty, coilciBe, and nervous, and his illustrations
apposite, clear, and authentic. But the abolition of the feudal
tenures, and the disuse of real actions, have rendered half of bis
work obsolete.
Sheppard's Touchstone of Common Assurances was the pro-
duction of Mr. Justice Dodderidge,^ in the reign of James I. It
is a work of great value and authority, touching the common-law
modes of conveyance, and those derived from the Statute of Uses.
It treats also copiously of the law of uses and devises ; but the
great defect of the book is the vrant of that lucid order and per-
■ A new edition of Reevet'i woA ha* PreM Seriet by ProfeMor WillUm Stnbtw,
been published in three volumes bj W. under the title. Select Chuten and other
F, Finluon, with an eUbonte introduc- Illuitratloni of Engliih ConititutiaDal
tion and copioni notes. The book, bow- Histor;, from the Eaiiiest Times to Uie
ever, is tery carelessly printed ; and has Reign of Edwftrd the Elnt. Il is the woric
been sererelj criticised in Qermanjr bf of a great scholar, and is emicfaed with a
Heinrich Bruuner, 18 Krit Vlerteljabi- masteri; introduction and ezplanatioii*.
■clirift, 228. The rery great reliance Those who are carious as to the ori^
placed bj* the editor on the Mirror of of individnal property in land shoald read
Justices (ante, GOl, n. 1), impairs the con- the work of M. NasM on the Agricultnral
fidence of the reader in his conclusions. Commonl^oftbe Middle Ages, translated
Thus fu the most learned and in- for the Cobdnt Clnb, Ifacmillan, 18T1,
teresting English hlstorj' of the origin and compare the nindi more lucidly and
and growth of English common law and brilliaatly written work of Sir Henry
equity, Is to be fbund in the first Tolnme Maine on TUU^ Communities in the
of Spence's Equiuble Jurisdiction of the East and West A«, It. Ml, n. 1.
Court of Chancery. The volume also ■ Bnt tee Bridgtnan's Legal Bibli-
contaioBananalysisof tbecommonandof ography, 3i3, 844, where it is ohserred
the ciril law, in addition to the more ex- that much of the Touchstone i* founded
tenslre chapters on equity. Ante, 600, n. 1. on Co. Ut., which was first published in
AninTaluablecoDtrlbutioutothestudy 1628, the year Judge Dodderidge cbed,
of the ori|^n of English law and of the that in all the other works ascribed to
English constltutioD is the compilation of him there is no reference to that woi^
extracts from early chronicles, statutes, and that cases are dted In it of yemw wb-
and treatises, published In the ClueDdon sequent to that of Dodderidge's de*tb.
[678]
D.qilizMbyG00>^le
LECT. XZII.] BODECES OP KONICIPAL LAW. * 510
spicuoiis method which aiti essential to the cheerful perusal and
ready perception of the merits of such a work. The second
volume of Collectanea Juridica has an analysis of the theory
and practice of conveyancing, which is only a oompendious
abridgment of the Touchstone ; and there is a very improved
ediUoQ of it by Preston, who has favored the profession with
several excellent tracts on the law of real property.
Rolle's Abridgment of the Law was published soon after the
restoration, with an interesting preface by Sir Matthew Hale. It
brings down the law to the end of the reign of Charles I., and
though it be an excellent work, and, in point of method, suc-
cinctness, and legal precision, a model of a good abridgment. Sir
Matthew Hale considered it an unequal monument of the fame
of BoUe, and that it fell short of what might have been expected
from his abilities and great merit. It is also deemed by Mr. Har-
grave a great defect in Viner's very extensive abridgment,
that he should * have attempted to engraft it on such a * 510
narrow subetance as RoUe's work. Rolle was Chief Jus-
tice of England under the protectorate of Cromwell, and under
the preceding commonwealth ; but as his abridgment was printed
in the reign of Charles II., he has no other title annexed to his
name than that of Sergeant Rolle, and his republican dignity
was not recognized.
Since the period of the English revolution, the new digests
have superseded the use of the former ones ; and Bacon, Viner,
Comyns, and Cruise contain such a vast accession of modern law
learning, that theii predecessors have fallen into oblivion. Viner's
Abridgment, with all its defects and inaccuracies, is a convenient
part of every lawyer's library. We obtain by it an easy and
prompt access to the learning of the Year Books and the old
abridgments, and the work is enriched with many reports of ad-
judged cases not to be found elsewhere ; but, after all that can
be said in its favor, it is an enormous mass of crude, undigested
matter, and not worth the labor of the compiladon. The Di-
gest of Lord Chief Baron Comyns ie a production of vastly higher
order and reputation, and it is the best digest extant upon the
entire body of the English law. Lord Eenyon held his opinion
alone to be of great authority, for he was considered by his con
temporaries as the most able lawyer in Westminster Hall, (a)
(o) 3 T. R. fti, 631.
[67»J
;abyGoO<^lc
*S11 BOUBCES OF HUnlClPAL LAV, [PABT m.
The title Pleader has often been con^dered as the most elabonte
and useful head of the work ; but the whole is distinguished for
the variety of the matter, its lucid order, the precision and brev-
ity of the expression, and the accuracy and felicity of the ezecn-
tion. Bacon's Abridgment was composed chiefly from matehals
left by Lord Chief Baron Crilbert. It has more of the character
of an elementary work than Comyns's D^est. The flrst edition
appeared in 1736, and was much admired, and the abridgment
has maintained its great influence down to the present
* 511 time, ae being * a very convenient and valuable collection
of principles, arimng under the various titles in the im-
mense system of the Ei^lish law. And in connection with this
branch of the subject, it will be most convenient, though a little
out of the order of time, to take notice of Cruise's recent and
very valuable Digest of the Laws of England respecting Real
Property. It is by far the most perfect elementary work of the
kind which we have on the doctrine of real proper^, and it is
distinguished for its methodical, accurate, perspicuous, and com-
prehensive view of the subject. AH his principles are supported
and illustrated by the most judicious selection of adjudged cases.
They are arranged with great skill, and applied in conflnnation
of his doctrines with the utmost perspicuity and force.
The various treatises of Lord Chief Baron Gilbert are of high
value and character, and they contributed much to advance the
science of law in the former part of the lost century. His trea-
tise on Tenures deserves particular notice, as having explained,
upon feudal principles, several of the leading doctrines in Little-
ton and Coke ; and it is a very elemeutary and instructive essay
upon that abstruse branch of learning. His essay on the Law
of Evidence is an excellent performance, and the groundwork of
all the subsequent collections on that subject ; and it still main-
tains it« character, notwithstanding the law of evidence, like
most other branches of the law, and particularly the law of
commercial contracts, has expanded with the pn^presa and exi-
gencies of society. His treatise on the Law of Uses and Trusts
is another work of high authority, and it has been rendered
peculiarly valuable by the revision and copious notes of Mr.
Sngden,
The treatises on the Pleas of the Crown, by Sir Matthew Hole
and Sergeant Hawkins, appeared early in the last century, and
[680]
;abyGoO<^lc
LECT. XXII.] 60CKCE8 OF MUNICIPAL LAW. • 518
they coDtribated to give precision and certunty to that moet
deeply interesting part of jtirisprudenoe. They are both of
tliuiin wurku of authority, aod have had great sanction,
and been uniformly and strongly lecommended * to the *512
professioa. Sir Martin Wright's Introduction to the Law
of Tanores is an excellent work, and the value of it cannot be
better recommended thaa by the fact that Sir William Black-
stone has interwoven the substance of that treatise into the
second volume of his Commentaries. Dr. Wood published, in
1722, his Institutes of the Laws of England. His object was to
digest the law, and to bring it into better order and system. By
the year 1754, his work had passed through eight folio editions,
and thereby afforded a decisive proof of its value and popularity.
It was greatly esteemed by the lawyers of that ^e ; and an
American judge (a) (himself a learned lawyer of the old school)
has spoken of Wood as a great authority, and of weight and
respect in Westminster Hall.
Bat it was the fate of Wood's Institutes to be entirely super-
seded by more enlaiged, more critical, and more attractive
publications, and especially by the Commentaries of Sir William
Blackstone, who is justly placed at the head of all the modem
writers who treat of the general elementary principles of the
law. By the excellence of his arrangement, the variety of his
learning, the justness of his taste, and the purity and elegance
of bis style, be communicated to those subjects which were
harsh and forbidding in the pages of Coke the attractions of a
liberal science, and the embellishments of polite literature. The
second and third volumes of the Commentaries are to be thor-
oughly studied and accurately understood. What is obsolete is
necessary to illustrate that which remains in use, and the greater
part of the matter in those volumes is law at this day and on this
side of the Atlantic.
I have necessarily been obliged to omit the mention of many
valuable works upon law, as my object in tfae present lecture was
merely to select those which were the most useful or distin-
guished. With respect to the modem didactic * treatises * 518
on various heads of the law, and which have multiplied
exceedingly within the period of the present generation, I can
only take notice of a few of those which relate to the law of real
la) H'Keu, C J., 1 D»Um, 867.
[681]
;abyGoO<^lc
• 614 SOUHCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT III.
properly, and are deemed the most important. The □timerooB
works, both foreign and domestic, on various braocheB of the law
of peraonal r^hts and commercial contracts, I may have occaaioo
to refer to hereafter, as the subjects of which they treat pass
under consideration, in the course of these lectures. Any criti-
cal notice of them at present would lead as too far from the
general purpose of this inquiry, and many of them are not suffi-
ciently matured by time to become of much authority.
Sanders's Essay on Uses and Trusts is a comprehensiTe and
systematic treatise, but it wants that fulness of illustration, and
neat and orderly arrangement, requisite in the discossioD of so
abstruse and comphcated a branch of the law. The learned Mr.
Butler has given a very elaborate note on the same subject ; (a)
and there is an excellent summary of the law of uses and trusts
in Cruise's Digest, ap^nged with his customary skill, and sup-
ported by an accurate analysis of adjudged cases, which are
apposite and pertinent to the inquiry.
Sugden's Practical Treatise on Powers is the best book we
have on that veiy abstruse tide in the law. It was regarded by
the author as his favorite performance, and he is entitled to the
gratitude of the student for his masterly execution of the work.
It is peispicuous, methodical, and accurate. Mr. Sugden'a
Treatise on the Law of Vendors and Purchasers is also a cor-
rect and useful collection of equity principles on a subject
extremely interesting, and of constant forensic discussion. 0")
Roberts on Fraudulent Conveyances covers a very important
head in the jurisprudence of the courts of equity. He has col-
lected the cases arisii^ under the statutes of 13 and 27 Eliza-
beth, respecting conveyances that are deemed fraudulent
* 514 in respect to creditors * and purchasers ; and though the
treatise is written in bad taste, it is a useful digest of the
law OQ that subject. Powell's Essay upon the Learning of
Devises contains a systematical and valuable view of an impor-
tant branch of the law concerning title to real property, and it is
enlivened with some spirited discussions; but neither the essayt
(a) Note 2S1 to Ub. 3 Co. Utt.
(6) In 2 MoUor, 661, Lord Ch. Hut, u late u 1829, ipoke veij dispangiD^j of
Sugden'B Trektite on Tendon and Pnrchaaen, by itjing that it wmm not to be cited
ai an aathorit; per «. Thia was going quite aa far u decorum wonld warrant, con-
sidering tbat Mr. Sugden had been hia Immediate predeceaior on the Iiiih Chanoerj'
sObyGoOl^lc
U!CT. ZZn.] SOURCES OF MUNICIPAL LAW. * 514
nor the one of his npon mortgages, ajre to be compared to the
clear, succinct, and masterly analysis of the cases under similar
titles, in the great work of Mr. Cruise. Feame's Essay on Con-
tingent Remainders and Executory Devises is a performance of a
very snperior character. It is eminently distinguished for the
ability and perspicuity with which it unfolds and ezplaina the
principles of the most intricate parts of the law. Mr. Preston's
recent Essays on Estates and Abstracts of Title contain sound
and clear views of the law of real property, and they have already
attained the authority of works of established reputation.
I have thus attempted, for the assistance of the student, to
unfold, in this and the preceding lecture, the principal sources
from which we derive the evidence and rules of the common
law. (x) There is another source still untouched, from which a
great accession of sound principles, particularly on the subject of
personal contract, has been received, to enlarge, improve, and.
adorn our municipal codes. I allude to the body of the civil
law contained in the Institutes, Digest, and Code of Justinian ;
and our attention will be directed to that subject in the next
lecture.
(a) In u tAima diacnsaing " The «ntunent«d btsnches of practical ptirata
True Profeaaioiial Ideal " before the Ameri- law. Bnt I rtill iadA that it ia defectiTo
can Bar Anodation in 1SB4, (aee 28 Am. in the want of adeqoata proviaion for in-
L. Bar. 871, flSl), Jndgs John F. Dillon structiDQintliehlstoiyandtheliterataTeof
■aid: "It it to be remembend that it i< the lair and in what I call, for short, "gen-
of the eiaenee of onr l^al ^atams that oral jnri»pnidenee." Oreat lawyers lik«
the^r Ki* in thur hiatorical development Coke and Blackatone and Eldon maj be
and Datura technical, and lo br as they mide by the oarrent methods ; bnt the
are so, Instroction, to be adequate and growthofgTeaterlawyenlikeHale,Bacon,
thorongh, mait itself be technical, and in and Muufield, who in theii day wisely
an important sense it is not predicable of amended and improved the law, and who
it that it is too technical. Having in view represent the higher profeaaional ideals, is
the ejicnmatauee* which enrronnd the not adequately promoted and enconraged
snbject of legal education in this conntry, by the existing oonne of methods of law
I approve the wisdom of the general connu icstrtictioD in the law schools in this .
of instnctian in oar law schools, so far as oonntiy."
it gives chief attention to the tuoal and
£688]
sObyGoOl^lc
flOnaCEB OP MUHiaPAL LAW. [PABT III.
LECTURE XXm.
OF THE CIVIL LAW.
The great body of the Boman or civil law was collected and
digested by order of the Emperor Justioian, in the former part
of the sixth ceDtaiy. That compilatioD has come down to mod-
ern times, and the institutions of every part of Europe have felt
its influence, and it has contributed largely, by the richness of
its materials, to their character and improvement. With most of
the European nations, and in the new states in Spanish America,
iu the province of Lower Canada (a) and in one of the United
States, (A) it constitutes the principal basis of their unwritten or
common law. It exerts a very considerable iufluence upon our
own municipal law, and particularly on those branches of it
which are of equity and admiralty jurisdiction, or fall within the
cognizance of tbe surrc^te's or consistorial courts, (c)
The history of the venerable system of the civil law is pecol-
iarly interesting. It was created and gradually matured on
the banks of the Tiber, by tbe successiTe wisdom of Roman
statesmen, magistrates, and sages ; and after governing
* 516 * the greatest people in tbe ancient world for tbe space
of thirteen or fourteen centuries, and undeigoing extraor-
dinary vicissitudes after the fall of the western empire, it was
revived, admired, and studied in modern Europe, on account of
(a) Real property law in Cuuda, \mda French ^rmntB, wu nUblUhed upon tfae
baua of the Contnme de Pmrii, with feudal burdeni. TIte French cItU law, u it
exitted in Canada at the time of tlw conqaeat of the prorince, itill prcT&Ua, witbool
any of the ameliormtions of the Code Hapoleon.
(6) See the Qril Code of the Sute of Louisiana, ai adopted tn 1824.
(c) The Soman law Ii blended with that of the Dutch, and carried into th^
Asiatic poMetaloDi; and when the Island of Ceylon passed into the hands of the
English, Justice was directed to be administered according to the former ajstem of
law* in the Dutch courts ; and Van Leenwett'* Commentaries on the Roman Dutdi
law nets ttanilated into English in JEQO, expressly for the benefit of tbe English
Judiciary in that ialand.
[684]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XIIII.] SOtraCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. ■ 51.7
the Tariety and excellence of its general principles. It is now
taught and obeyed, not only in France, Spain, Germany, Hol-
land, and Scotland, but in the islands of the Indian Ocean, and
on the banks of the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence. So true,
it seems, are the words of D'Aguesseaut that '* the grand desti-
nies of Kome are not yet accomplished ; she reigns throughout
the world by her reason, after having ceased to reign by her
authority."
My design in the present lecture is to make a few general
observations on the history and character of the civil law, in order
to excite the curiosity and direct the attention of the student to
the proper sources of information on the subject. The acquaint-
ance which I have with that law is necessarily very imperfect ;
and I am satisfied that no part of it can be examined, and no one
period of its history can be touched, by a person not educated
under that system, without finding himself at once admonished
of the difficulty and deUcacy of the task, by reason of the over-
whelming mass of learning and criticism which presses upon
every branch of the inquiry.
That part of the Roman jurisprudence which has been denomi-
nated the ancient, embraced the period from the foundation of
the city by Komulus to the establishment of the twelve tables.
1, zbrly Roman Law. — The fragment of the Enchiridion inserted
in the Pandects (a) is the only ancient history of the first ages
of the Roman law now extant. It was composed by Pomponius,
in the second century of the Christian era, and rescued from
oblivion by Justinian ; and Bynkei-shoek has republished
•it, and endeavors to restore tlie integrity of the original * 617
text by emendations and a critical commentary, (a) From
this fragment we learn that Sextus, or Caius Papirius, who wns a
Ponlifex Maximus about the time of the expulsion of Tarquin,
made a collection of the rtget legtee, or laws and usages of the
Romans under their kings, and which was known by the name
of the Jus Civile Papirianum. Very few, if any, fr^ments of
this original collection by Papirius now remain, though efforts
have been made to restore, if possible, some portion of these early
Roman laws, (i) Such a work was evidence of great progress in
(a) Dig. lib. 1, Ut. 2. De Origine Jnrii.
(a) FrstennuM ad leg. 2 D. De Origine Jnrii. Open, i. 301.
(j>) Bdrtece. Aotiq. Rom. Jtir. PnNem. aec. 1 and 2; Hiit Jur. Cir. L tec. 16, 16.
[685]
;abyG00<^lc
•618 eODKCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PART m.
jurisprudence uuder the kings, and it must have contained aa
account which would have been at the present day most deeply
interesting and curious, of the primitive institutions of a city
destined to become the mistresa of the world, (c)
The genius of the Roman government and people had dis-
played itself by the time of the expulsion of their kings, and the
fouudatione of their best institutions and discipline bad been laid.
The Roman people were originally, or very early in their history,
divided into three tribes and thiitj curise, and the patrician oider
and the Roman senate were instituted under Romulus, and that
last body became in process of time the most powerful and majes-
tic tribunal in all antiquity, (d) The general assembUes
* 618 of the people or comitia were * a part of the primitive gov-
ernment, and a vei-y efficient poi-tion of the legislative
power, and they met in their curuB, parishes or wards, and the
vote of every citizen belonging to the curiie was equal in these
comitia curiata. The senate was a select body of three hundred
of the elder citizens, from the heads of the clans or gente*, and
regard was had to rank, birth, property, honor, and age. The
king was elected for life by the curis, upon the nomination of the
senate, and the laws of the comitia conferred upon him the powers
of a civil apd military chief, (a) The fecial and other colleges
(c) GibboD, fn hii History, vlii. 6, note, denies mltagether the fact of aaj sod)
original compilation hy Fapiriui. Niebalir, on the other hand, thoagh he treat!
mnch of the early Roman blttoTj as a legend, says, that the liigh antiquitr of the
collection of the lawg of the kings, compiled by Fapiriiu, seems unqnestionablp.
History of Rome, i. 211. I am incompetent to decide such a qnestlon. It is cited as
an original and authentic work by Fomponiui, who had infloitely better means of
knowledge than any modem writer ; and it is ossaned to be so by such master critict
as Bynkershoek and Heineccins ; and yet the singular leanilDg and acuteocM of
(^bbon give almost overbearing weight to his critical opinions,
id) Cic. de republica, b. 2. In hoc orbii teme sanclissiaio grmTiasimoqne ooneiUo.
Cic. in Cat.
(a) I haTe followed Diooysttis of Hatlcamassos, Livy, Cicero, and the otbir
■athors of the classical ages, in reipect to the early political and legal histoiy of
Borne ; and I have not been inclined to adopt the historical sceptidsitis of some
modem antiqoariet (at whom Niebnhr may be placed at the head), so tar as to reject
M fable what the cUisics have taught us concerning the civil and political insdta-
tiona of the earlier Romans. The account in the text of the mixed monarchy of
Rome, under the kin^, ie conQmied by Niehuhr himself. Hist, of Rome, i. 290-895.
English ed. Camb. 1828. Ho holds, however, contrary to the received opinion, tbat
the curve were assemblies of the patricians, or ijenlet, or heeds of families, and not of
the whole people ; and that the Plabi were landholders of the neighboring lowtia and
country, and fleld-Iaborers, who were free, and above the degree or condition of the
[6S(i]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XXIII.] aOUBCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. * 519
established by Kuma bound the RomaQS to religious discipliae. (fi)
Serviiis Tullius divided the people into six clauseit, and one hun-
dred and mnety-tbree centuiiea, and this wiu a most important
change in the Roman polity. The first class contained
the patricians, knights, and rich citizens, * and ninety- *519
eight centuries ; the Plebi were also now admitted to a
vote in the legislature, and when the people assembled by cen-
turies in their comitia centuriata (as they generally did therearter
when called by the cousula or senate), they voted by centuries;
and the first class, containing a majority of all the centuries, if
unanimous, dictated the lawB. This arrangement threw the
powers of govemmeDt into the bands of the patrician order, and
of men of property, (a)
After the establishment of the republic, all the higher magis-
trates were elected by the burghers or patricians in their euruB,
or by the whole people in the comitia centuriata, which were con-
clienti ittsched to the patrid&nt, but thiit the; had no vote. Nlebuhr't work is lo
intennixed with true tuid fabolotu (tor;, and he goei lo deeply into the " tangled
thicket* ot the forest," that it becomea rather difflcult to know what ii and what U
not to be deemed gennhie history, amid his inccHant BcepUciiint and complicated
narration. I am qiiit« reconciled to the obiervation of Dr. Arnold, in hii prolound
aod learned Hiatory of Rome, 1. 100, that, " although the legends of the early
Raman story are neither historical nor yet coeval with the sabjects which they cele-
brate, still their fame Is >o great, and their beaaty and intereat so enrpateing, that
it would be unpardonable to sacrifice them altogether to the spirit of inquiry and
of fact, and to exclude them from the place which they have so long held in Roman
(b) Numa reli^onibns et divino jure popnlom devlnxlt Tac. Ann. S, 26. Accord-
ing to Cicero, the auspices, religious ceremonies, courts of justice, appeals to the
people, the senate, and the whole milllsiy discipUne, were instituted by royal author-
ity, as early as the foundation of the city. He impntet the institution of the auspice*
and the senate particolariy to Romulus. Tnsc. Qweet. lib. i*. 1 ; De Repub. lib. 11.
sec. 9, 10, 14 He says, further, that iVuma uru the author of Imoa vliieh lem Ann
extant I lb. lib. t. sec. 2 He regarded the office of augur as one of the most impor-
tant In the commonwealth ; for the augurs, as he obserTed, had power to diamlsti the .
comitia, and to command the consuls to lay down their office, nnd to grant or refuse
permission to form treaties, and to abrogate laws not legitimately executed. No
edict of the magistrates, relating to domestic or foreign affairs, could be ratified
without theirauthority. lb. lih. 2. Fuss on Roman Antiquities, ed. Oif. 1840, 164, 1^
(a) Eosque ita disparavii. Buys Cicero {that is, he so distributed the dtixens in
classes), ut suffragia non in multltudlnls, sed in locupletium potestate essent; cura-
Titque, quod semper in repoblica tenendum est, ne plurimum valeant plorlmi. De
Repub. lib. ii. sec. 22. Cicero seems to have been aware of the danger to property
fnnn nnlTersal and equal suffrage, — Ita nee prohibebatur quisqoam Jure suflragU ;
et is valebat In snttragio plurlmnm, cnjo* plurimum intererat esse In Optimo statu
civitatem. lb.
[687]
sObyGoOl^lc
"520 aOUHCES OF municipal law. [part III.
Toked by the consuls, and they presided in them, couoted the
votes, and declared the result ; and their reaolntions were legea
of the highest authority, and binding on the whole commuDitj.
After the inBtitution of tribunes, the assemblies of the people
were frequently convoked by tribes, and there all the people
met on an equality, and voted per capita. In the comitia tributit,
the people, after violent struggles, elected the tribunes and sub-
ordinate magistrates, and enacted plebitcita, binding on the ple-
beians alone, until the Hortensian law made the decrees of the
people in their comitia tributa binding equally on patricians and
plebeians, (by
As the whole administration of justice, civil and criminal, bad
been transferred from the kings to the oouBuls, it soon became
necessary to control the exercise of this formidable power.
• 520 This was done by the Valerian law, proposed by • the
consul Valerius Fublicola, granting to ])ersons accused of
capital crimes a r^ht of appeal from the judgment of the consuls
to the people. It then became an established principle in the
Roman constitution, that no capital punishment could be inflicted
upon a Roman citizen without the vote of the people, though the
consuls retained the power of inflictiog very severe imprison-
ment, (a) The Valerian law became an imperfect palladium of
(fr) Dig. 1. 2. 2. 8; Gnvinti, de Ortn et Prog. Jar. Civ. tcc. 28. The pUbiKHa,
prior to the HorteosiBD Itw, required the MDCtiou of the leiute and of the usem'bly
of the aeice to be biDdiDg on all ordert in the state. As the comitia aaiata were uaem-
bliea of the patriciant and plebeiaiu, aod in which all the great offlcea and powen of
lOTereigDty were conferred, the comitia trOmia were aaiembliet of the plebeian! only,
and were held independently of patrit^ian magistrate* and influence. Thtj could be
held without a previous lenalui coiuutiam, and were not subject to the check of the
ansplcea, which were under the management of the patricians. The tomilia eentariata
embraced all the orders of the state, and all persons of an age for military service,
and the patriciana and their clients, and plebeians, all found a place in them. In the
comilia iribaia the Totes were taken bj tribes, and in the comitia mnofa b^ncriiz. The
pairiciani exercised controlling inSueiKe in the comitia cerOariata hj means of the votes
of their clients. The increase of the numbers and wealth of the dientt of the bnrghrai
or patricians gave the comitia centuriata in which they voted, in the progress of time,
a popular character and Influence; for thoogh the clientt lost their order and tribe
by becoming dependent clients, they became wealthy, for they could follow retul
trade and manofaclnres ; and the eom&ia of centuries, in which the commons fanned
every century except six, grew to be assimilated, in a great measure, to those of the
tribes. Arnold's Hist, of Rome, i. 140, 141.
(a) Dig. 1. 2. 2. 16. The Roman dominion was absolute after a mile beyond tbe
walls nf the city, and the magistrates wielded the sword with full lovereigii^.
Arnold's Hist iU. 10.
[688]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XXIII.] BOnRCBS OP MUNICIPAL LAW. •620
civil liberty, and was in some respects analogous to the habeas
corpua act in the English law ; but the appointment of a dictator
was a suspenHion of the law. (5)
Aa the rojal laws collected by Papirius had ceased to operate,
except indirectly by the force of usage ; and as the RomanB, for
twenty years after the expulsion of Tarquin, had been governed
without any known public rules, (e) they began to suffer the evils
of uncertain and unsteady laws, and of the absolute and capri-
ciouB power of the consuls beyond the walb of tlie city. The
call for a written law was a long time resisted on the part of the
magistrates and senate ; but it was at last complied with, and a
commission of three persons, by the joint consent of the senate
and tribunes, was instituted to form a system of law. This com-
mission gave hirth to the twelve' tables, which form a distin-
guished era in the history of the Roman law, and constitute the
commencement of what has been called the middle period of the
Roman jurisprudence, (d)
(£] Tbi* great kw of appral wm reenacted in Ae fiftti coiwvlatiip of M. Taleriut
(c) Incerto nutgit Jure et contaetodiite qouD per iMun legem. Dig. 1. 2. S.
(d) The Enchiridion of Fomponiui layi, tbat the depnties were commliiioned to
•eek ImwB from the Orecikn ddei (Dig. 1. 2. 2. 4) ; and tiie original historiana
(LiTj, b. 3, c. 31, S2j, and Dion;«iiu of Halicamaiing (Antiq. Bom. b. 10), say, tliat
the deputation wai lent to Athent to leain the latrt and iuBtitotiona of Greece.
Grarbia (De Ortu et Frog. Jur. Civ. wc. 82, and De Jure Nat. Oent et XII. Tabula-
ram, >ec. 23), Heiaecciiu (Hi*t Jur. Civ. tec. 24, and Autiq. Rom. Jnr. Proara.
•ec. 3), Voet (Com. ad Pand. 1, 2. 1), Dr. Tajlor (HiaL of the Roman Law, 6),
Pothier (Pnefatio leu Prolegomena in Fandectsi Jiutinianeaa, part 1. c. 1 ; De Legi-
boi Antiquii), and the generality of modem writer* on Roman liiitory and law,
amime it to lie a conceded fact, on the aathority of livj, DIonysiUB, Cicero, Pliny,
and others, that ttte embaaay went to Atliena. Tadtui (Ann. 3, 2T) otMerrei gener-
ally, aealU ipax utgiuM tgrtgia, and the depntiea mntt bare riiited at leaat the
Grecian citie* in lower luly. M. Bonaby, a learned French writer, ha». however,
written three diBsertadona npon the origin of the lawi of the twelie table*, and he
conilden the ttory of a Roman deputation to Athens as fabnloDs. He endeavors to
maintain, by an able discnssion concerning the eariy history of the Romati constittt-
tion and laws, and by a critical and even profomid examhiatlon of the laws of the
twelve tables, that tliey were not borrowed from the jurisprodence of Athens, but
that they were essentially a restoration of the ancient Roman laws nnder Homnlus,
Nnma, and Serviua Tullius, and wblch had gone into disuse nnder the consnls. He
admits, however, tliat the plan of the mixed monarchy, and many of the Roman
usages under the kingi, had their origin in the usages of Athens and Sparta. (Mem.
de I'Acad. des Inscriptloni et Belles-Lettres, iviii, ed. Amit. 1743,) It is worthy of
observation, that this sceptical as well as learned writer does not hesiute to asaume,
on tiie anthority of Dionysiui of Halicamasaus, the anthenlicily of the history of the
Boinao kings. Gibbon (fflst, vlii. 8) is also decidedly of opinion that the deputation
TOI.I.-44 [689]
;abyG00<^lc
"522 BOUECBS OF MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT IH.
• 621 2. Th» Tweiva TttblM. — * The twelve tables were d^ested
6y ten decemvirs, appointed, with the consent of the eom-
moQS, out of the patrician order, on the retain of the deputies
from Greece. They were ratified by the consent equally of the
patricians and plebeians, («) and they consisted partly of laws
-transcribed from the institutions of other nations, partly of such
as were altered and sccommodat«d to the manners of the Romans,
partly of new provisions, and mainly, perhaps, of laws and
" 522 usages under their ancient kings. (6) They " were written
never niiled Atbeot, and ho prtm plmiuible iCMon for hii belief ; uid thoogh Cicero
aja (De Leg. b. 2, c. 23 and 26) that the regnlktioiu in the twelve tAbla ooaeemiDB
funenli were trantlated from tbe Uwi of Solon, mod the decemTiri had adopted
almoit the very worda of Solon, yet M. Bonabj Terj Ingeniously leliei npon Cicero,
u one of the antboriUei in nipport of Iii* hjpotherii. Nlebuhr, in hii mahoy ot
Borne (li. ed. Phil. 1636, by Hare and Thirlwall, pp. 228-231), conclndet that tbe
deputies viiited Athena, but that there U no reieniblsnce between tbe Attic cItQ
law and the twelve tablet, either aa Co penonal ri^ta or judicial proceeding*. Bat
Niebnlir waa evidently in an error when he aaya (iL 281, note 7), Uwt "nowbefe
doei (^cero give the least hint that tiiere waa any Greek element In the twelve
tables." He most have forgotten the passages from Cicero, de LegAos, to which I
have referred.
(a) mebohr (Roman Hiitorj, U. 286, ed. Phil. 1S86), sayi that the code of tbe
decemvirs, being approved bj the senate, was brought before the centuries, and tfaear
assent was ratified b; the curia, tmder the presidency of the colleges ot piieMs, and
the sanction of happy auspices.
(b) OniTina, de Ortn et Prog. 3. C. sac. 82 ; Kiebuhr't Hlit. ot Borne, ii. 24S, SSI.
note, 268. ITiebuhr says that the twelve tables were nothing more than the antdent
statutes consolidated. A learned writer of our own country, in the New Tork
Beview for October, 1839, who avows hig education and shows hit acquirementa in
the Enropean schools of the civil Uw, gl-rei very solid reasons for his opinion that
the code of the twelve tables was essentially declaratory of ancient laws and naagea.
Fragments of the twelve taldes were collected, and distributed with great accuracy
under th^ original and proper diviaions, by J. Gothofred, In a work entitled,
Quatuor Pontes Jurit ClviUt, printed in 1R63; and his collection, Heinecdiu says
(Antiq. Jnr. Bom. FroKOi. sec. 6), is to be preferred to that of all others. Bis col-
lection, dittribution, and interpretation of the tables has been followed by GtaviM,
who hat inserted the originals with a paraphrase at the concintion of hit treatise
De Jure Natnrali Gentium et XO- Tabularum. He baa also given ■ copiont com-
mentary upon that collection. They were redigeitad and inserted at length in a
voluminous L'Histoire Bomaine of the Jesnitt Cotton and Booille, and copied from
them Into Hooke's Boman History, b. 2, c. 2T. A summary of this cnrions and
celebrated code, which had such permanent Infloence on Boman }nriapradefx«, and
is so constantly alluded to by Roman Jurists, will not be unacceptable to the Amoi-
can student.
The 1st Uble related to laa naU, and regulated the ri^t of citation of the de-
fendant before the pr«tor. The creditor, of his own authority, seiied Us debtor.
where he found him in public, and carried him before the pnelor, and if the debtor
resisted, the creditor might selce and drag hhn. Ambalainjia — Tei»JMttta,: and
[690]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. ZXUI.] SOURCES OF HUMICIPAL LAW. * 522
in a style exceedingly brief, elliptical, and obscure ; and they
show the great simplicity of Roman manners, and are evidence
If old or Inflrai, the plaintiS wu to proTide him with m junaitatn, or open curiage.
( But ereii tbit proTtsioQ wm reprobated in after agea for iu WTerity. A. QelL Noct.
Att. 20, 1.) The debtor, If he wanted time, was obliged to gi*e a caution or bail for
hi» appearance at a futnre day. -The pnetor wai to decide the cauH promptly by
daylight ; and if the sccnier wanted witneasea, he wai allowed Co go before hii adver-
uty'6 houM, and to repeat bh demand for three dayi together by land outcry. Mi.
Jiutice Ware, of the Diatrict Court of Mi^ne, ha« giren, in the cam of Lane i>. Town*
•end, Ware, 299, a brief account of the commencement and progreu of a Boman
auit In it! flnt stagea. It ii an inCereitlng examination, and alieds much learning
aod iight on the obiciire subject; and point* out inaccuracie* not only in Brown'i
CWii and Admiralty Law, but in KackatoDe's CommentaricB, in reBpact to tbe stipu-
lation or bail required of the defendant in the Bait Dr. Arnold, in his Hiitory of
Romel L 280, sayi, that our whole knowledge of the old actions at law is derived
from the Inatitute* of Gains, which, in their original form, were discofered by Nie-
bnhr in 1816.
The 2d Uble related to robbery, theft, treepan, and brtades of tnM. It allowed the
. right to kiU a robber by night. It inflicted corporal punishment and slavery on
cooTiction of robbery, unless the parties settled with each other. Slaves, gnilty of
robbery, were to be thrown down the Tarpeian rock. Thefts and tcetpasees were
ponished by pecuniary mulct. Trespassers by night, on harTest or cornfields, wera
punished capitally, as victims to Ceres. No term of prescription gave a right to
stolen goods, nor any right of a foreignei to the goods of a Roman citizen. Breaches
of trust were punished with the forfeiture of double the value of the deposit.
The 3d (ahle related to loan*, and the riglil of creditor* over tieir debtor*. It proliib-
Ited more than one per cent interest for money. The weight of authority would
■eea rather to be in favor of one per cent a year, though Montesquieu inusts that
interest at the time of the twelve tables was twelve per cent a year, and tiiat the
law reducing it to one per cent was passed many years afterwards. Esprit des Lois,
liv. 22, c 22. Id thU construction be la aopported by Llry, b. 7, c. 27. Bnt Tadtna
says that the twelve tables restrained uanty to one per cent a year. Tacit. Ann. lib.
vi. IS. And this is the constmctioo given to the words Si qui mdarioJiBiore ampliat
Jiaenutii, by the generality of commenlstora. Pothier's Pandectts Justiuiaaew,
i. Frag. XII. Tab.; Gibbon, viii. S6, note. It is, however, a doubtful queadmi
whether the twelve tables allowed only one or twelve per cent a year. Professor
Hugo, of the University of Gottingen, In his History of the Roman Law, sec 126,
inclines to the latter opinion. A recent writer on this veiaUous point in Roman
history liolda it 1o be quite clear that the uncial rate of interest of the Romans was
an ooDce In every a* for the cyclic year of ten months, that is, eight and a half
per cent, equivatent to ten per cent for the civil year of twelve months. Foreign
Quarteriy Review, No. 22, art. 6. This is the conclusion lo which Niebuhr and Dr.
Amoldarrive. (Histoiy of Rome, by N. iii. 63, 67; History of Rome,by A. i. 284.]
The debtor was to have thirty days after judgment to pay hia debt ; and if he did
not then pay or give security, or sell himself by entering into Che nenaa, his creditor
had a right to aeice him. load him with chains of a certain weight, and treat him aa
a slave, on a prescribed scanty allowance ; and If he failed to pay after beii^ alz^
days in prison, he was to be brought before the people on three market days, and
tbe debt proclaimed ; if no friend appeared, he was either lo be put co death or sold
aa a slave into Etniria; and U tbere were several creditors, be might at th^ elec-
[691]
sObyGoOl^lc
• 528 SOUHCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW, [pabt ni-
** 523 of a people under a rugged police, * and very consid-
erably advanced in civilization. Tbey contain a great
tian be aold beyond the Tiber, or hU body cut into piece*. Gibbon | HIrt. riil 92)
takes this lav in the litentl seoie, »nd so does Oravina, de Jure Nai. Gent, et £11.
Tall. see. 72 ; and he idopti the argumeDt of Seztui Ctedliiu, id A. GeU. Noct AIL
20, I, who maiatained that the law waa only uniel In appearance, and that be h*d
never read or heard of in being executed, for itt extreme KTerity picrented the
creation of debt. Monteaquieu well obaervei that, DpoD such reaaoning, tbe lOMt
cruel laws would be beat ; and be think* tbe better conitniction to be, that the law
only related to tbe diviaion of the debtor'! property. Eaprit det Loi«, b. 39, c 2,
Bynkenhoek, Obserr. Jur. Rom. lib. i. c 1, and Heinecciua. Antiq. Rom. lib. iii. UL
SO, see. 4, are of the same opinion. Pothier, in hit introductioQ to hia Faadecia
Justhiianen, ha* interted the fragments of the twelve tables, aa they were restored by
Gotbofredui, and he has illustrated them by brief notes and commentaries. He <■
for a literal conitniction of this part of the twelve tablet, and he sayt this was tbe
conttraction of all the writers of antiquity who make mention of them, such ai
Quintilian, TertuUian, and A. Gellint. Profeitor Hngo is alto obliged to renounce
the metaphorical, and follow, with the ancients, the literal interpretation of tbe
twelve laUes on this subject. Hiitoire da Droit Romain, par G. Hugo, tradoite de
rAllemand par Jourdan, I. 23a, sec 149. Kiebuhr, in his History of Rome. iL
607, takes the law literally, and tays that no sound-headed person oagbt to cootcrue
it otherwise. He says its sereri^ was detigued to compel the debtor to redeem bioi-
self, or to enter into a neiun, by which he became liable to pay interest, and to work
out his debt by labor. Gravina, de Jure Nat. Gent, sec. 21, sayt there are grounds to
conclude that the Uga rtgia, with the eiception of such as relate to regal dominatioo.
were incorporated into the first three of these twelve Mbles.
The 4th table related to the rigliM o/fathert and faniiia. It gave to fathers the
power of life and death and of sale over their children, and tbe rigbt to kill imme-
diately a child bom deformed. On the other hand, and as some compensation for
these atrociout proviiloos. It declared that if a father neglected to teach hit son a
trade, he wat not obliged to maintain bit father when in want ; nor wat an illegiti-
mate child bound to maintain hit father.
The 6th table related to inieritanea anii guardianihipi. It declared that if the
father died intesUte (for he had a r^ht to ditpoae of his property by wiU), and had
no children, his nearest relations were to be hit heirs; and if he had no relations, a
man of hi* own name wat to be bit heir. He had the right to appoint guardians to
his children, if afreedman died intestate and without heir*, his effects went to the
family of his patron. The heirs were to pay the debts of the ancestor in proportioo
to their share of his estate. It alto provided, in the case of lunatic* and prodigals,
that the relations, and if none, that one of the name, was to have the care of the
person and estate. If he left children, the sons and dai^hters inherited equally;
but though daughters inherited on an equal footing with the tons, yet they became
wards to their brothers ; and all women were, at aU times of their lives, and under
all drcumsiances, under guardianship and civil disalulities. (Dr. Arnold, in bis Bi»-
tory of Rome, i 267-295. has examined the state of the Botnan law, as left by the
decemvirs, with great research and ability.)
The 8th table related to proprrty and poue—im. It declared that the title of goods
should not pass on sale and delivery, without psyraent. Two years' postessioo
amounted to a right of prescription for lands belonging to private individuals, pro-
vided the poaseaslon was not obtained by force or fraud, and one year for movwUes.
[692]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XXIII.] SOURCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. '624
deal of wisdom and good sense, intermixed with folly,
injustice, and cruelty. They were engrossed " on tablets • 524
II likewjte declared that, in litigated caaei, the pmnniptloii thonld alwajt br oq tlie
aide of the poaaetaoT ; and that in diipate* about liberty and tlt-rvry, the pmumpEiou
should alwaji be on the side of liberty. All sales of land or moTablei were by
delivery (manci^Nitti)) verbally, ia the presence ot wiitieBies.
The 7th table related to Irapaaaa and damaga. It provided that compensation
be made for treapaueB; and that for anon or malidouily setting Qre to a houie, or
to grain near to it, the offender wat to be scourged and bnmt to deatli. The tatalionit
was applied to loues of limb, unless tlie injured party accepted some other satisfac-
tion. A pecnniary fine of three hundred pounds of brass was declared for dislocating
aboiK, and twenty-Bve asses of brass for a common blow with the flat. (Ji is related
in the Nod. Att. 20, 1, that one Lucius Ncratius. iti after times, when the city became
wealthy, and such a fine iniigniflcant, amused himself with striking freedmen in the
face as he met them in the street, and then ordering his servant, who followed him
for the pnrpoee with a bag of brass money, to count out and tender the twenty-five
pieces, as the compensation fixed by law.) It was provided, also, by this table, that
slanderers, by words or verses, should be beaten with a club. False witnesses were
to be thrown headlong from the capitol, and parricides were to be sewed up in a
sack and thrown into the Tiber. Whoever wilfully killed, or poisoned, or prepared
poison for a freedman, or used magical words to hurt him, was pnnishable at a hom-
icide. Onardians and patrons who acted fraudulently in their trust were to be fined
and held odious.
The 8tb table related to cstatoj in Ihi eeun/ry. It required a space of two and a half
feet to t>e left between every house ; and it allowed societies or private companies to
make their own by-laws, not being inconsistent with the public law. The pnetor was
lo assign atbitratois in cases of disputes about boundaries ; and it provided redress
for nuisances to fields by the shade of trees, or by watercourses. It required roads
to be eight feet wide, and double at comers. It allowed travellers to drive over the
adjoining land, if the road was bad.
Tlie Eth table was concerning tht cannon right of lA» ptnpU. It prohibited all
special privileges to any person, and it restored debtora, who had been redeemed
from slavery, to their former rights. It made bribery, ya a Judge or arbitrator, or
the holding or attending seditious assemblies In the city by night, or delivering
up a Roman citizen to a foreigner, or solicitlDg a foreigner to declare himself againat
Rome, capital offences. It declared that all causes relating to the life, liberty, or
rights of a Boman citizen should be tried in the amitia caduriiaa. The people were
to choose quKstors to take cognizance of capital cases. (The burjhxm of the city of
Rome, in the early period of the Commonwealth, engrossed the wealth and the foreign
commerce, and were the patricians aud money-lenders, while the /ore conmonm, who
were agriculturists on small farms in the country, adjoining the city, were forbidden
to engage in commerce, and were the money-borrowers, and luSered greatly from
hostile incursions, and were poor and oppressed. Arnold's History of Rome, L 13G.)
The lOth table related toJuneraU. It prohibited the dead to be interred or burnt
within the city, or within sixty feet of any house. It prohibited all excessive wait-
ings at funerals, and women from tearing their faces or making hideous outcries on
such occasions. It regulated and limited the ezpmae of funeral piles, and all costli-
ness at funerals, such as the dress of the deceased, the players upon the Ante, tiie
perfnoied liquors, the gold thread, the crown, festoons, &c.
The 11th table made part of the jus saenin, or pooUficat law. All the other tables
[6SS]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 525 BODHCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT HI.
of wood, or brass, or ivory, (a) and were exposed to deatrac-
tion, though UDquestionsbly preserved, when the city was bump<l
by the Gaule. (6) They existed entire in the third,
•626 "but did not, &a Heioeceius supposes, survive the nzth
century of the Christian era. This code obtained, in the
i«Uted W civil ri^hu, but thii relkted to Teligion and lAe worMp of An goi*. It
required all penoiu to come with purity and pieiy to the sBaembliei of religiOD ; uid
QO person wu to woraliip any new or foreign goda In private, unleM BQthoriied br
public authonCy. Every aae wu to obKrre hia family featiralg, and tiie rite* uaed
Id hii owo fMnily. and by bis anceston. in the worship of hU domeitic deitiei.
Honor was to be p^d to those heroei and sages whom their merit had raised to
heaven. The commendable virtues were to be ranke<l among the gods, and to have
temples erected to them, but no worship wa« to be paid to any rice. The sacrifice*
to the gods by the prieats were to be the fruit* of the earth and yoting animal*, and
with the most anthomed ceremonies. No otie wm to he initiated In any mysterie*
hot those of Cerei. Stealing of what was devoted to the gods, and fnceat, were
declared to be capital crime*.
The 12th Uble related to nmFriagt and Ae ri^ of KuAattdt. It preMxibed free-
dom of divorce at the pleasore of Ibe husband ; and it allowed the huiband, with
tlie consent of his wife's relatioia, to pat her to death, when taken in adultery or
drunkenness ; and it declared it to be unlawful (or patricians to intermarrj with
plebeians.
Mr. Preacott, in hi* learoed and excellent History of the Conqnest of Mexico, ha*
given a short but Interesting view of the Judicial system, and of the code of laws in
the Aztec or Mexican monarchy, prior to the overthrow of it by Fernando Conez.
He lays that the Aztec code, though stamped with the ferodty of a rade people,
evinced a profound respect for the great principle* of morality. Their mitltsiry n*age<
had a remarkable resemblance to those of the early Romans, and their political insii-
tutiooi denoted a degree of civilization not mnch short of tliat enjoyed by the Anglo-
Saxons under Alfred. I should think that their legal code might bear a favorable
comparison with much that is to be found in the celelnated twelve table* of the
Roman law. The superior JDilges were wholly independent of the monarch, and
held their offices for life, atid were niainuined from the produce of the crown
lands. Punishment* were, generally, like the laws of Draco, capital ; but tb^r
application to crime* showed a solicitude (or the rights' of property and of good onler-
Murder, even of a slave, was punished witli death ; so was the conviction of adultery,
removing the boundaries o( another's land, alleriag the e*tabli*hed meaaiu«, abusea
of guardian's tm«t, drunkenness, prodigal waste of patrimony, and thefL Hosiritals
were established in the principal cities for the cure of the sick, and the permanent
refuge of the disabled soldier. Public defaulters were Uable to he sold a* alavea.
The marriage institution was protected and respected. Preacott'* Hi*L i. 29-38.
44,49.
(a) Heineccii Hist, Juris Civllis, lib. 1, sec. 26. Niebuhr say* they were gnven
on ten tables of bras*, and posted up in the Comitium.
{h) Liry, b. 6, c. I, says, Qun in commentarlii pontificum, aliisqae publtd* privn-
tisque erant monumentis, incensa, urhe, pleraque inltriat. N. Hook's Di*». on tbe
credibility of the 4rst five centuries of Rome. Cicero speaks of them as being In hi*
time on tables of brass, and a* baring been injured by lightning, — ^usi m-a Ufa—
^eta. Or*t. in Cat. 3, 4.
[694]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECr. XXIII.] BOUB0E8 OP MUNICIPAL LAW. " 527
subsequent ages of the republic, from the most distia-
guisfaed * philosophers, histoTians, and statesmen, the blind * 526
tribute of patriotic veneration, and the most extravagant
eulogy, as being a system inculcating the soundest principles of
ethics and civil polity, and surpassing in value the jurisprudence
of Solon and Lyourgus, the twelve books of the laws of Plato, and
whole libraries of Grecian philosopliy. (a) As Rome increased in
territory, wealth, arts, and refinement^ her laws were progressively
enlai^ed and improved, and adapted to the prt^rees of society,
and its increasing wants and vices. The obligation of the twelve
tables was gradually diminished or destroyed by the multitude of
new regulations, and the history of the Roman law, from the
time of the twelve tables to the reign of Hadrian, is eminently
instructive. '
• After many struggles, the patricians were obhged, by • 627
the lex Ebrtengia, to submit to the authority of the ptebit-
eita, enacted by the plebeians alone in their eomitia tribtUa, as
being of equal force with the legea, passed at the instance of a
consular or senatorial magistrate, by the whole aggregate body
of the people, patricians and plebeians, (a) The senate also fre-
quently promulgated laws under the name of lenattu cotuvUa,
by their own authority. (6) A tenofus eoruultum was allowed to
continue in force only one year, unless ratified by the common
course of rogatio ad popvlum; and the tribunes could, at any
time, by their veto, put a negative upon any projected decree of
the senate. That body likewise assumed the right to dispense
with laws, though, by a law proposed by the tribune Caius Cor-
nelius, the senate could not exercise their dispensing power
(o) Cic. de Ont b. 1, c 43, 44; De Leg. 2. lec. 23; Jay ft. mn. 3, 34; Tkdt
Add. 3, 27 1 A. GeU. Noct. Att. 20, 1. In the new !j ditcorered trMitUe of Cicero,
de Repnblicm, lib. ii. c. 36, 3T, he inaiita that the ten flnt tkbles were compiwed
with the greatnt equitj and pradence. but he decUreg that the two Uit tablet, added
b; the decemvM, were iniqniCotu lawt, and that the Uw prohibiting marriagea
between plebeiaoB and seaatorlat famillea wa« a moat infamoiu law.
(a) The Hortenrian la* aboliabed the aeoate's veto upon pUbacita, after the Pnb-
lilisD law had done away with the authority of the curia Tcapecting tbem; and
Niebufar consider* the Horteniiaa law aa the commeDcemeat of the deatrnctloa of
the coDititadon. NIebuhr'g Hiat. ill. 419-421.
(b) lost. 1. 2. 4 ; Dig. I. 2. 9. The proofs are abundant, that eren before the
Augustan age the wnadu eenttiita bad become one of the regular sourcei of the
Boman law. Cicero, de Legibua, b. 3; Hiatoire du Droit Bom. par O. Hugo, sec
174, ITS, 170. Qui conaolta Patmm, qui legea jnraqne terrat. Hor. Epiat 1. 16l
T.41.
[695]
aqitizecibyGoQl^lc
•528 BOcaCEs op municipal law. [pakt in.
uuless two hundred senators were present. By the PablUiaD
law, passed in the yeai of the city 416, the comitia of the euria
were deprived of their veto or power aa a branch of the legiida-
ture in passing upon laws enacted by the comitia of tribes, and
their consent was no longer requisite to laws submitted by the
senate to the comitia of the centuries. But the senate, which
now consisted of the most eminent men, and was a mixed body
of both patricians and commoners, continued to be the great
national council. (<;) Within a very few years after the adoption
of the twelve tables, the prohibition of marriages between the
patriciana and plebeians was abolished ; but the patricians had
the address to retain the management and control of the whole
administration of justice. This was effected in several ways. It
was effected by the inftitution of legal forms of judicial proceed-
ing, called legit actiontg, and by means of the pontificet, who
regulated the calendar, and were the repositories of the laws and
annals, and assumed the power of fixing the lawful days of
business, and dies faeti et nefatti. These judicial forms aod
solemnities gave order and ooiformity to the administration of
justice ; but they were mysteries of jurisprudence, confined to
the learned of the patrician order, and locked up in the jtontifical
archives. They could not be changed at the pleasure of the
people, and the right to interpret them belonged to the
* 528 pontifical college, and the patricians had retuned * the
exclusive right of being eligible to the offices of the priest-
hood, (a) The forms remained confused and undigested until
Appius Claudius Ccbcus, a member of the pontifical fraternity,
reduced them into one collection, which his scribe, Cnteus Flavins,
(e) Arnold'! Bist. of Rome, ii. 155, 168. It WM the prorince of tbe nurt to
reviM the liit of seoalore >nd add to tbe roll, m well u to reviie tbe roUi of tbft
terenl tribec. The cenionhip wu so office of the highest nnk uid power, with m.
command of the public moneys, uid with the power of commeticing uid canductiiiK
public works, inch m road* and aqueducla. lb. 282-287 ; Cicero, de Legibo*, b. 3.
With respect to the senate, the Horlenslu law, prior to the year of Rome 474.
deprived the senate of iU veto, anil declared the people aaaembled in their tribes to
be a supreme legislative power. The tribes in the foram and tbe seuau were pUc«d
on a footing of equally ; neither had ■ veto on the enactment* of the oUier, and the
tribunes had a veto npon both alike. The enactmenU of both were considered as
equal to laws. TJie senate, in ita original form, was only a select asaembtf of the
patret, whose great aaseniblj was the comitia aavoa. lb. 383-386.
(a) Dig. h, 1, tit 2 ; De Orig. Jur., sec 6. Gmvioa tajs, De Ortn et Frog. J. C
sec. 33, that the; were eiUblisbed bj the polic; of the ancient lawmen.
[096]
)vGooi^Jc
BunreptitioiiBly publlHhed, together with the calendar, or fa»ti^ to
the great satiBfaction of the people, (i) It acquired the title of
the Jas civile Flavianum ; and a second colleetioa of these legal
precedents afterwards appeared, and was called the Jua civile
.^ianum. (c) This Roman science of special pleadiug became a
subject of ridicule bj Cicero, as being a cunning and captious
verbal science ; and these forms were expressly abolished by the
Emperor Coostantine as insidious, (d)
3. The prwtoritui Law. — The edicts of the praetor became
another very important means of the increase and improvement
of the Roman law. By the Licinian law, passed iu the year of
Rome 384, the ofGce of consul was no longer confined to the
patrician order, and a plebeian consul was elected in the centu-
ries, and confirmed by the curvB. But as a compensation for this
loss of patrician power, the judicial was separated from the con-
sular office, and a praetor was instituted, who was always to be a
patrician, (e) The judicial decisions of the prsetors, or edicta
pT<Etorvm, became of great consequence. They were called ^u*
honorarium, or patrician law, derived from the honor of the pne-
tor.(/) There had been, from the foundation of the city, a
magistrate called prcefectui urbig, to administer justice in the
absence of the king or consul ; and after the plebeians obtained
a share in the consular dignity, the patricians created a permanent
city prsBtor, and they confined his province to the administration
of justice ; and such a magistrate was indispensable, as the con-
suls were engaged in foreign and executive duties, (^) The
prEBtor was at first a patrician, and * elected iu the comitia * 529
centiiriata, though the office in time became accessible to
plebeians. Business soon required a second prtetor to preside
over th« causes of foreigners, called prtetor peregriniu, (a) and
(i) Cic. pro MuTfflni, we. H ; De Oral. 1, 41.
(c) Dig. 1. 2. 7; Livy's HiH. 9, 46; GraTiDB, de Ortu Jnr. CIt. tec, 88, and de
Jur. N«t. et XU. Tab. lec. 79, 80.
(d) Legnleiut quidam cautua et acatiit pneco sctionum, cantor fabnlanun, ancepa
■Tllabarum. Cic. de Orat. 1, 66. See alto Cod. 2. 5t). De formnlu et impetra-
tionibiu actionDm sublatii.
it) Dr. Arnold givea an interettiog hittory of the Btrngglea which produced thit
great innoTation in the Roman conalitDtioD. History of Rome, il. 88~61. The
tiutitation of the office of prnlor wm in A. D. C. 3B7.
(/) Dig. 1, 1.7, and 1.2. 10.
(j) Dig. 1.2, «ec. 28,28.
la) FrofeHor Eugo, in hii Biitory of the Bonuu) Law, tec. 168, attribnte* to the
[e97]
sObyGoOl^lc
" 630 800BCES OP MUSrClPAL LAW. [PART HI.
pnetors were afterwards allotted to the provinces as the empire
widened. Under Augustus the prtetors bad multiplied to sixteen ;
and in the time of Pomponius there were eighteen, and one of
them judged de fideicommitto. (6) Every prtetor, on enteiing
into office, established and published certain rules and forms, as
the principle and method by which he proposed to administer jufr-
tice for the year. He had no power to alter these rules, and this
jut prtBtoriwn vtl honorarium tempered the ancient law by the
spirit of equity and public utility, and it was termed the living
interpreter of the civil law. (c) The edicts of the prtetor were
generally declaratory of the customary or unwritten law and
practice of hia predecessors. But as the prtetor was apt to vary
from his annual edict, and to change it according to circum-
stances, which opened the way to many frauds, it was provided,
by a law enacted at the instance of the tribune Caiua Comelius,
that the pnetor should adhere to his edicts promulgated on the
commencement of his magistracy. These prtetorian edicts were
studied as the most interesting branch of Roman law, and
they became a sulwtitute for the knowledge of the twelve tables,
which fell into n^Iect, though they bad once been taught as
a carmen neceaaarium^ and regarded as the source of all l^al
discipline. (<i)
* 530 4. RMponaa Pntdantnm. — * The opinions of lawyers,
called the re»ponia or interpretationeM prudentum, com-
posed another and very efficient source of the ancient Roman
jurisprudence.
The most ancient interpreters were the members of the college
of pontificea, composed of men of the first rank and knowledge.
inatitutioii of the prator ptregriiaa the rise ttoA growth of tbe jot ^oitiiiM, which b«4
a, prapitiou* inlliience eren upon the Romkn maoiclpal Jariiprudence. The ciTiUmiit
lued Ihe jot gentium a* lynonymoiu with reuon uid natanl law, and in caatnuli*-
ttaiction to the jtu aciU, which waa conililered u local, peculiar, and exclDsl*s to
one particular people. It was their municipal law ; tbe other wai tnternatiotiaL
To the authority of the jot pndorium the edict* of the prator. urbama and the praiw
pertfrrinut teem to hare equally contributed. lb. tec 188, 180.
(b) Dig. 1. i. S2
(c) Dig. 1. I. 7, 8.
(d) ac de Leg. b. 1, c. 6. and b. 2, c. 2S; Oc. de Ont b. 1, c. 10; Granna,
de Ortu et Prog, J. C. wc. 88. The tdida magiilratimm, or jia praltrivm, wa* Dot
ODlf a fruitful, bat a iegilimate source of the Roman law, ai Hugo hai labored to
prove. Hilt, da Droit Rom, aec. 177, 178, 179. He compare* this pnetorian law to
the Etigliih equity juriapnidence. Many of tbe edicts bore a resemblance to the
modern ordinances, or Codes de ProcMore Civile.
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XXIII,] BOmtCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. "581
Civil statesmen and eminent piiTate citizens followed their
example, and sometimes delated in the fomm. Their answers
to questions put were gradually adopted by the courts of justice,
by reason of their intrinsic equity and good sense ; and they
became inoorporated into the body of the Roman common law
under the name of fori dixputtUiones and jus civile, or reaponta
pTudentum. (a) This business, undertaken gratuitously by per-
sons of the highest distiuction, grew into a public profession, and
law became a regular science, taught openly in private houses as
in schools. The names of the principal lawyers who became, in
this way, public professors of the law, are to be found in the
work of PompoQius, (J) and in the writings of Cicero, Horace,
Tacitus, and the other authors of the classical ages. Their opin-
ions were preserved by their successors, and fragments of them
are, no doubt, dispersed in different parts of the Pandects, with-
out the sanction of their names, (c) Cicero speaks of
• this employment of distinguished jurists with the great- • 531
est encomiums, and as being the grace and ornament and
most honorable business of old ^e. The house of such a civilian
becomes a living oracle to the whole city ; and this very accom-
plished orator and statesman fondly anticipated such a dignified
retreat and occupation for his declining years, (a) The philos-
ophy and policy and wisdom of Greece were collected together,
says Gravina, (5) by the Roman civilians, and all that was useful
introduced into the Roman law ; and if it were really true that
the twelve tables were not drawn by the rough agents who com-
piled them directly &om Grecian fountains, we are assured that
(a) 1Mb. 1-2. 6. (6) Dig. 1. 2.
(c) In the timei of the republic, tbe practice of the l&w waa gratnitoiu uid U^ly
hoDoruy. All employment for hire vrs prohibited by a Ian enacted in the jear of
tfae city 660, at the instance of the tribune Marcni Cinciui. The prDfeMion at length
became a buaineu nf gain, and wat abiued, nntil Angustai revived the Cincian la«,
with additional sanction by a decree of the senate. Bui as a reasonable compensa-
tiou WM necessary to advocates who devoted their time and talents to the profession,
the compensation was allowed and regulated by a decree of the senate in the time of
Claudius (Tadt Ann. b. 11, c. S, 6, 7) ; and afterwards, according to the law of the
Paodecta, b. GO, dt. IS, c. 1, sec. 6, 10, 12, the judges in the province ^vere to deter-
mine on, and allow, a reasonable cliarge to tbe advocate. [Ketinedj e. Broun, 13
C. B. K. 8. 677.] .
(a) CIc. de Orat 1, 46; De Legibus, b. 1. See alto QninUUan'a Inet. lib. 12,
c. 11, where he alludes to Cicero, and strongly approrea of thla employmeot of the
orator when he reUiet from practice at the bar.
(&) Orig. Jnr. Civ. b. 1, ProKm.
;abyG00<^lc
•532 SOUECES OF SnJKICIPAL LAW. [PABT IIL
the omissiou was abundantly supplied in after ages ; and the in-
Btitutions of Greece were studied by more enlightened statesmen,
and contributed to perfect and adorn tbe Roman law. (c)
lu tbe Augustan ^e, tbe body of the Roman law had
* 532 * grown to immense magnitude, {a) It was composed
of the leges, or will of tlie whole Roman people declared
in the comitia centuriata ; the plebitcita, enacted in the eomiiia
tr^ntta; the aenatuB contulta, promulgated by the single author-
ity of the senate ; the legia actionet ; the edtcta magittratmtm ; tbe
retponta prudentum ; and, subsequent to the age of Cicero, is to
be added the comtitutio principit, or ordinances of the Roman
emperors. (6) The Roman civilians began very early to make
collections and digests of the law. The book of Seztus £lius
contained the laws of the twelve tables, the forms of actions, and
the respoTiaa pradentum. Publius Mucins, Quintus Mucins, Bru-
tus, and ManiliuB, all left volumes upon law, and the three books
of the latter existed in the time of Pompouiua, as monuments of
his fame, (c) Servius Sulpioius left behind him nearly one hun-
dred and eighty volumes upon the civil law. Many distinguished
scholars arose under his discipline, who wrote upon jurispru-
dence ; and Aufldius Namuaa digeBted the writings of ten of those
scholars into one hundred and forty books. Antistius Labeo,
under Augtistus, surpassed all his cont«mporarieB, and he com-
piled four hundred volumes, many of which, Pomponius says, he
possessed. (_d) The noble design of reducing the civil law into a
[e) The Qreciau pliUoBOphf wu not more fatkl to tbe uident Romui rapenti-
tloD, thut GreciBii foreiuic eloquence wu to the KTericj of the Bomaa civil law.
Hugo's Histoire dn Droit Romsin, lec 161. Cicero wai of opinion that hU connDy-
men excelled the Greeka in lawi and inititnticnu, Bi well m monUa and manners.
Mores et instituts vita, resque domestical ac famillaret no* profecto et meUoi toemnr
et lautlni ; rem rero publicum nostri majorei certe meUoribua tempervf eroDt et
inttitotis el legibos. Tuscut. QuEcat, lib. 1, c. 1. He supposes Uiat the ead; R(Hnun
had imUbed ■ tincture of the pliiloiophj of the Qreeks from tbe docCrlDca of Fyths^
eras, who dwelt in southern Italy at the time of the expulsion of tbe Tarqoina.
lb, lib. 4. 1. But it was Cicero himself, who, by bis writings, traniferred into his
own vernacular (oogue the great bod; of tbe Grecian philosophj.
{□) Immeasm aliarum super alias acervBtarum legum comuliu. livy, 8, 34.
Heineccius applied this passage of Liry to the civil law, but Hugo says he wu in
an error, and that the most part of the laws referred to by Livy were political rega-
latlons, and had no concern with private right Hist, du Droit Rom. par Hogo^
cec. 167.
(i) Dig. 1. 1. 7, and 1. 2. 12 ; Inst 1. 2. 3 ; O^ui, 1. 2.
(c) Dig. 1. 2. S6, and S9. (<f) Dig. 1. 2. tec 41, 48, 44, 46, 47.
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. XZIII.] BODBCES OF HONICIPAL LAW. ' 533
eonveiiieiit digest was conceived by such great men &b Cicero, (e)
Pompej, and Julius Cfesar ; (/) though it is certain that no sys-
tematic, accessible, and authoritative treatise on the civil
law appeared during • the existence of the republic ; and * 533
Cicero says that the law lay scattered and dissipated in his
time, (a) The Koman jurisprudence was destined to continue
for several centuries under the imperial government, a shapeless
and enormous mass, receiving continual accumulations ; but it
was fortunately cultivated under the emperors by a succession
of illustrious men, equally distinguished for their learning, wis-
dom, and probity.
Before the time of Augustus, the resporua prudentum were
given viva voce, and they had not the force of any authority in
the forum, and the business was free to all persons. The char-
acter o£ these retponta was abused and discredited by the crude
opinions of pretenders, and Augustus restrained the profession
of the jurisconsults to ench as he ahould select as most worthy,
and they were to be first approved of and commiasioned by him.
They then began to give their opinions in writing, with their
reasons annexed, (i) This raised their influence, and reduced
the preetors to a state of comparative dependence upon those
living oracles of law, who were under the influence of the
emperor, and who obtained, by their means, the control of the
administration of the law. (c) Heineccius says that Augustus
instituted this college of civilians in order that he might covertly
assume legislative power, and adapt the republican jurisprudence
to the change in the government. He likewise instituted a cab-
inet conocil, which was called the conaittorj/, by succeeding
princes. It was composed of the consuls, several other magis-
trates and jurists, and a certain number of senators chosen by
lot. (d) Ulpian was a member of this royal council under
(e) (ScsTDiayBhehod long thought of the twk of dlgetdng and redncing the civil
law into a few elementarj >nd definite prindplee, and therebj relieving it from diffl.
culty and oUcnricj. De Orat lib. 1, c 42.
(/) Suet. J. Cnsar, sec. 44
(a) ac. de OrtiL lib. 2, c. 88 ; Haneccii ElemenU Jori* Inst Ptomd. mc. 3 ; Dr.
Tayior'i Element! of the Ciril Law, 14.
(b) Dig. 1. 2. 47 ; Heinecc. Hlit. Jur. dr. lib. 1, wo. 1G7, ISB, 180.
(e) QimTina, de Ortu et Prog. iec. 42 ; Heinecc. Antiq. Bom. lib. 1, tit. 2, tec, 80.
{d) GraTina,deRoaiano Imperio,tec IT. This imperial coDtiitoTy wa* imitated
by the provincial goTemora. Hlitoi7 of tbe BoD»n Law during the Middle Agei,
by Saiigny, i 87.
[701]
sObyGoOl^lc
•5SC 80TIBCE8 OP HUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT ni.
* 534 Alexander * Severas. It vraa the imperial l^psUtare. Tike
power of the eomUia was transferred to this shadow of a
Roman senate, for the old oonstitutioiisl senate, not being able
convenieDtlj to govern all the provinces (according to the
courtly language of the Pandects}, (a) gave to the prince the
right to make laws.
5. Impvriai Rescrtpts. — The judgmeutfl of the prinoe were called
imperial constitutions, and they were usually enacted and pro-
mulgated in three ways : lut. By rescript, or letter in answer to
petitions, or to a distant magistrate, (b) 2d. By decrees passed
hy the emperor on a public hearing is a court of justice ; and
PauUis collected six books of those decrees, and from which he
for the most part dissented, (c) 8d. By edict, or mere volontary
ordinances. Gravina says that these imperial constitutions pro-
ceeded not as from a single individual, but as &om the oracle of
the republic, by the voice of the senators, who were consulted,
and were the visible 'representatives of the majesty of the com-
monwealth. ((2) Many of these imperial ordinances were sug-
gested by the best of the civUiaiiB, and do great honor to their
authors ; and with regard to private and personal rights, the
Romans enjoyed, to a very great degree, under the emperors, the
benefit of their primitive fundamental laws, as they existed in
the times of the republic. The profession of the law was held
iu high estimation under the emperors; and during the second
and third centuries, the science of jurisprudence was elevated
higher than it ever has been in any other i^e, or among any
other people. Hadrian took off the restriction of Angus-
* 586 tus, and gave the privilege of being * a public interpreter
of the law to the profession at large, (a) It was restored
by the emperor Sevems, and the responta prudentvm assumed an
air of great importance. Though in the first instance they were
received as mere opinions, they gradually assumed the weight of
authority. The opinions were sent in writing to the judges, and
in the time of Justinian they were bound to determine according
(a) Dig. 1.2,»ec. 11.
(A) Code. 1. 14. 3 ; OnTlnft, Ae Orta et Prog, lec 123. 124.
(c) Gntiin*, ib. sec. 122 ; De Bommno Imperio, lec. 20.
((f) Gntvitui, de Bomuu Lnperlo, ib. The imperial nteripla ttiiii Mtnmcd Itie
chu«cter uid weight of Jodleikl precedent!, end were entitied to at least equal
authority with the rapeiuapnHleniHm,
(a) Dig. 1. 2. 2. 47.
[702]
;abyG00<^lc
LECT. UOn.] SOURCES OP MUNICIPAL LAW. * 686
to those opinions. (!>) These reaponta (of which many are pre-
served in the Pandects) were not of the same authority as the
constitnttonal leges, but they were law for the case, and they
were applied to fature cases under the character of principles of
equity, and not of precepts of law. In the ^es immediately
preceding Justinian, the civil law was in a, deplorable condition,
by reason of its magnitude and disorder; and scaroely any
genius, says Heiueccius, was bold enough to commit himself to
such a labyrinth. As a remedy for the evil, the Emperor Theo-
dosiuB the younger and Valentinian III. addressed to the senate
of the city of Rome an imperial constitution, which confirmed,
by decree, the writings of Papinian, Paulus, Gaius, Ulpian, and
Modestinus, by name, and directed that they alone be permitted
to be cited in the courts of justice, with the exception of such
extracts as they had transferred into their books from the ancient
lawyers, and with some other qualified exceptions in favor of
Sc£BTola, Sabinus, Julianus, aud Marcellus. The opinion of the
majority of these five legislative characters was to govern ; and
where there was in any case an equal divlfliou of opinion, that of
Papinian was to be preferred, (c)
* The first authoritative digest of the Roman law which • 533
actually appeared was the Perpetual Edict, compiled by
Salvias JuliauuB, under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian, and
of which nothing now remains but some fr^ment« collected and
arranged by Gothofrede, and published along with the body of
the civil law. Hadrian was the first emperor who dispensed
with the ceremony of the lenatua eonniUa, and promulgated his
decrees upon his sole authority, (a} The prffitorian edicts had
been so controlled under the government of the emperors by tiie
(fi) Intt. 1. 2. 8.
(e) Heinecc. Aodq. Bom. Jnr. Ub. 1, tit. % tec. 41 ; HUtor. Jnr. Qt. Ub. 1, wc
ST8. Helneccios «•;■, that Pftplukn iru ereiTwhnra c«ll«d jini aqbm tt doetnuct
ltgali$ Aaaarut, mm! he fu tnipuMd kU hli twethreo, omnet loHga pett m uibnaUo
nHqaail. Gaim (Inn, lib. 1, cec. 2) refen to • Micript of the Bntperor HadriMi, in
which the m/MHua pndtiitiaa were to be received h law, tf th^ were miaiilinoiUi
■ud U not, the Judge was at liber? to fallow hit own judgment. At tbe period of
Valentinian, die writing! of the great jnriat* and the coiutltiitloni of the emperora
were alone contnlted aa aalhoritiei. Savignj'B Binory of tbe Botoan I^w, L 7.
(a) Gibbon's Hl«tot7, viii IQ. Hie pltbitaia had ceaied nader Angnatni, but
the ttaatiu comuba £d not abaolatelj ceaae with Hadrian. Thqr continoed to enrich
thedril lawin maltenof private right long afterwardi. Hugo, Hiit. dn Droit Bool
KC 284, 807.
[708]
;abyG00<^lc
*537 SOUBCSS OF ICUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT m.
Opinions of the civilians, that they lost the greater part of their
ancient dignity, and Hadrian projected the design of reducing
the whole Roman law into one regular system. All Uiat he, how-
ever, lived to perform, was to procure the compilation of those
edicts of the prntors which had stood the test of experience on
account of their authority and equity, and had received the illus-
trations of civilians. (&} Many able professors undertook, from
time to time, a digest of the civil law. Papihus Justus collected
some of the imperial constitutions into twenty books, and Julius
PauluB compiled six books of decrees, or imperial decisions. Gre-
gorius made a collection of a higher character, and he digested
into order the chief, if not the whole of the imperial rescripts,
from Hadrian down to the reign of Diocletian and his colleagues,
and which was called the Gregorian Code, and attained great
authority in the forum. Bermogcnes continued this collection
under the name of the Hermogenian Code, (c) Theodomus
* 537 the younger * appointed a committee of eight civilians to
reduce the imperial constitutions, or the edicts and re-
scripts of a succession of emperors, from the time of Constantine,
into a methodical compendium ; and this Theodosian Code became
a standard work throughout the empire, and it was published in
six folio volumes in 1665, with a vast and most learned commen-
tary by Gotliofrede. (a} Another century elapsed before Jus-
tinian directed Tribouian, who was an eminent lawyer and
mi^trate, to unit« with him a number of skilful civilians,
and to assume the great task of collecting the entire body of
the civil law, which had been accumulating for fourteen cen-
turies, into one systematic code. Whether the Roman law at
that period exceeded or fell short of the number of volumes in
which the English law ia now embodied it is not easy to deter-
mine. Tribonian represented to the emperor, that, when be aud
his learned associates undertook the business of digesting the
civil law, he found it dispersed in two thousand books, and in
(fr) OniTiiM, de Ortn et Prog. Jur. CSt. jec 88.
(c) Beinecc Htit. Jar. Cir. lib. 1, lec. 866-3T2.
(a) Tha great merit of thti edition of the Tbeodoiiui Code, and the fltnew td
Qothofrediu for the talk, by bii eztnordlnary induttrjr, emditioii, and jadgiDent,
are fordblj stated hy Dr. Irving, in hi« Introduction to the Stndy of the Civil Law,
4th ed. London, 1837, — a work well worthy of the attention of the itadent in the
(dTil law, for Its biitorical and biognphicftl leanung, and the critic*! tafKUj of th*
aothor.
[704]
D.qilizMbyG001^lc
met. xnn.] soubcbs op munictpal law. * 5S8
upwards of three millions of verses, (J) detached from the writ-
iDgs of the s^es, which it was necessary to read and understand
ill order to make th,e selections. The size of these volumes, and
tlie exact quantity of matter in these verses, we cannot ascer-
tain, (c) It is, however, a fact beyond all doubt, that the stnte
of the Roman law rendered a revision indispensable. Justinian
himself assures us (d) that it lay in such great confusion, and was
of such infinite extent, as to be beyond the power of any human
capacity to digest.
6. Jtuttnian. — " The compilations made under Justinian, * 538
and which constitute the existing body of the civil law,
consist of the following works, and which I shall mention in the
order in which they were originally published.
W-* Code. — The Code, in twelve books, is a collection of all
the imperial statutes diat were thought worth preserving, from
Hadrian to Justinian. In the revision of them, the direction
to Tribonian, and bis nine learned associates, was, that they
should extract a series of plain and concise laws, omitting the
preambles, and all other superfluous matter ; and they were like-
wise intrusted with the great and hazardous power to extend, or
limit, or alter the sense, in saoh a manner as they should think
most likely to facilitate their future nse and operation, (a)
Mia In$tituU$. — The Institntes, or Elements of the Roman
Law, in four books, were collected by Tribonian and two asso-
oiates. They contain the fundamental principles of the ancient
law in a small body, for the use and benefit of students at law.
This work was particularly adapted to the use of the law schools
at Berytus, Rome, and ConstanHnople, which flourished in that
age, and shed great lustre on the Roman jurisprudence. (() It is
such an admirable compendium of the elements of the civil law,
that it has in modem times passed through numerous editions,
(ft) Dno pene tnillit Ubronim eue conicripU, et pint qwun tnoentleai decern
milliK venaom a vateribui eSiua. Secanil. Pnaf. Dig. mo. 1.
(c) PrafesBor Hugo, Id hti Hlitoiy of the Bodud L«<t, mc 818, ndncca hf com
pDUtlon the Boman laws to 680 toIoium, of a modeiate lue. He allowi 24 of the
Uiree milUoni of Tenei to a page, and 400 pagei to a ToInnM. The 9000 bocAa,
jodging from the booki in the Pandect^ will glre onl^ SSO Toliunei. Thi< reaaon-
ible eatimate take* awaj ereiy appMnnce of dw maTTeUoni from the magnitude of
the Booian law.
(rf) Prima Prnf. Dig. mc. 1.
[a) Prima Pivf. Cod. mc. S.
(I) Jiutinian had forbidden all tdiook of law but the three mentkmed tn die texfc
▼oi. I.— 46 [706]
;abyG00<^lc
*539 BODBCES OF HUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT m.
and received the most copious and laborioos illnstrations. It has
lieen a model, by reason of its scientific and orderly arrangement,
for every modem digest of municipal law. The Institutes were
compiled chiefly from the writings of Goius ; and a discovery by
M. Niebuhr, so late as 1816, of a rewritten manuscript of the
entire Institutions of Gains has given increased interest to the
InsUtutes of Justinian, (c)
•539 * Hit Pandects. — The Digest, or Pimdeots, is a vBrt
abridgment, in fifty books, of the deuiKioiia of prtetora,
and the writings and opinions of the ancient sages of the law.
This is the work which has principally' excited the study and
reflectionB and commentaries of succeeding ages. It is supposed
to contain the embodied wisdom of the Roman people in civil
jurisprudence for near 1200 years ; and the European world has
ever since had recourse to it for authority and direction upon
public law, and for the exposition of the principles of natural
justice. The most authentic and interesting infonnataon con-
cerntDg the compilation of the Pandects is to be found in the
ordinances of Justinian, prefixed, by way of prefaces, to the work
itself.
In the first ordinance addressed by Justinian to his quastor
Tribonian, he directs him and his associates to read and correct
the books which had been written by authority upon the Roman
law, and to extract from them a body of jurisprudence in which
there should be no two laws contradictory or alike, and that the col-
lection should be a aabstitute for all former works ; that the
compilation should be made in fifty books, and digested apon the
(c) See an acconnt of that iiacoverj in N. A. Benew for April, IBSl. The Inati-
tntei of Qaiui are the prototjpe of Jiutinlan'i lutltntei. They were diicorered Vj
Niebohr, the hiitorikD, ia 1816, in the Cathedna Ubnu? at Terooa. The maan-
■flcript was ■ eedex ntcn'ptia, and Id 63 out al 261 pages ttenw I'agi'iytM. The ongi-
nal text had, during the dark agea, been obliterated for other matter, irtiich. In IM
turn, was anpplanted by the Epiitlea of St. Jerome. The original work waa re-
■tored to the world hj the ikill and persererance of Profeaion Goachen, Bekker,
and Hollweg, of Berlin, who, upon Niebuhr'i report, went to Verona. The work
appeared for the flnt ^me in 1820. It awakened renewed naJ, bordaing on cnthn-
■laaiii. Id Oerinany, for the itndy of the ciril law. It led to diasertatioiia fmiu erei;
quarter ; and M. Boulet, in the preface to his French tranilalioo of Gaini'a Inithiitea,
t»y that no work ever produced a more remukable rertrintlon In the itodT- of the
Koman law. Inititutei de Gaini, par J. B. E. Boulet, Pref. ProfeMor Hngo make*
great nte of the Inatitntea of Qii'OM, aa ihedding new and bright light on taaaj
branchea of the dvU law. See BiattHre dn Drmt Romain, par O. Hugo, aec 32B;
D.qilizMbyG001^lc
LBCT. XXIII.} BODBCEa OP MDNICIPAL LAW. » 641
plan of the perpetual edict, and contain uU that is worth having
ill the Roman law for the preceding 1400 ^'eaiis, no that, it
might * hereafter be regarded aa the temple and sanctuary * 540
of justice. He directed that the selection be made ^om
the oiviliaoB, and the lawa then in force, with aach discretion and
sagacity as to produce in the result a perfect and immortal work.
And, in the anticipation of the result, he declared that no com-
mentaries were to be made upon the digest, as it had been found
that the contradictious of expositors had disturbed the whole
body of the ancient law.
In about three yeara after the publicatioQ of this first ordi-
nance, Justinian issued another upon the completion of the work.
In the latter ordinance, addressed to the senate and people, he
declared that he bad reduced the jurisprudence of the empire
within reasonable limits, and within the power of all persons to
possess at a moderate price, and without the necessity of expend-
ing a fortune in acquiring useless volumes of law. He stated
that, in the compilation of the Pandects, Tribonian and bis asso-
ciates had drawn from authors of such antiquity that their names
were unknown to the learned of that age. If defects should be
discovered, recourse must be had to the emperor ; and he pointedly
prohibited all persona to have any further recourse to the ancient
laws, or to institute any comparisons between them and the new
compilation. And to prevent the system from being disfigured
and disordered by the glosses of interpreters, he declared that no
citations were to be made &om any other books than the Insti-
tutes, the Pandects, and the Code ; and that no commentaries
were to he made upon them, upon pain of being subjected to
the charge of the crimen fain, and to have the commentaries
destroyed.
The Pandects are supposed to have been compiled with too
much haste, and they were very defective in precision and
methodical arrangement. The empeior allowed ten years, and
Tribonian and his sixteen colleagues finished the work in three
years. It is said that the Pandects were composed of the writings
of forty civilians, the principal part of whom lived under the
latter Ceesars, and the doctrines only, and not the names
of the more ancient sages, were 'preserved, (a) If the *541
(a) Frofewor Hugo conclndet that the compUerg of the PandecU bad aerer wen
the ortglDal wridngi of Madtu 8ca*ola, though tbej are referred to aa if they bad
p07]
sObyGoOl^lc
*6i2 aODBCEB OF MUNICIPAL LAV. [EaBT III.
wuik Lull beea executed with the care aad leisure that Jua-
tiaiaii iutended, it would have been ao incomparable mona-
ment of human wisdooL There are, as it is, in the compilation,
a great many contradictory doctrines and opinions on the same
subject, and too much of that very uncertainty which Justinian
was so solicitous to avoid. But with all its errors and imper-
fections, the Pandects are the greatest repository of sound legal
principles, applied to the private rights and business of mankind,
that has ever appeared in any ^e or nation. Justinian has
given it the venerable appellation of the temple of human jostice.
The excellent doctrines and the enlightened equity which per-
vade the work were derived from the ancient sages, who were
generally men of distinguished patriotism, and sustained the most
unblemished character, and had frequently been advanced to the
highest offioee in the administration of the government. The
namee of Gains, Sctevola, Papinian, Ulpian, Paolus, and Modes-
tiniiB may be selected from a multitude of oivilians, as models of
exalted virtue, and of the most cultivated reason and philo8(q>hy,
drawn from the precepts and examples of freer and better ages.
It is owing to their writings that the civil law, for the purity and
vigor of its style, almost rivals the productions of the Augustan
age. (J)
*542 " Hi$ Novels. — The Novels of Justinian are a collec-
tion of new imperial statutes, which coniititute a part of
the body of the civil law. These ordinances wei-e passed sub-
sequent to the date of the Code, and had been required iu the
course of .a long reign and by the exigenoim of succeeding times.
They were made to supply the omissions and correct the errors
of the preceding publications ; and they are said, by competent
judges, to show the declining taste of the age, and to want mach
of that brevity, dignity, perspicuity, and elegance which distin-
tetHj b«eD reftd and coiunlted. Hiat. da Droit Bom. tec S20. He Ii further of
opinloD that the merit of the order irhich is so visible in the cinl lair i> to be attrib'
nled to Serrlui Salpidiu, the friend of Cicero. lb. lec. 3SU. In the jvefaee to
Folhier't Paodecla, the nomber of JuriieoainlU vhoM writingi were emplo7ed in
tlie compilatton of the Pindecta, »r uAott opintnu art dttan njemd to, amoiiDts to
ninetf-two, ood iketchet at Ibeir Uiea ore gireQ.
(b) According to Honimel, a wrlt^ dted hy Profenor Hugo, of the 1800 pages
of which the PkndecCa are coiupoaed, 800 wne taken from the writiDgi of Ulpiao,
300 from Faoliu, 100 from Papiuiao, 90 from Jaliao, 78 from ScbtoIa, 72 from
FompoDius, 70 from Qaiiu, 41 from Modeatlniu, ud m on to oth^ diiliua of ]em
note in ^mlniihed proportiona.
[708]
50byGoO>^lc
LECT. XZIII.] SODSCES 0? MUNICIPAL LAW. *'548
guiebed the juridical compositions of the ancients. Some of these
novels are of great utility, and particularly the llSth novel,
which is the groundwork of the English and American statutes
of distribution of intestates' effects, (a) The Institutes, Code,
and PandectB were afterwards translated into Greek, and the
Novels were generally composed in that language, which had
become the vernacular tongue of the eastern empire; and, as
evidence of the universality of that tongue, Justinian declared
that one of his constitutions was composed in the Greek language,
for the benefit of all nations. (&)
7. Lou of the civU Ziair. — When the body of the civil law, as
contained in the Institutes, the Pandects, and the Code, was rati-
fied and confirmed by Justinian, it became exclusively the law of
the land; and the various texts from which the compilation was
made fell speedily into oblivion; and all of them except the
Theodoeian Code, and fragments of the other parts, disap-
peared * in the wreck of the empire.(a)(a:) The great * 648
(<i) Sir William BlBckrtone, (kaam, ii S10, dou not seem willing to kdmit that
the lUtute of diatribntiona was taken from the civil law ; but when Lord Holt and
Sir Joeeph JekjU declare (1 P. Wmt. 27 ; Prec. in Chan. 608) that ibe ttatute was
peuned by a civilian, and ia to be goTemed and conetrued by the TqIm of [be dvil
la«, and when we compare the proviaiona in the Engliah atatute with the Boman
noTel, ths conclnmon^eemi to be very &ur and very strong that the oat was borrowed
tawntially from the other.
(A) Inat. 3. S. S. The Latin language, in the time of Jnatiuian, waa tlie official lan-
guage, but it WB« spoken only by a mull portion of the iatiabitanta, and the bmgnage
of the Chnrch and of literature was Greek.
(a) Potbier, in Ms pi«fac« to hia Pandectte Jnstinianea, has given a rapid view
of the Frogresa of the Boman jurisprudence, from the Jus Civile Papyriaoum, under
TarquiniDs Priacu«, to the time of JuBtinian, and an intareating sketch of the aeriea
of Roman lawyem. from the earliest notice of them far be^nd the age of Cicero, down
to the compilation of the Pandects. And notwithstanding the efforts of Justinian to
BOpersede and destroy the admirable maturisls of the civil law, from which he waa on-
abled to erect the spleudid and erer-endaring moDODMnt of hia reign, yet fnmi the
remniaa of the works of the civilians thera has been compiled the Jus Civile Antcija*-
tinianeum, which is a collection of grut interest and can«nej on the continent of
Europe. It has now received an addition of the utmost value in the newly ditoovend
InstitntionB of (raiua,
(x) The law books iaaaed at Cenitanti- in all the civjliMd ooantrie* of the «arid
BOple by Justinian for the lands Bumnnd- iBtheBineteentkoentarj- "We in England
ing the BasterB half of the If KlitctTaaean do not stand in the aame close and dinet
9ea, in the beginning of the sixth centniy connection with theim that our contbental
ofasr a>, aiedirectly orindirectly alarge, neighborsdo. No part of the Digest or
«r evn tfce priodpiJ, mmico of private law Code li law wltk oa, or Is mw of Him*
[T«9]
sObyGoOl^lc
*543 SOURCES OF MUNICIPAL LAW. [PABT III.
work itself was is danger of being involved in the general
destruction which attended the irruption of the northern bar-
tbtm iUostiatlTe or cobobI. bearing oa the tended for Uie Romui robjects of the Bnr-
decisioDB of onr courts. But partly tbrongh gnndiiui Empire. — This Boann I«w,
the early Uw-mriten, much more through ante-Justin iaueiui in chancter, and mach
the Cbaocellor'i jarifdiction, and partly, altered in the differeot collectioni, wai the
perhaps in an iDcreaiing degree, throagh only aonrce which could modify, bj
iotercDurse with other nations and through Bomaniziiig, the SalOD InititDtiona. Ths
literary and professioiud training, the compariBOn, uutil the twelttb eenbuy, is
Romui law has materially helped, and ia not with the Corpua Juris of Justiniui,
still helping, to form our rules for the hat with amnch matilat^d code of earlier
business of life." Boby'a IntrDdaction to dale, largely added to from bubariaii
Juatinian, p. xr. sources. The Rinnan Iaw aeGms nerer to
Prior to Justinian's rompilatious (G66 have been very popular among the early
A. D.)"the only systematic coUeotionH Western Nations." Scrutton's Roman Law
were the CocHea OrtgananM* and Benao- va England, p. 10. See also, upon the
gemataa, both compiled about a. d. 460, Romano. Barbarian Codes, Huiihead's Bo-
and the CotUx TKeodotimuu, published in man Law, p. 397. Hr. Scnitton further
A. D. 488 ; and these, besides beinft pub- «ayB (p. 18 ) : " The earliest Teutonic dvil
lished after the Roman legions hod left procedure is purely eiecutiTe. There is no
Britain, only extended in opera tiou over trace Id Aoglo-Sajon nonrcea of any period
the Eastern Em}nre. This, the Juatinian- of usocapiaa, or adTena possessiou giv-
ean oody of Uw, appears to have had no ing ownership or protection from actiona.
force in Western Europe, and indeed, with The first trace of each an inatitution ia in
the exception of a partial and temporary the Laws of the Congoeror. Anglo-Saxon
applicstioQ in Italy, to hare been almost procedure, civil or criminal, owes nothing
unknown until the revival of its study in its origia to the Roman Law, and is
hr the Bolognese ' Iaw School about the but slightly infiuenced in ita development,
year 1150. The collections of law in the The inlrodnction of chorteis and writing*
Western Empire, which was overrun by as modes of proof is clerical, and probably
Ooths, Vandds and Hans, vrete as fol- Roman." (p. fl7.) "Jastinianean L«w
Xovx : — I. The Editttitii TheodorUi, issued waa almost onkoowD in the Western
at Rome a. d. GOO, and imposed on the Empire until the teaching of the Iaw
conquered Romans, and conquering Oiitro- School at Bologna in the twelfth ccntaiy
goths. Though this was derived almost brought it into prominence," (p. 152.)
entirely from the Roman I«w, and eape- " While the judges of the Common Law
cially from the Cviex Theodonaniu, the CoartH after the fourteenth century recog-
sources were used so arbitnmly and with nized no authority in the Civil I««, and
such freedom, that the character of the the English people were led by the finan-
Boman Law can scarcely be traced in cisl exactions of the Papal Coort, and the
them. — II. The Breciarium Alariaaium, controveraiee of the Reformation, to regard
current among the Visigoths ; pnbliahed with suspicion and dislike everything
in 608 by Alaric, and also derived, with savoring of Some, three important courta
modifications, from Roman sourcea. — III. in the Kingdom were largely inHnenccd
The Ltx Bomcma Burgundiarum, pub- by the Civil Law, if their prooedoie waa
lished between the years 617-684 i and not entirely derived from it. Theaa ware
la^y cominled from Boman Uw ; in- the Court of Chanoerj, the Coort at
[710]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. XXIII.] 80UBCES OP M0inaPAL LAV. * 548
barians into the southern provinces of Europe. The civil lav
maintained its ground a long time at Ravenna, and in the Illyrian
Adininltf, and tha EccUsUatic&l Conrtc and Sooth America, the Spaaish laws
The CoQitof the Coiutabk and Harahat were tnuuported \o the newly discovered
•1m proceeded according to the (^vii Law ; coaatries, where, upon their llirowing off
Mid Duck also slates that the UniTeniitiea the Spanieh joke, the civil law of Spain
ofOxfordandCambridgeprocesdedaccord- with its Boman ingredients retnaiued aa
ing to the civil law, though these are of an important element In their colonial
■mall importance." (p. 163.) As to eettlementa in India, Java, aud Japan,
Bucb part of the jurisdiction of the eccled- the Dutch organised local goTemmente,
astioal conrts as related to the English and their laws became introduced into the
Cfanrch, " the separation of the civil and East, the most important example being
clerical coorta under William I. ensured the Dutch laws of Ceylon, which con-
for the latter a pecnliarlj Soman and ca- tuned a large Bomao element. Although
Qonical law sad procednra." the French lost their posseeBions in North
The revival of letters in the fifteenth America, a deposit of French civil law re-
century led to a revival of the study matned in the customary law of Lower
of Roman law in the sixteenth. The Canada, and also in Louisiana, whose code
Corpus juris drilis was never published of 1824 is regarded by many aa the moat
in Germany aa a law binding on that &ithfui and sjetematic compendium of
country -, only such of its provioionB are the modern civil law. Horey's Oatlinea
there in force aa have been actually re- of Bomau Law, 210.
ceived by usage, sod thwe provisions only In an excellent article on "TheKoman
snlgect to mch modifications ss have been Iaw in Legal Education," 51 Albany L.
imposed upon them in actual use. Sohm's J. 183, Hr. John J. Dolan says in part
Institutes, pp. ivii, xxii. and in substance : Tlie victory of feu-
" In Scotland the Bomsn Uw wss much dalism in England did much to place the
more bvorebly received than it was in common law at variance with the Bonian
England. In consequence of the close Jurieconanlts ; and by a historic accident
alliance that so long luhsisted with the contest of English laymen fiir sDprem-
France, Scotland borrowed many of its scy over the ecclniastica led to a violent
institutions fivm that country, beeidee and ill-founded hatred of the very name
importing a large portion of Roman juria- of Roman law. But ss this untessoning
prudence to mshe up the deficiencies of a prejudice is fast dissolving, of recent yeara
municipal law, long, crude and imperfect, in England then has been a growing re-
and which bad made little progress aa a gard for the civil law, fostered largely by
national system till some time after the the eminent civilians, Brice snd Msine.
astablishment of the Court of Session in None of the great nations, says Markby
1532. ... All the beat writera on the (Elements of Lsw, § 85), founded on the
law of Scotland, such as Stair, Bankton, continent oF western Enrope after the
Eiskiue, and Bell, were able dvilians." fall of the Roman empire has constructed
Haokende's Roman Law (6tb ed.], pp. an independent legal system of its own.
43, 48. Trance, Italy, Austria, Oennany, Holland,
European civilization hss been extended and Spain, have each adopted the Soman
abr by coloni»tion. Following the ex- law as their general or common law, and
teniiTS discoveries and enterpriaea of Spain have only departed from it so hr aa particn.
in tlie East and West Indies, in Mexico tar occasions might require. Every gap not
[711]
50byGoO>^lc
* 543 BODBCIS OF VDNiaPAL LAV. [PABT m.
borders; but all Ital; passed at lengOi under the lavs, as well
as under tiie yoke of the barbarians; belluinoB atque ferinaa im-
manetque Longohardorum leges accepit. (i) There was but one
circumstance that could give anything like compensation to the
inhabitants of Eu'rope for the absence or silence of the civil lav,
duriug the violence and confusion of the feudal ages; but that
circumBtance was the redeeming spirit of civil and political
liberty which pervaded the Gothic institutions, and tempered
the fierceness of military governments, by the bold outlines
and rough sketches of popular representation. <e) It was an
{h\ GniTiiia, de Ortn et Prog. Jar. Cir. tee. 139. The law Nbool st Borne wu
bMwfeired to BaTsima, where it existed even in the 11th cantmy, ami wm tlMS
ramoTed to Bologna.
(e) The German natiDDt trere anociatioiu of fiMUieii prior to tiieir iiiTaaioii of
the Somao empire, and their gorimments vers mixed, ot limited *xA eleetiTe mon-
archies, which oontiDDed to eiiit for a timr^ even after iJuj had establithed th«n-
telfea bj coiiqiie«t in the Boman proriucee. All the Qotbk govenuDenta in Earqi^
whether in Germany, Denmark, FVance, Spain, or England, were originallj nnder
the control of popnlar auemUiea, or nadouitl connciU of die aiiltocntic dan, which
g8*e their UMOt to lawa, and were the bams of all lawful Bnthoii^.(z) [FrMman'a
Growth of the English Cooatitntion.]
filled ap bjr ■peeid legiilaticin, or speciallj everj Oennan, and which wm mainlj
recogniied ciutom, has been ropplied from occupied with qoeetions affecting the
the Boman law, and eTeo modem codes pablic peace, dealt only to a very limited
largely contain only the ideai of the ear- extant with mnnicipal law ; but the tribal
^ui juria in a nineteenth century dreea. systenu of law, which were net niuneivaa.
The law of obligationi (contnictB and then eeparetely pterailed in extenalv*
delicts), ofthe theory of poeaeaaios, of the territorlea, — in the North, the Friiiaa
natnial modee of acqnixltion of property and the Saxon ; in the middle, the Thnria-
by occnpnncj, acceeaian, apecificatiou, ia gian and the Franhish ; in the Sonth, tha
taken entirely ftom the ciTil law. As Alamannith and the Bavarian. But after
early Engliah law waa ohiefiy a law of the thirteenth ceatnry, these few tribal
real estate, commercial rolae and prin- systems were sncceeded by the pecnliar
dplM, aa they rose into importanoe, were national or "atate" law prevailing in each
developed from the dvil law. Trial by of abont 200 little state* consiBting of
jnry, the challenge and the compulaory princes, eonnts of the emptn, and im-
nnenirnity of jurora have cloae anali^es nerial cities ; and confusion resnlted baa
in the Soman law; and from the civil the ovei^lapping of thne new anthni-
law were also derived many oommon-law ties and of the old tribal while prince^
writs, much of onr prasent technical asaociationa, leagnes, parishes, and oob<
pbrsaeology, and all those common-law mnnea, each added their own mlaa. Ba-
niaxiiiH which are not restricted to feodal eontae was had ta the BiMDaa law sa the
inatitntionB. common law of the oonntiy only whcai the
(ie) In the esriy German Empire, the "atate" law En[^4ied no ptindpls by
imparial legialation, which waa binding on which the qnestion eoald be aolnd, Htd
[712]
sObyGoOl^lc
LBCT. ZXIII.] BOVBCEa OF MtJinGIPAL U.W. *545
indelible and foul blot on •the character of the civil •644
lav as digested under Justinian, that it expressly avowed
and inculcated the doctrine of the absolnte power of the emperor,
and that all the right and power of the Roman people were trans-
ferred to him. (a) This had not till then been the language of
the Boman laws; and Oravina, with much indignation, chaises
the introductioD of the Ux regia to the fraud and servility of
Tribonian. (Jb) Be that as it may, the claim of despotism became
afterwuda a constatatioosl principle of imperial, legislation.
8. ita RstIvkL — It has been made a question, whether the
Pandecta were for many a^s so entirely lost to the western parte
of Europe as has been generally supposed. (0) It is certain,
however, that about the time of &e assumed discovery or
exhibition fA a "complete copy of &em at Amalphi, in •MS
{a) Inst. 1. 2. S ; Priina FraC Dig. sec 7 ; Secnnd. Pr«f. Dig. mc. 18, 21 ; Dig.
1. 4. 1 ; Code, 1. 14. 12 ; Dig. S2. 1. 28.
(6) Db Bddiuio Imperio, tM. 33, 24. Ur. Qibbon, in his Histoir, riii. 17, 18,
■Bems to think th>t Itx regia wu enated b7 the (siiejr of Ulpfnu, or, more piofaabi;,
of Triboniaii himself. The Ux rigia, as mentioned in the Fudeots, I, tit. 4 d*
eoniUlulioiiibai prinapttm, lib. 1, end in the lostilote*, 1. 2. S, declnnis: Qnod
prind^ pVMDit legfs hsbet vigorem ; ntpote cam lags regis qius de imperio tijiu lata
est, popnlua el, et in enin omne sunm imperiam et poteatatem confsrat Selden, in his
diiaeitatioa annexed to Fleta, c S, sac. 8, 3, 4, disenaaes the chanuner of tiie Iw
rtgia ; and ha says it is evident that it stripped the people of all lagisl&tire power i
and he plaeaa the origin of it baek to tha time of Angastns Cnsar, when the Bomaa
people transferred all thsir power and authority to him. In the Institatta of Oeint,
leeentlj discovered, it i« affirmed that the lex rtgia was not an interpolation by Tri-
bonian, bnt was a law aotnaUy passed ute vnqvam dttbilatHm at gain id (eoniMtalte
prine^) Ug%» mtem oMntat'eum ijut io^trator ptr Itgtm imperium atapiat. Oai.
Instit. Com. lib. 1, sec. 6. But Hugo, in his Hiit. da Droit Bom. aeo. 377, considKi
the question on the origin of this law as stiU wtapped in impenetnlile darkness.
(«) The nDiveitity of Bok^na bad its professora of the eivil law, and the Pandeeta
ware the subjects of legal studies there and elbewhare, prior to the era of the diacomy
of the Florentine copy of them at Atuslphi, about the year 1185.
the extant to which Roman doctrines wars Holland, and Bnssian Poland, and of the
thus ^tplied, varied greatly in the dif- Qrand Dnchy of Berg, and similsi codes
fereat states. See Professor D^n's article, have been adopted in Hayti, the Ionian
tisnslated in 2 Jur. Rev. 16. T«1»nH«^ Tjniifjum^ ««■< jMnptjinnf |li« flwJM
The Code Ifapoleau (tS07), which was eantona. It has teen adopted in Wallaefala
based on pre-existing Oermanio onstomary and in Moldavia, and also in Tnikey, m
< laws, and the fiomau law, to tha uclnaion fcr as It is not ineoiuistent iritb local
of feudal law, and whidi was qnite gensT' eastoms snd tha pvcepts of tiie Koran.
aQy the haw of the EaropeMi Codes natU See addreas oT Hon. IT. M. Boae, 85 Albany
Nspoleon'a tall, has oontinned snbatan- L. J. 440, and Senator Dolph'a addiea^
tiallyinfon!elnBelgiaia,apartofBadsB, «S Id. 41
[118]
50byGoO>^lc
* 545 soDBCsa op hiinicipal lit. [pabt to.
Italy, near the middle of the twelfth century the study of the
civil law revived throughout Italy and western Europe with sur-
prising ardor and rapidity. The impression which the science (tf
law, in so perfect a state of cultivation, made upon the progress of
society, and the usages of the feudal jurisprudence, was sadden
and immense, (a) In defiance of the command of Justinian to
abstain from all notes or comments upon his laws, the civil law,
on its revival, was not only publicly taught in most of the uni-
versities of Europe, but it was overl(»ded wiQi the commentaries
of civiliaua. From among the number of distinguished names, I
would respectfully select Vinnius on the Institutes, Voet on tiie
Pandects, and Perezius on the Code, together with the treatises
on the civil law which abound in the works of Bynkershoek,
Heineccius, and Pothler, as affording a mass of instmction and
criticism moat worthy of the attention and diligent examination
of the student, (b)
The civil law had followed ihe progress of the Roman power
into ancient Britain, and it was administered there by such an
illustrious pmtorian prefect as Fapinian; and Selden thinks he
was* also assisted by Faulus and Ulpian.(c) After the Roman
(a) Esprit dn Loit, liv. 28, c. 42. The oiiguial copy of Uis Pandects, sappoted
to have beta fonnd at Amalphi, has always been h«ld ia profomid TCDeratioD. It
wu carried to Pisa, and from thence lemoved to Florencs, and vigiUiitly goaided.
This celebrated numtucript repoeee at this dsy in the Lorenio-MediceaQ Library.
{b) Since the beginning of the present eentary, a new historical school of the dvQ
law haa bean Institatod in Qermany, which, in the opinion of eotne writen, haa qnita
cast into the shade tbe illnstrioDs jntiseonralls of the 18th eentary. Amoog the
moat eminent of this new school may be placed tbe names of Hugo, Sangny, Niebnhr,
Eichhom, Hanbold, &c., who have made profomid researches into the antiqaitiea of
the Roman law, as well prior to the time of the deoemvirs as during the feQdU sgea.
They have undoubtedly enriched the science with acnte and searehing criticism, and
enlarged and philosophical views, which shed light npon the character, wisdom, and
spirit of the more ancient institnUone. Bat I cannot bat be of opinion (though witJi
much deference) that tbe importance of the new Germanic school, as conttadistin-
goished from that of tbe old profeesora, ii greatly exaggerated ; and that the InsdtDtea
and Pandects of Jnstinian, with the commentariee and wiitiiigi of Toet, Vinnina,
HeinecciQB, Pothier, and other iUnstrions civilians of the old school, Ikimish qnito as
mneh matter for reflection and osefiil appUcatioD as the American atodent of oni
own common law can well attend to, and at the same time become a thorough master of
his profession. It is said that Savigny baa in conne of pnblicatton a large woil: on
the Pandects, in which he goes over the wide field of the Boman law. 8nch a work,
and from so distingnisbed ■ scholar and jurist, will nndonbtedly be of eminent otiJity,
and a greet improvement on the commentariea of the old civiliana to iriiam I hav«
alluded.
(e) Selden'e DissertAlio ad Fletam, c 1, sec. S.
[TU]
sObyGoOl^lc
LECT. ZXm.] BOUBCSS OF UUNICIPAL LAW. * 546
joriBprudence had been expelled b; the arms of the northern
barbarians, and supplanted by the crude inatitutiona of the Anglo-
Saxons, it was again introduced into the island, upon the recovery
of the Pandects, and taught, in the first instance, with the same
zeal as on the continent.
But the rivalship and even hostility vhich soon afterwards
arose between the civil and common law, between the two uni-
versities and the law schools or colleges at Westminster,
between the clergy and laity, tended to check the * prog- * 546
ress of the system in England, and to confine its influence
to those courts which were under the more immediate superin-
tendence of the clci^y. (a) The ecclesiastical courts and the
Court of Chancery accordingly adopted the canon and Roman
law ; and the Court of Admiralty, which was constituted about
the time of Edward I., also supplied the defects of the laws of
Oteron from the civil law, which was generally applied to fill up
the chasms that appeared in any of the municipal institutions of
the modern European nations, (b) A national prejudice was early
formed against the civil law, and it was too much cultivated by
English lawyers. Lord Coke mentions, by way of reproach, that
William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, in the reign of Henry VI.,
endeavored to bring in the civil law, which gave occasion to Sir
John Fortescue to write his work in praise of the English law;
and the same charge was made one of the articles of impeach-
ment against Cardinal Wolsey.(c) But the more liberal spirit
of modem times has justly appreciated the intrinsic merit of the
Koman system. Sir Matthew Hale, according to the account of
Bishop Burnet, (d) frequently said, that the true grounds and
reasons of law were so well delivered in the Digest, that a man
could never well understand law as a science without first resort-
ing to the Koman law for information, and he lamented that it
was so little studied in England. And in Lane v. Cotton (e) that
strict English lawyer, Lord Holt, admitted that the laws of all
nations were raised out of the ruins of the civil law, and that the
(a) Bbckit Comm. i, Introdnotoiy Lectare ; Keeves's HiatoT7 of tbe Eogliah Law,
L Bl, S2 ; Hillsr'a Hiatoriod Tisw of the Engliih OoTBrnnwDt, b. 2, c. 7, wc S.
(i) I BevTte'a Hut IBS. [Bnt iae Notua b. HeudBtsoD, L. R. 7 Q. B. 22S, 233.] .
(e) S Inat 208.
(d) Lifa of Sir H. HbIb, 34.
(>) 12 Hod. U2.
[7161
;abyG00<^lc
* &48 BODBCis OP mnnciPAL liw. [pabt m.
Uftine'i Aneunt L*w, and the du^tera AmxitK. A good ahoit one is Bclieiiri's
on Bonuui Law in Aattin on Joiufvii- LikrbvxK der Jnitttvt^ uid Heinecciiu'm
deuce, no all famoiui ud ill fiill oT U^t. RtcUatvma u still very TtlnaUe. The
Among the bat '"«""«l^ of the law are beat biitor; ia said to be the German one
Ortolan's £zpticiilim Hi^orijtte det Jn- of Walter. Other Qennan works of repa*
tttttU$ dc TEmperevr JtuU^iMi, and De- tatioo are 'Wiadseheid'a Pa>tdtkU» and
Uangaaf a Omn SUmattain da Avtl Iherin^a Ler 0n« dl* SOtutAm Bldtit.
[718]
BMD OP VOL. L
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
sObyGoOl^lc
3 6105 043 M1 179
JITY LAW LIBRAH
I
sObyGoOl^lc
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11