Foreign vessels Law of nations. Foreign minis ter. Law of nations. Treaty. Alien. Treaty. By the common law, no such lien was given either upon domestic or foreign vessel; but the civil law gave it u pon both. Id. 453-Zane v. Brig President, C C. Penn. 1824. 351. Upon an indictment, under the 27 § of the act of 1789, for punishment of certain crimes, for assault and battery on a foreign minister, it is immaterial whether the defendant knew that the person assaulted was a foreign minister. 4 Washington C. C. Reports. 537-United States v Ortega. C. C. Pennsylvania, 1825-2 Washington, C. C. Rp. 209, 210United States v. Liddle, S. P., C. C. Penn. 1803. S52. If the person committing an assault on a foreign minister, be ignorant of the character of the person assaulted, it is not an offence against the law of nations. 2 Washington C. C. Reports 209, 210-U. S. v. Liddle, 1808. 355. A state law inconsistent with a subsequent treaty is void. The alienage of the Plaintiffs in Ejectment who were British subjects, is no bar to the recovery of lands held by their ancestor at the time of the treaty of 1794. 1 Paine's Reports 55-Fisher v. Harden C. C. New York, 1812. 354. Under the 2d art. of the British Treaty of 1794, the British treaty. the precints and jurisdiction of a post are not to be considered as extending 3 miles in every direction, by analogy to the jurisdiction of a country over its surrounding coasts; but they must be made out by proof. The clause in that article which provides that settlers within such precincts shall be protected in the enjoyment of their property, as well as the 9th article, was intended to protect legal and equitable interests in land; and not trespassers and intruders without right, Id. 457—Jackson v. Porter, C. C. New York, 1825. 355. The proceedings of a foreign court of vice admiralty, purporting to be under the seal of the court, and to be certified by the Registrar, and accompanied by a certificate of the American Consul, under his seal of office, that he was such Registrar, are not so authenticated as to entitle them to be read in evidence. The seal does not prove itself. Some proof aliunde is always required; either that it is the seal of the court, by a witness who knows the fact; or by proof of the hand-writing of the judge or the clerk; or by an examined copy, compared with the original in the proper office; or some other evidence of a similar character They do not alone, unaided by extrinsic evidence, carry with them such verity as to make them evidence in foreign courts. The court can attach no credit to the consular certificate. The law of nations recognizes him only in commercial transactions; but not as clothed with any authority to authenticate judicial proceedings. 1 Paine's Rep 594-Catlett v. Pacific Insurance Company C. C. New York. 1826. 1 Tyler's Rep. 366-Woodridge v. Austin, Supreme C. Vermont, 1800, contra. $56. A citizen of the United States may lawfully, during War. war with a foreign country, draw a bill on one of its subjects. Such an act does not amount to trading with the enemy. 156-United States v. Barker, C. C. New York, 1820. Trading with Id. enemy. 357 The sentence of a court of admiralty, in questions Admiralty. of prize binds all the world. One court of admiralty will sustain a libel to carry into effect the sentence of another- Foreign sen3 Dallas 86-Panhallow v. Doane. Supreme C U. S 1795. tence. 358 A belligerent vessel captured by a citizen of a neu- Neutrals. tral country, although under a commission from the enemy of Admiralty. the captured vessel, must be surrendered to the original owner. 3 Dallas, 133-Talbot v. Janson, Supreme Court, U. S. 1795. 359. Immediately on capture as prize, the captors acquire Neutrals. such a right as no neutral nation can question: neutrals are Admiralty. always bound to consider the existing state of things between Prize. the belligerents as right. 3 Dallas, 188. McDonough v. The Mary Ford. Sup. Court United States, 1796. Prize. 360. The right of seizing and bringing in a vessel for fur- Admiralty. ther examination, does not authorise or excuse any spoliation or damage done to the property. The captors proceed at their peril, and are liable for all consequent injury and loss. 3 Dallas, 333-Del Col v. Arnold, Sup. Court United States, 1796. 561. Questions of prize are only cognizable in the courts Admiralty. of the power making the capture; and therefore our Courts Prize. can hold no jurisdiction in a case of prize litigated between the subjects of two belligerent nations, although the capture Neutrals. was made within the territorial limits of the United States. 1 Peter's Ad. decisions 12, Ship William, District Court Pa. 1793. Ib. 309-The Fanny, District Court Penn. 1793. 1 Johns. 471, Wheelwright v. Depeyster, S. P. Prize. 362. The property of a neutral is not divested by capture and Admiralty. sale by a belligerent, unless condemned as prize by a compe- Neutrals. tent court. 1 Johns. 471. Wheelwright v. Depeyster, Sup. 1 Johns. 471. Court N.F. 1806, S. P. 2 Peters. Ad. decisions, 345-District Court Pennsylvania. 1804 Prize. 363. The property of the original owner is not changed by Admiralty. capture without condemnation. 1 Cr. S2 Talbot v. Seeman. Sup. Court U S. 1801. Admiralty. Prize. Admiralty. Prize. Neutrals. Admiralty. Admiralty. Admiralty. Foreign sentence. Admiralty. Foreign sen tence. id. Foreign sen tence. 364 Prize courts proceed in rem, and cannot adjudicate on a prize lying in a foreign port, or out of the jurisdiction of the cantor or his ally. 1 Johns. 471. Wheelwright v. Depryster, Sup. Court N. F. 1806. 365. Salvage is demandable of right from vessels saved from pirates or from the enemy, but not on a re-capture made by a neutral power: the act of re-taking being a hostile act unjustified by the situation of the nation of the capturing vessel, in relation to the nation from whose possession such re-captured vessel was taken. The liberation of a clear neutral from the hands of an enemy gives no title to salvage to the re-capturing belligerent. But where the capturing power has habitually disregarded the law of nations, the re-capturing power is entitled to salvage. 1 Cranch. 1. Talbot v. Seeman, Sup Court U. S. 1801. 366. There is no positive rule which governs the rate of salvage in case of wreck. The common usage of commercial nations. however, and especially of those whose subjects are interested in the particular case, must be regarded. 2 Cranch 267, Mason v. The Blaireau, Sup Court U S. 1804. 367. If the commander of a public vessel captures a vessel on the high seas, without probable cause, which vessel is afterwards taken from him by a superior force and condemned as enemy's property, the original captor is bound to make restitution in value to the owner, with damages and costs; and the owner is not bound to resort to the recaptors. 3 Cranch, 460, Maley v. Shattuck, Sup. Court, U. S. 1806. 368. A sentence of condemnation in a foreign court of admiralty, of competent jurisdiction. cannot be called in ques tion on account of fraud practised in obtaining it, but must remain in force until avoided in some regular mode in the country where it passed. 1 Day's cases, 142. Stewart v. Warner, Sup. Court Errors. Conn. 1805. 369. The sentence of a foreign court of admiralty is not even prima facie evidence of any fact, if there appear in it enough to rebut such a presumption. 1 Caine's cases in ErrorJohnson v Ludlow XXIX. N. F. 1801. $70 But unless something suspicious appear on the face of it, it is to be deemed prima facie correct. 2 Caine's cases in Error, 110. Smith v. Williams, N. Y. 1805. 371. In an action on a policy of insurance, the sentence of a foreign court of admiralty is not conclusive on the character of the property. Id. 217. Vandenheuvel v. United Ins. Co. N. Y. 1805. 372. A sentence of a foreign court of admiralty condem- Admiralty. ning a vessel as good and lawful prize without assigning any For ign senreason, is to be considered as proceeding upon the ground of tence. its being enemy's property, and such a sentence is conclusive evidence of the breach of warranty by the assured 1 Johns. eases, 341. Goix v. Low, Sup. court, N. Y. 1800. 2 Johns, ca. 481. S. C. Court of Errors. N. F. 1802, contra, 2 Johns. case, 481, Johnston et. al. v. Ludlow, S. P. contra, in Curt of Errors. New-York, 1802. 373. Every man is bound to know the laws of his own coun- Foreign laws. try, but not the laws of foreign countries. Foreign laws can affect contracts made in this country only in two cases: 1st. Where the parties reside or trade in a foreign country. 2d, Where the contracts plainly referring to a foreign country for their execution, adopt and recognize the lex loci. 4 Dallas. 327. Searight v. Galbraith, C. C. U. S. Pennsylvania, 1796. traets. 374. Our courts will not sustain a suit on a contract between Foreign conforeigners made in a foreign country, if, by the laws of that Lex loci. country no action would be had there. 4 Dallas, 419-Conframp v. Bunel. C. C. U. S. Pennsylvania, 1806. 375. Contracts are to be construed according to the laws Lex loci. of the country in reference to which they are made, but the Foreign laws. remedy on them is to be prosecuted according to the laws of the country in which the remedy is sought. 1 Caine's Reports 412, Nash v. Tupper. Sup Court, NY. 1803. 376. Our courts do not take notice of the revenue laws of Foreign laws. foreign countries. 1 Johns. Reports, 94-Ludlow v. Van Rens selaer, Sup. Court, N. Y 1806. 377. The common law of a foreign country may be proved id. by respectable and intelligent witnesses; but foreign statutes cannot be proved by parol. Id 385-Kenny v. Clarkson, Sup, Court, N. Y. 1806. 378. All rights to personal property are to be regulated by id. the laws of the country in which the Testator lived, but the suits for those rights must be governed by the laws of that Lex loci. Country in which the tribunal is placed. 3 Cranch, 319-Dix on v. Ramsay, Sup. Court, U. S. 1806. 2 Mass. T. R. 84Pearsal v. Dwight, S. P. 1806. S Mass. T. R. 77-Powers v. Lynch, S. P. 1807. 379. A seizure, beyond the limits of the territorial juris- Law of nations. diction, for breach of a municipal regulation, is warranted by the law of nations. Court U. S. 1810. 6 Cranch, 281-Hu ison v Guestier, S. Admiralty. id. Neutrals. Blockade. Admiralty. Foreign laws. Admiralty Foreign sen tence. Evidence. Foreign law. Foreign laws. Admiralty. Foreign sen. tence. id. Jurisdiction. 580 The owner of a privateer capturing neutral property is not liable to a decree of restitution, unless the property or its proceeds came to his hands; and the property, having been libelled in a prize court, is presumed to be in the custody of its officers, unless the contrary appear. 4 Cranch, 2-Jennings v. Carson, S. C. U. S. 1807. 381 Neutral goods, bound to a blockaded port, are to be considered as contraband of war. 6 Mass. T. R. 102-Richardson v Maine Ins. Com. Sup. Court, Mass 1809 382. Notice, either actual or constructive, of the existence of a blockade, is requisite before a neutral can be deemed in delicto, or to have violated his neutral duty, by attempting to enter the port. 7 Johns. Rep. 38-Radcliff v. United Insu rance Company. S C. N. F. 1810. 583. Foreign laws and regulations respecting trade may be proved by parol, if they are not proved to be in writing as public edicts. 6 Cranch, 274-Livingston v. Md. Ins. Com. S. C. U. S. 1810. 384 A sentence of a court of admiralty is sufficient evidence of a condemnation, without showing the previous proceedings, and a copy of the sentence under the seal of the court, signed by the actuary in the absence of the registrar, accompanied by the deposition of a witness proving the seal and signature, is a sufficient authentication. 7 Johns. Rep. 514—Gardere v. The Columbia Ins. Company, S. C. N. F. 1811. 385. The Bankrupt law of a foreign country cannot transfer property in the United States. 5 Cranch, 289-Harrison v Sterry et. al. Sup. Court US 1809. 386. The lex loci contractus is to govern unless the parties, by the terms of the contract. had in view a different place. 8 Johns. Reports, 189-Thompson v. Ketchum. Sup. Court, New-York, 1811 587. If the sentence of a foreign court of admiralty, condemning a vessel for breach of blockade, state facts, which, by the law of nations, or by treaty subsisting between the countries, do not amount to a justifiable cause of condemnation, such sentence does not falsify a warranty of American property, and the parties may be let in to other evidence upon the subject 4 Cranch. 185—Fitzsimmons v. Newport Ins. Com.Sup. Court U S. 1808. 388. The constitution of a foreign court, and whether it has not exceeded its jurisdiction, are questions examinable in the Courts of this country. 4 Cranch, 241-Rose v. Himely.— Sup. Court U. S. 1808. |