record are well settled in the law of nations, and in English and American jurisprudence. Extended remarks upon the subject are, therefore, unnecessary. See Grotius, De Jure Belli, b. 3, c. 4, sect. 8; Bynkershoek, 61, c. 8; Burlamaqui, vol. ii. pt. 4, c. 5, sect. 19; Vattel, b. 3, c. 7, sect. 132; Dana's Wheaton, sect. 429 and note 208; 3 Rob. Ad. Rep. 373; 5 id. 21; The Anne, 3 Wheat. 435; La Amistad de Rues, 5 id. 385; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 id. 283, 496; The Sir William Peel, 5 Wall. 517; The Adela, 6 id. 266; 1 Kent, Com. (last ed.), pp. 112, 117, 121.

Grotius, speaking of enemies in war, says: "But that we may not kill or hurt them in a neutral country, proceeds not from any privileges attached to their persons, but from the right of the prince in whose dominions they are."

A capture in neutral waters is valid as between belligerents. Neither a belligerent owner nor an individual enemy owner can be heard to complain. But the neutral sovereign whose territory has been violated may interpose and demand reparation, and is entitled to have the captured property restored.

The latter was not done in this case because the captured vessel had been sunk and lost. It was, therefore, impossible. The libellant was not entitled to a decree in his favor, for several reasons.

The title to captured property always vests primarily in the government of the captors. The rights of individuals, where such rights exist, are the results of local law or regulations. Here, the capture was promptly disavowed by the United States. They, therefore, never had any title.

The case is one in which the judicial is bound to follow the action of the political department of the government, and is concluded by it. Phillips v. Payne, 92 U. S. 130.

These things must necessarily be so, otherwise the anomaly would be possible, that, while the government was apologizing and making reparation to avoid a foreign war, the offending officer might, through the action of its courts, fill his pockets with the fruits of the offence out of which the controversy arose. When the capture was disavowed by our government, it became for all the purposes of this case as if it had not occurred.

Lastly, the maxim, "ex turpi causa non oritur actio," applies with full force. No court will lend its aid to a party who founds his claim for redress upon an illegal act.

The Brazilian government was justified by the law of nations in demanding the return of the captured vessel and proper redress otherwise. It was due to its own character, and to the neutral position it had assumed between the belligerents in the war then in progress, to take prompt and vigorous measures in the case, as was done. The commander was condemned by the law of nations, public policy, and the ethics involved in his conduct.

Decree affirmed.

NATIONAL BANK v. HALL.

A., B., & Co., a firm engaged in selling live-stock on commission, authorized a bank to cash drafts drawn on the firm by C., their agent, who forwarded livestock to them. Some controversy arising, A., B., & Co. wrote to the bank as follows:

"JAN. 15, 1876.

"Hereafter we will pay drafts only on actual consignments. We cannot advance money a week in advance of shipment. The stock must be in transit so as to meet dr'ft same day or the day after presented to us. This letter will cancel all previous arrangement of letters of credit in reference to C."

The cashier of the bank replied as follows:

"JAN. 17, 1876.

"Your favor of the 15th received. I note what you say. We have never knowingly advanced any money to C. on stock to come in. Have always supposed it was in transit. After this we shall require ship'g bill."

There was no further communication on this subject between the parties. Two clerks of A., B., & Co. who were aware of this correspondence became partners without the knowledge of the bank, and the business was thereafter carried on in the same name. C. continued to draw on the firm as before, and the bank, without requiring bills of lading, to cash the drafts, all of which were accepted and paid by the firm. The bank acted in good faith. C. absconded with the proceeds of two drafts, and the firm brought this action against the bank to recover the amount. Held, 1. That the letters constitute no contract, and the bank is not responsible to the firm for cashing the drafts without bills of lading attached. 2. That if, however, a contract did arise from the cashier's unanswered letter of Jan. 17, 1876, it was with the then existing firm, and ceased on the subsequent change thereof by the admission of new members, without the knowledge or the consent of the bank.

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Submitted by Mr. William McFadon for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. J. A. Sleeper and Mr. J. K. Whiton for the defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action of tort growing out of a contract. The bill of exceptions is well drawn, and reflects clearly the points in issue between the parties. A brief statement of the case, as it appears in the record, will be sufficient for the purposes of this opinion.

During the years 1874, 1875, and up to April 1, 1876, a firm under the name of Hall, Patterson, & Co. had existed at Chicago. It consisted of S. Frank Hall, Frank D. Patterson, and Augustus L. Patterson, three of the five defendants in error. Their business was selling live-stock on commission at the Chicago stock-yards. William G. Melson was their agent at Quincy. To secure consignments at that point to his principals it was frequently necessary to make advances there. Hall, Patterson, & Co. arranged with The First National Bank of Quincy to cash Melson's drafts on them for this purpose. The drafts were numerous, and were all payable at sight. Penfield was the cashier of the bank. A draft for $125 was returned to the bank unpaid. This gave rise to some controversy between the bank and the drawees, but the matter was satisfactorily adjusted. Thereafter Hall, Patterson, & Co. addressed a letter to the cashier, which was as follows:

"U. S. PENFIELD, Cashier, Quincy, Ill.:

"CHICAGO, Jan. 15, 1876.

"DEAR SIR, Hereafter we will pay drafts only on actual consignments. We cannot advance money a week in advance of shipment. The stock must be in transit so as to meet dr'ft same day or the day after presented to us. This letter will cancel all previous arrangement of letters of credit in reference to G. W. Melson. Please acknowledge receipt of this, and oblige,

"Yours respectfully,

"HALL, PATTERSON, & Co.

Penfield replied as follows:—

"QUINCY, ILL, Jan. 17, 1876.

"MESSES. HALL, PATTERSON, & Co., Chicago:

“Dear Sir, —Your favor of the 15th received. I note what you say. We have never knowingly advanced any money to Melson on stock to come in. Have always supposed it was in transit. Have always taken his word. After this we shall require ship'g bill. Very truly yours,

"U. S. PENFIELD, Cashr."

This letter closed the correspondence.

On the 1st of April, 1876, two of the defendants in error, Frazee and Greer, were added as partners to the firm of Hall, Patterson, & Co., as it had before existed. They had previously been employed as clerks, and knew of the writing of the letter to Penfield of the 17th of January, 1876. The new firm continued to do business under the name of Hall, Patterson, & Co., until after this suit was commenced. Melson acted as the agent of the new firm as he had acted for the old one. Between the 1st of April, 1876, and the happening of the loss out of which this controversy has arisen, he, as such agent, drew thirty-one drafts on his principals, amounting in the aggregate to $50,000. They were all at sight, were cashed by the bank. and were duly accepted and paid by Hall, Patterson & Co. There was no communication personally or by letter between any officer of the bank and any member of the firm, from the date of the cashier's letter of the 17th of January, 1876, until after the loss before mentioned. In the mean time, the bank was wholly ignorant of the change which had been made in the firm, and the drafts were cashed without such knowledge.

On the 7th of December, 1876, Melson drew drafts as follows:

"$2,505.

QUINCY, ILL., Dec. 7, 1876.

"Pay to the order of U. S. Penfield, Cas., twenty-five hundred and five dollars on account Jos. Hunnele 5 l'ds stock.

"W. G. MELSON.

"TO HALL, PATTERSON, & Co., Stock-yards, Chicago, Ills."

"$2,004.00.

66

QUINCY, ILLS., Dec. 7, 1876.

Pay to the order of U. S. Penfield, Cas., two thousand and four dollars on account S. C. Fooley 4 l'ds hogs and cattle.

66

"To IIALL, PATTERSON, & Co., Stock-yards, Chicago, Ills."

-
-

Both these drafts were cashed by the bank on the day of their date, and the proceeds were paid to Melson. They were taken in the usual course of business and in entire good faith. The cashier testified that by "ship'g bill," in his letter of the 17th of January, 1876, he meant bill of lading, but that no bill of landing was taken by the bank after the date of that letter, and that all Melson's drafts — being thirty-one after the 1st of April, and ten or twelve between January 17 and April 1 of that year were paid by Hall, Patterson, & Co. without bills of lading being attached, and without inquiry by the bank or its cashier concerning such securities. When the two drafts last mentioned were cashed the cashier had no knowledge whether they were drawn against stock or not. It was a rule of the bank, understood by all the stock agents doing business there, that no draft should be drawn unless the stock was in transit. Agents, when drawing, were, therefore, not usually questioned upon the subject. Their compliance with the rule was assumed by the bank. The two drafts last mentioned were indorsed and transmitted by the cashier to his correspondent in Chicago for collection. They were accepted and paid by Hall, Patterson, & Co., and the plaintiff in error received the money. No stock was forwarded by Melson. The transaction was a fraud on his part. Upon receiving the proceeds of the drafts he fled the country. He was diligently sought for, but could not be found. Hall, Patterson, & Co. brought this suit against the bank to recover the amount they had paid. A verdict and judgment were rendered in their favor in the court below, and the bank has brought the case here for review.

The bill of exceptions contains all the evidence given upon tne trial. It discloses nothing which affords the slightest ground for any imputation against the bank or its officers with respect to their good faith and fair dealing in the transaction