missory note, at least where he cannot obtain payment at law, to sue a remote endorsor in equity. Certainly, in such a case, the defendant has a right to insist on the other endorsors being made parties, but he has not done so; and, in this case, the court does not perceive that M'Clenachan is a party so material in the cause, that a decree may not properly be made without him. The decree is reversed, and the defendants directed to pay the amount of the note to the plaintiffs. The decree of the court was as follows: This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the circuit court for the county of Alexandria, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, the court is of opinion, that the decree of the said circuit court, dismissing the bill of the plaintiffs, is erroneous, and ought to be reversed; and this court doth reverse the same; and this court, proceeding to give such decree as the said circuit court ought to have given, doth decree and order, that the defendants pay to the plaintiffs the sum of 1,500 dollars, that being the amount of the note in the bill mentioned, together with interest thereon from the time the same became duc.` RIDDLE V. MA DE- DULANY v. HODGKIN. ERROR to the circuit court for the district of The endorsor note, who en Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, in an action of as- of a promissory sumpsit by the endorsee of a promissory note against dorses to give his immediate endorsor. The note, was made by credit to the Wellborn, on the 1st of January, 1806, for 200 dol- is countersecalars, payable to Hodgkin or order 120 days after redby property date, negotiable at the bank of Alexandria. On the liable upon the note, and who pledged, is not RIDDLE V. MANDE- ney had and trial, the plaintiff did not produce any evidence of a suit against the maker, nor evidence of his insolvency, but proved that the maker never was an inhabitant of the district of Columbia, but resided in Albenote, nor in an marle county, in the state of Virginia; whereupon. action for mo- the court, upon the prayer of the defendant, instructreceived, un- ed the jury that it was still necessary for the plaintiff less the plain- to prove, to the satisfaction of the jury, that he had the maker is brought suit upon the note against the maker, or insolvent, or that a suit against him would have been fruitless, that he has before he could resort to the endorsor. To which which has pro- instruction the plaintiff excepted. tiff show that brought suit ved fruitless. It is not sufficient to show of the note is process of the court. The plaintiff also excepted to the refusal of the that the maker court to instruct the jury that if they should be saoat of the tisfied by the evidence, that at the time the note was reach of the given, it was endorsed by the defendant with a view of giving credit to the maker with the plaintiff, and that it was so understood; and if they should be further satisfied by the evidence, that the maker left in the hands of the defendant funds to pay the note, or otherwise counter-secured him for becoming endorsor of the note, the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action, although the maker should not be proved to have been insolvent before the note became due. The declaration contained two counts; one upor the note, the other for money had and received. The case was submitted, without argument, to the court, who, after inspecting the record, on the next day, Affirmed the judgment, with costs. 5 YEATON YEATON v. FRY. V. FRY. blockaded port ERROR to the circuit court of the district of If the insuColumbia, in an action on the case upon a policy of rance beagainst all risks, insurance on the brig Richard, at and from Tobago blockaded to one or more ports in the West Indies, and at and ports and Hispaniola exceptfrom thence to Norfolk. The foilowing clause was ed," a vessel inserted in the body of the policy. "This insu- sailing iguorance is declared to be made against all risks, block- ratly for a aded ports and Hispaniola excepted." And at the is covered by the policy. foot of the policy was the following memorandum : The exception "Warranted by the assured free from any charge, is not of the damage or loss, which may arise in consequence of port, but of the risk of seizure or detention of the property, for or on ac- capture count of illicit or prohibited trade." breaking the blockade. Copies of the of proceedings in On the trial of the general issue, four bills exception were taken in the court below by plaintiff in error. the for the vice-admiralty court of Jamaica are almissible in evidence when of certified under court by the certified by a notary public. Depositions, taken under a commission is 1. The first was to the admission in evidence certain copies of the proceedings and decree of the the seal of the vice-admiralty court at Jamaica, ordering a sale to deputy regis pay the salvage of the brig. The copies were trar, who is certified by the authenticated by the following certificates, viz judge of the "Jamaica, ss. I, Adam Dolmage, Esq. deputy of court, who is Owsley Rowley, Esq. chief registrar and scribe of the acts, causes and businesses of the court of viceadmiralty within the said isiand, duly constituted, appointed and sworn, do hereby certify and make sued at the inknown to all whom it doth or may concern, that the stance of the defendant, several sheets of paper writing hereunto annexed, may be read in in number fifteen, and marked or numbered from evidence the plaintiff, No. 1. to No. 15. inclusive, do contain a true copy although the and transcript of certain process and proceedings, plaintiff had, moved, and prosecuted to interlocutory decree the time and in the said court, in a certain cause therein lately place of taking depending, entitled, "Brig Richard, Jacobs, mas- A vessel sailter." In which cause Benjamin Jacobs hath duly ing ignorantly by had not notice of the same. YEATON V. FRY. filed his claim thereto in the said court; and I fur ther certify, that I have carefully compared and examined the same with the originals remaining of to a blockaded record in my office. port, is not fiable to cap ture under the "In faith and testimony of the truth whereof, I law of nations. the said Adam Dolmage have hereunto set my hand; and the seal of the said court of vice-admiralty hath been caused to be hereunto affixed in the city of Kingston, in the said island, the seventh day of January, one thousand, eight hundred and seven. "ADM. DOLMAGE, Dep. Reg. Vic. Cur. Adm." "Jamaica, ss. I, Henry John Hinchliffe, Esq. judge and commissary of the court of vice-admiralty, in the island of Jamaica, do hereby certify and make known to all whom it may concern, that Adam Dolmage, Esq. who has signed and attested the certificate hereunto annexed, is deputy registrar of the said court of vice-admiralty, and that to all acts and instruments by him signed and attested, in such his capacity, due faith and credit is and ought to be given in judgment, court, and without. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the court of vice-admiralty aforesaid to be affixed, this sixteenth day of September, 1807. (Seal.) "Henry John Hinchliffe." "Jamaica, ss. I, Robert Robertson, secretary, and notary public, of this his majesty's island of Jamaica, duly admitted, allowed and sworn, dwelling in the city of Kingston, in the county of Surrey, and island aforesaid, do hereby certify and make known to all whom these presents may concern, that Henry John Hinchliffe, Esq. by whom the annexed certificate is signed, is judge and commissary of the court of vice-admiralty of the island of Jamaica aforesaid, and that to all acts and instruments in writing by him the said Henry John Hinchliffe, Esq. attested, due faith and credit is and ought to be given. testimony whereof, I, the said notary, have here In unto affixed my hand and seal of office, at Kingston aforesaid, this fifth day of October, Anno Domini one thousand, eight hundred and seven. (Seal.) "Rob. Robertson, Sec. and N. Pub." It was further testified by competent witnesses, examined upon oath by the court, that the said Henry J. Hinchliffe, in the year 1804, publicly sat as a judge of, and held the court of vice-admiralty in Jamaica, and in that capacity condemned the vessel of one of the witnesses, who, in the island of Jamaica, received from his proctor a copy of the proceedings in the said court in his cause, which copy was authenticated in the same manner as the paper now offered in evidence, and under a similar seal; and that upon producing that copy to the underwriters in Alexandria and in Philadelphia, the loss was paid without delay. That similar papers, purporting to be copies of proceedings in the same court of viceadmiralty in other cases, had been received in this country by other persons, and had been considered by both insurers and insured as authentic papers, and losses had been paid thereon; and that the present paper was shown to the defendant, who did not object to its authentication, but refused to pay the loss for other reasons. But neither of the witnesses had ever seen the judge write, nor the act of affixing the seal of the court to any paper. 2. The second bill of exceptions stated, in substance, that the defendant (the plaintiff in error) prayed the court to instruct the jury, that if at the time the brig Richard sailed from Tobago for Curraçoa, the latter island was actually blockaded, and the brig turned away by the blockading force, and afterwards lost, without again attempting to enter Curraçoa, and in the prosecution of her voyage to Norfolk, the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover, although no official notification of such blockade was ever published, and although the master of the brig was ignorant of such blockade |