Imágenes de páginas

PUBLIC LAW (continued).

home port, of a ship of war of a belligerent that had fled to such port
in order to escape from enemy vessels in pursuit, but which was bonâ
fide dismantled prior to the sale and afterwards fitted up for the mer-
chant service, does not pass a title above the right of capture by the
other belligerent. The Georgia, 32.

2. To justify a vessel of a neutral in attempting to enter a blockaded port,
she must be in such distress as to render her entry a matter of abso-
lute and uncontrollable necessity. The Diana, 854.


1. A contract made by a consul of a neutral power, with the citizen of a
belligerent State, that he will "protect," with his neutral name, from
capture by the belligerent, merchandise which such citizen has in the
enemy's lines, is against public policy and void. Coppell v. Hall, 542.
2. Where suit is brought upon such a contract, a party who pleads its
invalidity does not render the plea ineffective by a further defence in
"reconvention;" a defence of this sort, to wit, that, if the contract
be valid, he himself takes the position of a plaintiff, and makes a
claim for damages for its non-performance. Ib.

RATIFICATION. See Municipal Bonds.

REBELLION, THE. Sce Interest.

General orders of the officer of the United States, commanding in the
department, gave no validity to commercial intercourse during it,
between places within the lines of military occupation by forces of the
United States, and places under the control of insurgents. Coppell
v. Hall, 452.




1. The plea of, applies to every objection urged in a second suit, when the
objection was open to the party within the legitimate scope of the
pleadings in a former one, and might have been presented in it.
Sheets v. Selden, 416.

2. Thus a judgment in favor of a bondholder upon certain municipal
bonds, part of a larger issue, against the town issuing them, is con-
clusive on a question of the validity of the issue on a suit brought by
the same creditor against the same town, on other bonds, another part
of the same issue; the parties being identical, and all objections taken
by the town in the second suit having been open to be taken by it in
the former one. Beloit v. Morgan, 619.

3. So where, under a clause of re-entry for non-payment of rent reserved,
a landlord sues in ejectment, in Indiana (in which State a judgment
in ejectment has the same conclusiveness as common law judgments
in other cases), for recovery of his estate, as forfeited, and a verdict is
found for him, and judgment given accordingly, the tenant cannot, in
another proceeding, deny the validity of the lease, nor his possession,

RES JUDICATA (continued).

nor his obligation to pay the rents reserved, nor that the instalment
of rent demanded was due and unpaid. Sheets v. Selden, 416.

4. A decree, absolute in terms, dismissing a bill is a bar to further litiga-
tion on the same subject between the same parties, unless the decree
be made on some ground which does not go to merits. Durant v.
Essex Company, 107.


[ocr errors]

1. A grant of a fractional part of public lands in Minnesota, on the Mis-
sissippi, embracing 9.28 acres, held to include as within the meander
lines a piece of 2.78 acres, which at low water was separated by a
slough 28 feet wide, but accessible from the main land; and at high
water was submerged. Railroad Company v. Schurmeir, 272.

2. How far the common law rules of medium filum apply under statutes
relating to the survey and sale of public lands bordering on rivers. Ib.
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. See Heads of Departments; Land

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. See Court of Claims; Customs of
the United States; Heads of Departments; Internal Revenue.
The power intrusted by the act of Congress of March 3, 1797, and that
of June 3, 1864, as amended in its 179th section by the act of March
3, 1865, to the Secretary of the Treasury to remit penalties, is one for
the exercise of his discretion in a matter intrusted to him alone, and
admits of no appeal to any court. Dorsheimer v. United States, 166.
SECRETARY OF WAR. See Heads of Departments.

SETTLEMENT. See Estoppel.

SHIPS AND SHIPPING. See Charter-Party; Public Law.

1. Under the act of Congress of July 29th, 1850, enacting, "That no bill
of sale, mortgage, hypothecation, or conveyance of any vessel, or part
of any vessel, of the United States, shall be valid against any person
other than the grantor or mortgagor, his heirs and devisees, and per-
sons having actual notice thereof, unless such bill of sale, mortgage,
hypothecation, or conveyance, be recorded in the office of the collector
of the customs where such vessel is registered or enrolled," a record-
ing of a mortgage in the office of the collector of the home port of
the vessel has the effect, by its own force and irrespective of any for-
malities required by a State statute to give effect to chattel mortgages,
to give the mortgagee a preference over a subsequent purchaser or
mortgagee. White's Bank v. Smith, 646.

2. The home port of the vessel is the port in the office of whose collector
the bill of sale, mortgage, &c., should be recorded; not the port of
last registry or enrolment when not such home port. Ib.

[blocks in formation]

SOVEREIGNTY. See Heads of Departments; Interest.

Although, for reasons of public policy, a claim for damages against a ves-

[ocr errors]

SOVEREIGNTY (continued).

sel of the United States guilty of a maritime tort, cannot be enforced
by direct proceedings against the vessel, yet it will be enforced, by
the courts, whenever the property itself, upon which the claim exists,
becomes, through the affirmative action of the United States, subject
to their jurisdiction and control. The government, in such a case,
stands, with reference to the rights of the defendants or claimants, as
do private suitors, except that it is exempt from costs, and from affir-
mative relief against it, beyond the demand or property in contro-
versy. The Siren, 152.

STATE. See Constitutional Law, 2; Texas.

STATUTES. See (for the construction of statutes, either State or Federal,
involving questions upon, or touching in some way these heads)
Alabama; Arbitrament and Award; Collector; Collision; Conflict of
Jurisdiction, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6; Constitutional Law, 4; Contract, 4; Customs
of the United States; District of Columbia; Evidence, 4; Illinois; In-
formation, 4; Informer; Inspection; Internal Revenue; Iowa; Jurisdic-
tion; Land Office; Louisiana; Mail, The United States; "Meander
Lines;" Minnesota; Municipal Bonds; Naturalization; Patent, 1, 8;
Practice, 13, 14, 16; Public Lands; Rebellion, The; Riparian Owners;
Secretary of the Treasury; Ships and Shipping; Tender, 1, 2, 3; Texas;

1. A benevolent statute of the government, made for the benefit of its
own citizens, and inviting and encouraging them to settle on its dis-
tant public lands, will be liberally construed, especially if aided by
the context. Silver v. Ladd, 219.

2. An enactment in a State law, that the collecting agents of the counties
shall pay over to the State treasurer, “in coin," the full amount of
the taxes, requires by legitimate, if not necessary consequence, that
the taxes named be collected in coin. Lane County v. Oregon, 71.
3. The notes of the United States, issued under the Loan and Currency
Acts of 1862 and 1863, are engagements to pay dollars; and the dol-
lars intended are coined dollars of the United States. Bank v. Super-
visors, 26.

TAXATION. See Wisconsin.

TENDER. See Agent; Statutes, 2, 3.

1. The clauses in the several acts of Congress of 1862 and 1863, making
United States notes a legal tender for debts, have no reference to taxes
imposed by State authority. Lane County v. Oregon, 71.

2. Nor to a bond, given in December, 1851, for payment of a certain sum
in gold and silver coin, lawful money of the United States, with in-
terest also in coin, at a rate specified, until repayment. Bronson v.
Rodes, 229.

3. Nor to any contract where it appears to have been the clear intent of
the parties that payment or satisfaction should be made in coin.
Butler v. Horwitz, 258.

4. The doctrine that bank bills are a good tender, unless objected to at

*TENDER (continued).

the time, on the ground that they are not money, only applies to cur-
rent bills, which are redeemed at the counter of the bank on presen-
tation, and pass at par value in business transactions at the place
where offered. Ward v. Smith, 447.

5. The "dollars" which the United States promise, by the notes issued
under Loan and Currency Acts of 1862 and 1863, are coined dollars
of the United States. Bank v. Supervisors, 26.


1. The ordinance of secession of the State of Texas, and all the acts of her
legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely
null and utterly without operation in law. Texas continued to be a
State of the Union, notwithstanding all her acts of rebellion, and
notwithstanding that she was still without Representatives in Con-
gress; and under the reconstruction acts was under military govern-
ment of the United States. Texas v. White, 700.

2. Purchasers of bonds of the United States, issued payable to that State
or bearer, alienated during rebellion by the insurgent government,
and acquired after the date at which the bonds became redeemable,
are affected with notice of defect of title in the seller. Ib.

UNITED STATES. See Sovereignty.


It will not be presumed that a note dated on one day for a sum payable
with interest from a day previous, was for money first lent on the day
of the date. Ewing v. Howard, 499.


A provision in a statute of, under which a town issued its bonds to a rail-
road, that a tax requisite to pay the interest on these bonds should be
levied by the supervisors of the town, is not exclusive of a right in the
town clerk to levy the tax under a general statute making it his duty
to lay a tax to pay all debts of the town; a mandamus having issued
under the first act, but after efforts to make it productive, having
produced nothing. Morgan v. Town Clerk, 610.

« AnteriorContinuar »