When property seized as prize of war is delivered upon bail, a stipulation, according to the course of the admiralty, is to be taken for double its value.

1. (June, 1813.) When delivery on bail shall be or not. Ships Euphrates and Francis and Cargoes, 1 Gall. 450.

2. (Oct., 1814.) A case of collusive capture. Regularly no delivery on bail of prize property ought to be made, either to the captors or the claimant, until after a hearing of the cause. In most cases a sale is preferable to an appraisement, when the value is to be ascertained for the purpose of a delivery on bail. The George, 2 Gall. 248.

3. (Nov., 1814.) No delivery of property on bail can legally be made in cases where the United States are a party, without due notice to the district attorney that he may have a hearing before the court. Ex parte Robbins, 2 Gall. 319.

4. Quære, if a delivery on bail can be ordered by the court in vacation, before the return term of the process. Ib.

5. (April, 1862.) Objections to the delivery of captured property, on bonds, to claimants. The Amy Warwick, 2 Sprague, 150. 6. (Oct., 1861.) The cargo having been delivered to the claimants on bail before hearing, it afterwards appeared that it had been appraised at less than its real value, and that the security was in too small an amount. A motion was made that the cargo be restored to the custody of the court, but it appearing that it was no longer in the possession of the claimants or the bail, but had passed to bona fide purchasers, the court awarded monitions against the claimants to pay into court the difference in amount between the proceeds or value of the cargo delivered to them and the amount of the bail. The Schooner Lynchburg and Cargo, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 57.

7. Property seized as prize may be pursued in rem into the hands of all persons who become possessed of it, or by monition against such persons, if its proceeds have been brought into court. Ib.

8. It matters not whether the prize goods remain in kind or have been disposed of bona fide by sale. The holder of the thing or of its proceeds may be compelled, by monition, to deliver the same into court, to be there disposed of according to the rights of the captors. Ib.

9. And this may be done as against persons having the proceeds of prize property in their hands, when an insufficient stipulation has been taken on a delivery on bail. Ib.

10. (Feb., 1812.) The hearing in this cause having been delayed, the court, conceiving itself warranted by the state of the season, the situation of the ship, and the circumstances of the case, directed both vessel and cargo to be delivered to the claimants, on giving security in the appraised value to abide the final sentence and decree of this court and the court or courts of appeal. United States v. Ship Ariadne, Fisher Cas. 33.

Rule 42. Claim. Test Affidavit.

Every claim interposed must be by the parties in interest, if within convenient distance, or, in their absence, by their agent or the principal officer of the captured ship, and must be accompanied by a test affidavit, stating briefly the facts respecting the claim, and its verity, and how the deponent stands connected with or acquired knowledge of it. The same party who may intervene is also competent to attest to the affidavit.

1. (Feb., 1815.) A test affidavit ought to state that the property at the time of shipment, and also at the time of capture, did belong, and will, if restored, belong to the claimant; but an irregularity in this respect is not fatal. Schooner Adeline, 9 Cranch, 245.

2. A test affidavit by an agent is not sufficient, if the principal be within the country and within a reasonable distance from the court. But if test affidavits, liable to such objections, have been. acquiesced in by the parties in the courts below, the objections will not prevail in this court. Ib.

3. (Feb., 1816.) If the national character of property, captured and brought in for adjudication, appears ambiguous or neutral, and no claim is interposed, the cause is postponed for a year and a day after the prize proceedings are commenced; and if no claimant appears within that time, the property is condemned to the captors. The Harrison, 1 Wheat. 297.

4. (Feb., 1825.) Although a consul may claim for subjects unknown of his nation, yet restitution cannot be decreed without specific proof of the individual proprietary interest. The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 67.

5. (Dec., 1866.) Demands against property captured as prize of war must be adjusted in a prize court. The property arrested as prize is not attachable at the suit of private parties. If such parties have claims which, in their view, ovcride the rights of captors, they must present them to the prize court for settlement. The Nassau, 4 Wall. 634.

6. (Oct., 1812.) Claims in prize causes should be made by the parties themselves, if within the jurisdiction, and not by mere agents. The captors have a right to the answers of claimants on oath. Schooner Lively and Cargo, 1 Gall. 314.

7. (May, 1813.) A claim in the prize court should always be by the owner, if within the jurisdiction. Schooner Sally and Cargo, 1 Gall. 400.

8. (Oct., 1813.) It is irregular for a mere nominal agent to interpose claims for his principal, where they are within the jurisdiction. Ship St. Lawrence and Cargo, 1 Gall. 467.

9. (Oct., 1813.) An alien enemy cannot sustain a claim in a prize court, nor can a citizen claim the property of an enemy in a prize court, upon an alleged sale since the war. Cargo of Ship Emolus, 1 Gall. 563.

10. (May, 1814.) During war, no claim standing in opposition to the ship's papers and preparatory evidence, is ever admitted in a prize court. The Diana, 2 Gall. 93.

11. (Oct., 1814.) In general, the claimant must make his claim and affidavit, without being assisted by the papers in shaping them; and if they be found substantially to agree with the documents, he will afterwards be permitted to correct any formal errors from the documents themselves. But in special cases, where a proper ground is laid by affidavits, an order will be made. for an examination of such papers as are necessary to a party to make a proper specification of his own claim, but not for a general examination of all the ship's papers. The S. J. Indiano, 2 Gall. 269.

12. (May, 1815.) Though an agent may claim, yet if sufficient time intervene, the principal must support it by his affidavit. 382, 383.

The Betsey, 2 Gall. 13. (May, 1865.)

at Large, 319), and

Under the acts of Aug. 6, 1861 (12 Stat. July 17, 1862 (Id. 589), the proceedings to

condeinn enemy property, when seized, must conform to the proceedings in admiralty and revenue cases.

United States v. One

Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty-six Shares of Capital Stock, 5 Blatchf. 232.

14. An alien enemy has, under those acts, a right to appear as claimant of his property sought to be condemned, as forfeited, by a prosecution in rem under those acts, and to answer and defend the suit. Ib.

15. (Feb., 1862.) In a prize case, an answer in the nature of pleading is irregular; and where a simple claim is filed, and the claimant annexes thereto his answer as a "test affidavit," so much of the document called a "test affidavit " as goes beyond the facts of the claim is not to be regarded. The Revere, 2 Sprague, 107.

16. (1814.) John Richardson was a native subject of the king of Great Britain. He was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in the year 1795; and in the year 1797 returned to England. In the year 1799 he came again to the United States; and in the year 1800 he returned to England, where he continued to reside until March, 1813, making a residence of sixteen years in England, with the exception of a visit to the United States of a few months. On the third day of September, 1812, after the commencement of hostilities between the two countries, a quantity of merchandise shipped by Richardson from Liverpool to the United States was captured by a privateer of the United States as prize; and the merchandise was claimed by Richardson in the prize court at New York, on the ground that he was a naturalized citizen of the United States. Held, that he was a British subject and an alien enemy, and therefore not entitled to claim the merchandise before the prize court. Johnson v. Twenty-one Bales, &c., of Merchandise, Van Ness, 5.

17. (1814.) In a prize case, if the claimant's answer does not negative a material allegation in the libel, the allegation will be taken as admitted. Johnson v. Thirteen Bales, &c., of Merchandise, Van Ness, 45.

18. (1814.) Alien enemies dwelling in the enemy country cannot be heard in a prize court. Johnson. v. Thirteen Bales,

&c., of Merchandise, Van Ness, 59.

19. (Aug., 1861.) Mode of pleading in an answer and claim commented on. The Schooner Hannah M. Johnson and Cargo, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 2.

20. (Aug., 1861.) What statements are necessary in an an

swer and claim, in a prize case. Cargo, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 3.

The Schooner Lynchburg and

21. (March, 1862.) A claimant in a prize suit cannot put in a special claim or answer leading to issues other than the one simply of prize or no prize, without the assent of the United States attorney or the special order of the court. The Schooner Louisa Agnes and Cargo, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 107.

22. An affidavit annexed to a claim is extra-judicial, and is not testimony in the case. Ib.

23. (March, 1862.) Motion by the owner of the cargo for leave to put in a claim to that, as neutral property, shipped from one neutral port to another, there being in the proposed claim averments denying that the vessel violated or attempted to violate the blockade, and invoking the test oath of the owner of the vessel previously made to his claim. The court allowed the claim to be filed, omitting the averments in question. The Schooner Joseph H. Toone and Cargo, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 124.

24. An answer or claim in a prize suit need contain nothing more than a general denial of the grounds of condemnation alleged in the libel. Ib.

25. (March, 1862.) A test oath is an oath of ownership simply, and all papers annexed to such oath will be stricken from the record as irregular. The fact of the ownership, with a general denial that the captured property is lawful prize of war, is all that is proper to include in the claim. The Brig Delta and Cargo, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 133.

26. (April, 1862.) The practice in prize proceedings, stated, as to the claim and test oath, the interest of the claimant in the property, and the inspection, by the claimant, of the ship's papers and the proofs in preparatorio. The Bark Empress and Cargo, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 146.

27. The defense in the claim must be limited to a contestation of the allegations of the libel. Ib.

28. It is irregular to subjoin to the claim anything besides a test oath. Ib.

29. Such irregularities will be corrected on motion, without formal exceptions. Ib.

30. (May, 1862.) A claim in a prize suit should be one of property merely, and should only put in issue, by a simple denial,