ABANDONMENT. See PATENTS, 1, 2, 3, 4.
ABATEMENT. See BANKRUPTCY, 10.
1. A loss by the "act of God" must be shown to have happened by a nat ural and unavoidable necessity, arising wholly above the control of human agencies, and independent of human action or neglect. Dib. ble & Seligson v. Morgan,
2. Any act of omission or carelessness on the part of the master or crew contributing to the loss, takes away the defense that the loss was occa- sioned by the act of God.
1. When property is seized upon land and libelled as forfeited to the United States for violation of the revenue laws, the case belongs to the common law side of the court, and can only be reviewed by writ of error. The United States v. 37 Barrels of Rum,
2. When every part of a contract has been executed except the payment of money, the remedy at law (if one exists) is fully adequate to the case; for by an action at law it is precisely the unpaid money which is recovered, with, perhaps, damages for its detention. Heine v. The Levee Commissioners,
246 3. The power of compelling parties, after a judgment has been rendered, to pay the amount thereof, or of raising the money by the sale of their property, is an entirely distinct power from that of taxation, and is the special prerogative of the courts. Ib. 4. An action of debt against the offending parties is the proper action to recover the penalty for a violation of the 4th section of the act ap- proved February 28, 1871 (16 Stat., 440), which forbids a steamer en- gaged in carrying passengers from carrying as freight any burning or explosive fluid. The United States v. The C. B. Church,
See APPEAL, 5. EQUITY, 2, 3. INTERVENTION AND THIRD OPPOSITION. JURISDICTION, 2.
ADMINISTRATORS. See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
1. When a steamboat and her cargo of cotton were seized by the United States for condemnation, and delivered to the claimant on his execu.
tion of a bond for the redelivery of the property, the amount of the judgment to be rendered in a suit on the bond would be the value of the property, estimated at the highest price that could be obtained for it, between the date of the bond and the date of the judgment. The United States v. Rob Roy and Cargo,
2 A. was the purser of a steamship about to sail from New Orleans to New York. A package marked with his name was delivered to him for which he gave a bill of lading, whereby he agreed to deliver the package to L. in New York, on payment of the value thereof, and in default of payment to return the package to the consignor. The bill of lading indicated that freight had been paid on the pack. age, but no freight was in fact paid or tendered, nor was there any agreement or expectation that freight was to be paid. The package was not placed on the ship's manifest nor stowed with the other freight. A. was not authorized to sign bills of lading. He deliv- ered the package to the proper person in New York, but neglected to collect its value. Held, that the package was delivered to A. as the bailee of its owner and was not delivered to the steamship, and that the latter was not liable for its value. Suarez v. Steamship Geo. Washington, 96
3. It is no reason why a libellant should not recover for the failure of the defendant to deliver goods according to contract, that no credit is given for the freight earned by defendant in carrying other goods. Such claim should be set up by cross libel. Maxwell v. The Powell, 99
4. Goods were shipped at New Orleans on "The Caddo" for Jefferson, Texas, and a through bill of lading given. At Shreveport the trip of "The Caddo" terminated, and all the goods with the bill of lading were transferred to "The Powell." She delivered a part of the goods and demanded freight from the owner. In a suit to recover the value of a portion of the goods which was not delivered by “The Powell,” held, that she was liable for the goods lost and could not turn the libellant over to "The Caddo" for his remedy.
5. A general creditor of a ship has no lien on the vessel.
6. When a ship is attached by process from a common law court, nothing is or can be seized but the interest of the owner remaining after the maritime liens are satisfied. Ib. 7. A sale under such seizure conveys only the title of the owners subject to the maritime liens. Ib. 8. The fact that the proceeds of the sale were absorbed in the payment of certain preferred maritime liens, and were not sufficient to pay them in full, so that the attaching creditors received nothing, does not relieve the vessel from other maritime liens. A common law court is without power to divest maritime liens except by payment. Ib.
9. When a seaman, while in the discharge of his duty, is injured by rea- son of the neglect or carelessness of an officer of the boat, the boat is liable for his wages until restored, and for his subsistence and medical attendance in the meantime. Myers v. The Lizzie Hopkins, 170
10. Ordinarily, a ship is presumed to be scaworthy. But this presumption is rebutted by proof that she is old and approaching the end of her life as a ship, and that she suddenly failed in a vital part without any apparent cause. Werk v. Leathers, 271 11. The owner of a ship who charters her to another tacitly agrees that she is in suitable condition for the use to which she is to be put. Ib.
12. If there is a defect in the ship by which she becomes disabled, even though it may not be apparent upon examination, the charterer can- not recover the charter money, and he will be liable for damages occa sioned by the defect.
Ib. 13. The fact that the holder of an admiralty lien has intervened and re- covered judgment for the amount of his claim in a state court, in an action in personam, the same remaining unsatisfied, is not a bar to a proceeding in admiralty to enforce the lien. Rogers v. The Reliance, 274
14. The penalty for a violation of the 4th section of the act approved Feb- ruary 28, 1871 (16 Stat., 440), which forbids a steamer engaged in car- rying passengers from carrying as freight any burning or explosive fluid, cannot be recovered by a proceeding in rem. An action of debt against the offending parties is the proper remedy. United States v. The C. B. Church,
15. When at and after the beginning of proceedings in admiralty by the filing of the libel, the court is in actual possession of the res, its juris- diction is not lost by the removal of the res from the possession of the court and beyond its territorial jurisdiction, without the consent of libellant. Otis v. The Rio Grande, 279 16. The United States courts sitting as admiralty courts ought to carry in- to effect the sentences and decrees not only of other federal courts of admiralty, but also of the admiralty courts of foreign countries. Ib. 17. A person who makes a parol contract for the purchase of a share in a vessel, and receives, jointly with the other owners, possession of the vessel, cannot acquire a lien upon her for maritime services. Dow- ling v. The Reliance,
284 18. A ship carpenter who deposits, for safe keeping, money and other valu- ables with the captain of a steamboat on which he is employed, has no lien upon the boat therefor. Smith v. The Royal George, 290
19. The owner of an old and decayed boat employed libellant, who was a ship carpenter, to assist in building for him the hull of a new boat, and after it was completed, dismantled the old boat and used some of its materials in fitting up the new one: Held, that libellant had no lien on the new boat for his wages. Ib.
20. A mariner having repeatedly asked for his wages without receiving them, and being in a strange land and in great need of money, agreed to take one-third the amount due him in full payment, and release the ship and owners, and on payment of one-third the amount due signed a receipt in full; held, that the agreement to take less than the whole amount due was nudum pactum and the receipt no bar to a recovery for the balance due. Savin v. The Juno, 300
21. A mariner who is injured in the service of the ship is entitled to be cured at the expense of the ship although no one is in fault, but he cannot recover damages in the nature of extra wages unless there has been some carelessness or other fault on the part of the officers of the ship. Brown v. The Bradish Johnson, 301
22. Article XIV of the sailing regulations applied. Miller o. The W. G. Hewes, 363
23. It is the duty of the owners of a steamboat or other vessel to employ competent and skillful officers and mariners so far as this can be done by the use of ordinary care. A failure in this respect, which results in the injury of one of the mariners, makes the steamboat and her owners liable. Brown v. The D. S. Cage and Owners,
24. The cost of the recovery of a mariner injured while in the service of the ship is a charge against the ship, and may be recovered in a pro- ceeding in rem, and if he is injured through the neglect or miscon duct of the owners or officers of the vessel, he will be allowed dam- ages in the nature of additional wages to be recovered in the same Ib.
See "ACT OF GOD." APPEAL, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8. AVERAGE. CONTRACTS, 4. CONFISCATION, 6. COLLISION, 1, 2. JURISDICTION, 8, 10. LIENS, 4. SALVAGE, 1, 2. WARRANTY.
AGENT. See LIFE INSURANCE, 2.
AGREEMENT. See AUCTION SALE.
ALABAMA. See REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT, 1, 8, 4.
A citizen of the United States owes his first and highest allegiance to the general government, and not to the state of which he may be a citizen. The Planters' Bank v. St. John.
AMNESTY. See PARDON AND AMNESTY.
1. An appeal in a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction not taken to the next term of the circuit court after the rendition of the decree in the district court will be dismissed. The United States v. $5,100 in Specie,
2. When property is seized upon land and libelled as forfeited to the United States for violation of the revenue laws, the case belongs to the common law side of the court, and can only be reviewed by writ of error; when such a case is appealed the appeal will be dismissed. The United States v. 37 Barrels of Rum, 19
3. In the admiralty an appeal supersedes altogether the decree of the court below, and the case is to be tried in the appellate court as if no decree had been passed in the court from which the appeal is taken. Steamer Saratoga v. 438 Bales of Cotton, 75
4. Where the libellant claimed $27,000 and got a decree for $900 in the district court, and appealed, the circuit court, being of opinion that the libellant ought to recover nothing, could dismiss the libel at li- bellant's costs, although no appeal had been taken by claimant from the decree of the district court.
5. Although proceedings for confiscation of lands are proceedings at law, and are to be reviewed by writ of error, yet proceedings by way of intervention in the course thereof, setting up a lien on the property, are often in the nature of a bill of equity, and may be reviewed by way of appeal. The Confiscation Cases, 221
6. An appeal to the commissioner of internal revenue, for the refunding of a tax illegally collected by the collector of internal revenue, dates from the time the application to have the tax refunded is filed in the office of the commissioner, and not from the time it is lodged with the collector of internal revenue. Cotton Press Co. v. The Collector,
« AnteriorContinuar » |