« AnteriorContinuar »
BOUNTY. See Allowances.
BURDEN OF PROOF. See Deed; Municipal Bonds, 3.
administrator on a policy purporting to insure the life of the intes-
CAPTURE. See Captured or Abandoned Property, 3-6; Insurrection.
CAPTURED OR ABANDONED PROPERTY. See Court of Claims, 2;
were, during his absence therefrom, seized as abandoned property
it to the military authorities. Harrison v. Myer, Executriz, 111.'
ment therefor, but remained in possession of it until its seizure by
action against the United States. Whitfield v. United States, 165.
although private property, captured by the military forces of the
of capture. Lamar, Exr., v. Browne et al., 187.
within the control of every belligerent. It is the duty of his mili-
do at sea. Id.
able property on land changes the ownership of it without adjudi.
CAPTURED OR ABANDONED PROPERTY (continued).
in the national treasury, and the claimant allowed within a pre scribed time to sue in the Court of Claims, and to receive the net proceeds, on proof to its satisfaction, of his loyalty, and of his right
to them. Id. 6. Neither the captors, nor the special agents of the treasury to whom
they delivered the captured property, are liable to the owner thereof in an action at law for any thing by them done within the scope of their delegated powers. Acting for the government, they are protected by its authority; and he must look to it, not to them, for
indemnity. Id. 7. It is incumbent upon a claimant, under the Captured or Abandoned
Property Act, to establish by sufficient proof that the property captured or abandoned came into the hands of a treasury agent; that it was sold; that the proceeds of the sale were paid into the treasury of the United States; and that he was the owner of the property,
and entitled to the proceeds thereof. United States v. Ross, 281. 8. Because the claimant's property was captured and sent forward by a
military officer, and there is an unclaimed fund in the treasury de rived from sales of property of the same kind, a court is not authorized to conclude, as matter of law, that the property was delivered by that officer to a treasury agent, that it was sold by the latter, and
that the proceeds were covered into the treasury. Id. CARONDELET COMMONS. The deed of conveyance executed to the United States on the twenty-fifth
day of October, 1854, by the city of Carondelet, of a part of the
ing his direct remedy against his debtor. Lewis, Trustee, v. United
more than that the requirement from the master of a vessel of a
within the power of the State to enact, and not inconsistent with the
City of New York et al., 259.
of the master or owner of the vessel for every such passenger is a
tion and laws of the United States, and therefore void. ld.
tion on the ship-master as a prerequisite to his landing his passen-
master makes him pay it in advance as part of his fare. Id.
applied to passengers from foreign countries, is a regulation of com-
merce with foreign nations. Id.
State is forbidden by the Constitution, to say that it falls within the
sively to Congress by that instruinent. Id.
affect commerce, both with foreign nations and between the States,
are intended to regulate commercial matters which are not only of
to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” Id.
moved because the penalty for failure to pay does not accrue until
of bringing him into the State. Id.
a State may, in the absence of all legislation by Congress on the
against paupers, convicted criminals, and others of that class, but is of opinion that to Congress rightfully and appropriately belongs
the power of legislating on the whole subject. Id. 11. The statute of California, which is the subject of consideration in this
case, does not require a bond for every passenger, or commutation in money, as do the statutes of New York and Louisiana, but only for certain enumerated classes, among which are “lewd and de
bauched women. Chy Lung v. Freeman et al., 275. 12. But the features of the statute are such as to show very clearly that
the purpose is to extort money from a large class of passengers, or to
prevent their immigration to California altogether. ld. 13. The statute also operates directly on the passenger; for, unless the
master or the owners of the vessel give an onerous bond for the future protection of the State against the support of the passenger, or pay such sum as the Commissioner of Immigration chooses to
exact, he is not permitted to land from the vessel. Id. 14. The powers which the commissioner is authorized to exercise under
this statute are such as to bring the United States into conflict with foreign nations, and they can only belong to the Federal govern
ment. Id. 15. If the right of the States to pass statutes to protect themselves in
regard to the criminal, the pauper, and the diseased foreigner, landing within their borders, exists at all, it is limited to such laws as are absolutely necessary for that purpose; and this mere police regulation cannot extend so far as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons from the right to hold personal and commercial intercourse
with the people of the United States. Id. 16. The statute of California extends, in this respect, far beyond the
necessity in which the right, if it exists, is founded, and invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It is,
therefore, void. Id. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, DECISIONS OF. See Patents, 1. CONCESSIONS OF LAND BY THE MEXICAN OR SPANISH
GOVERNMENT. See Public Lands, 9. 1. The Board of Land Commissioners, under the act of March 3, 1851
(9 Stat. 631), passed in 1855 a decree confirming a grant for all the land asked for in the petition, which was acquiesced in until 1872, when a petition praying that the estimate of quantity in the original petition be stricken out, and that the land as now claimed be confirmed, was presented to the District Court, - Held, that the claimants are without remedy under any act of Congress. Williams et al.
v. United States, 457. 2. In an action of ejectment for land in California, where both parties
assert title to the premises, — the plaintiff under a concession of the former government, confirmed by the tribunals of the United States,
CONCESSIONS OF LAND BY THE MEXICAN OR SPANISH
GOVERNMENT (continued). and an approved survey under the act of Congress of June 14, 1860, and the defendant under a patent of the United States issued upon a similar confirmed concession, — the inquiry of the court must ertend to the character of the original concessions to ascertain which of the two titles gave the better right to the premises; and, if these do not furnish the means for settling the controversy, reference must be had to the proceedings before the tribunals and officers of the United States by which the claims of the parties were determined.
Miller et al. v. Dale et al., 473. 3. Where the original concessions in such cases were without specific
boundaries, being floating grants for quantity, the one first located by an approved survey appropriated the land embraced by the
CONDITION PRECEDENT. See Equity, 1; Land Grants, 2; Munici
pal Bonds, 2-6, 8, 10–13. CONFISCATION. See Amnesty. 1. The act of July 17, 1862 (12 Stat. 589), is an act for the confiscation
of enemies' property, and provides for the seizure and condemnation of all their estate. When it has been carried into effect by appropriate proceedings in any given case, the offender has no longer any interest or ownership in the thing forfeited which he can convey, or any power over it which he can exercise in favor of
another. Wallach et al. v. Van Riswick, 202. 2. The joint resolution of even date with that act was designed only to
qualify, and not defeat it. The provision therein, that “no pro ceedings shall work a forfeiture beyond the life of the offender," obviously means that they shall not affect the ownership of the land after the termination of his natural life ; and that, after his death, it shall pass and be owned as if it had not been forfeited. It was intended for the exclusive benefit of his heirs, and to enable them
to take the inheritance after his death. Id. CONSOLIDATED BONDS. See Louisiana Consolidated Bonds. CONSOLIDATION OF COMPANIES. See Corporations, 1-7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See Commerce, 1-16; Duty on Exports, 1;
State Railroad Tar, 2. 1. A trial by jury in suits at common law pending in the State courts is
not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship which the States are forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States to abridge. Walker v. Sauvinet, 90. 2. Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the Constitution
of the United States can be protected by Congress. The form and manner of that protection may be such as Congress, in the legitimate exercise of its legislative discretion, shall provide, and may be