or necessary legal presumption, that she entered fairly at the same time on the commencement and prosecution of both voyages. (Buck & Spof- ford et al. vs. The United States)
The engagement of a return cargo by the agent of a company chartering a steamship, the company to receive a commission from the freight- money, does not establish such privity of contract between the owners of the vessel and the agent as will enable the former to recover the freight- money, the vessel having been destroyed before reaching the port where the freight was to be taken. (Taylor et al. vs. The United States.) See Measure of damage. Commonwealth, the, 18-88.
Gannett, administratrix, vs. The United States Geohegan vs. The United States
Insurance companies and insurers cannot recover in this court unless they show two things: first, that they suffered damage or paid losses by rea- son of destruction of property by the confederate cruisers Alabama, Florida, and the Shenandoah after she left Melbourne; and, second, that their business in insuring against war risks during the rebellion caused them a net loss; both of which being proved, they may recover a sum equal to the amount of such net loss in their business if their losses by said cruisers amounted to the aggregate of such loss, but in no case greater than the amount of the net loss on such war-risk business. In determining such net loss, the amounts paid and received for re-insurance are to be taken into consideration. (Commercial Mutual Marine and other insurance companies vs. The United States)... Insurance companies
Interpleader court has no power to compel between different claimants. See Title, conflict of.
McLeane, administratrix, vs. The United States Martaban, the:
The simulated transfer of a ship by American owners to a British subject, and the hoisting the British flag over said ship, when understood and intended by both parties to be done merely as a cover to prevent cap-
ture, and for the purpose of misleading and escaping a confederate cruiser, during the late civil war, was not such a conveyance as divested the title of the owners. Such pretended transfer was null and void, as against the right of the owners to sue for compensation before this court; and the ship having been destroyed by a confederate cruiser, her original owners are not deprived of the protection of the United States in the premises, and the consequent right to sue for relief before this court.
If the transfer of the ship had been valid and binding, the mortgage of the ship to the vendors, (the original owners,) with absolute control and authority over her, invested such mortgagees in possession, with the rights and privileges of the mortgagors-preserved to them the protec- tion of the United States in the premises, and secures to them their status as complainants before this court.
The forfeiture of a vessel to the United States, as provided for in the act of Congress of 1792, (Sec. 4171 Rev. Stats.,) attaches not to the act of change of name and flag and sale to a foreigner, but it is the failure to report the same to the collector of the proper collection district, and to obtain a new American register, that works the forfeiture. Therefore, where a vessel in such case is destroyed before she can possibly return to such district, the owners do not in consequence lose any of their rights to redress, or forfeit the protection of the United States. (Pike, admin- istratrix, et al., vs. The United States)
Cargo of the. See Aliens. (Schreiber et al. vs. The United States.) Mary, the..
Matthews vs. The United States....
Measure of damage:
The measure of damage for goods destroyed by the confederate cruisers is the value of the goods at the place and time of shipment, with charges, and marine insurance actually paid, with interest on the aggregate so produced from the time of shipment till the date of destruction at 6 per cent.
The measure of damage for loss of freight, in cases when freight has begun to be earned is the net freight, which is to be found by deducting from the gross freight the expenses of completing the voyage, and of discharg- ing the cargo at the port of destination, including all inward port charges and disbursements, with a further deduction of a proper sum for the de- preciation of the vessel while performing the remainder of her voyage, and of interest on the valuation of the vessel from the date of her de- struction to the time of her probable arrival if the voyage had not been interrupted.
In fixing the value of goods purchased with coin or currency other than the legal-tender currency of the United States, the value of coin in cur- rency at the date of purchase will be taken, when payment was actually made in coin at that time; where payment was actually so made at a subsequent time, the value of coin at that time will be taken, if the pay- ment was made according to the usual course of trade. If not made ac- cording to the usual course of trade, the value of coin will be computed at the lowest rate, whether at the time of purchase or at the time when payment would have been made in the usual course of business, or when the payment was actually made. (Hubbell et. al. vs. The United States). See Bonded vessels.
Milo, the.
Mitchell, R. W. C.:
Short-hand reporter Services of.
Montgomery vs. The United States
Mortgage, fictitious, to vendors to
prevent destruction of vessel. See Martaban.
Mortgagee in possession, right of, to recover.
Mutual Marine Insurance Company vs. The United States
Declaration of intention previous to passage of section 2174 of Revised Statutes. (Hutchinson vs. The United States)
Of British subject after loss. (Lord & Munn vs. The United States) In Great Britain or its colonies.
Navy, officer of..........
The private property of an officer of the Navy which was destroyed on a Government vessel by the insurgent cruiser Alabama may be made the subject of a claim in this court under the act of Congress of 23d of June, 1874. (Butman et al. vs. The United States).
Nav y, Secretary of, vs. The United States:
An award to the Navy Department would be an award to the Government, which already has complete ownership of the money paid by Great Britain under the award of the Tribunal of Arbitration, and now remain- ing in the Treasury.
Congress did not intend to give this court power to adjudicate upon the rights of the Government with regard to this fund. Net freight...
North America, Insurance Company of, vs. The United States Ocean Mutual Marine Insurance Company vs. The United States. O'Conor, Arthur, services of....
Outfits, value of. See Measure of damage, (opinion, page 64.) Pardon :
A claimant in this court is required to set forth in his petition that during the late rebellion he bore true allegiance to the United States.
It is not sufficient to aver that for any offenses committed by him during the rebellion he received a pardon from the President of the United States. (Rhind, executor, vs. The United States)
Parker vs. The United States.
Partners, one partner entitled to recover his proportion, the other being a British subject. (Lord & Munn vs. The United States)
Under the act of Congress creating this tribunal, it can entertain jurisdic- tion of claims for the loss of property only. It has no jurisdiction to hear, determine, and allow claims for damages for injuries to the person. (Williams et al. vs. The United States).
Proclamation of, extending the duration of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims.
Prisoners, passage-money allowed for bringing home. See the Justina. Prospective profits, freight-gains, or advantages
Nora, the, increased value by vicinity to a point where vessels were in demand...
Alert, the, probable catch of sea-elephants
Fisler vs. The United States, prospective profits on contract.
See Measure of damage, (page 65 of opinion.) Rayner, Kenneth, nomination of, as judge Rehearing, practice of the court on motion for.. Re-insurance.
Seamen, wages and expenses of .
Revised Statutes, section 4171. See Martaban. An act for the creation of a court for the adjudication and disposition of certain moneys received into the Treasury under an award made by the Tribunal of Arbitration, constituted by virtue of the first article of the treaty concluded at Washington the eighth of May, anno Domini eight- een hundred and seventy-one, between the United States of America and the Queen of Great Britain, (approved June 23, 1874). An act to extend the duration of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, (approved December 24, 1875).
An act providing for the payment of judgments rendered under section 11 of chapter 459 of the laws of the first session of the Forty-third Con- gress, (approved February 15, 1876)
An act to extend the time for claimants, under section 11 of chapter 459 of the laws of the Forty-third Congress, to prove their claims, (approved March 6, 1876)
An act to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to pay judgments provided for in an act approved February 15, 1876, entitled, &c., (approved April 11, 1876).......
An act to extend the duration of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims
This court has power to decide conclusively upon the amount and valid- ity of claims, but not upon the conflicting rights of parties to the sums awarded.
This court cannot compel parties making conflicting claims to interplead, but in all such cases fixes the amount due from the United States, and awards payment thereof to the party having the better prima-facie right, but without prejudice to the right of other parties to contest the question of title to the amount awarded before other appropriate tribu- nals. (McLeane, administratrix, and Taylor vs. The United States).... Transfer, simulated, of a vessel to prevent destruction. See Martaban. Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, (concluded May 8, 1871) Tribunal of Arbitration, award of....
True allegiance The act of Congress of 23d June, 1874, provides that no claim shall be admissible or allowed by this court "arising in favor of any person who did not at all times during the late rebellion bear true allegiance to the United States :" Held, That this requirement was in the nature of a con- dition precedent, and that a claimant, in order to entitle himself to the benefit of the act, must make the averment in his petition of his "true allegiance" during the period specified, and prove the same. ment which states in substance that the claimant was not guilty of the crime of treason, as defined by the Constitution, is not sufficient. In a case in which the testimony suggests no doubt on such a point, the claimant's own statement, under oath, will be regarded as sufficient to establish for him a prima-facie case of true allegiance. (Williams vs. The United States)
See Freight.
Measure of damage.
See Navy, Secretary of, vs. the United States. Ownership of money awarded by the Tribunal of Arbiitraton....
Upton et al. vs. The United States
Vessel, value of. See Measure of damage, (page 64 of opinion.) War-premium cases dismissed
War risks. See Insurers.
Washington, treaty of
Wells, Hezekiah G., nomination of, as judge
Whiting vs. The United States
Williams vs. The United States.
Winged Racer, the
Worth vs. The United States
Rules of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims
Act for the creation of a court, &c
Proclamation of the President..
Treaty between the United States and Great Britain
Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration
Rules for taking testimony
Extracts from the record of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims.. Mr. Fish to Mr. Davis
Pages 23, 24, and 25, for post read infra.
« AnteriorContinuar » |