1. See Copper, 2. The law punishes the attempt, not the intention to defraud the reve- nue by false invoices. United States v. Riddle, 311 3. A doubt respecting the construc. tion of a law may be good ground for seizure, and authorize a certi- ficate of probable cause. Id. ib. 4. Duties upon goods imported do not accrue until their arrival at the port of entry. United States v. Vowell, 368 5. The duty upon salt, which ceased with the Sist of December, 1807, was not chargeable upon a cargo which arrived within the collection district before that day, but did
not arrive at the port of entry until the 1st of January, 1808. United States, Fowell, -368
1. A blank endorsement on a blank piece of paper, with intent to give a person credit, is, in effect, a let- ter of credit; and if a promissory note be afterwards written on the paper, the endorsor cannot object that the note was written after the endorsement. Violett v. Patton, 142 2. Before resort can be had to the en- dorsor of a promissory note in Vir- ginia, the maker must be sued, if solvent; but his insolvency ren- ders a suit against him unnecessa- ry. Id.. ib. 3. In Virginia a remote endorsor of a promissory note is liable in equity, but not at law. Riddle v. Mon- deville, 322 4. An endorsor has the same de- fence in equity against a remote, as an immediate endorsee. Id. ib. 5. An endørsor, sued in equity, has a
right to insist that the other en- dorsors be made parties. Id. ib. 6. In Virginia, the holder of a pro- missory note with a blank endorse- ment has a right to fill it up to himself. Id. ib. 7. The endorsement of a promissory note, is prima facie evidence of a full consideration. Id.
8. Sec Bank of Alexandria, 2. 9. Quare, whether the undertaking of the endorsor of a note to a bank in Virginia be not different from that of an ordinary endorsor? v. The Bank of Alexandria,
10. See Accommodation, 1, 2. 11. The endorsor of a promissory note, who endorsed to give credit to the note, and who is counter-secured by property pledged, is not liable upon the note, nor in an action for money had and received, unless
the plaintiff show that the maker is insolvent, or that he has brought suit which has proved fruitless. It is not sufficient to show that the maker is out of the reach of the process of the court. Dulany v. Hodgkins 333
1. It is equity alone which can restrain a joint creditor from receiving his full dividend out of the separate ef. fects of one of the partners until the joint effects are exhausted. ·Tucker v. Oxley,
2. See Jurisdiction, 10. 12. 3. See Virginia,
4. The first survey, under a military land warrant in Virginia, gives the prior equity. Taylor v. Brown, 234 5. A subsequent locator of land in Virginia, without notice of the prior location, cannot protect him- self by obtaining the elder patent. Id. ib. 6. In Virginia, the patent relates to the inception of title, and therefore, in a court of equity, the person who has first appropriated the land, has the best title. Id. ib. 7. The equity of the prior locator ex- tends to the surplus land surveyed, as well as to the quantity mention- ed in the warrant. Id. 8. In equity, time may be dispensed with if it be not of the essence of the contract. Hepburn v. Auld, 252 9. A vendor of land may compel a specific performance, if he can make a good title at the time of decree, although he had not a good title at the time, when by the terms of the contract the landought to have been conveyed. Id. A court of equity will not compel a specific performance unless the vendor can make a good title to all the land contracted for. Id. ib. 11. See Jurisdiction, 12. See Endorsement, 3, 4, 5. 13. Equity will make that party immer diately liable who is ultimately lia-
4. Copies of the proceedings in the vice-admiralty court of Jamaica are admissible in evidence when certi- fied under the seal of the court by the deputy registrar, who is certi- fied by the judge of the court, who is certified by a notary public. Yeaton v. Fry,
335 5. Depositions, taken under a commis- sion issued at the instance of the defendant, may be read in evidence by the plaintiff, although the plain- tiff had not notice of the time and place of taking the same. Id. ib. 6. See Payment,
1. See Deeds, 3, 4. 2. Fraud consists in intention; and that intention is a fact which must be averred in a plea of fraud. Moss v. Riddle, 351 3. If the owner of a slave permit her to remain in the possession of A. for four years; and A. then, with- out the assent of the owner, deli. vers her to B. who keeps her four years more, the possession of B. cannot be so connected with the possession of A. as to make it a fraudulent loan, within the act of assembly of Virginia, in regard to B.'s creditors. Auld v. Nor- wood, 362 A magistrate who has received from an insolvent debtor, a deed of trus, fraudulent in law as to creditors, is incompetent to sit as a magistrate in the discharge of the debtor under the insolvent law of Virginia; and the discharge so ob- tained is not a discharge in due course of law. Slacum v. Simma,
1. See Citizen, 1, 2. -2-A general policy, insuring every person having an interest, and con- taining no warranty of neutrality, covers belligerent as well as neu- tral property. Hodgson v. Marine Ins. Co. Alex.
100 3. It is no defence for the underwri- ters, that payment of the premium is enjoined by a court of chancery. Id.
4. A misrepresentation, not averred to be material, is no bar to an ac- tion on the policy. Id. 5. A misrepresentation, to have that effect, must be material to the risk of the voyage. Id.
6. It is not necessary, in an action of covenant on a policy, that the de- claration should aver that the plaintiff had abandoned to the un- derwriters. Id.
7. If the insurance be against all risks, "plockaded ports and Hispa- niola excepted," a vessel, sailing ignorantly for a blockaded port, is Covered by the policy; the excep-
JOINT DEBT. See Bankrupt, 1, 2. 4.
A discharge of an insolvent debtor, under the laws of Virginia, by two magistrates, one of whom was in- competent by reason of interest, is void. Slacum v. Sims, 363
1. A writ of error does not lie from the supreme court of the United States to the district court of the United States for the district of Maine. United States v. Weeks, 1 2. In an action of trover, if the judg- ment below be in favour of the de- fendant, the value of the matter in dispute upon the writ of error in the supreme court of the United States, is the sum claimed as da mages in the declaration. Cook v. Woodrow, 13 3. A corporation aggregate cannot li- tigate in the courts of the United States, unless in consequence of the character of the individuals who compose the body politic; which character must appear by
7. Although the claims of a state may be ultimately affected by the de- cision of a cause, yet if the state be not necessarily a defendant, the courts of the United States are bound to exercise jurisdiction. Id. ib. 8. The inferior court of common pleas for the county of Hunterdon, in the state of New Jersey, in May, 1779, had a general juris- diction in all cases of inquisition for treason,' and its judgment, al- though erroneous, was not void, inasmuch as the court had juris. diction of the cause. Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 173 9. The courts of the United States are all of limited jurisdiction; and their proceedings are erroneous if the jurisdiction be not shown upon them. Id. 20. In Kentucky it is a good ground of equitable jurisdiction, that the de- fendant has obtained a prior pa. tent for land to which the com- plainant had the better right, un der the statute respecting lands; and in exercising that jurisdic- tion, the court will decide in con- Formity with the settled principles of a court of chancery. Podley v. Taylor, 191 11. Time will be given to procure affi- davite as to the value of the matter in dispute, so as to ascertain the jurisdiction. Rush v. Parker, 287 12. The circuit court has jurisdiction in a suit in equity to stay proceed- 6
ings upon à judgment at law be- tween the same parties, although the subpana be served upon the defendant out of the district in which the court sits. Logan v. Patrick, 288 Although the plaintiff be described in the proceedings as an alien, yet the defendant must be expressly stated to be a citizen of some one of the states; otherwise the courts of the United States have not juris- diction of the case. Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 303 The trial of seizures under the act of the 18th of February, 1793, "for enrolling and licensing ships or vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same," is to be in the judicial district in which the seizure was made; without regard to the district where the forfeiture accrued. Keene v. United States,
15. See British Treaty,
16. An appeal from the district court
« PreviousContinue » |