1. The capture of a neutral as prize by
a belligerent is a total loss, and enti-
tles the insured to abandon. Rhine-
lander v. In. Co. Pennsylvania, 29
2. The state of the loss at the time of
the offer to abandon, fixes the rights
of the parties,
ia.
3. Quare, whether the sentence of a
foreign court of admiralty, condemn-
ing the vessel for breach of block-
ade, be conclusive evidence of that
fact in favour of the underwriters.
Fitzsimmons v. Newport In. Co. 185
4. Persisting in an intention to enter a

blockaded port, after warning, is not
attempting to enter,

ib.
5. The right of the insured to abandon

7.

202

and recover for a total loss, depends
upon the state of the fact at the
time of the offer to abandon, and not
upon the state of the information re-
ceived. Marshall v. Delaware In.
Co.
6. The technical total loss, arising from
capture, ceases with the final decree
of restitution, although the decree
may not have been executed at the
time of the offer to abandon, ib. 203
A policy on a ship is an assurance of
the ship for the voyage, not an insu-
rance on the ship and the voyage.
The underwriters undertake for the
ability of the ship to perform the
voyage, not that she shall perform it
at all events. Alexander v. Baltimore
In. Co.
370
8. The loss of the voyage as to the
cargo, is not a loss of the voyage as
to the ship, ib.
371
9. If at the time of the offer to abandon,
the ship be in possession of the
master, in good condition and at full

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

179

It is incumbent upon the plaintiff in
error to show that the supreme court
of the United States has jurisdiction
of the case.
United States v. Brig
Union,
216
The supreme court will hear viva
voce testimony to show the value of
the matter in dispute, upon a ques-
tion of jurisdiction,
ib.
The courts of the United States may
examine into the jurisdiction of a
foreign court whose sentence is of
fered in evidence; and if that fo-
reign court cannot, consistently with
the law of nations, exercise the ju
risdiction it has assumed, its sen-
tence is to be disregarded. But the
courts of every country are the ex.
clusive judges of their own juris-
diction, so far as it depends upon
municipal laws. Rose v. Himely, 241
If the complainant be a French citi-
zen, and the defendant a citizen of
the state of Georgia, the circuit
court of the United States for the
district of Georgia has jurisdiction,
although the complainant and de-
fendant are both executors, and
their respective testators were both
citizens of the state of Georgia,
Chappedelaine v. Decheneaux, 308
In deciding the question of jurisdic-
tion the court will look to the con-
dition of the bond on which the suit
is brought, and not to the penalty.
United States v. M'Dowell, 316
An appeal or writ of error lies from
the district court of the United
States for the territory of Orleans to
the supreme court of the United
States. Morgan v. Callender,
If two citizens of the same state, in
a suit in a court of their state, claim
title under the same act of congress,
the supreme court of the United
States has an appellate jurisdiction
to revise and correct the judgment
of that court in such case. Matthews
v. Zane,
382

See Bank of Alexandria, 1.

370

17. The district judge may alone hold a
circuit court, although there be no
judge of the supreme court allotted
to that circuit. Pollard v Dwight,

421

18. All seizures under laws of impost,
navigation or trade of the United
States, where the seizures are made
on waters navigable from the sea by
vessels of ten or more tons burden,
are civil causes of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction, and are to be
tried without a jury United States v.
Schooner Betsey and Charlotte, 443
19. The question whether a seizure for
violation of a law of the United
States be of admiralty or common
law jurisdiction is to be decided by
the place of seizure, not by the place
of the offence, ib.

JURY.

452

3 Quære, whether a French court can,
consistently with the law of nations
and the treaty, condemn American
property never carried into the do-
minions of France, and while lying
in a port of the United States? ib.
243

4. No foreign court can question the
correctness of what is done, unless
the court passing the sentence loses
its jurisdiction by some circum-
stance which the law of nations can
notice. Hudson v. Guestier,

294
5. Every nation is the arbiter and vindi-
cator of its own rights. Appendix, 514
LEASE.

1. An averment of a demise for three
years is not supported by proof of a
lease for one year certain, and two
years' further possession on the same
terms, by consent of the landlord.
Alexander. Harris,

299

1. A letter of credit, directed by mis"
take to John and Joseph, and deli-
vered to John and Jeremiah,, will
not support an action by John and
Jeremiah against the writer of the
letter for goods furnished to the
bearer upon the faith of such letter
of credit. It is not a written con-
tract between the plaintiffs and de-
fendant, and parol proof cannot be
admitted to make it such. It is not
a case of ambiguity, nor of fraud, nor
of mistake on the part of the plain-
tiffs. Grant v. Naylor,
224

1. The courts of every country are the
exclusive judges of their own juris-
diction, so far as it depends upon
their municipal laws. Rose v.
Himely,
241
2. The prohibition, by France, of all
trade with the revolted blacks of St.
Domingo, was the exercise of a mu-
nicipal, not of a belligerent right, ib.
242

3. A seizure of a foreign vessel beyond
the limits of the territorial jurisdic-
tion, for breach of a municipal regu-
lation, is not warranted by the law
of nations; and such seizure cannot
give jurisdiction to the courts of the
offended country,
ib.

PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT.

See Jury, 2.
PLEADING.

See Lease, 2, Account, 2. Covenant, 1.

POSSESSION.

See Admiralty, 14. Evidence, 13.
PRACTICE.

1. See Admiralty, 6. 20.

2. If a writ of error be served before
the return day, it may be returned
after, even at a subsequent term;
and the appearance of the defend-
ant in error waives all objection to
the irregularity of the return. Wood
v. Lide,
180
3. The service of a writ of error is the
lodging a copy thereof for the ad-
verse party in the office of the clerk
of the court where the judgment
was rendered,
ib.
4. The supreme court of the United
States will hear viva voce testimony
as to the value of the matter in dis-
pute. United States v. Brig Union, 216
5. After deciding the question of value
upon the weight of evidence pro-
duced, the court will not continue
the cause for the party to produce
further evidence of the value, ib.
6. The certificate of commissioners
named in a dedimus that they took,
in due form of law, the oath an-
nexed to the commission, is suffi
cient evidence of that fact. Grant
v. Naylor,
224
7. If the return of the commission be
enclosed in an envelop, sealed by
the commissioners, no other sealing
by the commissioners is necessary,
ib.

225

See Lease, 1, 2, 3.
REPLEVIN.

See Lease, 1, 2. 3.
RESTITUTION.
See Admiralty, 1.
REVENUE.

See Collector, 3.
REVERSAL.

48

1. Costs are not given upon reversal of
judgment. Montalet v. Murray, -47
SALE.

See Duties, 2. Register, 2. Collector, 1, 2.