judge of probate is authorized and is bound to deny his petition, Ib.

3. (Injunction on fraudulent judgment by one.) If a fraudulent judgment is obtained against an estate of which N. and E. are co-executors, through the fraud of N., combining with the plaintiff, and without the privity of the other executor, such other executor is entitled to an allowance of such sum as he shall have reasonably expended in time and money, in procuring an injunction on such judgment. Evarts v. Nason's estate, 11 Vermont, 122.

FISHERIES. (Registered ship.) By the act of 1793, ch. 52, no registered ship or vessel can, while she remains registered, engage in the whale fisheries; but she must surrender her register, and be enrolled and licensed for the fisheries. United States v. Rogers, 3 Sumner, 342.

2. (Same.) The act of 1835, ch. 40, provides, that "if any one

or more of the crew of an American ship or vessel, on the high seas, &c., shall endeavor to make a revolt," &c., he and they shall, on conviction, be punished as provided in the act. Held, that a ship, engaged in a whaling voyage, without having surrendered her register, or taken out an enrollment and license, pursuant to the act of 1793, ch. 52, was not an American ship, within the purview of the act of 1835, ch. 40, and that an indictment would not hold, under this act, against the crew, for an endeavor to make a revolt. Ib.

FOREIGN LAW. (Admission of.) The intercourse of mankind requires, that the acts of parties, valid where done, should be recognised in other countries, provided they be not contrary to good morals, and the policy of the state. Hanrick v. Andrews, 9 Porter, 9.

FRAUD. (Contract obtained by.) In an action on a contract under seal, in which one of the contracting parties is seeking to enforce the contract against the other, the defendant may plead that the contract was obtained by fraud and imposition. Hazard v. Irwin, 18 Pickering, 95.

2. (Same.) In an action on a contract under seal, whereby the

defendants became sureties that one P. should perform his contract with the plaintiff, which likewise was under seal, it was held, that the defendants might plead that P.'s contract was voidable by reason of fraud and imposition, and that P. in consequence rescinded it. Ib.

3. (Same.) Where the declaration averred that the plaintiff, by a contract under seal, sold and conveyed a steam engine to P., and that he gave P. an order for the engine, and that the defendants, by an instrument under seal, became sureties for the payment of the debt due by P., and the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff falsely and fraudulently made representations as to the engine, by reason whereof the contract of sale was void and P. refused to perform the same, wherefore the instrument executed by the defendants was void, it was held, that as it did not appear by the record that the engine had been delivered to P., the plea was good, especially after verdict, although it did not aver that the engine, or the order for its delivery, had been returned to the plaintiff. lb.

4. (Same.) Held also, that the defendants' contract, whereby they became sureties "for the payment of the debt due by P.,” did not estop them from showing that the contract of sale was voidable and avoided, so that no debt was due from P. to the plaintiff. Ib.

5. (Same.) The averment in the defendants' plea, that the plain

tiff falsely and fraudulently made certain representations respecting the steam engine, and that by reason thereof the contract between P. and the plaintiff was void and P. refused to perform it, was considered, after verdict, as equivalent to an averment that P. had rescinded the contract. Ib.

6. (Same.) It appeared that the plaintiff falsely and fraudulently represented to P. that the engine was a twenty-horse power engine; that it was fit for mining purposes; that it was in good order and had been so certified by engineers; that it was free from rust; that it had been standing but two or three years. It was held, that these false representations related to matters of fact and not of opinion; and that as they were material to the

interests of P., and had a tendency to prevent him from inquiring into the condition of the engine, and as he reposed confidence in them, they rendered the contract of sale voidable by him. Ib.

7. (Same.) Held also, that P. was a competent witness for the defendants to prove such misrepresentations, he not being liable to the defendants for the costs of the action against them. Ib. 8. (Same.) If, upon a sale, the vendor makes material representations of matters of fact, as of his own knowledge, to be true, and they are in fact untrue, and the vendee is deceived thereby, the sale will be voidable, although the vendor did not know whether they were true or not. Ib.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. (Debt of another.) The defendant having contracted to board the respondent's laborers at his expense, it was verbally agreed between the defendant, the respondent, and a third person, that the latter should deliver and charge provisions to the defendant, and the respondent would see him paid therefor. Held, that this promise of the respondent was within the statute of frauds. Cahill v. Bigelow and Tr., 18 Pickering, 369.

2. (Same.) W. being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $10 31, agreed to pay him in labor, the plaintiff saying, that when he was ready he would call on W. Afterwards W. agreed to work for the defendant; and while he was so employed, the plaintiff went with him to the defendant, and asked the defendant if he would give him up; but the defendant replied, that he would not, and that he would see the debt paid or would pay the debt; and W., in consequence of such promise, remained in the defendant's employment. The court were inclined to think, that there was a sufficient consideration for the promise of the defendant, in the benefit which he received from the continuance of W. in his employment; but they held, that, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff discharged his claim against W., such promise, not being in writing, was void by the statute of frauds. Stone v. Symmes, 18 Pickering, 467.

3. (Performed within a year.) The provision in the statute of

frauds, that no action shall be maintained on any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof, unless the same be in writing, does not extend to an agreement that one party may cut certain trees on the land of the other at any time within ten years, for such an agreement may be performed within one year. Kent v. Kent, 18 Pickering, 569.

4. (Within year.) Where a contract for work and labor is to be begun, but not completed, within one year from the making thereof, it is within the statute of frauds, and no action can be maintained thereon, unless it be in writing. Hinckley v. Southgate, 11 Vermont, 428.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. A mortgage of real estate was made to secure the payment of a negotiable promissory note, and the mortgagee, not being in possession, assigned the mortgage, during the pendency of an action against him for slander, in order to avoid more effectually the judgment which might be recovered against him, and subsequently died insolvent, and his administrator assigned the same mortgage to a bona fide purchaser, for a valuable consideration. It was held, that the prior assignment was fraudulent, and that it was void, under St. 27 Eliz. c. 4, as against such subsequent purchaser. Clapp v. Leatherbee, 18 Pickering, 131.

2. A father conveyed his life estate in certain land to his son, on condition, that whereas the son had agreed to support the father during his life, and the father was desirous of remaining in possession for the purpose of securing such support, the deed should be void if the son should fail to furnish such support, or should disturb the father in the peaceable possession of the land. It was held, that such deed was not per se fraudulent as against creditors of the father, but was open to explanation; and that the stipulation as to the support of the father and his remaining in possession, was a condition, and not a reservation defeating the grant. Slater v. Dudley, 18 Pickering, 373. FRAUDULENT SALES AND CONVEYANCES. (Property

exempt from attachment.) The sale of property, exempt from

attachment and execution, is valid against the creditors of the

vendor without a change of the possession.

gor and another, 11 Vermont, 595.

Foster v. McGre

2. (By a partner, of his own property.) A man may be guilty of fraud in the sale of his own property, to defraud the creditors of a partnership, of which he is a member. Forbes and another v. Davison, 11 Vermont, 660. FREIGHT. (Paid in advance.) Semble, Where freight is paid in advance and the voyage is not performed, the ship owner cannot, without an express stipulation to this effect, retain it, but the shipper may recover it back. Pitman v. Hooper, 3 Sumner, 50.

2. (In case of salvage.) Case of salvage-right of ship to freight.

Where a ship, bound from Havana to St. Petersburg, with a cargo of sugars, shipped in part on freight and in part on half profits, with a right to enter and clear at Boston, in order to obtain a clean bill of health, struck on the south shoal of Nantucket, and was there, after a jettison of part of her cargo, abandoned by the master and crew, and the ship afterwards floated off the shoal, and was met and brought into port by salvors, and there libelled for salvage; and the ship was there repaired and made ready for sea; but the cargo was in part sold on account of damage, and part sold to pay duties, and part was delivered on bail to underwriters, and part was held in the custody of the court; and the ship was ready to take on board the cargo, if ready; but afterwards, owing to the admiralty proceedings, she was sold. Held, under all the circumstances of the case;

That the full freight of the sugars, of which there was a jettison, for the voyage, was to be allowed as part of the general average to be borne by the ship and cargo, and the freight (pro rata) saved.

That no freight was due upon the sugars, sold at Boston, on account of damage and their perishable nature; nor upon the sugars sold to pay duties; nor upon the sugars applied to pay the salvage.