« PreviousContinue »
neutral, it is settled, that where a person has his domicil, there is his country, whatever may be his country of birth or adoption.1
In all cases, the master and crew are presumed Question of to possess the national character of the vessel to acter. which they are attached, during the time of their employment.2
A person who remains in a belligerent country As affected by for several years, paying taxes, etc., though his design at first was a mere temporary sojourn, loses his national character.3
A neutral consul resident and trading in a belligerent country, is deemed a belligerent.4
The native character reverts at once, upon removal, and indeed as soon as one puts himself m itinera to his native country, animo revertendi. ,
A neutral merchant trading in the enemy's coun- As affected by
try as a privileged trader, is deemed an enemy, but not if lie be engaged in the ordinary and accustomed trade of neutral merchants.6
The domicil of a commercial partnership is regulated by that of the persons composing.6
1 The Vigilantia, 1 Rob., 1; The Endraught, 1 Rob., 19; The Susan Christina, 1 Rob., 237; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob., 23; The President, 5 Rob., 277; The Neptunus, 6 Rob., 403; The Venus, 9 Cranch., 253; The Frances, 1 Gall., 614; McConnel vs. H"rtor, 3 Bos. and Pul., 113.
2 The Endraught, 1 Rob., 23; The Bernou, 1 Rob., 102; The Frederick, 6 Rob., 8; The Ann, 1 Dod., 221.
* The Harmony, 2 Rob., 232.
* The Indian Chief, 3 Rob., 22; The Josephine, 4 Rob., 25; The CHto, 3 Rob., 38; La Virginie, 5 Rob., 98; The St. Lawrence, 1 Gall., 457.
5 The Anna Calherina, 4 Rob., 119; The Rendsberg, 4 Rob., 139.
* The Viglantia, 1 Rob., 1, 14, 19; The Susa, 2 Rob., 255; The Indiana, 3 Rob., 44; The Portland,^ Rob., 44; Tlie Vriend
The subject of the transfer of enemy's ships dur- As affected by ing war, has already been fully considered. The sets "during effect of uch transfer becomes very often an im- war' portant question at the hearing, and has frequently been discussed in prize courts. The student is referred to numerous additional authorities, illustrating the practice of the tribunals.1
So, too, has already been considered, the effect And the trans
» , » „ . , fer of goods in
oi a transfer ot property m cargo, from an enemy to transitu.
It is sufficient after the consideration already niegaitradoaa given to the subject of illegal trade, or that which prietary interbecomes illegal during war, to refer to the leading est3' decisions of the prize courts upon that subject, as
1 The Phoenix, 5 Rob., 20; The Dree Gebroeders, 4 Rob., 232; Bentzon,s Claim, 9 Cranch, 191; The Bernou, 1 Rob., 102; The Sechs Gedschmistem, 4 Rob., 100; The Argo, 1 Rob., 158; The Jenny, 4 Rob., 31; The Omnibus, 6 Rob., 71; The Minerva, 6 Rob., :iOG; The Packet de Bilboa, 1 Rob.,133; TheNoyt G<dacht, 2 Rob., 137, note a. .
8 The Danckebaar A/ricaan, 1 Rob., 107; The Hatstelda, 1 Rob., 114; The Vrow Margaretha, 1 Rob., 336; The Jan Frederick, 5 Rob., 128; The Curl Waller, 4 Rob., 207; The Sally, 3 Rob., 300, note a; The At/as, 3 Rob., 299; The Anna Catherina, 4 Rob., 107; The Rendsburg,A Rob., 121 ; The Jan Frederick, 5 Rob., 128; The Aurora, 4 Rob., 218; The Merrimack, 8 Cranch 317; Th-- Marianna, 0 Rob., 24; The St. Jose Indium,, 2 Gallis., 268, 1 Wheat., 208; The Venus, 8 Cranch, 253; The Frances, 1 Gall., 445, S. C, 8 Cranch, 344, 9 Cranch, 183; The Mary and Susan, 1 Wheat,., 25; The Josephine, 4 Rob., 25.
affecting the important question to be determined at the hearing of proprietary interest.1 The effect of Allied to the subject of illegal trade, prize courts
violation of ".
blockade; of are often required, at the hearing, to determine trade;btrade upon the evidence, whether there has been a violaTOastnCOTywith ^ou or HU attempted violation of a lawful blqekher colonies; ade, an illegal traffic in contraband of war, a resist
and resistance , . , „ • . .
to search. ance to the right ot search, an engagement in the coasting or colonial trade of the enemy, or unneutral conduct of any character. These several subjects have been fully reviewed. Some further authorities are here referred to, as well as others relating to the principles adopted by prize courts as to the important question, of the.binding character of the acts of the master of the vessel, under various circumstances upon the owner of the vessel or the cargo.2
8 The Vigilantia, 1 Rob., 1, 14; The Hoop, 1 Rob., 196; Potts vs. Bell, 8 T. R., 548; The Rapid, 8 Cranch, 155; S. C, 1 Gall., 295; The Alejrarider, 8 Cranch, 169; S. C, 1 Gallis, 532; The Joseph, 8 Cranch, 451; S. C, 1 Gallis, 545; The Naiade, 4 Rob., 251; The Neptunus, 6 Rob., 403; The Danous, 4 Rob., 255; The Ann, 1 Dod., 2£1; The Abby, 5 Rob., 251; The Mary, 1 Gallis., 620; S. C, 9 Cranch, 120; The Lord Wellington, 2 Gallis., 103; The Julia, 1 Gallis., 594; S. C, 8 Cranch, 181; The Aurora, 8 Cranch, 203; The Hiram, 6 Cranch, 444; S. C, 1 Wheat,, 440; The Ariadne, 2 Wheat, 143; The Atlas, 3 Rob., 299; The Sally, 3 Rob., 300, and note a.
2 The Boedes Lust, 5 Rob., 233, 1 Wheat,, 389, note, 1 Wheat., 507; app. note 3; The Vrow Judith, 1 Rob., 150; The Adonis, 5 Rob., 25(3; The Tmina, 3 Rob., 167; The Mars, 6 Rob., 79; The Rosalie and Betty, 2 Rob., 343; The Alexander, 4 Rob., 93; The Elsebe, 5 Rob., 173; The Shepherdess, 5 Rob., 262; The Hiram, 1 Wheat., 440; The Dispatch, 3 Rob., 279; The Nireidt, 9 Cranch, 388; The Fanny, 1 Dod., 443; The Vrotr Judith, 1 Rob., 150; The St. Nicholas, 1 Wheat., 417; The Wmw Ins. Co. vs. Pratt, 2 Binney, 308; Oswell vs. Viyue, 15 EasU, When a sentence is pronounced in a prize court, The decree of
i • ,1 r% , • , l.i •, I condemnation.
upon a hearing in the first instance, whether it be and proceedof condemnation, or acquittal and restitution, it is, mgli tlierconin all cases, an interlocutory decree, where any thing further remains to be done by the court, after deciding that the property is to be condemned or restored. And first, we will briefly review the subsequent proceedings upon an interlocutory decree of condemnation.
Condemnation being decreed, the next question AVll° aro «u>
„ , \ . , . . 7 tors and joint
tor the prize court to determme is, who are the captors raticaptors entitled to distribution. TaZ^l
We have already passed in review the settled principles upon which this question is to be decided by the court; in connection with captures made by commissioned or non-commissioned vessels—public, private or .armed vessels—and as to -joint-capture, and the principles upon which it is to be determined what is a joint-capture, and who are entitled to share in the distribution as joint-captors.
It is not usual to file a claim of ioint-cai)ture be- men a e,aiiu
, of joint capture
fore the interlocutory decree of condemnation; but to be filed, and if it Tie delayed until after a decree of distribution, estabUshed?1"1 it is too late—unless it should happen that an appeal lias been taken from the decree, when, as matter of favor, it seems that a claim of joint-capture may be admitted.1
It is a settled rule of prize courts, that a claim of joint-capture must be made iu the ordinary way, by a regular allegation of the facts and circum
70; The iVeptunus, 1 Rob., 170; The Hoop, 1 Rob.,' 196; The Daankbawhtit, 1 Dod., 183.
1 Duckworth vs. Tucker, 2 Taunt., 7; The Stella del Norte, 5 Rob., 349; Home vs. Camden, 2 H. Bl., 533.