Ramsay v. Allegre. countries of the European continent. Such, too, was the law of Scotland, until it was recently altered by a decision "founded principally, as it seems, upon a desire to render the law of Scotland conformable to the law of England upon this subject." (Abbott, pt. 2, ch. 3, 14, p. 142.) How far the limits prescribed to the jurisdiction of the admiralty in England over maritime contracts, by the decisions of the commonlaw courts, after ages of controversy, had been adopted in this country, before the revolution, and how far the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the constitution of the United States is to be construed with reference to those decisions, are questions foreign to the purpose of this note. The only question here is, whether Mr. Pinkney was warranted in quoting this passage *" and the cases [*642 there cited," as an authority for the position, that "the maritime law has given such a lien, which may be enforced in the admiralty.' The question is not, whether the authority is conclusive to support the position; but whether it is sufficiently pertinent to render it probable that it was actually referred to for that purpose. It may be, that there is, as is contended in the above opinion, some discrepancy among the decisions of the admiralty judges in this country on the subject; but still the cases collected in a note to the American edition of Abbott (p. 160), are believed to be sufficient to rescue the argument attributed to Mr. Pinkney from the imputation oʻ being directly contradicted by the authoritics quoted to sustain it. The case of The Levi Dearborne, determined by Mr. Justice Johnson in the circuit court of Georgia, is also quoted by Mr. Pinkney for the same purpose. That "this quotation was in point," will appear by the following extract from the opinion of the learned judge, as we find it reported by Mr. Hall. "The lien on vessels for material-men and shipwrights, exists only in a foreign port. Where the owner is present and resident, the common-law principle must govern; in such case, no lien on the vessel is created. In the case of the owner, who, though present when the work and materials are furnished, is transient and non-resident, I am disposed to think otherwise, and that in such case the lien attaches. It is proper also to state, what shall be deemed a foreign, and what a domestic port, as to this question: the seaports of the different states ought, in this respect, to be considered as foreign ports in relation to each other. Charieston, for instance, is a foreign port, as to a claim of this nature made in Savannah." 4 Hall's Law Journ. 101. 4. That "in the case of a domestic ship, it was long since settled by the most solemn adjudications of the common law (which was the law of Maryland), that mechanics have no lien upon the ship itself for their demands, but must look to the personal security of the owner." This position is not denied to be supported by the authorities said to have been quoted by Mr. Pinkney; but the error imputed to the report consists in the asserted liability of a foreign ship to such a lien, which (as it has been seen) is recognised and enforced by the general maritime law, and which appears also to have been maintained by several admiralty judges in this country, and especially, by Mr. Justice JoHNSON, although it may not have been adopted by the peculiar law of England. In making these remarks, the editor has certainly not been influenced by any feelings of disrespect towards the learned judge by whom the above opinion was delivered, nor even by a desire to controvert the peculiar doctrines maintained in that opinion. It is his own character for accuracy and integrity as the reporter of the decisions of this court which the editor feels to be assailed, and therefore *seeks [*643 to vindicate. It is a duty which he owes to the court, to the profession, and to his own reputation, to maintain the fidelity of the reports, which are received as authentic evidence of the proceedings and adjudications of this high tribuual. If they are not to be relied on in this respect, they are worthless. In closing his labors, the editor has the consolation of reflecting, that it has been his humble aim to do justice to the learning and talents of the bar, and to uphold the honor and dignity of the bench. How far he has succeeded in this attempt, it does not become him to speak; but he is willing to submit to the impartial judgment of his professional brethren, whether the above accusation is supported by evidence. INDEX TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME. The References in this Index are to the STAR *pages. ADMIRALTY. The Palmyra... 1. A question of probable cause of seizure, under the piracy acts of the 3d of March 1819, ch 75, and the 15th of May 1820, ch. 212. *1 2. In such a case, although the crew may be protected by a commission bonâ fide received, and acted under, from the consequences attaching to the offence of piracy, by the general law of nations, although such commission was irregularly issued; yet, if the defects in the commission be such as, connected with the insubordination, and predatory spirit of the crew, to excite a justly founded suspicion, it is sufficient, under the act of congress, to justify the captors for bringing in the vessel for adjudication, and to exempt them from costs and damages. Id. 8. Although probable cause of seizure will not exempt from costs and damages, in seizures under mere municipal statutes, unless expressly made a ground of justification by the law itself, this principle does not extend to captures jure belli, nor to marine torts generally, nor to acts of congress authorizing the exercise of belligerent rights to a limited extent, such as the piracy acts of the 3d of March 1819, ch. 75, and the 15th of May 1820, ch. 112.......... Id. 4. Explanation of the decree of this court in the case of the The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, and 11 Id. 413. The Antelope.... *546 5. Quare? Whether a suit in personam in the admiralty may be maintained against the owner of a ship, by materiai-men furnishing supplies for the ship in her home port, where the local law gives no specific lien upon the ship, which can be enforced by a proceeding in rem? Ramsay v. Allegre......... *611 6. However this may be, in general, such suit cannot be maintained, where the owner has given a negotiable promissory note for the debt, which is not tendered to be given up, or actually surrendered, at the hearing...Id. See CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES: JURISDICTION, 5, 6. BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES. 1. An unconditional promise, by the indorser of a bill or note, to pay it, or the acknowledg ment of his liability, after knowledge of his discharge from his responsibility, by the laches of the holder, is an implied waiver of due notice of a demand from the drawee, acceptor or maker. Thornton v. Wynn........* 183 2. A mere agreement by the holder of a bill with the drawer, for delay, without any consid eration for it, and without any communication with, or assent of the indorser, will not discharge the latter, after he has been fixed in his responsibility, by the refusal of the drawee, and due notice to himself. McLe more v. Powell....... *554 3. Wherever the government of the United States, through its lawfully authorized agents, becomes the holder of a bill of exchange, it is bound to use the same diligence, in order to charge the indorser, as in a transaction between private individuals. United States v. Barker.... *559 4. Where the United States were the holders of certain bills of exchange, and their agent in New York was directed, by a letter from the secretary of the treasury, dated Washington, December 7th, 1814, to give notice of nonacceptance to the drawer and indorsers, residing in New York, and notice was given to the indorser, on the 12th of the same month, the mail which left the 8th having arrived at New York at 35 minutes past 10 o'clock, A. M. on the 10th: Held, that the indorser was discharged by the negligence of the Id. CASES COMMENTED ON, AND CON- 1. English v. Darley, Bos. & Pul. 61; Nat- *389 jurisdiction of this court from the judgments .*17 2. But if the rights of those not before the ... . . . Id. 8. The assignee of such bonds takes them sub- See LEX LOCI, 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 1. The authority to decide whether the exigencies authority to call forth the militia, "to execute 2. Although a militia-man, who refused to obey ..Id. 8. Where, in an action of replevin, the de- 4. It is not necessary, in such a case, that it 5. It is unnecessary to set out the orders of 7. A court-martial, regularly organized under 8. Under the 25th section of the judiciary act 9. Where, in such a case, the validity of a statute ... Id. 11. Where a suit was brought in a state court, 12. The circuit courts of the Union have juris- |