March 3d, 1815, ch. 783, § 4, of suits brought
in the name of "the postmaster-general of
the United States" on bonds given to the
postmaster-general, by a deputy-postmaster,
conditioned "to pay all moneys that shall
come to his hands for the postage of whatever
is by law chargeable with postage, to the post-
master-general of the United States for the
time being, deducting only the commission and
allowances made by the law for his care,
trouble and charges in managing the said
office," &c. Postmaster-General v. Early.*136
13. The postmaster-general has authority to
take such a bond, under the different acts
establishing and regulating the post-office
department, and particularly under the act
of April 30th, 1810, ch. 262, § 29, 42....Id.
14. The power of congress to establish uni-
form laws on the subject of bankruptcies
throughout the United States," does not
exclude the right of the states to legislate on
the same subject, except when the power is
actually exercised by congress, and the state
laws conflict with those of congress.

v. Saunders......

66

Ogden
.*213

15. A bankrupt or insolvent law of any state,
which discharges both the person of the
debtor, and his future acquisitions of pro-
perty, is not a law "impairing the obligation
of contracts," so far as respects debts con-
tracted subsequent to the passage of such
law.....
.......... ld.
16. But a certificate of discharge, under such a
law, cannot be pleaded in bar of an action
brought by a citizen of another state, in the
courts of the United States, or of any other
state than that where the discharge was
obtained..

.....Id.

17. The states have a right to regulate, or
abolish, imprisonment for debt, as a part of
the remedy for enforcing the performance
of contracts. Mason v. Haile ....... .*370
18. Where the condition of a bond for the jail-
limits, in Rhode Island, required the party to
remain a true prisoner, in the custody of the
keeper of the prison, and within the limits of
the prison, "until he shall be lawfully dis-
charged, without committing any manner of
escape or escapes, during the time of restraint,
then this obligation to be void, or else to re-
main in full force and virtue;" Held, that a
discharge under the insolvent laws of the
state, obtained from the proper court, in
pursuance of a resolution of the legislature,
and discharging the party from all his debts,
&c., "and from all imprisonment, arrest and
restraint of his person therefor," was a law-
ful discharge, and his going at large under
it, was
no breach of the condition of the
bond......
....... Id.
19. An act of a state legislature, requiring all

importers of foreign goods by the bale or
package, &c., and other persons selling the
same by wholesale, bale, or package, &c., to
take out a license, for which they shall pay
$50, and in case of neglect or refusal to take
out such license, subjecting them to certain
forfeitures and penalties, is repugnant to that
provision of the constitution of the United
States, which declares that "no state shall,
without the consent of congress, lay any im-
post, or duty on imports or exports, except
what may be absolutely necessary for exe-
cuting its inspection laws;" and to that which
declares that congress shall have power "to
regulate commerce with foreign nations,
among the several states, and with the
Indian tribes." Brown v. State of Mary-
land......
*419

CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.

1. Upon an indictment, under the slave-trade
act of the 20th of April 1818, ch. 373,
against the owner of the ship, testimony of
the declarations of the master, being a part
of the res gesta, connected with acts in fur-
therance of the voyage, and within the scope
of his authority, as agent of the owner, in
the conduct of the guilty enterprise, is admis-
sible against the owner.
United States v.
Gooding.....

.*460

2. Upon such an indictment against the owner,
charging him with fitting out the ship, with
intent to employ her in the illegal voyage,
evidence is admissible, that he commanded,
authorized, and superintended the fitment,
through the instrumentality of his agents,
without being personally present. . . . . . . . Id.
3. It is not essential to consitute a fitting cut
under the acts of congress, that every equip
ment necessary for a slave-voyage, or any
equipment peculiarly adapted to such a voy-
age, should be taken on board; it is suffi-
cient, if the vessel is actually fitted out, with
intent to be employed in the illegal voyage. Id.
4. In such an indictment, it is not necessary to
specify the particulars of the fitting out; it
is sufficient, to allege the offence in the words
of the statute.
.....Id.

5. Nor is it necessary that there should be any
principal offender to whom the defendant
might be aiding and abetting. These terms
in the statute do not refer to the relation of
principal and accessory in cases of felony;
both the actor, and he who aids and abets
the act are considered as principals.....Id.
6. It is necessary, that the indictment should
aver, that the vessel was built, fitted out, &c.,
or caused to sail, or be sent away, within
the jurisdiction of the United States.....Id.
7. An averment that the ship was fitted out,

&c., " with intent that the said vessel should
be employed" in the slave-trade, is fatally
defective, the words of the statute being,
"with intent to employ" the vessel in the
slave-trade, and exclusively referring to the
intent of the party causing the act....... Id.
8. The term "concealed," us used in the 68th
section of the duty act of the 2d of March
1799, ch. 128, applies only to articles in-
tended to be secreted and withdrawn from
public view, on account of the duties not
having been paid, or secured to be paid, or
from some other fraudulent motive. The
forfeiture inflicted by that section, does not
extend to a case where, the duties not having
been paid or secured, in any other manner
than by giving the general bond, and storing
the goods, according to the 62d section of the
act, the goods were fraudulently removed
from the storehouse agreed upon by the
collector and the importer, by some person
other than the claimants, who were bond fide
purchasers of the goods, and without their
knowledge and consent, to another port,
where the goods were found stowed on board
the vessel in which they were transported, in
the usual manner of stowing such goods,
when shipped for transportation.
United
States v. 350 Chests of Tea...... *486

9. Under the 62d section of the act, in the case
of teas, the duties are "secured to be paid,"
in the sense of the law, by the single bond
of the importer, accompanied by a deposit
of the teas imported, to be kept under the
lock and key of the inspector, and subject to
the control of the collector and naval officer,
until the duties are actually paid, or otherwise
secured; and no forfeiture is incurred, under
the 68th section, by the removal and con-
cealment of goods on which the duties have
been thus "secured to be paid."........ Id.
19. To authorize the seizure and bringing to
adjudication of teas, under the 43d section
of the act, it is necessary, not only that
the chests should be unaccompanied by the
proper certificates, but also by the marks
required to be placed upon them by the 39th
section.....
ld.
11. The lien of the government, for duties,
attaches upon the articles, from the moment
of their importation, and is not discharged by
the unauthorized and illegal removal of the
goods from the custody of the custom-house
officers..
......Id.

12. Quære?

.....

Whether such lien can be en-
forced against a bond fide purchaser, without
notice that the duties were not paid or
secured...
...Id.

See ADMIRALTY, 3: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1-13:
CORPORATIONS, 1-5; LIMITATION.

CORPORATIONS.

1. Municipal corporations, acting within the
limits of the powers conferred upon them by
the legislature, in the exercise of a special
franchise granted to them, and the perform-
ance of a special duty imposed upon them,
are responsible for the acts and contracts of
their agents, duly appointed and authorized,
within the scope of the authority of such
agents, in the same manner as other corpora-
tions and private individuals are responsible
on their promises, express and implied. Clark
v. Corporation of Washington.....
....*40
2. Where, by the charter granted by congress
to the city of Washington, the corporation
was empowered "authorize the drawing of
lotteries," for effecting certain improvements
in the city, and upon certain terms and condi-
tions: Held, that the corporation was liable
to the holder of a ticket in such a lottery,
for a prize drawn against its number, although
the managers appointed by the corporation to
superintend such lottery were empowered
to sell, and had sold, the entire lottery, to a
lottery dealer, for a gross sum, who was, by
his agreement with them, to execute the de-
tails of the scheme as to the sale of the
tickets, the drawings, and the payment of
the prizes....

..Id.
3. It seems, that the power granted in the
charter "to authorize the drawing of lot-
teries," cannot be exercised so as to discharge
the corporation from its liability, either by
granting the lottery, or selling the privilege
to others, or in any other manner; but the
lotteries to be authorized by the corporation
must be drawn under its superintendence, for
its own account, and on its own responsi-
bility.....

Id.

4. In a suit brought by the president, directors
and company of the Bank of the United
States, upon a bond given to the bank to
secure the faithful performance of the official
duties of one of its cashiers, evidence of the
execution of the bond, and of its approval
by the board of directors (according to the
rules and regulations contained in the charter
of the bank), is admissible, notwithstanding
there was no record of such approval; and
the plaintiff may prove the fact of such ap-
proval by the board, by presumptive evidence,
in the same manner as such fact might be
proved in the case of private persons, not
acting as a corporation, or as the agents of a
corporation. Bank of the United States v.
Dandridgs..
*64

5. Where, in such a case, the cashier is duly
appointed, and permitted to act in his office,
for a long time, under the sanction of the
directors, it is not necessary that his official

bond should be accepted by the board of
directors as satisfactory, according to the
terms of the charter, in order to enable him
to enter legally on the duties of his office, or
make his sureties responsible for the non-
performance of those duties. The charter
and the by-laws are to be considered, in this
respect, as directory to the board, and not
as conditions precedent....
...Id

CONTRACT.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14-18: GUARANTEE:
INSURANCE: SALE: SURETY.

DEVISE.

1. E. being seised of lands in the state of New
York, devised the same, by his last will and
testament, to his son Joseph, in fee, and
other lands to his son Medcef, in fee, and
added: "It is my will and I do order and
appoint, that if either of my said sons should
depart this life, without lawful issue, his
share or part shall go to the survivor; and
in case of both their deaths without lawful
issue, then I give all the property to my
brother, John E., and my sister, Hannah J.,
and their heirs:" Joseph, one of the sons,
died without lawful issue, in 1812, leaving
his brother Medcef surviving, who afterwards
died without issue: Held, that Joseph took
an estate in fee, defeasible in the event of
his dying without issue in the lifetime of his
brother; that the limitation over was good
as an executory devise; and on the death
of Joseph, vested in his surviving brother
Medcef. Jackson v. Chew...... .*153

2. This court adopts the local law of real prop.
erty, as ascertained by the decisions of the
state courts, whether those decisions are
grounded on the construction of the statutes
of the state, or form a part of the unwritten
law of the state...
.....Id.
3. The court, therefore, considered it unneces-
sary to examine the question arising upon
the above devise, as a question of general law;
or to review, and attempt to reconcile, the
cases in the English courts, upon similar
clauses in wills, the construction of this
clause having been long settled by a uniform
series of adjudications in New York, and
having become a fixed rule of porperty in
that state.....
.Id.

4. A devise in the following words: "I give
and devise to my beloved son, E. W. G., two
third parts of that my Ferry farm, so called,"
&c., "to him, the said E. W. G., and to his heirs
and assigns for ever, he, my said son E. W. G.,
paying all my just debts out of said estate; and
I do hereby order, and it is my will, that my son

E. W. G. shall pay all my just debts, out of
the estate herein given to him as aforesaid,"
creates a charge upon the estate in the hands
of the devisee. Potter v. Gardner.... *498
5. A bona fide purchaser, who pays the purchase-
money to a person authorized to sell, is not
bound to look to its application, whether in
the case of lands charged in the hands of an
heir or devisee with the payment of debts, or
lands devised to a trustee for the payment of
debts.....
....Id.

6. But if the money be misapplied by the de-
visee or trustee, with the co-operation of the
purchaser, he remains liable to the creditors
for the sum so misapplied.............. Id.
7. On a bill filed by an executor against a de-
visee of lands charged with the payment of
debts, for an account of the trust fund, &c.,
the creditors are not indispensable parties to
the suit. The fund may be brought into
court, and distributed under its direction,
according to the rights of those who may
apply for it.....
....Id.

8. An absolute bequest of certain slaves to P.
H., is qualified by a subsequent limitation
over, that if either of the testator's grand-
children, P. H., or J. D. A., should die with-
out a lawful heir of their bodies, that the
other should heir his estate, which con-
verted the previous estate into an estate-tail;
and there being no words in the will which
restrained the dying without issue to the time
of the death of the legatee, the limitation over
was held to be a contingency too remote.
Williamson v. Daniel......
.*568

9. The rule of partus sequitur ventrem is univer-
sally followed, unless there be something in
the terms of the instrument which disposes
of the mother, separating the issue from
her....
...ld.

precedent, as a record, or only directory
to the officers who are to make the rec-
ord....
...Id. *81
5. The exclusive jurisdiction over wills of per-
sonalty belongs to the appropriate court
having the peculiar cognisance of testamen-
tary matters; and before any testamentary
paper, foreign or domestic, can be admitted
in evidence, it must receive probate in such
court. Armstrong v. Lear.....
#169
6. Upon an indictment under the slave-trade act,
of the 20th of April 1818, ch. 373, against
the owner of the ship, testimony of the de-
clarations of the master, being a part of the
res gesta, connected with acts in furtherance
of the voyage, aud within the scope of his
authority, as agent of the owner, in the
conduct of the guilty enterprise, is admis-
sible against the owner. United States v.
Gooding...
.*460

7. Upon such an indictment against the owner,
charging him with fitting out the ship, with
intent to employ her in the illegal voyage,
evidence is admissible, that he commanded,
authorized and superintended the fitment,
through the instrumentality of his agents,
without being personally present........Id.
8. The onus probandi, in criminal cases, lies
upon the prosecution, unless there be some
positive provision by statute to the con-
trary
..Id.

See GUARANTEE, 2.

GUARANTEE.

1. The following letter of guaranty, "Baltimore,
17th Nov. 1803. Capt. Charles Drummond,
Dear Sir-My son William having mentioned
to me, that, in consequence of your esteem
and friendship for him, you had caused and
placed property of yours, and your brother's,
in his hands for sale, and that it is probable,
from time to time, you may have considerable
transactions together; on my part, I think
proper to guaranty to you the conduct of my
son, and shall hold myself liable, and do hold
myself liable for the faithful discharge of all
his engagements to you, both now and in
future. (Signed) Geo. Prestman," will extend
to a partnership debt incurred by William
P. to Charles Drummond and Richard his
brother, it being proved that the transac-
tions to which the letter related were with
them as partners, and that no other brother
of the said Charles was interested therein.
Drummond v. Prestman ... .....*515
2. In such a case, the record of a judgment
confessed by the principal, William P., to
Richard D., as surviving partner of Charles
and Richard D., for the amount of the debt

1. A policy for $10,000, upon a voyage "at and
from Alexandria to St. Thomas, and two
other ports in the West Indies, and back to
her port of discharge in the United States,
upon all lawful goods and merchandise, laden
or to be laden on board the ship, &c., begin-
ning the adventure upon the said goods and
merchandise, from the lading at Alexandria,
and continuing the same until the said
goods and merchandise shall be safely landed
at St. Thomas, &c., and the United States
aforesaid," is an insurance upon every suc
cessive cargo taken on board, in the course
of the voyage out and home, so as to cover
the risk of a return-cargo, the proceeds of the
sales of the outward cargo. Columbian Ins.
Co. v. Catlett......

*382

2. Such a policy covers an insurance of $10,000,
during the whole voyage out and home, so
long as the assured has that amount of
property on board, without regard to the fact
of a portion of the original cargo having
been safely landed at an intermediate port,
before the loss....
........Id.

....

8. Where the cargo, in the course of the out-
ward voyage, and befor its termination, was
permanently separated from the ship, by the
total wreck of the latter; and the cargo being
perishable in its nature, though not injured
to one-half its value, it became necessary to
sell it, the further prosecution of the voyage
with the same ship or cargo became imprac-
ticable; Held, that this was a technical total
loss, on account of the breaking up of the
voyage...
.Id.
4. Whether a delay at a particular port consti-
tutes a deviation, depends upon the usage of
trade with reference to the object of selling
the cargo. Where different ports are to be
visited for this purpose, the owner has a
right to limit the price at which the master
may sell, to a reasonable extent; and a delay
at a particular port, if bond fide made for that
purpose, does not constitute a deviation,
though occasioned by this restriction....Id.
5. Freight is not a charge upon the salvage of
the cargo, in the hands of the underwriters,
whether the assured is owner of the ship or
not......
.......Id.

6. Where an insurance was effected, after a
loss had happened, though unknown to the
assured, the master having omitted to com-

municate information to the owner, and
having expressed his intention not to write to
the owner, and taken measures to prevent
the fact of the loss being known, for the
avowed purpose of enabling the owner to
effect insurance, in consequence of which,
information of the loss had not reached the
parties, at the time the policy was underwrit-
ten: Held, that the owner having acted with
good faith, was not precluded from a recovery
upon the policy, on account of the fraudulent
misconduct of the master. General Interest
Ins. Co. v. Ruggles....
.....*408

3. Manner in which the jurisdiction of the
circuit courts, in equity cases, is to be exer-
cised, where, from the constitution of the
court, persons who ought regularly to be
made parties, cannot sue or be sued in those
courts. Mallow v. Hinde....... .....*193
4. Jurisdiction of a court of equity over legacies
cannot be exercised, until the will has
received probate in the proper court having
the peculiar jurisdiction over testamentary
matters. Armstrong v. Lear
5. The lien for duties, under the impost laws,
cannot, in any case, be enforced by a libel of
information in the admiralty; the revenue
jurisdiction of the district courts, proceeding
in rem, only extending to cases of seizures
for forfeitures under laws of impost, naviga-
tion or trade of the United States. United
States v. 350 Chests of Tea.... . . . . . . *486
6. But a suit at common law may be instituted

.*169

7. Jurisdiction of the admiralty, in suits in
personam. Ramsay v. Allegre... . . . . . . . Id.
See LEX LOCI.

LEX LOCI.

1. A testamentary paper, executed in a foreign
country, even if executed so as to give it
the effect of a last will and testament by the
foreign law, cannot be made the foundation
of a suit for a legacy, in the courts of this
country, until it has received probate here, in
the court having the peculiar jurisdiction
of the probate of wills and other testamentary
matters. Armstrong v. Lear....... *169

LIEN.

1. The lien of a judgment on the lands of the
debtor, created by statute, and limited to a
certain period of time, is unaffected by the
circumstance of the plaintiff not proceeding
upon it (during that period), until a subse
quent lien has been obtained and carried
into execution. Rankin v. Scott......*177
2. Universal principle, that a prior lien is
entitled to prior satisfaction out of the thing
it binds, unless the lien be intrinsically de-
fective, or is displaced by some act of the
party holding it, which shall postpone him at
law or in equity.....
...Id.

3. Mere delay in proceeding to execution is not
such an act...
....Id.
4. Distinction created by statute, as to execu-
tions against personal chattels, and reasons
on which it is founded

See CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES, 11, 12.

LIMITATION.

.Id.

1. Under the fourth section of the act of April
10th, 1806, ch. 21, although the condition of
a marshal's bond is broken, by his neglecting
to bring money into court, directed to be so
brought in or to pay it over to the party, yet,
if the proceedings be suspended by appeal,
so that the party injured has no right to
demand the money, or to sue for the recovery
of it, his right of action has not accrued,
so as to bar it, if not commenced within
Six years. Montgomery v. Hernandez...*129
2. An acknowledgment of the debt, by the
personal representatives of the original debtor,
deceased, will not take the case out of
the statute of limitations. Thompson v.
Peter...

LOCAL LAW.

*565

1. Under the act of North Carolina of 1782, for
the relief of the officers and soldiers in the