fore, seeks 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 tribunal. If they are not to be relied on in this respect, they are worthless. In closing his labours, 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 honour 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 bre thren, whether the above accusation is supported by evidence.
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, 112. The Palmyra, 2. In such a case, although the crew may be protected by a commission bona 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. S. C. 16
3. 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. S. C. 17 4. Explanation of the decree of this Court in the case of The Antelope, (ante, vol. X. p 66 and vol. XI. p. 413.) The Antelope, 546 5. Quære, Whether a suit in personam in the Admiralty may be maintained against the owner of a ship by material 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. S. C. Ib.
See CONSTRUCTION OF STATute. Ju-
RISDICTION, 5, 6.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND
PROMISSORY NOTES.
1. An unconditional promise, by the
endorser of a bill or note, to pay
it, or the acknowledgment 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, accep-
tor, or maker.
Thornton v.
183. 187
Wynn,
2. A mere agreement by the holder
of a bill with the drawer for de-
lay, without any consideration
for it, and without any communi-
cation with, or assent of the en-
dorser, will not discharge the lat-
ter, after he has been fixed in his
responsibility by the refusal of the
drawee, and due notice to him-
self. M'Lemore v. Powell, 554.
556
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 endorser,
as in a transaction between pri-
vate individuals. United States
v. Barker,
559
4. Where the United States were the
holders of certain bills of ex-
change, and their agent in New-
York was directed, by a letter
from the Secretary of the Trea-
sury, dated Washington, Decem-
ber 7th, 1814, to give notice of
non-acceptance to the drawer and
endorsers, residing in New-York,
and notice was given to the en-
dorser 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 en-
dorser was discharged by the neg-
ligence of the holders. S. C. Ib.
5. So, also, where the United States
were the holders of other bills,
and their agent in New-York was
directed, by a letter from the Se-
cretary of the Treasury, dated
Washington, May 8th, 1815, to
give notice of non-payment to the
drawer and endorsers residing in
New-York, and notice was given
to the endorser on the 12th of the
same month, the mail which left
Washington on the 8th having
reached New-York early on the
morning of the 11th; held, that the
endorser was discharged by the
negligence of the holders. S. C.
Ib.
CASES COMMENTED ON, AND
CONFIRMED OR OVERRÚLED.
1. The Apollon, The Marianna Flo-
ra, (9 Wheat. Rep. 362.) Pro-
bable cause of seizure. The Pal-
myra,
17
2. Head v. The Providence Ins. Co.
(2 Cranch, 127) Powers of
corporations created by statute.
Bank of the United States v.
Dandridge,
68.98
3. Miller v. Nicholls, (4 Wheat. Rep.
311.) Appellate jurisdiction of
this Court from the judgments of
the highest State Court, in cases
arising under the constitution,
laws, and treaties of the Union.
Williams v. Norris,
124
4. Osborn v. The Bank of the Uni-
ted States, (9 Wheat. Rep. 855.)
Jurisdiction of the Courts of the
Union in suits brought by the
Post Master General. Post Mas-
ter General v Early, 149
5. The King v. Inhabitants of Ne-
therseal, (4 Term Rep 258.)
Conclusiveness of probate of wills.
Armstrong v. Lear,
175
6. Fowle v. The Common Council of
Alexandria, (11 Whet. Rep.
320.) Demurrer to evidence.
Columbian Ins Co. v. Catlett,
389
7. Oliver v. The Maryland Ins. Co.
(7 Cranch, 487.) Deviation.
S. C.
S. Fitzherbert v. Mather, (1 Term
Rep. 12.) Fraud, or conceal-
ment to avoid the policy. Gen.
Int. Ins. Co. v. Ruggles,
9. M'Culloch v. The State of Mary-
land, (4 Wheat. Rep. 316.)
State power of taxation. Brown
v. State of Maryland, 449
10. The Emily and Caroline, (9
Wheat. Rep. 381.) The Platts-
burg, (10 Wheat. Rep. 133.)
Acts constituting a "fitting out"
under the Slave Trade laws. The
United States v. Gooding, 473
11. The United States v. Kirkpatrick,
(9 Wheat. Rep. 720.) and the
United States v. Vanzandt, (11
Wheat. Rep. 184.) Discharge
of surety by laches, or varying
the terms of the contract. United
States v. Nicholl,
509
12. English v. Darley, (2 Bos. & Pull.
61.) Natwyn v. St. Quintin,
(1 Bos. & Pull. 652.) Discharge
of endorser of bill by laches of
holder. M'Llemore v. Powell,
555.557
1. Where an equity cause may be
finally decided as between the
parties litigant, without bringing
others before the Court, who
would, generally speaking, be ne-
cessary parties, such parties may
be dispensed with in the Circuit
Court, if its process cannot reach
them, or if they are citizens of ano-
ther State Mallow v Hinde. 193
2. But if the rights of those not be-
fore the Court are inseparably
connected with the claim of the
parties litigant, so that a final de-
cision cannot be made between
them without affecting the rights
of the absent parties, the peculiar
constitution of the Circuit Court
forms no ground for dispensing
with such parties. S. C. Ib.
3. But the Court may, in its discre-
tion, where the purposes of jus-
tice require it, retain jurisdiction
of the cause on an injunction bill
as between the parties regularly
before it, until the plaintiffs have
had an opportunity of litigating
their controversy with the other
parties in a competent tribunal;
and if it finally appear by the
judgment of such tribunal, that
the plaintiffs are equitably enti-
tled to the interest claimed by the
other parties, may proceed to a
final decree upon the merits.
S. C.
Ib.
4. A question of fact upon a bill filed
to set aside the sale and assign-
ment of a land warrant, upon the
ground that it was obtained by
fraudulent misrepresentation, and
taking undue advantage of the
party's imbecility of body and
mind. Conner v. Featherstone,
5. Evidence deemed insufficient, and
bill dismissed. S. C.
Ib.
6. Rule of equity, that where land is
sold as for a certain quantity, a
Court of equity relieves if the
quantity be defective, only appli-
cable to contracts for the sale of
land in a settled country, where
the titles are complete, the boun-
daries determined, and the real
quantity known, or capable of
being ascertained by the vendor.
Dunlap v. Dunlap, 575.579
8. Relief in equity against a judg
ment at law, upon certain bonds
|