2. A Spanish subject, who came to
the United States in a time of
peace between Spain and Great
Britain, to carry on a trade be-
tween this country and the Spa-
nish provinces, under a royal Spa-
nish license, and who continued to
reside here and carry on the trade
after the breaking out of war be-
tween Great Britain and Spain, is
to be considered an American
merchant, although the trade
could be lawfully carried on by a
Spanish subject only. Id. 507

507

DOWER.

1. Courts of chancery have concur-
rent jurisdiction with Courts of
law, in cases of dower, especially
where partition, discovery, or ac-
count, is prayed; and in cases of
sale where the parties are willing
that a sum in gross should be
given in lieu of dower. Herbert
v. Wren,
370
2. If a devise of land, in Virginia, to
the widow, appear, from circum-
stances, to be in lieu of dower, she
must make her election, and can-
not take both. Id.

370

3. If a wife join her husband in a
lease for years, she is still entitled
to dower in the rent. Id. 370
4. A Court of chancery cannot allow
a part of the purchase money in
lieu of dower, when the land is
sold, unless by consent of all par-
ties interested. Id.
371

E..

EJECTMENT.

1 A tenant in common cannot main-
tain ejectment against his co-ten-
ant, without actual ouster. Bar-
nitz v. Casey,
457

2. In ejectment the date of the de-
mise in the declaration may be
amended during the trial so as to
conform to the title. Blackwell v.
Patton,
472

3. See North Carolina,
EMBARGO.

471

8. See Admiralty, 13,
9. See Admiralty, 20,

1. The evidence of that necessity
which will excuse a violation of
the embargo laws, must be very
clear and positive. Brig James
Wells.

22

52

2. The 3d section of the act of Janu-
ary 9, 1808, which prohibited the
trans-shipment of goods, did not
include the case of a vessel lading
in port by means of river craft,
&c. Schooner Paulina,
3. The 2d section of the act of 25th
April, 1808, did not require a per-
mit to Jade any vessel; nor au-
thorize the forfeitutre and con-
demnation of the vessel or cargo
for lading without the inspection
of a revenue officer; the only
penalty for such lading being the
denial of a clearance. Id.
4. The departure of a vessel from
the wharf of a port, and proceed-
ing a mile and a half therefrom,
with intent to go to sea, is not a
departure from the port, within the
meaning of the 3d section of the
supplementary embargo act of
January 9th, 1808, if the vessel
had not actually gone out of the
port before seizure. The sloop
Active

52

113

100
5. A vessel which has proceeded to
a foreign port, contrary to the em-
bargo act of January 9, 1808, is
liable to be seized upon her return,
although that act gives a penalty
of double her value in case she
should not be seized. The brig
Eliza,
6. Upon an indictment for putting
goods on board a carriage, with
intent to transport them out of the
United States contrary, to the act
of January 9, 1809, the punish-
ment of which offence is a fine of
four times the value of the goods,
it is not necessary that the jury
should find the value of the goods.
United States v. Tyler,
7. See Bond, 1,

285
287

ENQUIRY, WRIT OF

349
590

1. He who has equal equity may ac-
quire the legal estate, if he can, so
as to protect his equity. Fitzsim-
mons v. Ogden,

2

2. A mortgage of land, made by one
who has a legal and equitable title
to a moiety of the property which
the mortgage purports to convey,
passes only his legal right, al-
though he had a power, from the
person who held the residue of the
legal but not of the equitable es-
tate in the land, to sell and convey
his right also; the mortgagor not
having affected to convey any part
of it under his power from the
other person, although his deed
purported to mortgage the whole;
and the equitable title not being
in the person who gave the pow-
er. Shirras v. Caig and Mit-
chell,

34.

69

69
171

3. See Credit, letter of 1, 6, 7,
4. See Discovery, 1,
5. See Arbitration, 1,
6. If A advance money to B. and B.
thereupon convey land to trustees
in trust to convey the same to A.
in fee, in case B. should fail to re-
pay the money and interest on a
certain day; and if B. fail to pay
the money on the day limited, and
thereupon the trustees convey the
land to A., B. has no equity of re-
redemption. Conway v. Alexan-
der,
219
7. Upon an action on a valued poli-
cy, if a misrepresentation of the

1. No writ of error lies to carry to
the Supreme Court of the United
States a suit which has been car-
ried by writ of error from the dis-
trict Court to the Circuit Court.
United States v. Goodwin, 108
United States v. Gordon, 287
2. The refusal of the Court below to
reinstate a cause which has been
legally dismissed, is no ground for
a writ of error. Welch v. Mande-
ville,
152
3. A writ of error, issued in Septem-
ber, may bear teste of the Febru-
áry term preceding, and may be
returnable to the next February
term, notwithstanding the inter-
vention of the August term be-
tween the teste and return of the
writ.. Blackwell v. Patton, 277
4. The Supreme Court of the United
States will not quash an execution
issued by the Court below to en-
force its decree, pending the writ
of error, if the writ of error be not
a supersedeas to the decree. Wal-
len v. Williams,
278
5. A writ of error does not lie to an
order of the Court below to stay.
the proceedings finally upon sug-
gestion of the attorney for the
United States, in a case to which

22

22

1. See Admiralty, 1, 2,
2. An answer in chancery, respon-
sive to the bill, is evidence for the
Defendant. Russel v. Clark, 70
3. The Supreme Court of the United
States will grant a commission to
take new evidence in cases of ad-
miralty Brig James Wells,
Brig Clarissa Claiborne, 107
4. See Account, 1, 2,
147, 281
5. The mere possession of a promis-
sory note, by an indorsee who had
indorsed it to another, is not suffi-
cient evidence of his right of ac-
tion against his indorser, without
a re-assignment or receipt from
the last indorsee. Welch v. Lin-
do,
160
6. An indorsement “without re-
course" is not evidence of money
had and received by the indorser
to the use of the indorsee. Id. 160
7. A recital in a deed is good evi-
dence to take a case out of the
statute of limitations. King v.
Riddle,

168

8. The principal obligor in a bond is
not a competent witness for the
surety, in an action on the bond;
the principal being liable to the
surety for costs, in case the judg-
ment should be against him. Rid-
dle v. Moss,
206
9. When issue is taken upon the ne-
glect of the post-master himself, it
is not competent to give in evi-
dence the neglect of his assistant.
Dunlop v Munroe,
242
10. Parol evidence is not competent
to prove that one set of written
instructions superseded another set
of written instructions. Id. - 242
11. A verdict and judgment that the
mother was born free, is not con.
clusive evidence of the freedom of
her children, unless between the

14. In a case of warranty and in-
demnity a judgment against the
person to be indemnified, if fairly
obtained, especially if obtained on
notice to the warrantor, is admissi-
ble evidence in a suit against him
on his contract of indemnity.
Clark v. Carrington,
308
15. Probable cause means less than
prima facie evidence. Locke v.
United States,
339

16. In a prosecution against a vessel
for violating a law of the United
States it is not necessary to adduce
possitive testimony of the identity
of the vessel. The schr. Jane, 363
17. A paper purporting to be a re-
cord certified by the clerk to be
"truly taken from the record of
proceedings" of his Court, with
the proper certificate of the chief
judge, &c. is admissible evidence.
Ferguson v. Harwood,
18. But if the paper purport to be a
mere transcript of minutes ex-
tracted from the docket of the
Court, it is not evidence. Id. 408
19. It need not appear by the record
of naturalization, that all the re-

408

may be received in aid of the re-
cord Id.

420
471

481

21. See North Carolina,
22. An exemplification of a judg-
ment of another state, properly
authenticated, is conclusive evi-
dence of the debt; consequently
hil debet is not a good plea to an
action of debt upon such a judg-
ment. Mills v. Duryee,
23. Bills of exchange taken up by
the drawer, with damages and
costs of protest, are admissible
evidence in an action, for money
paid, laid out and expended by the
Plaintiff, against the drawee of the
bills who was bound to honor
them. Riggs v. Lindsay, 500
24. The usage of trade may be
proved by parol, although such
usage originated in a law or edict
of the government of the country.
Livingston v. Md. In. Co. 508
25. The record of a former judg-
ment between the same parties,
upon the same cause of action,
may be given in evidence upon
non assumpsit. Young v. Black,

26. See Demurrer, 1, 2, 3,

EXECUTION.

1. See Error, 4,
2. See Bond, 2,

EXECUTORY DEVISE.

See Devise, 2,

F.

FACTOR.

FAIRFAX, LORD

565

1. Lord Fairfax, at the time of his
death, had the absolute property,
seizen, and possession of the waste
and unappropriated lands in the
Northern Neck of Virginia. Fair-
603
fax v. Hunter,

2. See Alien, 1,

603

2. See Evidence, 16,
3. See Admiralty, 18,

363
389

3. The commonwealth of Virginia
could not grant the unappropri-
ated lands in the Northern Neck
until its title should have been per-
fected by possession; and the
British treaty of 1794 confirmed
the title to those lands in the de-
visee of lord Fairfax. Fairfax v.
Hunter,

FEES.

603

FRAUD.

1. On a question of fraud the reme-
dy at law is complete, Russel v.
Clark,

69

70

2. See Credit, letter of 4,
3. A promise to pay a sum of money
as a compensention to the Plaintiff
for the injury done him by the
misconduct of the Defendant in
obtaining a patent in his own
name for land which he ought to
have patented in the name, of the
Plaintiff, and in preventing the
Plaintiff from obtaining a patent
in his own name, and in considera-
tion of the Defendants having pro-
Cured the patent to be issued to
himself, is a contract for the sale
of land, within the statute of
frauds, and must be in writing.
Hughes v. Moore,

FREEDOM.

See Evidence, 11, 12,

FREIGHT.

177

271, 290

The underwriters upon a cargo are
not liable for freight pro rata iti-
neris, to the owner of the vessel
who is also owner of the cargo in-
sured, in a case where the vessel
and cargo were captured, the car-
go abandoned to the underwriters
as a total loss and by them accept-
ed, the loss paid, the cargo con-
demned, restored upon appeal,
and the proceeds of the cargo
paid over to the underwriters.
Freight pro rata itineris is not
due unless the owner of the cargo
voluntarily agree to receive it at a
place short of its ultimate destina-
tion. Caze and Richaud v. Balt.
In. Co.

358

FORFEITURE.

1

1. See Fishing vessel,

100