1. If a defendant read part of the answer of the plaintiff to a bill of discovery, query, whether the whole is made evidence. Hoffman Seton v. Smith. 157 2. Weight of evidence is not always a reafon for granting a new trial; yet if it ap- pear that juftice has not been done, it will be fo. Jackfon v. Sternberg, 162 3. A plaintiff who delivers to a constable a writ against the defendant in his own fuit, on which the defendant is taken and imprisoned on the order of the plaintiff, can not, in an action against him by the defendant, for falfe impri- fonment, give, under the general iffue, the special matter in evidence, by way of juftification, under the ftatute for more eafy pleading in certain fuits, but may do it in order to fhew that the de- fendant was not arrested by his inftruc- tions, but by virtue of a fuperior autho- rity. Herrick v. Manly, 253 paper noticed to be produced, and cal- led for, is evidence; and the party no- ticing has not a right to first inspect it. Lawrence Whitney a. Vanborne & Clarkfon,
276 5. Copies of Letters, &c. remaining in a fo- reign court of vice-admiralty, and duly authenticated under the feal of the court, when returned to a commiffion iffued from the fupreme court, may be read in evidence. Miller o. Living for, 349
6. Parol evidence cannot be received to fhow that a deed stating a courfe for 36 chains was meant to exprefs only 29, Fackfon, ex. dem. Putnam v. Bewen, 358 7. An affignment of property under the ab- fconding debtors' act is evidence of in- folvency in the debtor. Ten Eyck Elmendorf. Tibbits,
8. Indorfing an appearance on a writ of a term paft, is not evidence of an agree ment that the proceedings fhall be con-
Forcible Entry and Detainer.
1. An indictment for forcible entry and de- tainer must state a feifin in the profecutor at the time of the entry, and also fhew an entry by the defendant. To entitle to cofts it must appear that the party tra- verfed the indictment. The fupreme Court may award re-restitution. The 125 People v. Shaw,
See Intrufion, I. People 1.
See Bond, 1. Infolvent, 1.
Frauds, Statute of.
1. The statute of frauds does not require the agreement to make a conveyance to be fet forth in the declaration, in an action for not conveying according to cove- 45 nant,
1. If the grant of a lot of land by deed, fpe- cify the number of acres, with a refer- ence to a map, the whole lot will pafs according to the map, though the deed fpecify fewer acres than the map gives. Fackfon v. Deffendorf,
General Seffions. See Indictment, 1,
I. Two perfons, including the mafter, are not a fufficient crew for a veffel of 35 tons from New-York to Edenton, in South Carolina; and of this, if it appear in evidence on the cafe made, the court will judge. Dow v. Smith, 32 2. An adjustment, if made on a disclosure and knowledge of all circumftances, is never to be opened, except for fraud or miftake in facts not known, ibid. 3. Information being received at the fame
time of a veffel's capture, re-capture, and being carried into a port of the country to which bound, takes away the right to abandon. In fuch a cafe, if fhe and her cargo be fold at auction, the charges fall on the affured. Query, whether newspaper information be fuch on which an abandonment can be made? Muir v. Un. In. Com.
4. If goods be fold at auction, to afcertain their deterioration on a partial lofs, the underwriter is liable ut femb. 5. If a veffel be driven by distress into a
French port, where part of her cargo is taken away by the officers of govern- ment, and the prevented from taking away her original loading, the may, without incurring the penalty of the French intercourfe bill, purchafe and load with the produce of the country. A paffport granted by any particular country, to protect against its own cruifers, is not a failing under the pro- tection of the flag of the government granting the paffport, fo as to ftamp a national character, and break a warran ty of neutrality. Jenks v. Hallett & Borne,
6. In a policy on a veffel in a diftant port from whence fhe is to fail, and stated to be there on a certain day, "at and from" mean the day on which the is mentioned to be there, and the policy takes effect from thence. It is not ne- ceffary to disclose how long a veffel has lain port antecedent to a policy. The two per cent. deducted on a total lofs, is in cafes of difafter a part of the premi- um. Kemble v. Bowne, 7. All damages arifing immediately from a jettifon are to be contributed for, tho' they happen to perishable articles which are enumerated in the memorandum and remain in fpecie. Freight and veffel are to be estimated in a general average at the place where the one is paid, and the other is at the time of fettling. M'Grath & Higgins v. I. B. Church,
8. A general policy unaccompanied with any warranty, covers, if made by a neuter, war risks of all kinds, and against all Under fuch circumstances countries.
a falfe clearance is immaterial and need not be disclosed. Seaworthiness is al- ways implied, and never at the risk of the underwriter. Barnwall v. Church,
9. Under a general policy on goods, the af- fured need not disclose that his interest is only of an undivided part, but may recover according to his intereft. If a veffel be captured and acquitted, the in- furer is liable to the expenfes incurred in profecuting an appeal interpofed against the fentence condemning the affured in cofts, and to obtain compenfation for damages occafioned by plundering or embezzling, though the expenfes fur- país the amount of the underwriter's fubfcription. Whether the expenfes in- curred in an appeal be reasonable or not is matter for a jury. Lawrence & Whitney v. Van Horne Clarkson, 276 10. A representation that a man has been na- turalized "fince" a particular time, does mean that he has been fo "ever not 288 Coulon v. Borne, fince," 11. If a veffel be rendered, by the perils infur- ed against, unable to proceed with her original cargo, it is a lofs of the voyage, though the may be able to perform it with another more buoyant. When a veffel cannot be repaired for half her value fhe may be abandoned. If a veffel be duly abandoned, and refufed, and af- ter a fale for the benefit of all concerned, under an order of a court of admiralty, pronouncing her not worth repairing, fhe be bought in by a part owner fuper-
cargo, it is not a waiver of the aban- donment, though on her arrival at her home port the be fold at auction by the affured for more than fhe coft, and he at the time of action brought have the proceeds in his hands. Nor need he make a tender of her to the under- writer when the arrives, nor of her pro- ceeds after fale. Abbot v. Broome, 292 12. The implied warranty of feaworthiness in a veffel is, that the fhall be able to perform her voyage with the cargo with which then loaded.
ibid. 13. If, after a veffel has been abandoned, she arrive in port, and be there fitted out by her former owners, and fent on ano- ther voyage, it will be a waiver of the abandonment. Saidler v. Church, (n.)
14. Receipt of freight earned by a veffel abandoned is not a waiver of the aban- donment if the underwriter did not ac- cept. Abbot v. Broome,
15. A warranty of being the property of an American citizen is proved by reputa- Interest in tion, employ and domicil.
a veffel, by a person who faw the origi- nal register in the name of the owner, when the was about to fail on the voy- age infured. Interest in a cargo, by knowing the articles bought by the plaintiff, and fecing them go on board. To prove an abandonment parol evidence is admiffible, and it is not necessary to give notice to produce the letter of abandonment, to enable to fhew in evi- dence the original of which it was a copy. Peyton v. Hallett,
363 16. Neither an acquittal nor a reftitution of goods prejudice an abandonment once duly made. In cafe of a reftitution of goods to an owner, at a port into which a veffel is carried, he is not bound to fend them on to their port of deftina- tion. Though an adjustment made by the agent of the out-door underwriters does not conclude the infurer from fhewing errors in it, if they do not dif- fent, they are bound. Bordes v. Hallett, 445
17. If both infured and infurer in a policy containing the ufual claufe of warranty against contraband, know there is con- traband on board, the warranty will ap- ply only to the goods affured. Bowne 489 v. Shaw, 18. In a policy on commiffions on lawful goods, the warranty on contraband is not broken, though the affured be cap- tain, and confignee of illicit articles, fhipped on, board without the know- ledge of the underwriter. De Pefter Charlton. Gardner,
19. In judging whether a vessel has been loft in a voyage infured, the usual, and not the utmost length of fuch a voyage is the period on which the jury is to proceed. If two forms are given in evidence, on a policy for time, the one within and the other without the period, it is for the jury to say in which the lofs happened. An infurance on freight and cargo after a knowledge of a storm does not conclude the jury from finding the Brown veffel loft in a previous ftorm.
Kimberly v. Neilfon Bunker, 525 20. Property warranted to be neutral must not only have every document necessary to prove its neutrality, according to treaties and the law of nations, but it must not be accompanied with any papers to compromit its neutral character. If under fuch a warranty on goods, the outward cargo appear to have produced lefs than the homeward one coft, the affured in a voyage from a belligerent country muft fhew that the excels was derived from neutral funds. Blagge v. Un. In. Com. 549 21. If a commander of a convoy make a friendly capture of one of his convoy, it will not exonerate the underwriter, and is a cafe of abandonment as for a total lofs. Governeur & Kemble v. UnIn. Com. 592
« ForrigeFortsett » |