Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/21

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
10
CASES ruled and adjudged in the


1764.

Trial, nor difcharge the Defendant from Bail, without fome appearance of opproftion.[♦]


The Leʃʃee of RICHARDSON verʃus CAMPBELL.

P

LAINTIFF fupported his Title by a Patent dated in 1762. The Defendant produced Receipts from the Proprietary's Officers, with a Warrant from Mr. Peters, Secretary of the Land Office, feveral Years prior to Plantiff's Patent, and proved upwards of twenty Years Poffeffion ; but the Plaintiff contending that the Receipts were only for Money paid on accompt of an adjacent Tract, and that there was fome impofition on the Land Officer when the Warrant was granted ; the Defendant produced a Witnefs to prove a parol Declaration of Mr. Thomas Penn (when he was in the Country) that the Land in difpute was fold to Defendant.–This piece of Evidence was oppofed by the Plaintiff, and refufed BY THE COURT

N.B The Plaintiff could prove no impofition on the Officer, and the Court gave a Change in favour of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff would not take the Verdict, but became nonfuit.


STORY and WHARTON verʃus AMOS STRETTELL.

S

UR Policy of Infurance. The Captain's Proteft in Jamaica under the Seal of a Notary Publick there, given in Evidence to prove the Capture, and not oppofed.

Inftructions from the Plaintiffs (Owners of the Veffel infured) to the Captain of the Time of his failing, fworn by the Captain to be the only Inftructions he had, were given in Evidence by the Plaintiffs, to prove they had given the Captain no Orders to buy the Veffel on their accountant in cafe of a capture and re-capture, flightly oppofed by Defendants Council, and given up without debate.

The Defendant in this cafe underwrote an open Policy on the Veffel from Philadelphia to Jamaica, fhe was taken by the Enemy and ret ken, and carried into Jamaica, where by Agreement between the Captain and Re-captors, without going into the Court of Admiralty, the was fold at public Sale for about one fourth of the Sum infured, and brought by the Captain for the former Owners, who afterwards acquiefced in the purchafe, and now fued for the whole Sum infured as a total lofs. The Sale was proved to be fair, and the Plaintiff's Council inlifted that from the moment of the Capture, there was a total lofs, and cited divers cafes to fhew, that if there be a Capture, though it be not fuch a one as by the Law of Nations would change the Property, yet it would be fufficient to those Underwriters with a total Lofs, and the Affure may abandon.–Beaws Lex Mer. 268. Convgham 225. 259. 300.340.

[♦](illegible text)See the Hab. Corp. Ac 3. Paffed the 11th Feb, 1785.

On