Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/25

1781.
$\scriptstyle {\underbrace {\quad \quad \quad } }$

neutrality, and therefore the property onboard a neutral vessel ought not to be protected.”

The ordinance of Congress makes no exception of Great Britain; for it says, you shall not seize or capture effects belonging to the belligerent powers onboard of neutral vessels. Great Britain is here beyond a doubt comprehended; for she was a belligerent power when the ordinance passed.

But it is said this ordinance of Congress is obligatory only on commanders of vessels, but not in the Courts of Admiralty and Appeal. We cannot think that this objection was seriously made.

Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the decree below with regard to the ship, be confirmed; and with regard to the cargo, that it be reversed, and the cargo be charged with the stipulated freight.

 

 

December Session, 1781.

 

 

Miller, Libellant and Appellant, versus	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	The Ship Resolution, &c.
The Same versus	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	The Cargo of the Ship Resolution, &c.

 

On motion of Wilson, for the Appellants, a rule had been granted in September Session last, to shew cause, why there should not be a rehearing in these Appeals: 1st, because the decree had erred in fact; and 2d. because there had been a discovery of material testimony since it was pronounced: And, it was argued on the 26th December, 1781, by Morris, in support of the rule, and by Serjeant and Wilcocks, in opposition to it.

In support of the rule, it was said, that the re-hearing ought to be allowed, on the principle that humanum est errare; and by analogy to the practice of the Court of Chancery, founded on that principle. It is true, that the interest of the community requires, that there should be an end to controversies; but this must be attended to, consistently with doing justice. A re-hearing of the Chancellor’s decree seems, indeed, to be a matter of course, on application, for that purpose, by any two Counsel of respectable character. Bo. Cur. Can. 240. 243. 364. 385. 405.—The petition for a re-hearing was filed, as soon as information of the decree was received: There has, therefore, been no laches