Ia Casas ruled and adjudged in the ’ r766. as now brought ? And it was twice argued by W ain, for the iorsl defendants, and by Diclirg/én, for the plaintiffs. For tb: Dy`mdant.r.—The Courts of Common Law have a {urifdiélion over all matters of difpute,which begin on the land ; nt where the difpute, orcaufe of aétion, arifcs at {ea, the Ad- miralty has the {ole cognizance, and the Courts of Common Law have nori ht to interfere. Thus, if an aétion is brought at Common iaw for a taking, it is a good bar to _ plead that the taking was on the high feas ; and even fuppoling the converlion _ was on land, yet that is coupled with the originaltaking, and draws the cognizance to the Admiralty. It is admitted, that if the plaintilfs were without a remedy exprcfsly given by law, the judges would provide fome remedy to redrefs the injury which has been fuilained : But wheretlnc law prefcribes a particular mode of redrefs, thejudges are not at liberty to invent and allow a new one. The legal appropriate methods of redrefs in this cafe, _ are either by writ of reititution, founded on the reverfal of the - fentence of the Vice Admiralty of Rhoda-gland; or by fuit up- on the itipulatious which were taken in that Court. No a&i0n like the prefent, has ever been inilituted; which, according to _ Littleton, is a good argument that no fuch aélidn can be main- ' tained. But waving, for a moment, the queition of jurifdi&ic¤, the . aflion of _Trw¢·r, is not thc proper a&ion : It {hould be a fpccial a&ion on the cafe, fetting forth all the particular circumllances of the tranfaétion. For, in 2"rww three pointsare effential tobe pinov- ed: til:. The plainti&’s property; adly. A lleilion in the dc d·- ant ; and gdly. A converlion by the defeirdant to his own ufe. Now, the plainti£l’s property was uuquellionably altered ; and, in law, or faét, they had no property in the vellcl —or.- cargo, at the time the writ was iiiited; both having been fold, as perilhable goods, under the fentcnce of the Court of Admiralty ; and, confe- quently, all the property of the plaintilfs (without which they cannot maintain Trawr) was completely divelled. Nor were the ve.ll`cl and cargo ever converted to the ufe of the defen- dants : They fcizcd them in the execution of their duty as oili- cers ; they purfued the legal {reps to get them condemned; and while the caufe was in fuit, the property was iu ctwdia lrgir.—·- But even fuppoiing that a forcible taking might _ conitrued into a converlion (which, however, is denied in Bundbutf: Re- ports,) yet {till the aétion fails; for fome of the Cap- tains, at a difiance when the feiaure was made, were not parties to e force, nor, confequently, to the conilruélive con- verlion, and, therefore, ought not to have been joined as defendants. When, it is to be enquired, did the right to bring this aélion ‘ Merle? Did it accrue at the time of the capture? No = IL; CI
�
