Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/170

 164 Cases ruled and adjudged in tlie r7ga. new Court of Appeals `fhould be according to the ufage of na- ‘¢rsJ tions, anduuayngznryg whlchimplieu, thattheCourt of Ap- peals, prior to had, or ought to have, proceeded by ]ury·tri- als. Ad gugfiauur  nur rgnondtntjudskrr,  juri: · nm  1 _}?. *15;. L. As my opinion on the Grit quellion, ia in favor of the defen- 'dant, it will appear unneeelliry to fay any thing to tl1c other _ `point.t;bnt`as i11§llcdnporr,'Ill1allbriel|y - `notice one of them. It ratherfeemsto me, that the appellants - hadno other`Vra‘v6f obtaining the executionof the decree in their favor, butbytheaidoftlneCounofAppeals,orof Ad- inirg, and no'Court of Common Law hasanyjt11ifdi&i¤nin `the e. Dduglryi. $72. 3 Tern. Rip. 344 4 Tenn. Rep. `382. 4oo. 1 Dal!. Rep. 221. 1 Wil:. 211. And,·alfo, that aniftion will notli'e againlt a Iudge forwhat he does as fuch. Cro-Eli:. 8o.I3z7. 1 Mad. 184. t8;._aM¤d. 218. 12 Md. 388. 391. r Rayne. 465. 2 Ld. Ray;. 767.  397. _ Surrren, jgfire. This is a fuit brought on an obligation fromthedefendant eo the plaiotiil? reltator, for the fum of £22,ooo, on a fpecial condition for the repayment and rehitu- uon of the fumof[r 1496 9 9,  {aid Gewgrkgfhtlte _]1;ge of the State Court of Admiralty, to the defendant, tr ureroftheSta¤e of.Pe»n·/jhnnia, as the {hate and divi- dendof rltefaid State, inand outof theprize {loop Adina, `aeeordingtotheverdiélcofthejuryontlrenialofdte famcdoop, in the Admiralty Court of the {and State, in cyéthe faid Gauge Rg/Hhould thereafter, in due courfe of lair, be compelled to pay 'thefame according to the decree of the Courtof Appeals in _ ‘the cafe of the faid lloop J8i·v¢, and forthe indemnification of the faid George Rgh, from all a&ions and demands, which might 'arife on account ofhis having paid the {aid moneytothe defendant. ‘ As a foundation for the prefent fnit, the plaintilfs produced a recordof a recovery in Lamylrr County againft them, for urejrnm of [3248 4 7 r-4, at the fuit of Gidmr Umjlr-ad, Jeremy: Wbire, Aguila Rum_/daz}-, and David Clurl, in an ac- _ tion of qfumjjh, for money had and received by the tell:atorGn.·ge _ _, Rgfr, to the ufe of them the faid Gideon [hn/lend, and others. C The judgment appears tc have been taken by default, and the damages alielfcd by a jury of Inquiry. It is {lated in the cafe, that the defendant had no notice of this ireeovery ’till after the final judgment. It, therefore, feems to havebeen agreed,tlmt whatever defence the defendant might have made, if he had been privy to that a&ion,he may availhim- felf of in this. Two principal quellions arife on the cafe. . rll. Whether the Court of Appeals of Cangnj}, were com- petent to decide the queliion of prize, and the confequent quel`- _ tion, who were the captors to whom the prize lhould be adjudg- · . ed,

�