Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/173

 Sernsus Corner or Pmjyloat-ic. :57 ad. Whether the Court of Common Pleas, at Lancq/fer, had 1792. jurifdiétion in the aétion by Gidms Uuykad, and others, a- vvv. gainlt the now plaintitfs ? 3d. Whether the plaintiffs aredamnilied, fo as to warrant the prefeut proceedings, under all the cireumltances of the cafe. I will eonfider the different points, inverfedly. _ Ou the 3d. point, I am fatislied by the authorities cited by the plaintiifs’ eounfel, that there is tiifiicient proof of adam- nification, to warrant the fuit in a_ common cafe. The non-payment of money at the day, is a forfeiture of a counter bond. t Wn!. 26t. Cro. El. 672. Putting the obligee in danger of being arreited is a damnification. 3 Buy!. 233. 5 Ca. 25. Cro. far. 340. It was admitted, indeed, on the lafl argument, that the pro- ceedings at Lamryfw fhould be confidercd as evidence of a damniiication ; but that the defendant ihould he let into a full defence in this aétion. No notice having been given to this de- fendant of the inftitutiou of the fuit againlt the now plaintif, he isnot {topped from faying, that they were uct bound in the fonner aélion, to pay the money. _ On the fecond point, it has been inlilted hy the defendant's oounfel. that the Courts of Admiralty having excluiive juritl diéiion in cafes of prize and their eonfequeuces, the Common. Pleas at Luucqjfer could have had no coguizance of the aéhon commenced by Galleon (hymn', and others. In the famous cafe of :: Caux v. Edm, WILLES, yrfiu-— fays : “ Where the injury is the neeeH`ary and natural confe- qucnce of the capture, the Court of Admiralty has the folc and exelufive jurifdi£tion." Doug. 579. Asuuusr, _‘}'rgfi¢¢, ob- ferves; ¢• where the Admiralty has jurifdiétion of the originai “ matter, it ought alfo to havejurifdiétion of every thing necelia- argument infcrs from allthe adjudged cafes, “ that the Admiralty “ has a jurifdiftion on the qucltion of prize or nat prize, and its 9* confcquences, and that the common law Courts have none." 15. 587. 590. And in Smart €5' Way, the words of judge _ `But.u=.tt, are; •* every cafe thatl lmow on the fubjeft, is a clear “ authority to fhew, that qucflions of prize and their confe- “ quences are folely and exclutively of the Admiralty jurifdic- “ tion.” 3 Term. Rap. 344. In Lord Camden et uf. v. Harrie, it is adjudged, that the prize Courts, and Courts of Commiflioncrs of Appeal, have the fcle and cxclufive jurillliétion of the queftion of prize and no prize, and who are the oaptorr. 4 firm. Rqv. 382. In Dane': adminillratrix ·v. PeubaI!aw,_ and at r Da!}. Rrp. 22 t. Mr. Prgftkrx! expreflits himfelf thus: In this cauli`, “ the vali- " ` ' •‘ dity
 * • ri1yincidental." IL. 58o. BULl.ER,_7W¢'¢, in avery elaborate

�