Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/174

 · 168 Casts ruled and adjudged in the 1 792. *• dirp of the fentence of the Court of Appeals is difpuoedz If we ~¢V·'¢· fay, it is valid, we, in effeét, fay, the briggntine is no prize; if •* otiierwife, we fay {he was a prize. We ve clearly nolautho- “ rity tofay either the one orthe orher." And again; **tlus is an “ ailion to carry into execution the fentence of the  of “ Appeals, which we have no authority to do, that being the •¢ proper judicature to carry into eilieét its own fenteucesff _ Thefe adjudications snilitate itrongly againll: the junfdiéhon of the Court of Common   of Lamgder County. The caufe of a£tion there, was *• the iniirzediate and neceifag confe- ¢¢ quence of the velli=:l’s being taken as ap1·ize." 1 Dall. ep. 22l• - It was,in {hurt, a demand inilituted by the plaintiilb, as fole cap- ‘ tors of the lloop Adio:. But it has been contended by the plaintiff? cntinfel, that here all parties aliirm the fame thing, to wit, that the iloop wasoa rize, and that quefiion cannot now poiiibly anfe; which is {gid to diitinguiih it from the feveral cafes cited. Andsfor this pnrpofe, Heuderjbn v. Clarljin, determined in this Court, is quot- ed; where the Court held, that an agent for feamen might re- cover at common law the prize money, due under the decree of the Court of Arlmiralx of Pemfylvania. I iind from my notes, at the circumitanccs were as follow: Theplaintiif was appointed agent for forty·three feamen, on board the privateer brig Holler, to receive their prize money. The defendant was Marfhall of the Court of Admiralty of Pemjjlwnia, where two of the prizes were libelled, condemned, and fold. The plaintiff, on the 27th Dmmhr, 178l, gave a bond to the Commonwealth in { 2 go penalty, conditioned to account faithfully with the feamen, and to pay over the ihares unclaimed, within one year, to the nfe of the corporation of contributors to the Prmg/`ylwniu Hofpital. The fudge of the Ad.- miralty, on that day, alfq, iifued a writ to the defendants, to deli- ver over the goods and money due to the owners, and feamen, or their agents, on the diilbrent prizes; to which he made rc- tum, that the goods and money were ready to be delivered over. That fuit was rought to recover the prize money due to the plaintifi·"s conitituen s: The Marihall had paid a confidcrable part, and rendered his account, but fome of the items therein were difputedt The Court on full argument refolved, that the agent might, as a common head or center for the captors, and °_ - Hofpiral, under the right acquired bythe a& of Aifembly, of ` - _ the Ct?. uf Marcb, and 22d September, 1 780, inititute a fuit in his i - . iov···. name, as the captors themfelves might have done; and as the queition refpcéting “ prize or no prize" could not come into controvcrfy, he might rccover the money due to them, by the Admiralty decree; they having :1 veiled intereft therein, under ‘ the

�