Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/182

, r·;6' Casas ruled and adjudged in the ,792, ltance of a l`uit for prize money, broughtin the name of the `,,`,r allignee againlt the agent. So in I Dall. Rep. 9;. TaI5¤t1·. Pawn ` ance, though it was confequental to a prize caufe, the Court of Appeals of 1’mnb·I·wmin fullained t.hc fuit. A later cafe is lirong- 1 in point. Hm. Bla.-l·. p. gig. When prize is determined, the rights of the captors are a foundation fora fuitat law. the fame doctrine is maintained. Ibid. 523. Br Tue Count :—In 1775,  refolved that all prizes lhould be the right of the captors. They had the prerogative ` of making war and peace; and, therefore, the  in cafe of prize. This refolution veiled a legal right in theeaptors, to all property taken rightfully at fea. What was a legal capture, was to be determined by the Courts of Admiralty ; but, being determined, the legal right was complete. The real meaning of the rule, that the Courts of Common Law will not take into conlideration the incidents of a prize caufe, is, that they will not review or draw before them the quefrim of prize, which ought to be determined by the law of nations, and in the Court of Admin ralty. Here, the proper; has been condemned ; the Marlhall is direéled to fell it for e benefit of the captors ; and the plaintiff is the agent appointed by the judge, agreeably to the 14th feet. of the aét. It is his duty to receive it. Tohirn are in- trnlted the rights of the abfent feamen, and the contingent right of the ]’mry`y!wm}z Hofpital. He feems to be authoril`ed_ to bring a fuit in his own name. Belidcs, the return of the Mar- fhall is an admillion of his right, and a promife to pay. A motion for a nmyjizit over-ruled; and a vcrdi€t for the plainti£ · Harman et aL ezsfu DucHe’s, Executore. I W 504 THISdw:€)s zkmoéion for ryleyv tlriial, founded url; afdecla;at}on ’ ' ma e .e ourt, w iet e merits were e ore t e u· ` _ 252, ry, that if thgcounfel for the defendants could fhcw, that, on- $1 R_ 2, 2,0_the evidence given, the aéhon was not maxntaxnable, a new tn- T 2 2// al {hould be granted, The i&ClO!I.\'l1$ lndvhéarrzr rljnnjjx for, * money had and received to the plainttfs ufe ; and t re evidence W  to {upport it was as follows : _‘j’anu: Ducbe, the Teltator, was B ieized, in right of his wife LQ/{er, of a rent-charge of {12 3 4 P - ifguing yearly out of a houfehand lot. in tht; City {pf Pl·il:z.·!c@>l·ia; i o a houfe and lot in t e city ; am of we acres and l three quarters of meadow land, in the neighbouring townlhip l of Jlloynrnrrfrrg. ·Mrs. H»_/irr J)ucl·r, died in fum-, 1779, without illiie, and Elizalwc//5 Haldane, one of the plaimifls, was her heir at law ; but the plaintiffs were not apprizcd of their title to the premifcs ’till the year 178;. On thc zd of Illarrg. r·;8 ,

�