Page images
PDF
EPUB

19. The defendant, an alien within the terms of the 38 G. 3, c. 50, s. 9, (which exempts from arrest for debts contracted abroad, aliens residing in this country in consequence of a revolution in their own,) hav ing entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in a foreign country, the latter, in pursuance of the agreement, laid out money in England; after which the parties came to an adjustment in England, and the defendant acknowledged the debt. The defendant, having been holden to bail for money laid out by the plaintiff in England, and on an account stated in England, disclosed the above circumstances by affidavit, whereupon the court discharged him on a common appearance. Sinclair v. Charles Phillippe Monsieur de France. 2 Bos. Pull. 363,

20. Where a certain trading with an alien enemy for specie and goods to be brought from the enemy's country, in his ships, into our colonial ports, was licensed by the king's authority; held that an insurance on the enemy's ship, as well on the goods and specie put on board for the benefit of the British subjects, was incidentally legalized; and that it was competent for the British agent of both parties, in whose name the insurance was effected, to sue upon the policy in time of war; the trust not contravening any rule of law or of public policy, and there being no personal disability in the plaintiff on the record to sue. Kensington v. Inglis. 8 East, 273. 21. The court would not stay judg ment and execution on a summary application, because the plaintiff's after verdict became alien enemies. Vanbrynen v. Wilson. 9 East, 321. 22. An alien can purchase and hold real estate until office found; he can grant the same and his grantee can maintain an action to recover it, and may declare on his own seizen in fee. 1 Mass. 256. 23. A native of Massachusetts leaving

this country after the commencement of hostilities with Great feritain, in 1775, continuing with the British until the treaty of peace, and thence forward to his death, became an alien. 2 Mass. 179. 24. The statute of 11 and 12 of Will. 3, e. 6, providing that natural born subjects may make their titles by descent through alien ancestors, was adopted in Massachusetts before the establishment of the constitution. Ibid.

25. A person, who left this country after the commencement of the revolutionary war, went to, and resided in the British territories for several years, and returned to the Umited States before the treaty of peace, is a citizen and not an alien.

2 Mass. 236.

26. The absentee act of April 30,

27.

1779, operates no disqualification upon a person who was not prosecuted and convicted under it. Ibid. and 244.

The polls of aliens may, within the intent of the Constitution, be rateable polls, when made liable by the legislature to be rated to public

taxes. 7 Mass. 523.

28. The polls of male aliens, above sixteen years of age, are now rateable polis within the meaning of the constitution. Ibid.

29. Rateable polls of aliens may constitutionally be included in estimating the number of rateable polis, to determine the number of representatives any town may be entitled to elect. Mass. 523.

30. A. conveyed land to B. in trust for C. who was an alien, C. afterwards, and before any office found, became duly naturalized, and B. then released to him the estate so held in trust; it was held, that the conJackson veyance to C. was valid.

ex dem. Culverhouse v. Beach.
Johns. Cas. 399.

1

31. No title, in case of alienism, vests

in the people of the state, until after office found. Ibid. 32. Naturalization has a retroactive ef

feet, and confirms the former title of the alien. Ibid. 33. A widow, whose husband, emigrated from Ireland to Newyork in 1760, and died possessed of lands in 1798, who had herself continued to reside in Ireland, being an alien, is entitled to dower in lands of which her husband was seized prior to the American revolution, or the 4th of July, 1776, but not in such lands as he aequired after that period. Kelley v. Harrison. 2 Johns. Cas. 29. 34. Where A. a British subject became

a naturalized citizen of this state, and took the oaths of abjuration and allegiance in 1784, and afterwards, in 1795, took an oath of allegiance to the king of Spain, and was appointed a consul for the Spanish king, and continued to reside in Newyork, without ever changing his domicil; it was held he was still to be considered as an American citizen, and not a Spanish subjeet or alien. Fish v. Stoughton. 2 Johns. Cas. 407.

35. Though in case of a purchase, the law will recognize the title of an alien in lands, until office found; yet in case of a descent, the law takes no notice of an alien heir, on whom, therefore, the inheritance is not cast. But where the title to land in this state was acquired by a British subject, prior to the American revolution, it seems that the right of such British subject to transmit the same, by descent, to an heir, in esse, at the time of the revolution, continued unaltered and unimpaired; the case of a revolution or division of an empire, being an exception to the general rule of law on this subject. The objection of alienism is not to be favoured. Jackson ex dem. Ganesvoort and others. v. Lunn. 3 Johns. Cas.

109.

36. N. a native of Ireland, emigrated to the United States, in 1778 or 1779. In 1784, he purchased a lot of land in this state, and died in 1798, without issue, leaving a broth

er and three sisters, living in Ireland. In 1804, an act of the legislature was passed, vesting the real estate of which N. died seized, in L. one of his sisters, who had married an alien, in like manner as if she had been a citizen of this state, at the death of N. In an action of ejectment, it was held that N. having emigrated to this country after the declaration of independence, was to be considered as an alien, and that the land held by him, was, by the 9th article of the treaty of 1794, between Great Britain and the United States, vested in him and his heirs, notwithstanding they were aliens ; and that the act of the legislature of 1804, giving the whole of his real estate to L. one of his four heirs, in exclusion of the rest, being contrary to the treaty, was inoperative. Jackson ex dem. Folliard and Wallace v. Wright. 4 Johns. Rep. 75. 37. Aliens, though free-holders and inhabitants of the town, are not qualified to serve as jurors, in suits before justices of the peace, as they are not "good and lawful men," within the meaning of the statute. Borst v. Beecker. 6 Johns. Rep.

432.

38. Where there is a falure of inheritable blood by reason of alienism, the lands do not escheat, but go to the next heir at law. Jackson ex dem. Elmendorf and others, v. Jackson. 7 Johns. Rep. 214. 39. An alien enemy has no right of action during a war; but the rights which the subjects of either power had against the other, are revived at the end of it. 1 Dallas, 71. 40. Whether an alien can take and hold real estate by devise, under the protection of the treaty of peace with Great Britain. Quere. Dallas, 305, 6; in note. 41. Whether an alien can be juror. 4 Dallas, 353.

3

42. An American citizen residing in a foreign country may acquire the commercial privileges attached to his domicil; and by making him

self the subject of a foreign power, he places himself out of the protection of the United States, while within the territory of the new sovereign, to whom he has sworn allegiance. Murray v. Charming Betsey. 2 Cranch, 64.

43. Whether a citizen of the United States can devest himself of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law? Ibid.

44. Whether by becoming the subject of a foreign power he is rescued from punishment for a crime against his allegiance to the United States? Murray v. Charming Betsey. 2 Cranch, 64.

45. Whether a person, born in the colony of New Jersey before the revolution, and who resided there until 1777, when he joined the British army, and went with them to England, where he has resided ever since, claiming always to be a loyal subject of Great Britain, can now take and hold land in New Jersey, by descent, from a citizen of the United States? Whether he became a subject of New Jersey against his will? Whether he has expatriated himself and become an alien? M’Ilvaine v. Coxe's lessee. 2 Cranch, 280.

46. Whether the courts of the United States have jurisdiction where all the parties are aliens? Mason et. al. v. Blaireau. 2 Cranch. 264. Bailiff v. Tipping, 406.

47. When both parties are aliens, the courts of the United States have not jurisdiction. Montalet v. Murray. 4 Cranch, 46.

43. A person born in the colony of New Jersey before the year 1775, and residing there till the year 1777, but who then joined the British army, and ever since adhered to the British, claiming to be a British subject, and demanding and receiving compensation from that government for his loyalty, and his sufferings as a refugee, is not an aljen, but may take lands in New Jer

sey by descent. M'Ilvaine v. Coxe. 4 Cranch, 209.

49. A person born in England before 1775, and who always resided there, and never was in the United States, is an alien, and could not, in the year 1793, take lands in Maryland, by descent, from a citizen of the United States. Dawson's lessee v. Godfrey. 4 Cranch, 321.

50. A certificate, by a competent court, that an alien has taken the oath prescribed by the act respecting naturalization, raises a presumption that the court was satisfied as to the moral character of the alien, and of his attachment to the principles of the constitution of the United States, &c. Campbell v. Gordon. 6 Cranch, 176.

51.

The oath of naturalization when taken, confers the rights of a citizen. Ibid.

52. It is not necessary that there should be an order of court admitting him to become a citizen. Ibid. 53. The children of persons duly naturalized before the 14th of April, 1802, being under age at the time of the naturalization of their parent, were, if dwelling in the United States, on the 14th of April, 1802, to be considered as citizens of the United States. Campbell v. Gordon. 6 Cranch, 177.

[blocks in formation]

to recover the alimony, adjudged to her by the decree of the court in Vermont, which granted the divorce, it was held, that the domicil of the wife was not changed by her going into Vermont, and residing there; that such conduct was an evasion of the laws of this state, which does not allow of a divorce except for adultery; and that no action could be maintained here on the decree of the court of Vermont. Jackson v. Jackson. 1 Johns. Rep. 424.

ALLEGIANCE.

Allegiance and the right of abandoning it, discussed. 3 Dallas, 133 to

1.

169.

AMBASSADOR's SERVANTS.

An ambassador's protection does not extend to his interpreter, not living in the house. Malachi Carolino's Case. 1 Wils. 78.

2. An ambassador's domestic servant, in order to entitle him to privilege, must shew himself to be in the service at the time of arrest. Heathfield v. Chilton. 4 Burr. 2015. 3. Protection of an ambassador to his English secretary was disallowed, because it appeared he was a purser of a ship of war. Darling, Knt. v. Atkins. 3 Wils. 33. 4. Rule upon hearing council of both sides was made to discharge the defendant out of execution, by virtue of the statute 7 Ann e. 12. it being made appear to the court, that he was a domestic servant of the Envoy from the Elector Palatine, riz. his secretary, and that all the steps prescribed by the act were pursued. Evans v. Hicks. 2 L. Raymond, 1524. S. C. rather more at large, Str. 797.

1.

AMENDMENT.

General Rules as to. I. At what Time allowed. II. In Writs, Executions, &c. III. In Judgments. IV. In intermediate Proceedings. V. In Records.

General Rules.

The statutes 16 and 17 Charles 2. and 4 and 5. An. c. 16. only extend to mistakes in the names of the plaintiff or defendant, not of third persons; and therefore where to debt on a replevin bond brought by the sheriff against a surety, the defendant pleaded that A. (the party replevying,) prosecuted his suit &c. and that no return of the goods was adjudged to B. (the party distraining) and the plaintiff replied that a return was adjudged to B., yet the said B. did not make return, and this, on a general demurrer, was holden to be a fatal defect. Har

vey v. Stokes. Willes, 5.

2. Inferiour courts cannot amend errors in process under the statutes 8 Henry 6. c. 12 and 15. Merse v. James. Willes, 125.

Some of the statutes of amendment are confined to the superiour courts, and some extend to all courts of record. Ibid.

3.

4.

5.

All rules to amend are upon payment of costs. Anon. Lofft, 155. Amendment by adding continuances. There can be no issue offered that is contrary to the record. A latitat prevents the statute of limitations without a bill of Middlesex. Crokatt v. Jones. 2 Str. 734. 2 L. Raymond, 1441.

Bill by the son, remainder man in tail, against his father's tenant for life to have title deeds deposited in court for safe custody, and against trustees to oblige them to make such settlement as is directed by the plaintiff's grandfather's will, it appeared on the hearing that plaintiff' had covenanted to grant annuities

out of such lands as should come to him after his father's death. Cause stood over for the annuitants to be made parties. Pinsent v. Pinsent. 1 Wils. 179. 6. The christian name of the plaintiff cannot be amended in a declaration in K. B. by the by. The reason is plain; for if the plaintiff's name is mistaken, it is no declaration at his suit; and if Peter will deelare, by the by, in the name of John, it is not Peter's suit, so he has no right to move to amend. Poitrin v. Tregeagle. 2 L. Raym.

771. 7. There is no difference between civil and penal actions as to amendments at common law. Goff (qui tam, &c.) v. Popplewell. 1 Douglas,

114.

the testator's effects, to be amended after demurrer. 1 H. Black. 37. 14. The defendants appealed to the sessions against a conviction on a penal statute, where the conviction was affirmed: afterwards the record was removed into the court of K. B. by certiorari, where the conviction was quashed for a defect in the information; then the prosecutor moved either that the certiorari should be sent back to the magistrates, in order that they might return the original information, (which had not the defect,) or that a mandamus might issue to compel the magistrates to proceed on the original information: but the court of K. B. refused to make such a rule. R. v. Jukes et al. 8 Term Rep. 625.

But the court will not permit the sums, and dates in the declaration to be amended in such actions, as in ac- 1. tions for usury, after the time limited for such action is expired. Ibid. 114.

8. Amendment not allowed in criminal cases. Hoyle v. Pitt.. 3 Salk.

38.

9. Information for killing a hare amended. Howell qui tam, v. James. 1 Wils. 163.

10. All amendments are within the discretion of the court, and are allowed in furtherance of justice under the particular circumstances of the case. R. v. Grampond Corporation. 7 Term Rep. 699. 11. After a party has once amended on a demurrer, the court will not give him leave to amend again on a second demurrer. Kinder v. Paris. 2 H. Black. 561.

2.

3.

4.

5.

[blocks in formation]

Declaration amended in an action for usury, after the record was made up, carried down to trial, and withdrawn by plaintiff. Mace qui tam, v. Lovett. 5 Burr. 2833.

Amendment in ejectment may be made even in the time of the demise, to prevent being barred. Doe Lessee of Hardman v. Filkington and another. 4 Burr. 2447.

An information can be amended in a point to which the defendant. has excepted by a plea in abatement. The Queen v. Stedman. 2 L. Raymond, 1307.

The same point, The King v. Seaward. 2 L. Raym. 1472. 2 Str. 739. Amendment after a special demurrer. Hatton v. Walker. 2 Str. 816.

6.

12. Such mistakes as are made by the clerk in court may be amended; but those in the pleadings being made by the party himself cannot. Green v. Rennet. Term Rep. 783. 13. The court of C. P. refused to per- 7. mit a declaration in an action of covenant brought against executors in their own right, and who had merely acted in the disposition of

8.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »