1764.
Trial, nor diſcharge the Defendant from Bail, without ſome appearance of oppreſſion.[1]
The Leſſee of Richardson verſus Campbell.
Plaintiff ſupported his Title by a Patent dated in 1762. The Defendant produced Receipts from the Proprietary’s Officers, with a Warrant from Mr. Peters, Secretary of the Land Office, ſeveral Years prior to Plaintiff’s Patent, and proved upwards of twenty Years Poſſeſſion; but the Plaintiff contending that the Receipts were only for Money paid on accompt of an adjacent Tract, and that there was ſome impoſition on the Land Officer when the Warrant was granted; the Defendant produced a Witneſs to prove a parol Declaration of Mr. Thomas Penn (when he was in the Country) that the Land in diſpute was ſold to Defendant.–This piece of Evidence was oppoſed by the Plaintiff, and refuſed By the Court.
N.B The Plaintiff could prove no impoſition on the Officer, and the Court gave a Charge in favour of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff would not take the Verdict, but became nonſuit.
Story and Wharton verſus Amos Strettell.
Sur Policy of Inſurance. The Captain’s Proteſt in Jamaica under the Seal of a Notary Publick there, given in Evidence to prove the Capture, and not oppoſed.
Inſtructions from the Plaintiffs (Owners of the Veſſel inſured) to the Captain af the Time of his ſailing, ſworn by the Captain to be the only Inſtructions he had, were given in Evidence by the Plaintiffs, to prove they had given the Captain no Orders to buy the Veſſel on their account in caſe of a capture and re-capture, ſlightly oppoſed by Defendants Council, and given up without debate.
The Defendant in this caſe underwrote an open Policy on the Veſſel from Philadelphia to Jamaica, ſhe was taken by the Enemy and ret ken, and carried into Jamaica, where by Agreement between the Captain and Re-captors, without going into the Court of Admiralty, ſhe was ſold at public Sale for about one fourth of the Sum inſured, and brought by the Captain for the former Owners, who afterwards acquieſced in the purchaſe, and now ſued for the whole Sum inſured as a total loſs. The Sale was proved to be fair, and the Plaintiff’s Council inſiſted that from the moment of the Capture, there was a tot l loſs, and cited divers caſes to ſhew, that if there be a Capture, though it be not ſuch a one as by the Law of Nations would change the Property, yet it would be ſufficient to charge Underwriters with a total Loſs, and the Aſſured may abandon.–Beaws Lex Mer. 268. Conyngham 225. 259. 300. 340.
- ↑ But ſee the Hab. Corp. Act. § 3. Paſſed the 18th Feb, 1785.
