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.
On
