TROVER brought for a ship and goods, and on a special verdict there is found a sentence in the admiralty court in France, which was with the defendant.

And now per Curiam agreed and adjudged, that as we are to take notice of a sentence in the admiralty here, see Ladbroke v. Crickett, 2 Term Rep. 649, so ought we of those abroad in other nations, and we must not set them at large again, for otherwise the merchants would be in a pleasant condition; for suppose a decree here in the Exchequer, and the goods happen to be carried into another nation, should the courts abroad unravel this? It is but agreeable with the law of nations that we should take notice and approve of the laws of their countries in such particulars. If you are aggrieved, you must apply yourself to the king and council; it being a matter of government, he will recommend it to his liege ambassador if he see cause; and if not remedied, he may grant letters of marque and reprisal.

And this case was so resolved by all the court upon solemn debate; this being of an English ship taken by the French, and as a Dutch ship in time of war between the Dutch and the French.1

Judgment for the defendants.

1 The special verdict was, that one William Gault, a denizen of England, was owner of the ship at the time she was taken; that the master of the ship was a native of Holland, but made a denizen of England; that two of the sailors were Dutchmen, and the mate, with the eight other mariners, Englishmen; that the ship was Dutch-built, and taken during the war between Holland and France, and condemned as a Dutch prize in the court of admiralty in France, and sold to the plaintiff Hughes under that sentence; and that on her arrival in England, the defendant Cornelius and others, as the servants of William Gault, took and converted the ship to their own use. s. c. Raym. 473. The sentence of the admiralty was produced under seal. 2 Ld. Raym. 893. But the court would not suffer this verdict to be argued, but ordered judgment to be entered for the plaintiff; for sentence in a court of admiralty ought to bind generally, according to jus gentium, s. c. Skinner, 59, although the facts found by the special verdict were contrary to, and falsified the sentence in, the admiralty court. s. c. cited by Holt, C. J., who was counsel for the plaintiff, 2 Ld. Raym. 893, for the property is thereby altered, though the sentence be unjust. s. c. cited Ewer v. Jones, 2 Ld. Raym. 936. Carth. 225. 9 Mod. 66. Bull. N. P. 244, 245. It has, however, been determined that a sentence of condemnation in a foreign court of admiralty is not conclusive evidence that a ship was not neutral, unless it appear that the condemnation went upon that ground, Bernarde v. Motteux, Dougl. 54; but such a sentence is conclusive as to every thing that appears on the face of it, Barzillay v. Lewis, Park.

a sheriffi cale mamfers to the purchaser only the withe of

the debtor

TRESPASS for taking a shearing machine. The case was submitted upon a statement of facts, agreed to by the parties, from which it appeared, that in 1836 the defendant, being the owner of the machine in question, lent it to one Freeman, to use in his business as a clothier, who was to pay a yearly rent therefor, and in whose possession it remained until the year 1841, when it was sold at sheriff's sale, on execution, as the property of Freeman, and one Richmond became the purchaser; that Richmond, in January, 1842, sold the machine to the plaintiff, who at the same time purchased of Freeman the building, in which the machine was situated, and took possession thereof; and that the defendant, in February, 1842, took the machine from the plaintiff's possession, claiming it as his property. The value of the machine was admitted to be fifty dollars.

Upon these facts the county court, HEBARD, J., presiding, rendered judgment for the defendant. Exceptions by plaintiff.

Ins. 359; so, where no special ground is stated in the sentence, but the ship is condemned generally as good and lawful prize, Saloucci v. Woodhouse, Park. 362; unless manifestly, upon the face of it, against law and justice, Saloucci v. Johnston, Park. Ins. 364; or contradictory to itself, Mayne v. Walter, Park. 363. And see the case of Burton v. Fitzgerald, Stra. 1078. Note by Thomas Leach.

NOTE. "When a tribunal, no matter whether in England or a foreign country, has to determine between two parties, and between them only, the decision of that tribunal, though in general binding between the parties and privies, does not affect the rights of third parties; and if in execution of the judgment of such a tribunal process issues against the property of one of the litigants, and some particular thing is sold as being his property, there is nothing to prevent any third person setting up his claim to that thing, for the tribunal neither had jurisdiction to determine, nor did determine, anything more than that the litigant's property should be sold, and did not do more than sell the litigant's interest, if any, in the thing. All proceedings in the courts of common law in England are of this nature, and it is every day's experience that where the sheriff, under a fieri facias against A, has sold a particular chattel, B may set up his claim to that chattel either against the sheriff or the purchaser from the sheriff. And if this may be done in the courts of the country in which the judgment was pronounced, it follows, of course, that it may be done in a foreign country. But when the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine not merely on the rights of the parties, but also on the disposition of the thing, and does in the exercise of that jurisdiction direct that the thing, and not merely the interest of any particular party in it, be sold or transferred, the case is very different.

"It is not essential that there should be an actual adjudication on the status of the thing. Our courts of admiralty, when property is attached and in their hands, on a proper case being shown that it is perishable, order that it shall be sold and the proceeds paid into court to abide the event of the litigation. It is almost essential to justice that such a power should exist in every case where property, at all events perishable property, is detained." Per BLACKBURN, J., in Castrique v. Imrie, L. R. 4 H. L. 414, 427, 428 (1870).

See Megee v. Beirne, 39 Pa. 50.

ghis v. Cornelius.

два

مشهد

Judgements are binding bet, siates Conal) and beliveen nations having The judgement in the original

force original court. impeached,

position that here

There has long been an opinion, very geral, I think, in this state,

has been a trials, that a purchaser at

and genuento mai sonelinies however

Jubeached if fraud in, it irid

an absolo title But, upon examination. I am satisfied that this

dgements of admiralty
Imortgage foreclosure are judgements

element cases, and after the law

of the cases has been fully discussed, and se ttled by the court.

The law given to the jury, in the two cases, will of course partake

quily
Speach if norified by

ed the case, and who must, of recessity, some at amplify
t of the law, in order to show the jury the reason upon which

Market Cousif selling

allchentoide of the yin regard to

hoposition laid down, Such was the denne reforreto.

not be read Wille

have

No mark tovert will s

Tracy and Converse, for plaintiff.

J. S. Marcy, for defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

REDFIELD, J. The only question reserved in this case is, whether a title to personal property, acquired by purchase at sheriff's sale, is absolute and indefeasible against all the world, or whether such sale only conveys the title of the debtor.

There has long been an opinion, very general, I think, in this state, not only among the profession, but the people, that a purchaser at sheriff's sale acquires a good title, without reference to that of the debtor, that such a sale, like one in market overt in England, conveys an absolute title. But, upon examination, I am satisfied that this opinion acts upon no good basis.

So far as can now be ascertained, this opinion, in this state, rests mainly upon a dictum in the case of Heacock v. Walker, 1 Tyl. 338. There are many reasons, why this dictum should not be regarded, if the matter were strictly res integra. It was a declaration of the chief justice in charging the jury. Cases were then tried by the jury at the bar of this court, as matter of right, and in course, and before the law of the case had been discussed and settled by the court. In all these respects these trials differed essentially from jury trials at the bar of the higher courts in Westminster Hall. Such trials, there, being only matter of favor, granted in the most important cases, and after the law of the cases has been fully discussed, and settled by the court.

The law given to the jury, in the two cases, will of course partake something of the character of the respective form and deliberation of the trials. Under our former practice, law laid down in the course of a jury trial, unless when questions were reserved and farther discussed upon motions for new trials, was not much esteemed, even when it was upon the very point in dispute. But especially, the dicta of the judge, who tried the case, and who must, of necessity, somewhat amplify the bare text of the law, in order to show the jury the reason upon which it was based, could not be esteemed, as any thing more than the hastily formed opinion of the judgemere argument, to satisfy some possible, or apprehended, doubt of the jury in regard to the soundness of the main proposition laid down. Such was the dictum referred to. That, which was said of Chief Justice Tilghman, of Pennsylvania, is undoubtedly good praise, when said of any judge; - "He made no dicta, and he regarded none." There are sufficient reasons, why the dictum should not be regarded, if the thing were new. And we do not esteem the long standing of the dictum of any importance, unless it can be shown, that it has thus grown into a generally received and established law, or usage; which, we think, is not the case in regard to this. For this court has, within the last ten years, repeatedly held, that a sheriff's sale was of no validity to pass any but the title of the debtor, when no actual delivery of the thing sold was made by the sheriff, at the time of sale. Austin v. Tilden et al., 14 Vt. 325; Boynton v. Kelsey,