B. OF THE PARTICULAR SUBJECTS OF THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.

I. Maritime Contracts and quasi Contracts.

1. Contracts between part owners (petitory and possessory suits.)

2. Charter-parties and affreightments.

3. Bottomry and hypothecation.

4. Contracts of material men.

5. Insurance.

6. Wages.

7. Salvage, civil.

8. Salvage, military.

9. Averages, contributions and jettisons.

10 Pilotage.

11. Ransom.

12. Surveys.

II. Maritime Torts and Trespasses.

This outline is not from an elementary work, but is a mere synopsis of adjudged cases, in America. Now of these. causes of action, all but those arising in insurance, ransom and surveys, were before, or are now by the new act, confirmed to the English court of admiralty. Insurance has never been claimed in England, specifically, that we are aware of. Ransom is no longer a legal contract in England, though perfectly legal with us, and most maritime nations. Surveys, when made under the direction of viceadmiralty courts in the colonies, have been rejected in England by the common law courts, as to all conclusive character; though sir William Scott always expressed himself strongly for their validity and for titles acquired under

1 Nor has the jurisdiction over insurance ever been affirmed in this country, except in De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gallis. R. 398, and in Peele v. Merchant's Insurance Company, 3 Mason's R. 27. But there can be little doubt, that it would have been exercised by chief justice Marshall. See The United States v. The Little Charles, 1 Brock. R. 380.

them.' Whether surveys can now be considered as an incident to the jurisdiction now conferred in causes of possession, we can of course only conjecture. That contracts of affreightment and quasi contracts of average, should now come in under the head of "damage; " the party, seeking relief for the non-performance of the contract, arresting the vessel by the process of the court, and the owner following him into the court, as claimant of the ship, is perhaps intended; but we do not feel warranted in inferring it from the terms of the act. But the jurisdiction given over the claims of mortgagees, in causes of possession, for supplies, and protecting the judge from action, is a great step, when we look back upon the former position of the instance court of admiralty in England. Lord Stowell once suffered by a verdict for £3,000 or £4,000, recovered against him for having exceeded what the courts of law in former times had held to be his jurisdiction; and the government, feeling bound to protect this eminent minister of the law maritime, promptly paid the money.

We shall now look with renewed interest to the proceedings of the court of admiralty in England. No jurisdiction is so fitted to administer maritime and commercial law, which is largely imbued with a spirit of equity, and demands an administration in which equity powers reside. In these "piping times of peace," with which the world. has been blest for a quarter of a century, we have heard little from that court, save a few judgments-few and far between on the interesting and important and always well debated questions, which have heretofore come before it. Dr. Haggard has not given us an entire volume for the last five years, or more; though his reports, when they do come, are full of learned and able arguments and judgments, which command high consideration with our admiralty

courts.

G. T. C.

The Gratitudine, 3 Rob. Adm. R. 259. The Fanny and Elmira, Edw. Adm. R. 118. The Warrior, 2 Dods. Adm. R. 288.

JURISPRUDENCE.

I. DIGEST OF ENGLISH CASES.

COMMON LAW.

Selections from 8 Adolphus & Ellis, Part 4; 9 Same, Part 2; 6 Bingham's New Cases, Part 2; 7 Scott, Part 5; 5 Meeson & Welsby, Part 4; 7 Dowling's P. C. Part 5; 2 Moody & Robinson, Part 2; 9 Carrington & Payne, Part 1.

ACCOUNT STATED. A member of a banking company wrote to the manager of it, respecting a mistake which had been made in not debiting his account and crediting the bank for the payment of the several calls due from him, and added, "Please debit me with the amount of the calls due on my 200 shares. I think it will be 5007. the second call on the first hundred shares; and 10007. on the two calls on the second hundred shares; and advise me in a private letter. Your bank shall be credited here upon that date." To this letter no answer was sent Held, not sufficient evidence of an account stated. Hughes v. Thorpe, 5 M. & W. 656.

2. A promise by the drawer to pay the indorsee and holder of bills overdue, is evidence on an account stated, in an action by the indorsee against the drawee. Oliver v. Dovatt, 2 M. & Rob. 230.

ACTION ON THE CASE. The plaintiff declared that he re

tained the defendant to print a work, and delivered paper to him for that purpose; that the defendant accepted the retainer,

and it became his duty to use due diligence in the printing, but that he neglected the business of his retainer, and proceeded with the printing in a dilatory manner; and further disregarded his duty and retainer in this, that instead of using the said paper in the printing of the plaintiff's work, he wrongfully pledged it to raise money for purposes of his own: Held, that the declaration was properly conceived in case. Smith v. White, 6 Bing. N. C. 218.

ARBITRATION.

(Award, when sufficiently certain-Bankruptcy of party to reference.) The defendant having agreed to buy of the plaintiff certain property, for which he was to pay an annuity and a large sum by instalments, a verdict for 10,000l. was taken in an action for default of payment, subject to a reference of the cause and all matters in difference; 3500l. to be paid by the defendant to the arbitrator, to be by him paid to the plaintiff, if found due in the action, and the arbitrator to order what should be done by the parties. The arbitrator directed that the defendant should pay, in addition to the 35007., a gross sum, including the value of the annuity, without distinguishing how much in respect of the matters in difference, and how much in respect of the cause; but ordered a verdict on all the issues to be entered for plaintiff: Held, a valid award as against the defendant Held, also, that an act of bankruptcy committed by the defendant before the award, on which a fiat was issued the day after the publication of the award, was no ground for setting it aside. Taylor v. Shuttleworth, 6. Bing. N. C. 277. 2. (Award, setting aside.) An arbitrator, to whom a cause had been referred, found all the issues (one of which was an issue on a set off) in favor of the plaintiff, and assessed general damages on such finding; he ordered a certain sum and costs to be paid on a Sunday, and before the defendant could have an opportunity of moving to set aside the award: Held, that these were no grounds for setting aside the award. Hobdell v. Miller, 6 Bing. N. C. 292.

:

3. (Authority of arbitrator.) Where, by the terms of the order of reference, an arbitrator is to be at liberty to raise any point

of law for the opinion of the Court, he is not bound to do so; such a clause is only an enabling one, and not compulsory. Wood v. Hotham, 5 M. & W. 674.

4. (Appointment of umpire; Interference of umpire, when justifiable.) An appointment of an umpire by two arbitrators under a power to appoint before" entering on the cause of the matters in difference," is good, though the arbitrators have, before such appointment, enlarged the time. If one of the arbitrators insist upon producing further evidence, and the other refuse to allow it to be done, this is a sufficient" disagreement " between the arbitrators to authorize the interference of the umpire. Cudliff v. Walters, 2 M. & Rob. 233. ARSON. Proof that the floor of a room in a house was scorched; that it was charred in a trifling way; it had been at a red heat, but not in a blaze." Semble, a sufficient burning to support an indictment for arson. Reg. v. Parker, 9 C. & P. 45. ASSUMPSIT. (Statement of consideration.) The declaration alleged that the defendant, an attorney, had been guilty of neg ligence, and that the plaintiff was in consequence compelled to pay 147. costs; and that in consideration of the premises, the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff 77., half of those costs: Held, that the declaration alleged no sufficient consideration as moving from the plaintiff to the defendant. Smart v. Chell, 7 D. P. C. 781.

BILL OF LADING. (Delivery of.) A, by letter, requested B to purchase for him 150 bales of cotton: the letter contained the following terms :-" Upon executing the above and forwarding a bill of lading, I will accept your draft at sixty days' sight after the receipt of the bill of lading: "Held, that B was bound to deliver the bill of lading as soon after its arrival as he conveniently could, without reference to the arrival or unloading of the cargo. Barker v. Taylor, 5 M. & W. 527. BILLS AND NOTES. (Proof of date of bill.) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a bill of exchange must be taken to have been issued at the time it bears date. And where an indorsement bore no date, held, that it was properly left to the