RETROSPECTIVE LAW-continued. 8. A statute may make valid a conveyance of land executed by an attorney under a power given by the owner and his wife at a time when the law did not recognize such a transaction as valid. Randall v. Kreiger, 23 Wal. 137. 9. A statute giving validity to a deed which was void by reason of a defective statement of the particulars of acknowledgment by husband and wife, the grantors, although retrospective, was held not to impair the obligation of a contract. Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88. 10. A statute providing that a deed that has been de facto registered more than twenty years shall be deemed to have been registered lawfully, is not a retrospective law within the meaning of the constitution of Tennessee, although operating as to deeds registered before its passage. V. Weatherhead, 17 How. 576. Webb 11. Where a legislature has power to authorize a particular act to be done, e. g., bonds to be issued in aid of the construction of a railroad, it may by a retrospective act cure any irregularity or informality in the doing of such act under authority before conferred. Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wal. 327. 12. A statute giving a new remedy by bill of review, affecting the remedy only, is not unconstitutional. Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222. 13. Congress has power to mould the remedy, and may, in providing for bills of review in certain cases, dispense with the ordinary technical rules as to such bills. Ib. 14. The Maine statute of 1848, so changing the law of disseisin as to bar a legal title valid at the time of its enactment, held inoperative, as against such title, because in conflict with the state constitution. Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. 488. 15. Vested rights of a creditor under a state statute enlarging remedies existing when the debt was contracted, or granting new ones, are beyond the reach of the legislature, and are not affected by a repeal of the statute. Memphis v. United States, 97 U. S. 293. 16. A statute which, like the Ohio statute of May 11, 1878, authorizes county auditors to extend back, notwithstanding annual settlements, for four years, inquiries concerning property which should have been returned for taxation, is not a retrospective law within the constitutional inhibition. Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S. 511. 17. A Pennsylvania statute directing the sale of enough of the land of a certain debtor of the state to satisfy the judgment and other liens of the state thereon, there being, under existing laws, no mode of procuring payment, held not in conflict with the constitution of the state, nor | RETROSPECTIVE LAW continued. with that of the United States. Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469. Bankrupt Act of 1874, § 10. See BANKRUPTCY-PRIOR TRANSACTIONS, 20. Law validating Previous Conveyances by Bastards. REVENDICATION Remedy against one holding See EQUITY JURISDICTION, 31. See COURT OF CLAIMS JURISDICTION, 18 et seq. Conspiracy to defraud the Government of Duties Crime under Revenue Laws. STATUTE, 67. See LIMITATION See EVIDENCE-JUDICIAL NOTICE, 11. Repeals of Revenue Laws by Implication not favored. REPEAL, 7. See STATUTES See DISTRICT COURTS- PRACTICE, 1. Violation of Revenue Laws - Ground of Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court. See SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION, 51 et seq. REVOLT 66 Endeavoring to make," within the Crimes Act of 1790, what is Courts may define.] The offence of "endeavoring to make a revolt," within the meaning of the crimes act of April 30, 1790 (1 Sts. 112), consists in the endeavor of the crew, or one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of the commander, with intent to remove him from command, or against his will to take possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her, or by transferring their obedience from the commander to some other person. United States v. Kelly, 11 Wheat. 417. 2. Although the act does not define the offence, the court may. Ib. REWARD-Offer of] Where the offer of a reward is made by public proclamation, it may be withdrawn in the same way, at any time before PROCEEDINGS rights have accrued under it. No contract arises until the terms of the offer are complied with; and that the claimant of the reward was ignorant PROCEEDINGS of such withdrawal is immaterial. Shuey v. United States, 92 U. S. 73. Questions as to Instruction of Jury. Questions of Admissibility of Evidence. See APPEAL AND ERROR ABOVE, 399. PROCEEDINGS 2. Where a "liberal reward" is offered for information leading to the apprehension of a fugitive from justice, and a specific sum for his apprehension, one who gives information leading to the arrest is entitled to such reward, but not See APPEAL AND ERROR-PROCEEDINGS to the specific sum, unless he or his agents actuABOVE, 390. Verdict on the Evidence. ally apprehend the fugitive. Ib. RHODE ISLAND — Boundary between, and Mas- | RIGHT OF SEARCH — continued. sachusetts. 3. The principal right necessarily carries with it the means essential to its exercise. Thus, it may confer the right to assume the guise of a friend or of an enemy. lb. 4. The right of search grows out of the right of capture and is ancillary thereto, and it cannot arise except as a means to that end. The Nereide, 9 Cranch, 388. 5. The modern usages of war authorize the bringing of one of the principal officers of the vessel detained on board the vessel detaining, with the papers, for examination. The Eleanor, 2 Wheat. 345. 6. Where the master of a neutral vessel is required to send his papers on board a boarding vessel for examination, he is not excused by the fact that he has a government mail aboard. The Peterhoff, 5 Wal. 28. 7. Although on seizing a vessel as prize the captor must put her in charge of a competent prize-master and crew, yet in case of mere detention for examination, the commander of the detaining vessel may send an officer on board of the vessel detained, in order more conveniently to enforce his order for examination, without taking her out of the possession of her own officers and The Eleanor, 2 Wheat. 345. crew. 8. Although the belligerent right of search is a right which cannot be questioned, it must be exercised with as much regard to the safety of the vessel searched as is consistent with a thorough examination of her character and the nature of her voyage. The Anna Maria, 2 Wheat. 327. 9. Although the right of search does not exist in time of peace, a ship of war may approach other vessels at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their character. The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 1. Resistance as Ground for Condemnation. Right of Approach in Time of Peace. SAILING RULES · - In general. See COLLISION. 5. It is no defence to an action for the price of goods sold that the price was above the market rate, there having been neither fraud nor ST. LOUIS - Boundary of the Corporation.] The warranty, certainly when the purchaser selected eastern boundary of the corporation of St. Louis the goods, and received and retained them withof 1809, and "the eastern line of the outbound-out objection. Millar v. Tiffany, 1 Wal. 298. ary of December 8, 1840, extended to the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River. St. Louis Schools v. Risley, 10 Wal. 91. Care and Diligence on Part of Defrauded Party.] Misrepresentation, to vitiate a contract of sale, must relate not only to a material matter constituting an inducement to the contract, but to a matter of which the complaining party did not have at hand the means of knowledge; and it must be a misrepresentation on which he relied and by which he was actually misled to his injury. Slaughter v. Gerson, 13 Wal. 379. 2. The buyer is not bound to communicate to the seller intelligence of the signing of a treaty of peace which may enhance the value of the goods, although exclusively within his knowledge at the time of the sale. Laidlaw v. Organ, 2 Wheat. 178. 3. Any question of imposition in the sale, however, should be left to the jury. 1b. 4. Where a party, knowing the pecuniary condition of a debtor, purchases a claim against him of an ascertained amount, an opinion, however erroneous, expressed by the seller as to the value of the claim, does not affect the validity of the sale. Under such circumstances, each party is presumed to rely upon his own judgment. Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1. 6. A patentee who transfers his interest in the patent in consideration, inter alia, of an annuity to be paid by the transferee, cannot of his own motion rescind the contract for a failure to pay the annuity, where he has left the payment thereof to rest on the covenant of the other party. Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. 211. 7. If the buyer of a cargo of flour receive a part thereof and pay for it, he cannot rescind as to the residue, merely because the flour is of a brand different from that mentioned in the memorandum of sale, but if the flour be inferior, he may sue or recoup. Lyon v. Bertram, 20 How. 149. 8. Where one would avoid a purchase for fraud, he must appear to have used care and diligence to discover the fraud, and to have acted promptly to repudiate the contract. Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 Ü. S. 45. 9. In Louisiana, as in general elsewhere, one who would avoid a contract of sale on account of defects must use reasonable diligence to apprise the seller of the defects alleged, and to offer to return the thing bought; and what is such diligence is a question of fact for the jury. Andrews v. Hensler, 6 Wal. 254. 10. And the time is not extended in that state, where the sale is a sale of slaves, by the statute limiting the redhibitory action in case of such sale to one year. Ib. 11. Where one induces a sale of goods to himself on credit, by fraudulently concealing his insolvency and his intent not to pay, the vendor is entitled to disaffirm the contract and recover the goods, no rights therein having been acquired by an innocent third person; and this, although the vendee has been adjudged a bankrupt since the sale, and an assignee has been appointed. Donaldson v. Farwell, 93 U. S. 631. 12. A purchaser of stock, who, for fraud, would disaffirm his purchase, is not bound, before bringing suit to recover the price paid, to receive and tender back to the vendor the certificate left by the vendor with his agent for the purchaser. Pence v. Langdon, 99 U. S. 578. SALE-BONA FIDE PURCHASER-Who is such a Purchaser - Equities.] If the equitable owner of a chattel confer upon another all the indicia of ownership, his equity will not prevail over that SALE-BONA FIDE PURCHASER continued. SALE IN GENERAL of a bona fide purchaser without notice. Calais Steamboat Co. v. Scudder, 2 Black, 372. 2. Thus, where a person residing in California employed an agent to contract for and superiutend the building of a vessel in New York, and, in order to conceal his interest, directed the agent to hold himself out as the owner, and the agent inade all the contracts in his own name, paid for work done and materials furnished thereunder with money supplied by the principal, registered the vessel as his own property, and finally, his principal having died, sold her for her full value to persons having no notice of the principal's interest, the administrator of the principal, having carried out the original arrangement for the building of the vessel, can have no relief against such purchasers. [CLIFFORD and MILLER, JJ., dissenting.] Ib. 3. A purchaser of personal property from one who has no title and no authority to sell acquires no title good as against the owner by purchasing in good faith, for value, and without notice. Ventress v. Smith, 10 Pet. 161; Warner v. Martin, 11 How. 209. 4. Where A. requests B. to buy wheat for his immediate use, and B. buys with his own money, and ships to an agent who consents to be responsible for the wheat until drafts drawn against it are paid, and to whom the wheat is by the bill of lading deliverable, A. remains the owner, and a bank discounting his drafts and taking assignments of the bills of lading acquires a special property, and may maintain an action against a purchaser in good faith from A. to whom, not as purchaser of the wheat but as owner of an elevator, the wheat has been delivered by authority of the agent to whom it was shipped. The agent has no power prior to payment to make a delivery which shall devest the title of the owner; and A. takes as bailee and not as purchaser, and can give no title by sale and delivery. Dows v. Milwaukee National Exchange Bank, 91 U. S. 618. continued. Custom constitutes an Excuse for not deliver- See CUSTOM AND USAGE, 9, 10. Defeasibility of Bill of Sale - Parol Evidence See EVIDENCE-EXTRINSIC OR PAROL, 29. Delivery refused- Buyer's Rights. See ASSUMPSIT, 15. Fraud in Sale Evidence of other like See EVIDENCE RELEVANCY AND MA- Frauds, Statute of Affecting Sale. See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 16 et seq. Governed by what Law. See CONFLICT OF LAWS, 12. Insurance FIRE, 6. Buyer having an Absolute Inter est may insure. Modification of Contract of Sale to Govern ment. See CONTRACT Proof of Usage inadmissible to add a Term to the Contract. - See EVIDENCE - EXTRINSIC OR PAROL, 3, 4. Seller-Taking Third Person's Note as Conditional Payment — Rights. See BILLS AND NOTES-INDORSEMENT, 51. Taxation by State of Sales made by Card, Catalogue, or Sample - Privileges of Citizenship. See TAX-POWER, 24 et seq. |