of destroying the Confederate forces. The result of the battle of Five Forks, on the Ist of April, satisfied the Confederate commander that he could not hold his lines and protect Richmond. The withdrawal of his troops and the evacuation of Richmond followed. Had they not been thus forced to retire, and his lines had continued to cross James River between Chaffin's Bluff and Drury's Bluff, it would have been almost, if not quite, impossible for the fleet of Admiral Porter to ascend the river. The fire of the shore batteries, with the assistance of the Confederate troops near by, would have checked any advance, supported, as they would have been, by the Confederate vessels and the torpedoes in the stream. It is plain, therefore, that whatever was accomplished by the fleet of the Admiral in James River, on the second and third days of April, 1865, must be considered as the result of the co-operative action. of both the army and the navy. It matters not that the movements of the army were miles distant from the operations of the fleet. They relieved that fleet from resistance which might and probably would have defeated any attempt to ascend the river above the shore batteries and destroy the armed vessels of the enemy.

Prize money, or bounty in lieu of it, is not allowed by the laws of Congress where vessels of the enemy are captured or destroyed by the navy with the co-operation of the army. To win either, the navy must achieve its success without the direct aid of the army, by maritime force only. No pecuniary reward is conferred for anything taken or destroyed by the navy when it acts in conjunction with the army in the capture of a fortified position of the enemy, though the meritorious services and gallant conduct of its officers and men may justly entitle them to honorable mention in the history of the country. The Siren, 13 Wall. 389.

The second objection to a recovery, that the destruction of the Confederate vessels was effected upon inland waters of the United States, p. 612 is equally clear, if the term 'property,' used in | the seventh section of the act of July 2, 1864, c. 225, can be construed-as counsel seem to take for granted-to embrace public vessels of the enemy. That act provides, among other things, for the collection of captured and abandoned property, and is in addition to the act on that subject of March 12, 1863, c. 120. The seventh section declares: That no property seized or taken upon any of the inland waters of the United States by the naval forces thereof, shall be regarded as maritime prize; but all property so seized or taken shall be promptly delivered to the proper officers of the courts, or as provided in this act and in the said act approved March twelve, eighteen hundred and sixty-three.'

The term inland' as here used was evidently intended to apply to all waters of the United States upon which a naval force could go, other than bays and harbors on the sea-coast. In most instances property of

the enemy on them could be taken, if at all, by an armed force without the aid of vessels of war. These were seldom required on such waters, except when batteries or fortified places near them were to be attacked in conjunction with the army. As observed by the court in The Cotton Plant, Congress probably anticipated, in view of the state of the war when the act was passed, that most of the captures on the rivers would be made by the army. 10 Wall. 577.

James River is an inland water in any sense which can be given to the term ́inland.' It lies within the body of counties in Virginia. For miles below Richmond, and below the obstructions mentioned, a person can see from one of its banks what is done on the other. Rivers across which one can thus see are inland waters. It matters not that the tide may ebb and flow for miles above their mouths; that fact does not make them any part of the sea or bay into which they may flow, though they may be arms of both. United States v. Grush, 5 Mason, 290.

Decree affirmed.

Cushing v. Laird.

Foster v. Cushing.

(107 U.S. Reports, 69) 1882.

1. When persons summoned as garnishees in a libel in admiralty in personam are adjudged by the court to have a fund of the principal defendant in their hands and to pay it into court, and the libellant afterwards obtains a final decree against him with an award of execution against the fund in their hands, the first order is interlocutory, and they can appeal from the last decree only.

2. A final decree of acquittal and restitution to the only claimant in a prize cause determines nothing as to the title in the property, beyond the question of prize or no prize; and another person, who actually conducts the defence in the prize cause in behalf and by consent of the claimant, without disclosing his own title under a previous bill of sale from the claimant, is not estopped to contest the claimant's title in a subsequent suit brought by creditors attaching the property or its proceeds as belonging to the claimant.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. J. Langdon Ward and Mr. Robert D. Benedict for Cushing. Mr. J. Hubley Ashton, Mr. Cornelius Van Santvoord, Mr. A. J. Vanderpool, and Mr. James Thomson, contra.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a libel in admiralty, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York by John N. Cushing and others against John Laird, Jr., to recover damages for the destruction of the libellants' vessel, the Sonora,' by the 'Alabama.' The defendant was not found and

never appeared in the cause, and his credits and effects were attached in the hands of Foster & Thomson, garnishees.

The garnishees answered that they had in their hands a fund amounting to $31,441.62, known as the proceeds of the steamer Wren,' which was the property of Charles K. Prioleau and not of Laird. Upon the trial of the issue raised by this answer, the District Court, in April, 1873, adjudged that the fund belonged to Laird, and ordered the garnishees to pay it into court. See 6 Benedict, 408. From that decree the garp. 70 nishees | appealed to the Circuit Court. The District Court afterwards, in September, 1873, entered a decree in favor of the libellants against Laird for the sum of $143,298.70, and costs, and that the libellants have execution thereon, to satisfy this decree, against the property of the said respondent, and especially against his property, credits, and effects in the hands of Foster & Thomson, garnishees.' From this decree also the garnishees appealed to the Circuit Court.

P 71

The Circuit Court dismissed the first appeal, and retained the cause for hearing on the second appeal only; and, upon consideration, entered a decree by which it was adjudged that the fund in the hands of the garnishees was not the property of Laird, and could not be subjected to the payment of the decree against him, the attachments against the garnishees were discharged, and both decrees of the District Court, so far as affected them and the fund in their hands, were reversed with costs. See 15 Blatchf. 219.

The findings of fact by the Circuit Court are printed at length in 15 Blatchf. 220-236, and, so far as they are material to be stated, are as follows:

The steamer Wren' was built at Birkenhead, England, in 1864, by Laird Brothers, and was registered on the 24th of December, 1864, at Liverpool, in accordance with the laws of Great Britain, in the name of John Laird, Jr., as owner; a certificate of the registry was issued in due form; the vessel sailed from Liverpool, having the certificate on board as part of her ship's papers, and it did not appear that she ever again entered a British port. On the 3d of January, 1865, after she had left Liverpool, Laird executed to Charles K. Prioleau, of Liverpool, a member of the firm of Fraser, Trenholm, & Company, for the consideration of £15,450, a bill of sale of the vessel, which, on the 1st of May, 1865, was duly entered at the custom-house in Liverpool, and the vessel registered in the name of Prioleau as owner. On the 13th of June, 1865, on the high seas, on a voyage from Havana to Liverpool, by the way of Halifax, Nova Scotia, some of the crew took forcible possession of the vessel, overcame her officers, ran her into Key West, and there delivered her to the naval authorities of the United States.

On the 16th of June, 1865, the Attorney of the United | States for

the Southern District of Florida filed in the District Court for that district an information against the vessel as prize of war. She was taken into the custody of the marshal, and a monition issued to all persons. interested to appear on the 27th of June and show cause against a decree of condemnation. On the 26th of June Edward C. Stiles, master of the vessel, appeared in court and filed a claim, stating that he was the master, and, as such, the lawful bailee of the vessel, and claimed the same for the owner thereof; and that Laird, a British subject, residing in England, was the true and bona fide owner of the vessel, and that no other person was the owner thereof, as appeared by her register in the possession of the court, and as he was informed and believed; denying that she was a prize of war, and praying restitution and damages.

The only certificate of registry found on board was that granted on the 24th of December, 1864, upon which were noted, at the British Consulate in Havana, changes of masters on the 24th of March and the 10th of June, 1865, and at the foot of which was the following: 'NOTE. A certificate of the registry granted under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, is not a document of title. It does not necessarily contain notice of all changes of ownership, and in no case does it contain an official record of any mortgage affecting the ship.'

On the 17th, 19th, and 20th of June, 1865, the depositions of the master and other officers of the vessel were taken in preparatorio; and on the 27th of June the court proceeded to hear the case upon the allegations and pleadings, the depositions taken in preparatorio, and the papers, letters, and writings found on board the vessel. On the 29th of June the court, of its own motion, directed the prize commissioner to take immediately the testimony of the officers, and of any other witnesses who might be produced by the claimants from persons on board the vessel, upon specified interrogatories; of two persons named, and any others on board produced by the captors, upon some of the same interrogatories; and of any witnesses, produced either by the captors or the claimants from persons not on board, upon certain other interrogatories; and allowed two days to the parties to produce witnesses. Under this order testimony was taken; and on the 3d of July | the court resumed p. 72 the hearing upon the allegations and pleadings, the depositions taken in preparatorio, the papers found on board, and the depositions taken under the order allowing further proof.

The court, on the 8th of July, announced its opinion, condemning the vessel, but, on account of exceptions taken to some rulings, delayed making a decree in form until the 15th of August, when it was duly entered, reciting that a claim had been interposed by the master in behalf of Laird, that the case had been heard as aforesaid, and that it appeared to the court that the ' Wren' was, at the time of capture, the property

P. 73

of enemies of the United States; and adjudging her to be condemned and forfeited to the United States as lawful prize of war, and to be sold by the marshal, and the proceeds to be deposited with the Assistant Treasurer of the United States, subject to the order of the court. From that decree the claimant, on the same day, appealed to this court. The vessel was afterwards sold, and the proceeds of the sale deposited with the Assistant Treasurer.

Prioleau still resided in England, and it did not appear that he had any actual knowledge of the proceedings for condemnation until after the entry of the decree. He afterwards retained Foster & Thomson, the garnishees in this case, attorneys and counsellors at law in the city of New York, to do whatever might be necessary for the protection of his interests; and they procured a copy of the record of the District Court and had the appeal docketed in this court, and employed additional counsel, who argued the case here on the record sent up. No additional testimony was taken, and no change in the pleadings made or applied for. Upon the argument in this court, the counsel for the United States insisted that it appeared from the evidence that the vessel, at the time of the capture, was the public property of rebel enemies, and, in support of this position, referred to the testimony of witnesses who swore that Fraser, Trenholm, & Company were her owners. The counsel for the appellant insisted that there was not a particle of evidence that she was ever enemies' property, but that the evidence was conclusive that she was at all times the property of Laird, a British neutral. |

This court, at December Term, 1867, reversed the decree of the District Court, and remanded the cause, with directions to restore the vessel to the claimant, without costs. Mr. Justice Nelson, in delivering the opinion, said that the only question in the case was whether the vessel was the property of enemies of the United States; and, in discussing this question, observed that upon the proofs that the claimant built the vessel and put the master in command in this, her first voyage, the presumption would seem to be very strong, if not irresistible (nothing else in the case), that he continued the owner for the short period of six months that elapsed after she was built and before the seizure took place; that in addition to this she was in command of a master claiming to represent Laird as owner; that these acts, in connection with the registry, afforded strong evidence that the title of the vessel was in the claimant, and that, although it was not unnatural to suspect, from the surrounding facts and circumstances, that the so-called Confederate States or their agents had some interest in or connection with her, there was no sufficient legal proof that they owned the vessel.

After that decree of this court, Foster & Thomson made and sent to Prioleau a draft of a power of attorney to be executed by Laird and by