35. Virginia.

Suits by Aliens in the Courts of the United States.-Claims by Aliens to Lands in the United States. An alien enemy may take lands by devise, and hold the same until office found. Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 603; 2 Cond. Rep. 622.

circuit court of the United States, in the name of his trustee, who is not an alien. But it is otherwise, if the contract out of which the suit originated arose out of a trade licensed by the government in whose courts redress is sought. Ibid.

25. The rules of the common law, in cases of alien enemy, do not apply with the same rigour, in courts acting under the general law of nations. Ibid.

26. Alien enemies, who had enrolled themselves as volunteers, and been accepted by the president, under the act of February 6, 1812, ch. 344, are not entitled to a discharge on the ground of such alienage, there being no law enjoining the president from accepting their services. Wilson et al. v. Izard et al., 1 Paine, 68. 27. An alien enemy cannot sustain a suit in the courts of the United States. Mumford v. Mumford, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 366.

28. An alien enemy cannot sustain a claim in a prize court; nor can a citizen claim the property of an enemy in a prize court, upon an alleged sale since the war. The Emulous, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 563.

36. There is no distinction, whether the purchase be by grant or by devise; in either case, the estate vests in the alien, not for his own be nefit, but for the benefit of the state; or, in the language of the ancient law, he has the capacity to take but not to hold lands, and they may be seized into the hands of the sovereign. Ibid.

37. Until the lands are so seized, the alien has complete dominion over them; he is a good tenant of the freehold in a præcipe on a common recovery, and may convey the same to a purchaser. Ibid.

38. It seems indeed to have been held, that an alien cannot maintain a real action for the recovery of lands; but it does not thence follow that he may not defend, in a real action, his title to the lands, against all persons but the sovereign. Ibid.

39. In respect to these general rights and disabilities as to real property, there is no difference between alien friends and alien enemies. Ibid. 40. During the war, the property of alien 3. Suits by Aliens in the Courts of the United enemies is subject to confiscation jure belli, and

States.

29. The courts of the United States have no jurisdiction where both parties are aliens. Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cranch, 46; 2 Cond. Rep. 19. 30. If it appears before the supreme court, by the record brought up from the inferior court, that the plaintiff below was a subject of Great Britain at the time of the suit brought, and the rendition of the judgment below, and before affirmance on the writ of error, the plaintiff in error cannot take advantage of the fact that the original plaintiff has become an alien enemy by the breaking out of war. The judgment may be affirmed. Owens v. Hanney, 9 Cranch, 180; 3 Cond. Rep. 346.

31. An alien does not lose his right to sue in the courts of the United States, by his residence in a state of the Union. Breedlove et al. v. Nicolet et al., 7 Peters, 413.

32. In the case of Kemp v. Kennedy, in the circuit court of the United States, New Jersey circuit, 1 Peters' C. C. R. 30, Judge Washington said, "he recollected no case where an alien enemy had recovered in ejectment." He was referred to the case of Dawson v. Godfrey, supreme court, 4 Cranch, 321; 2 Cond. Rep. 124, where that court decided against the plaintiff, on the ground of alienage.

their civil capacity to sue is suspended. Ibid.

41. The title acquired by an alien, by purchase, is not divested until office found; the principle is founded upon the ground, that as the freehold is in the alien, and he is tenant to the lord of whom the lands are holden, it cannot be divested out of him, but by some notorious act, by which it may appear that the freehold is in another. Ibid."

42. The reason of the difference why, when an alien dies, the sovereign is seised without office found, is, because otherwise the freehold would be in abeyance, as the alien cannot have any inheritable blood. Even after office found, the king is not judged in possession, unless the possession were then vacant; for if the possession were then in another, the king must enter or seize by his officer, before the possession in deed shall be adjudged him. Ibid.

43. New Jersey.-A person born in the colony of New Jersey, before the year 1775, and residing there until the year 1777, but who then joined the British army, and ever since adhered to the British, claiming to be a British subject, and demanding and receiving compensation from that government, for his loyalty and sufferings as a refugee, has a right to take lands by descent, in the state of New Jersey. Cox's Lessee v. M'Ilvaine, 4 Cranch, 209; 2 Cond. Rep. 86.

4. Claims by Aliens to Lands in the United States. 44. The alienage of the vendee is not a suf33. Maryland. The law of Maryland, accord- ficient ground to entitle the vendor to a decree ing to the common law of England, does not give rescinding a contract for the sale of lands; the right to inherit lands, distinct from the obli- though perhaps it might afford a reason for degation of allegiance existing either in fact or sup-nying a specific performance, as against the position of law. Dawson's Lessee v. Godfrey, 4 vendee. Hepburn et al. v. Dunlop et al., 1 Cranch, 321; 2 Cond. Rep. 125, 126. Wheat. 179; 3 Cond. Rep. 529.

34. A person born in England before the year 45. Maryland.-J. B. Č., a native of France 1775, and who always resided there, and never migrated to the United States in 1793, and bewas in the United States, is an alien, and could came domiciled in Maryland. On the 22d Sepnot, in 1793, take lands in Maryland from a citi-tember, 1795, he took the oaths of citizenship, zen of the United States. Ibid. 124. according to an act of assembly of Maryland,

Claims by Aliens to Lands in the United States.

52. The title of an alien, acquired by patent in 1784, under the laws of Virginia, and subsequently confirmed to him by a legislative act of Kentucky, in 1796, and to his heirs and their grantees by a subsequent law of the same state, in 1799, will overreach a grant made by Virginia to a citizen in 1785, and defeat the claim of all persons holding under such grant. Ibid.

passed in 1779, and the next day received a con- | by patent, no alteration was made by the law, veyance of lands in that state, in fee. On the and they were left under the ordinary alien dis6th of July, 1798, he was naturalized under the abilities. Ibid. laws of the United States, and he died intestate in July, 1799, leaving no legitimate relations in the United States, but having heirs at law in France. Upon the supposition that the lands were escheated, the state of Maryland conveyed them to his natural son, with a saving of the rights of all persons claiming by devise or descent from J. B. C., and under this grant the natural son took possession of the property. In March, 1809, the heirs at law of J. B. C., French subjects, brought an action of ejectment for the lands, and obtained a verdict for them, the judgment on which was affirmed in the supreme court. The court held that the power of naturalization was exclusively in congress, but that the treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and France, of 1778, article 11, enabled the subjects of France to purchase and hold lands in the United States. Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259; 4 Cond. Rep. 111.

46. The statute 11 and 12 Wm. 3, ch. 6, which is in force in Maryland, removes the disability of claiming title by descent, through an alien ancestor, but does not apply to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship, where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural born subject. M'Creery's Lessee v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354; 5 Cond. Rep. 608.

47. Where M. died seised of lands in Maryland, intestate and without issue, leaving a brother R., an alien, and three daughters, nieces of R., who were natural born citizens of the United States, it was held that they could not claim as heirs to M., through R., their father, he being an alien and still living. Ibid.

53. Kentucky-The treaty of 1778, between France and the United States, allowed the citizens of either country to hold lands in the other; and the title once vested in a French subject in lands in the United States, was not divested by the abrogation of the treaty, and the expiration of the subsequent convention of 1800. Carneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181; 6 Cond. Rep. 64.

54. New York.-G. C., born in the colony of New York, went to England in 1738, and resided there until his decease; and being seised of lands in New York, on the 30th November, 1776, he devised the same to the defendant in the ejectment, and E. C., as tenants in common, and he died so seised of the property in December, 1776. The defendant and E. C. having entered on the land, E. C., in December, 1791, sold to the defendant his interest. The defendant and E. C. were both born in England, before the revolution. On the 22d of March, 1791, the legislature of New York passed an act to enable the defendant to purchase lands, and to hold all other lands to which he might then be entitled, within the state, by purchase or descent, in fee simple, and to sell and dispose of the same as a natural born citizen. The defendant still continued a British subject. Held, that he was entitled to hold lands so devised to him by G. C., and transferred by E. C. Jackson v. Clarke, 3 Wheat. 1; 1 Cond. Rep. 188.

48. Under the 9th article of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, of 1794, it is not necessary for the alien to show that he 55. Virginia.-R. Č., a native of Virginia, was in the actual possession or seisin of the land being seised of real property in that state, deat the date of the treaty, because the treaty ap-vised as follows:-"In the first place, I give, plies to the title, whatever that might be, and gives it the same legal validity as if the parties were citizens. The title of an alien mortgagee is protected by the treaty. Hughes et al. v. Edwards et ux., 9 Wheat. 489; 5 Cond. Rep. 648.

49. Independently, however, of the treaty, an alien mortgagee may come into equity, and have the property pledged for the security of his debt, sold for the purpose of raising the money. His demand is merely a personal one, the debt being considered as the principal, and the land merely as an incident. Ibid.

devise, and bequeath unto J. L." and others, "all my estate, real and personal, of which Í may die seised and possessed in any part of America, in special trust, that the aforementioned persons, or such of them as may be living at my death, will sell my personal estate to the highest bidder, on two years' credit; and my real estate on one, two, and three years' credit, provided satisfactory security be given by bond and deed of trust. In the second place, I give and bequeath to my brother, T. C.," an alien, "all the proceeds of my estates, real and per50. An alien may take real property by grant, sonal, which I have directed to be sold, to be whether from the states or a private citizen, and remitted to him accordingly, as the payments may hold the same until his title is divested by are made; and I hereby declare J. L.," and the an inquest of office, or some equivalent proceed-other persons, "to be my trustees and executors ing. Doe ex dem. Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson et al., 11 Wheat. 332; 6 Cond. Rep. 334.

51. The act of assembly of Virginia, of 1779, ch. 13, sec. 3, was designed, and must be so understood, to secure from escheat the equitable interest acquired by aliens, by the acts preceding the patent; while as to the rights acquired

for the purposes aforementioned." Held, that J.C., though an alien, was entitled to the benefi of this bequest, it being personal estate only Craig v. Leslie at al., 3 Wheat. 563; 4 Cond. Rep. 331.

56. An alien may take a freehold interest in land, and hold against all the world except the

Claims by Aliens to Lands in the United States.

64. The treaties between the United States 71. The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is not and Great Britain, of 1783 and 1794, only pro-applied by the British courts to the American vided for titles existing in aliens at the time these treaties were made, and not to titles subsequently acquired. Ibid.

Claims by Aliens to Lands in the United States.-Naturalization.

of New Jersey, not only after she had declared herself a sovereign state, but after she had passed laws, by which she declared him to be a member of and in allegiance to the new government. Ibid. 124.

75. Thomas Scott, a native of South Carolina, died in 1782, intestate, seised of land on James' Island, having two daughters, Ann and Sarah, both born in South Carolina, before the declaration of independence. Sarah married D. P., a citizen of South Carolina, and died in 1802, entitled to one-half of the estate. The British took possession of James' Island and Charleston, in February and May, 1780; and in 1781, Ann Scott married Joseph Shanks, a British officer, and at the evacuation of Charleston in 1782, she went to England with her husband, where she remained until her death, in 1801. She left five children, born in England. They claimed the other moiety of the real estate of Thomas Scott, in right of their mother, under the ninth article of the treaty of peace between this country and Great Britain, of the 19th of November, 1794. Held, that they were entitled to recover and hold the same. Shanks et al. v. Dupont et al., 3 Peters, 242.

76. Under the laws of New York, one citizen of the state cannot inherit in the collateral line to the other, when he must make his pedigree or title through a deceased alien ancestor. Lessee of Levy v. M'Cartee, 6 Peters, 102.

77. That an alien has no inheritable blood, and can neither take land himself by descent, or transmit land from himself to others by descent, is common learning. Ibid.

78 The case of Collingwood v. Pace, 1 Ventris' Rep. 413, furnishes conclusive evidence, that by the common law, in all cases of mediate descents, if any mediate ancestor, through whom the party makes his pedigree, as heir, is an alien, that is a bar to his title as heir. Ibid.

79. If Ann Scott was of age before December, 1782, as she remained in South Carolina until that time, her birth and residence must be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina, while she remained in that state. If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father; for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country. Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Peters, 245.

80. All British born subjects, whose allegiance Great Britain has never renounced, ought, upon general principles of interpretation, to be held within the intent, as they certainly are within the words of the treaty of 1794. Ibid. 250.

81. The capture and possession of James' Island in February, 1780, and of Charleston on the 11th of May, in the same year, by the British troops, was not an absolute change of the allegiance of the captured inhabitants. They owed allegiance to the conquerors during their occupation, but it was a temporary allegiance, which did not destroy, but only suspended their former allegiance. Ibid. 246.

82. The marriage of Ann Scott with Shanks, a British officer, did not change or destroy her allegiance to the state of South Carolina; because marriage with an alien, whether friend or enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. Ibid.

83. The subsequent removal of Ann Shanks to England with her husband, operates as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance, and fixed her future allegiance to the British crown by the treaty of peace in 1783. Ibid.

5. Naturalization.

84. A certificate by a competent court, that an alien has taken the oath prescribed by the act respecting naturalization, raises a presumption that the court was satisfied as to the moral character of the alien, and of his attachment to the constitution of the United States. The oath, when taken, confers the rights of a citizen. It is not necessary that there should be an order of court admitting him to become a citizen. Campbell v. Gordon and Wife, 6 Cranch, 176; 2 Cond. Rep. 342.

85. The oath, when taken, confers upon him the rights of a citizen, and amounts to a judg ment of a court for his admission to those rights. Ibid.

86. The children of persons duly naturalized before the 14th of April, 1802, being under age at the time of the naturalization of their parent, were, if dwelling in the United States on the 14th April, 1802, to be considered citizens, under the provisions and authority of the act of congress, of January 29, 1795. Ibid.

87. It would not appear by the record of naturalization, that all the requisites of the law have been complied with. Starke v. The Chesapeake Ins. Co., 7 Cranch, 420; 2 Cond. Rep. 556

88. The power of naturalization is exclusively in congress. Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 269; 4 Cond. Rep. 111.

89. Under the act of congress of 14th April, 1802, the registry of aliens required by the second section of the law, must have been made five years before the application for naturalization. Anonymous, 1 Peters' C. C. R. 457.

90. The applicant must also prove the period of his residence in the United States, and also the other matters required by the provisions of the section. Ibid.

91. Parol evidence of the arrival of an applicant for naturalization, five years prior to the application, is insufficient. Ibid.

92. An alien enemy cannot be permitted to make the declaration preparatory to naturalization. The act of congress of 30th July, 1813, ch. 135, enables persons who before the war had made the preparatory declaration, to become citizens, in the same manner as if the war had not intervened; but it confers no privilege on other persons. Ex parte Newman, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 12.

93. A statute which enables an alien to hold land, "who shall have resided in the state two years," applies as well to the future as to past time. Beard et al. v. Rowan, 1 M'Lean, 141.

Allegations in a Libel, or in Informations and Indictments in the Admiralty-Allegiance.

ALLEGATIONS IN A LIBEL, OR IN INFOR-
MATIONS AND INDICTMENTS IN THE
ADMIRALTY.

1. An information for a forfeiture, under the statute of neutrality of 1794, ch. 50, need not state the person, or state by name against whom or which the ship was fitted out to cruise. Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244.

2. An information for a forfeiture should not only state the facts of forfeiture, but also, that thereby the thing became, and was forfeited. Ibid.

3. A libel, or information for a forfeiture, may allege the offence, in the alternative of several facts, if each alternative constitutes an offence or cause of forfeiture; otherwise, such alternative allegation is bad. The Caroline v. The U. S., 7 Cranch, 496; 2 Cond. Rep. 584.

12. A general prize allegation cannot be properly joined with an information for a seizure for the violation of a statute. The Diana, 2 Gallis.

C. C. R. 93.

13. In a libel on the 50th sect. of the revenue act of March 2d, 1799, ch. 128, it is not necessary to allege the goods to be of foreign growth or manufacture. The Betsey, 1 Mason's C. C.

R. 355.

14. A libel or information under the 9th sec. of the slave trade act of 2d March, 1807, ch. 77, alleging that the vessel sailed from the ports of New York and Perth Amboy, without the captain having delivered the manifest required by law to the collector or surveyor of New York and Perth Amboy, is defective; the act requiring the manifest to be delivered to the collector or to the surveyor of a single port. The Mary Ann, 8 Wheat. 380; 5 Cond. Rep. 471.

4. In prize causes, the allegations, proofs, and 15. In a libel for wages, the allegations of the proceedings are, in general, modelled upon the hiring, voyage, &c., should be drawn accurately, civil law, with such additions and alterations as and with reasonable certainty, otherwise it may the practice of nations, and the rights of belli-be excepted to. The most correct course is, to gerents and neutrals unavoidably impose. The Adeline, 9 Cranch, 244, 284; 3 Čond. Rep. 397. 5. In cases of military salvage, the party may if he please allege and claim salvage in his libel. But it is unnecessary, and in most cases will be highly inexpedient. A general prize allegation will be sufficient. Ibid.

6. In an information on the 3d sect. of the act of 1809, ch. 72, (the embargo law,) the time of receiving knowledge of the act at the port where the offence is alleged to have been committed, and also of the notice to unload the vessel, are material allegations, and traversable. The Bolina and Cargo, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 75.

7. A libel, charging the seizure to have been made on water, when in fact it was made on land, will not support a verdict and judgment thereon, but must be amended or dismissed. The two jurisdictions, and the proceedings under them, are to be kept entirely distinct. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 472.

8. A libel or information does not require all the technicalities and precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offence, it is all that is necessary; and if founded on a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law. The Emily and Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381; 5 Cond. Rep. 623.

9. The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded in admiralty proceedings. It is sufficient if an information set forth the offence so clearly as to bring it within the statute upon which it is founded. It is not necessary that it should conclude contra formam statuti. The Merino et al., 9 Wheat. 391, 401; 5 Cond. Rep.

623.

state the facts, &c., in distinct articles, which is the usual course in admiralty proceedings. No facts of misbehaviour, or other causes of forfeiture, are admissible at the hearing, unless the answer distinctly propounds them, and puts them in issue. Owen v. Townsend, 4 Mason's

C. C. R. 541.

16. An information in the admiralty for a forfeiture, must contain a substantial statement of the offence; a general reference to the provisions of the statute is not sufficient, and the defect is not cured by evidence. The Hoppet v. The U. S., 7 Cranch, 389; 2 Cond. Rep. 542.

17. Libels in the admiralty should state the subject-matter in articles, with certainty and precision, and with averments admitting of distinct answers. The Schooner Boston, 1 Sumner's Rep. 328,

18. In an indictment for a piratical murder, it is not necessary that it should allege the prisoner to be a citizen of the United States, nor that the crime was committed on board a vessel belonging to citizens of the United States. But it is sufficient to charge it as committed from on board such vessel, by a mariner sailing on board such vessel. U. S. v. Furlong et al., 5 Wheat. 184; 4 Cond. Rep. 623.

ALLEGIANCE.

1. Query, Whether a citizen of the Umted States, independently of legislative action on the subject, can throw off his allegiance to his native country. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283; 5 Cond. Rep. 284.

2. If this may be done, it never can, withou a bona fide change of domicil, nor for fraudulen purposes, nor to justify the commission of a crime against the country, or any violation of its laws. Ibid.

3. The general doctrine is, that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance