(which had been found for the plaintiff), a rule nisi was granted: but, cause being shewn, it was discharged. His Lordship said, "It is impossible to say the government of the Ionian Republic was superseded, at a time when its institutions subsisted, and its supremacy was recognised. How, then, was Corfu a co-belligerent? Only because it endured a hostile aggression."

In the case of Havelock v. Rockwood (a), it was held by the Court of King's Bench, that a sentence of condemnation of a British ship (which had been captured by a French privateer and carried into Bergen in Norway) by the French consul at Bergen was an illegal sentence; and that where the owner after such a sentence repurchased his ship at a public auction at Bergen, he could not recover the money so paid by him from the underwriter, such a contract is a ransom and illegal, (void at that period by 45 Geo. 3, c. 72, now expired.)

Lord Kenyon.-"I need not say much on the first point respecting the sentence of the supposed court at Bergen: a question that affects all commercial states, because that point has so lately been solemnly decided by Sir W. Scott, who determined on grounds that will recommend the decision to all those who fill a judicial situation. And I can only add, that I most perfectly concur in the opinion there given." (b)

But in the case of Oddy v. Bovill (c), it was held that a sentence of condemnation, of a prize taken by a French privateer and carried into Spain, by a French Court sitting there (Spain then being a belligerent ally of France in the war against Great Britain) was valid; and such condemnation proceeding on the ground of the property being enemy's and British, was conclusive in an action on a policy against the underwriter by the assured who has insured as Danish, as it was in fact, Denmark then being neutral.

In the case of Bernardi v. Motteux (d), which was an in

surance" on the ship' Jane,' warranted neutral ship and property," it was held that the sentence of a French Court of Admiralty which stated that "the captured ship was on her voyage to an enemy's port with goods consigned to persons there, though stated in the bills of lading to belong to neutrals and there being reason to suspect that the captain had thrown his papers overboard, therefore, the ship and cargo was condemned as prize," this being ambiguous, and there being reason to suppose that the ground of the sentence was the throwing the papers overboard, contrary to a French ordinance, not to be conclusive evidence to falsify the warranty.

But where it appears, without a possibility of doubt, that the sentence proceeded on the ground that the property not being neutral,' it is conclusive evidence against the assured that he has not complied with the warranty. This was fully settled in the case of Barzillay v. Lewis (a).

It was an action on a policy of insurance on a ship from Liverpool to Amsterdam, warranted Dutch property; and it was brought to recover for a total loss, the ship having been captured by the French, and condemned by the Court of Admiralty there. The plaintiff (the insured) was nonsuited in this action, from an idea, that the decree of the Parliament of Paris was decisive against him, that he had not complied with his warranty. Upon a motion to set aside this nonsuit, the following facts appeared from the report of the Judge who tried the cause. The ship in question was originally a French privateer called L'Aimable Agathée, which was taken by an English privateer, and carried into Liverpool, condemned in England, and she then got the name of The Three Graces. A merchant at Liverpool afterwards bought her for a house at Amsterdam, and a passport was sent for her from thence. She was then insured by a Dutch name, and warranted as in the policy; she went to sea, was cap

(a) B. R. Trin. Term, 22 Geo. 3. Park Ins. 725. And see Baring v. Claggett, 3 Bos. & Pull. 201, and

Baring v. Christie, 5 East, 398.
Acc.

tured by a French ship, and carried into St. Maloes, where she was released by the Vice Admiralty Court as being Dutch. But upon an appeal to the Parliament of Paris, the sentence was reversed, and she was condemned as lawful prize, by the name of The Three Graces of Liverpool. It appeared in evidence, that there were certain French ordinances, which ordain, that where more than one-third of the crew of a neutral ship are enemies to the King of France, the ship shall be confiscated: that no ship shall be considered as transferred, till she has been within the port of the pur chaser; and that a passport shall be deemed fraudulent, unless the ship has been in the port from whence it has been obtained. The ship's crew in question consisted of sixteen, five of whom were French, four were Danes, two were Swedes, one was Dutch, one Portuguese, one Hamburgher, one Norwegian, and one Irishman. Some of the crew swore, that they were hired by Englishmen, and that both the ship and the cargo were English. They also swore that when the ship which took them came in sight, the captain sailed back towards the English coast: but one of the crew having informed him, that the ship in sight carried English colours, he resumed his course.

Lord Mansfield.-"The sentence of the Court of Appeal in France is conclusive. The question is, What that sentence means? She is condemned as not being a Dutch ship. The warranty is, that she is Dutch, which is false. The law of nations is founded on eternal principles of justice; and in every war the belligerent powers make particular regulations for themselves. But no nation is obliged to be bound by them, unless they are agreeable to the general laws of nations: but all third persons and mercantile people are bound to take notice of them for their own safety. In this case, the plaintiffs warrant this ship to be Dutch; and they must see that she is in such a state as to be entitled to all privileges of neutral property. The insurers took the risk upon this warranty: she was insured by her Dutch name, and the underwriters take it for granted that she is so: but

when the matter is sifted in France, she appears to have none
of the requisites to shew she was neutral property, for she
had never been in a Dutch port, and the sea-brief or passport
was not conformable to the treaty of Utrecht. The Parlia-
ment of Paris did not condemn her as the Dutch ship of
Amsterdam by her Dutch name; but as
"The Three Graces
of Liverpool." Indeed she had none of the requisites of a
Dutch ship; and the regulations require that she should
have been into the port of the purchaser, in order to transfer
the property; the knowledge of all which circumstances the
insured, by his warranty, took upon himself. I am, therefore,
of opinion, that the warranty was false."

The rule to set aside the nonsuit was accordingly discharged.

It has also been determined, that where no special ground at all is stated but the ship is condemned generally as good and lawful prize, the Court here must consider it as conclusive evidence that the property was not neutral, and will not again open the proceedings of the Court abroad in favour of the party, who has warranted his property to be neutral.

An action in the case of Saloucci v. Woodmas (a) was brought upon a policy of insurance on goods warranted neutral on board the Thetis, a Tuscan ship, to recover the amount of the insurance from the underwriters. The ship had been taken in the course of her voyage by a Spanish vessel, carried into Spain, and her cargo was there condemned "as good and lawful prize." There was an appeal to a superior Court, which reversed the sentence: but upon a further appeal, the latter decision was overturned, and the former confirmed. At the trial of this cause before Lord Mansfield, his Lordship being of opinion that the sentence of the Spanish Court of Admiralty was conclusive evidence of the falsehood of the plaintiff's warranty, the plaintiff was nonsuited. A motion was made, and fully argued, to set aside the nonsuit, which was unanimously refused by the whole Court of King's Bench.

(a) B. R. 24 Geo. 3. Park Ins. 727.

Lord Mansfield.-"The policy here warrants that this cargo was neutral property. It appears from the policy itself, that the ship was neutral, because it is called a Tuscan ship: but the warranty is that the goods are neutral. It must be presumed from the condemnation, as no other cause appears, that it proceeded on the ground of the property belonging to an enemy. In the case of Bernardi v. Motteux, the decision of the Court turned upon the particular ground of the confiscation appearing on the face of the sentence; and that it did not appear to be on the ground of being enemy's property. This being so, the Court gave the party an opportunity to shew by evidence, that the specific ground was really the cause of condemnation. In this case, at Guildhall, the counsel admitted the general rule, but they said, if a copy of the proceedings could be had, a special cause would appear. The proceedings are now come; and from them it appears, that the question turned entirely upon the property of the goods. For in the second Court, to which they appealed from the sentence of the first, the question was, whether the goods were free? the decree was, that they were. Court overturned the decision of the second. however, that no special ground is stated; and therefore the rule must be discharged."

But the third It is sufficient,

And in the case of Geyer v. Aguilar (a), if a foreign Court of Admiralty condemns a ship (warranted American) as enemy's property, for not having on board a role d'equipage or list of the crew, which is required by a French ordinance to be on board the ship, and which the Court of Admiralty adjudged to be requisite within the meaning and construction of the treaty between the two countries of France and America, the Court of King's Bench held that the adjudication in France was conclusive against the warranty, that she was an American ship, though in fact she was so, that point being clearly within the jurisdiction of the foreign Court.

And where, as in the case of Rich v. Parker (b), there has