LAW VI.

Julianus, lib. 86. Digestorum.

Navis adversá. A ship disabled by a storm, her rigging, mast and yard destroyed by the lightning, is carried into Hippona: and there having hastily purchased new furniture and apparel, sails to Ostia, and there lands her cargo in safety. It is asked whether the owners of the cargo are bound to make good the damage of the owner of the ship? I answer, they are not; for this expense was incurred more for the sake of refitting the vessel than of saving the cargo.

LAW VII.

Paulus, lib. 3. Epitomarum Alfeni Digestorum.

Cum depressa. If a ship is lost or cast away, whatever any body saves of his own, he saves for himself, in like manner as what is saved from a fire.

Qui levanda. Those who throw any goods out of a vessel in order to lighten her, have not a mind to abandon them as derelict: but they mean to reserve to themselves the right to take them away, if they should find them, or to look for them, if they should suspect where they are: in like manner as a person who throws a burthen on his way, intending soon to come back with others to retake it.

LAW IX.

Aiweis. The petition of Eudamon of Nicomedia to the emperor Antoninus; May it please the emperor: Having been shipwrecked an the coast of Italy, the revenue officers from the Cyclades Islands seized our property and plundered us of every thing. To which the emperor answered: I am indeed the so

vereign of the world, but the law is the sovereign of the sea. Let this matter be determined by the maritime law of Rhodes, so far as it is not in opposition to our own law. A similar decision was given by the emperor Augustus.

LAW X.

Labeo, lib. 1. Pithanon à Paulo Epitomatorum.

Si vehenda. If you have undertaken to carry slaves on board of your vessel, and one dies during the voyage, no freight is due for him. Paulus says, that in this case we must inquire into the nature of the contract, whether freight was to be paid for those who were shipped on board or for those who were carried to their place of destination, but if the latter is not proved, it will be sufficient for the master of the vessel to prove that the slave was shipped on board.

Si ea conditione. § 1. If you have hired a vessel on condition that she should carry your goods, and the master without being compelled to it by any necessity, and knowing it to be against your will has trans-shipped them into a worse vessel, and your goods perish with the vessel into which they have been lately transferred, you have an action ex conducto locato against the master of the first vessel. Paulus says, that it is different if both ships have perished in that navigation, without any fraud on the part of the master. The same law will obtain if the master was detained by authority and prohibited to navigate with your goods. Likewise, if the master has taken your goods on condition that he should pay a penalty to you if he did not land them by such a day at the place of their destination, and has incurred the penalty without any fault of his. Of consequence the same law must obtain if it is proved that the master, being detained by sickness, could not navigate. And we must say the same, if his vessel was disabled without any fault or fraud on his part.

Si conduxisti. § 2. If you have hired a vessel of two thousand jars (amphora) and have shipped jars on board, you ought to pay freight for two thousand jars. Paulus says, if

you have hired the whole vessel, you must pay freight for 2000 jars; on the contrary if you have stipulated to pay freight for so many jars as you should ship on board, for then you are only bound to pay for so many jars as you have actually shipped.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

APRIL TERM, 1805.

Trytitle lessee of Reed and others against Reed.

[Children born in Ireland prior to the American revolution, of parents who were British subjects, and which children did not become citizens till after our independence was established, cannot inherit real estate, descending previous to the time when they so became citizens; but will, as to such estate, be deemed aliens.]

THIS

HIS was an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Staunton, rendered in favour of the defendant.

In ejectment brought by Robert Reed, Colin Reed, and Hugh Ballentine and Frances his wife, as heirs at law of Robert Reed, deceased, against Margaret Reed, for lands lying in the county of Augusta, the jury found, in substance, a special verdict, tracing the title of the lands in question from the original patentee until they were vested, in feesimple, in Robert Reed, husband of the tenant in possession; that Robert Reed was seised and possessed as the law directs until the time of his death, in October, 1787, when he departed this life intestate and without issue, leaving a widow, Margaret Reed, who had continued in possession ever since. The jury also found that Robert Reed, who died so seised and possessed, was the son of John Reed of the kingdom of Ireland, and that the lessors of the plaintiff are the sons and daughter of John Reed, the only brother of the whole blood to the said Robert, and that they were born prior to the year 1770: that three of the lessors of the plaintiff removed from Ireland to this commonwealth in the year 1784, and the other followed them about two years afterwards; that Robert Reed, one of the lessors of the plaintiff, was enrolled in the militia

in the county of Augusta, prior to the death of Robert Reed, the ancestor, and attended musters as a militiaman; but that he did not take the oath of abjuration and allegiance until the 21st of November, 1787; that Hugh Ballentine, another of the lessors of the plaintiff, was living on his own land in the county of Greenbrier in 1786, had been esteemed a good citizen for several years previous to the death of Robert Reed, the ancestor, and had been enrolled and served in the militia of that county, but that it did not appear that he had taken the oath of allegiance before the 28th of November, 1787. With respect to Colin Reed, the other lessor, it was not found that he had ever taken such oath. They further found that the lessors of the plaintiff came to America prior to the death of Robert Reed, in consequence of letters from him to his brother John, stating that he was in possession of an ample fortune, without issue, and requesting that he would send in some of his children to heir it; that in virtue of this invitation the lessors of the plaintiff had come to Virginia, and were recognized by Robert Reed as his relations, children of his brother John of Ireland; who, it was further found, departed this life in the year 1785 or 1786, a subject of the king of Great Britain. They also found an act of the general assembly of Virginia, passed on the 14th of December 1789, vesting the real estate whereof Robert Reed died seised in Margaret Reed and her heirs. The conclusion is in the usual form; finding the lease, entry and ouster, and that if the law be for the plaintiff, then they find the lands in the declaration mentioned, &c. but if for the defendant, they find for her, &c.

The district court gave judgment for the defendant, from which an appeal was taken to this court.

The following luminous opinion was delivered by Judge Roane, in the above cause, which, as to the general result, was the opinion of the court.

Judge ROANE. The principal question arising out of this special verdict is, whether the lessors of the plaintiff who were born in Ireland prior to the year 1770, and who did not become citizens of this commonwealth until after the descent