
    Jenkins against Putnam.
    Condemnation of property, taken as pmc, in a court of admiralty, precludes a court of common law from going; afterwards into the consideration of the legality of it.
    The proceedings and adjudications of foreign courts and in the United Státes, must have all due faith and credit here.
    But if there has teen no condemnation in a court of competent jurisdiction, then the whole of the case is open for investigation by the common law rules.
    THIS was an action of trover, tried at Charleston, in January term, 1784, before a full bench. A privateer, it seems, was fitted out in North-Car olina during the late revolutionary war, and in the course of a cruise against the enemy, tbe crew landed on Edisto-Island, while it was under the protection and jurisdiction of the English, took away a number of negroes, the property of Jenkins, the plaintiff in this action, and earned them to Washington, in North-Car olina, where they were condemned in a court of admiralty there, and sold as tbe property of the enemies of the United States, or their adherents.
    
    For the plaintiff, it was contended, that this taking was un-authorised by the rules of war. The commission given to the privateers, being to cruise and capture the property of their enemies on the high and open seas, does not make any capture of property on land, legal. The plaintiff was an Am erican citizen, whose property was not liable to capture, or condemnation, although he had been compelled by conquest, to submit to the jurisdiction of the enemy, and to live under their protection at the time when these negroes were taken off. And that if the capture was unlawful, not authorised by the rules of war, or laws of nations, no condemnation in a court of admiralty could legalize such seizure.
    For the defendant it was urged, that captures made on land, by the seamen from on board of a ship or vessel of war, by the aid of their boats, had always been deemed lawful seizures from an enemy; as much so, as if taken on the high seas. The case of the captures made by Lord 
      Anson on the coast of the South Seas, was relied on 5 where it appeared that the seamen and mariners from on board of the ships, landed in their boats, and sacked the- city of §>uito, some miles from the sea-coast, and took awaytrea-sure to an immense amount. This property was afterwards reclaimed in England by the Spanish court, who complained of this landing and plundering a city, as an infraction of the law of nations ; nevertheless, the whole was deemed a lawful prize. The case of Admiral Vernon, at Porto Bello and Carthagena, was also mentioned as in point; also, the case of Admiral Pococke at the Savannah, &c. It was further contended, that persons living with, and under the jurisdiction of an enemy, taking a commission and aiding and assisting them, were considered as associates in war ; and liable to be treated as such. Vattel, p. 27. 33. 95. Bur* lemaqui, 279. And that although part of the country had been reduced by the enemy, yet those who were firm and attached to its interests, could have joined their cofuntry-men in arms, if they had thought proper, and assisted in driving oif the invaders ; or have remained quiet at home, without taking up arms for them. With respect to the negroes taken, it was the duty of the plaintiff to have interposed his claim as an American citizen, in the court of admiralty in North-Car olina, which was a court of competent jurisdiction. And if it had been found good, it would have been sustained. His not doing it, was a tacit admission of the legality of the capture. That at all events, the sentence of the court of admiralty in North-Carolina, would operate as a bar to this action. The only constitutional review of the case, which could have been had, would have been by appeal. And it was the plaintiff’s own fault, that he had put it out of his power to appeal. By the act of confederation,- the judicial proceedings of one state, had due faith given to them in others; and the acts and proceedings of one court of competent jurisdiction, were-not to be questioned in any other, where no appeal had been made. This is the case even between nations not confederated, and in cases too manifestly unjust. 2 Ld. Raym. 935, 93S. Carth. 31. 1 Atk. 49. If this, then, is part of the law of nations between foreigners, not connected with each other, the reasoning will be much stronger between friend-Ty associated states, bound by a solemn agreement, to give faith and credit to the proceedings in the courts of justice of each other.
    
      
       It was formerly customaiy in South-Carolina before the great press of business rendered it impracticable, for all the judges to sit on the trials of cases before a jury in Charleston, or at least as many as could with con» venience attend ; for which reason, very few cases, in the early period of the judicial proceedings, were taken up before the adjourned courts for reconsideration.
    
   Per Curiam.

We shall not go into the first and second grounds urged by the defendant in his defence, but take up this matter on the last ground ; the two first being very pro» per for the consideration of the prize court, in which the property was libelled, or a court of appeals, if an appeal had been made ; as they involve in them the question of pr ze, or no prize, which exclusively belongs to the admiralty jurisdiction.

This court is bound by common law rules ; and its decisions must bé squared by those principles only. What are the leading features in this case ? Why, that property has been taken, supposed to be enemy’s property, and libelled in a court of admiralty, and condemned; which sentence changed and transferred it from the original owner to the captors. Shall this court, then, go into a consideration of all the circumstances of this case ? If they did, it would be trying the legality of the capture over again. We have no such power. We are bound by the sentence of the court of admiralty in North-Carolina, until reversed by some competent authority, and are obliged to give due faith and credit to all its proceedings. The act of confederation is conclusive as to this point, and the law of nations, is equally strong upon it. 2 Ld. Raym. 935, 6. Carth. 31. 1 Atk. 43. Ii, indeed, the property had been carried off, and there had been no condemnation in a court of competent jurisdiction, then the whole circumstances of the case would have been open for a full investigation, agreeable io the principles of the common law. And if there had been no legal divestment of property, the plaintiff Inight have supported his action. Or, if the negroes' had returned within the jurisdiction of the state of South-Caro- Uno-, before condemnation, the, jus postliminium might have applied, and the original owner might have been restored to his property again. But as the case now stands before the court, the defendant is certainly entitled to a verdict.

Jury found for defendant accordingly.  