
    THE SHIP BETSEY. WILLIAM GRAY, Administrator of Gray, v. THE UNITED STATES. FRANCIS A. GRAY, Administrator of Gray, v. THE SAME. HORACE OBEAR, Administrator of Obear, v. THE SAME. FRANKLIN LEACH, Administrator of Leech, v. THE SAME. HENRY W. BLAGGE et al., Administrators of Hatch, v. THE SAME. CHARLES F. ADAMS, Administrator of Brooks, v. THE SAME. CHARLES T. LOVERING, Administrator of Taylor, v. THE SAME. JOHN C. JONES’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. BENJAMIN HOMER’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. DANIEL D. ROGERS’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. STEPHEN GORHAM’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. BENJAMIN COBB, Jr’s, ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. JOHN CODMAN’S ADMINISTRATOR v THE SAME. NICHOLAS GILMAN’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. ARNOLD WELLES’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. JAMES PRINCE’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. MARSTON WATSON’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. NATHANIEL FELLOWES’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. THOMAS AMORY’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. SAMUEL DEXTER’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME. JEFFREY AND RUSSEL’S ADMINISTRATOR v. THE SAME.
    (French Spoliations
    2842, 1894, 1999, 2494, 3443, 3792.
    Decided. April 16, 1888.)
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    (1) One of four joint owners seeks to recover more than one-fourth without positive evidence as to the extent of his interest in the vessel. (2) Insurers seek to recover without proof of payment to an owner, who has not appeared. (3) Administrators seek to recover without proof of the identity of the decedents named in their letters, there being nothing to show that a person whose estate was administered in 1886 was the owner whose vessel was captured in 1796, except similarity of name. (4) Underwriters seek to recover without coming in by petition duly verified, viz, by an attorney filing a motion to intervene in the suit of another person. (5) Various claimants seek to come in under Rule 105, after the jurisdictional period for instituting original suits has expired.
    I.Joint owners are presumed to own equal parts in vessel or cargo; but insurance by each in a different proportion may rebut the presumption.
    II.Where an owner establishes his right to recover, and concedes that a portion of the money he would otherwise recover should be diverted and paid to his insurers, they will not be required to make additional proof of payment. But this can not be extended to the case of a joint owner who has not appeared. Payment to him can not be presumed or inferred.
    III. The French Spoliation Act, 1885 (§ 3), requires this court to “examine and determine” “validity,” “amount,” and “present ownership.” Present ownership is not established by the mere production of letters of administration of a person bearing the same name taken out ninety years after the event. The administrator must prove that the deceased whose estate he administered in 1886 was the person who suffered loss in 1796. The nature and sufficiency of the proof will depend on time, jilace, and circumstance, but must be sufficient to satisfy a reasonable mind that the decedent was the veritable claimant who suffered the loss complained of. [Reaffirmed in the cases of the Hiram, post. ]
    IV. The French Spoliation Act provides that claimants shall “ apply by petition” (§ 1), and that “notice of all petitions” shall be served on the Attorney-General. (§ 4); the Revised Statutes provide that“t7ie petition shall be verified” by the “claimant, Ms agent or attorney” (§ 1072), and the rules of the court that “ if the petition be verified by the attorney” “or agent,” “apower of attorney authorizing him to malee the verification must be filed with it ” (Rule 12). The administrator of an underwriter can not avoid those provisions by filing a motion to intervene in the suit of another person. He must come in by a supplemental petition, duly verified. [See also the Hiram, post. ]
    V.The provisions in the French Spoliation Act that claimants must apply by petition “xoithin two years from the passage of this act” (J 1), and that “all claims not finally presented to the court loithin the period of two years” “shall be forever barred,” establish a fixed jurisdictional period within which all claims must be filed; but if a claim . was duly presented by sufficient averments to identify it within the jurisdictional period, though by a party who could not maintain an action on it, the party legally entitled to prosecute may come in by supplemental petition and motion after the jurisdictional period has expired (Rule 105). [See also the Hiram,post.]
    
      
      The Reporters’ statement of the case.
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    
      General findings relating to the ship and cargo.
    
    I. The ship Betsey, of Salem, cleared from that port for -Canton, China, some time in the year 1799, but with orders from the owners for Batavia, Manilla, or Canton. The vessel went to Batavia and discharged cargo, and then sailed from that port bound home, with a cargo of coffee, pepper, cloves, camphor, tea, and other articles of merchandise. On the 14th of March, 1800, in longitude 57 west, latitude 21° IB north, the Bet-sey was captured by the French corvette La Bergere and carried into Cayenne, where she was condemned by the commercial court of the colony. The decree of condemnation recites the examination of the captain of the ship and some of the crew; also that the conduct of the Betsey had been suspicious when hailed; that she had endeavored to elude search ; that she carried 14 guns, 6 of which were iron and 8 wood; also a chest of muskets and ammunition. The master in his examination stated that the 6 cannon, the chest of muskets, and other munitions of war were carried merely for self-defense in the Straits of Sunda, and that all ships which made the voyage to India are generally armed for self-defense. The grounds of condemnation set forth in the decree are as follows: That the Betsey was cleared from Salem precisely under the circumstances under which the President of the United States delivered to American ships commissions of war for taking French ships; that she, under vain pretexts, was armed with 0 cannon and provided with munitions of war for attack and defense; that her maneuver to escape a search, customary and authorized by law, when met by the corvette La Bergbre, rendered her suspicious of being hostile property masked under the American flag; that the crew-list is informal and contrary to the provisions of the regulations of the 23d July, 1704, 21st October, 1744, and 26th July, 1778, concerning navigation in time of war; that the Americans are less excusable than any other nation for infringing them, since they prescribed in a particular and positive manner not only by the treaty of 6th February, 1778, but also by the decree of the Executive Directory of France, that-an addition or modification which had been placed on the back of the crew-list of the Betsey was a. violation of form and manifest infraction of the treaty; that American ships have attacked and captured French ships, even those of the Government; and that they have been furnished with commissions of war from the President of the United States, and continue to insult the French flag.
    II. The Betsey was a duly registered vessel, measuring 218 tons, built at Wells, in the State of Massachusetts, in the year 1795, and owned by Samuel Gray, of Salem, together with William Gray, jr., Josiah Orne, and Sylvanus Gray, of Boston, as appears by the register November 26, 1796. On February 16, 1799, Josiah Obear was indorsed on the register as master; in the place of Josiah Orne.-
    III. The cargo, belonging chiefly to the owners of the vessel, consisted of coffee, pepper, cloves, camphor, and tea. There were also on board three small adventures belonging to other persons, of similar merchandise.
    IV. The value of the ship was $8,175 ; the value of the owners’ portion of the cargo $32,156; the freight earnings of the vessel for the voyage $7,333.33. Amounting in all to $47,66433.
    The master, Josiah Obear, also had an adventure upon the ship on his own account, consisting of pepper, camphor, and like merchandise for which he had paid at Batavia $3,430.58, and another adventure of the same kind of merchandise on behalf of some of his officers and crew of $645. Likewise Nathan Leech had another adventure of the same kind of the cost of $499.98.
    
      Special findings relating to the several cases.
    
    V. In Case No. 2. William Gray, jr., was theowner of one-fourth of the vessel and cargo. He also had insured on the 19th February, 1799, Josiah Obear, the master, against loss upon his portion of the cargo, to the amount of $2,500, upon which he subsequently paid to Josiah Obear the sum of $2,225. He likewise, by a policy of insurance made March 17, 1799, assured Joseph Cabot in the sum of $2,500 “upon the ship Betsey, appurtenances and cargo,” upon which policy he subsequently paid to one Benjamin Pickman the sum of $2,500. But it does not appear that Joseph Cabot was an owner of the Betsey, nor of any cargo on board of her, nor that Benjamin Pick man was authorized to receive payment for Cabot upon the policy.
    The losses of William Gray, jr., by reason of the capture of the Betsey and her cargo, for which he was entitled to indemnity, are as follows:
    One-fourth of the ship... $2,043.75
    One-fourth of the cargo... 8,039.05
    One-fourth of the freight earnings...• 1,833.33
    Paid on policy to J. Obear. 2,225.00
    Amounting in all to . 14,141.13-
    VI. In Case No. 3792.' Samuel Gray was the owner of three-eighths of the vessel and cargo; that he was the-owner of more than three-eighths of either the vessel or cargo, as is-claimed, has not been shown to the satisfaction of the court. He had procured insurance on his interest in the vessel to the-amount of $3,000, and on his interest in the cargo to the amount of $10,000. For this insurance he paid $2,340 premium, and subsequently received from the insurers and underwriters $13,000.
    The losses of Samuel Gray, by reason of the capture of the-Betsey and her cargo, for which he was entitled to indemnity, are as follows:
    Three-eighths of the ship.. $3,065.62
    Three-eighths of the cargo... 12,058.57
    Three-eighths of the freight earnings. 2,749.89
    Premiums paid for insurance. 2,340.00
    Amounting in all to......... 20,214.08
    Less received for insurance.. 13, 000. 00
    Leaving amount of losses... 7,214.08
    VII. In Case No. 1999. Josiah -Obear was the master of Betsey and the owner of an adventure of merchandise on board of the cost in Batavia of $3,430.68, as set forth in Finding IV. Upon this adventure he had procured.insurance for $2,500, and paid as premium therefor $500. Subsequently he received from the insurers $2,225.
    The losses of Joseph Obear, by reason of the capture of tbe Betsey, for which he was entitled to indemnity, are as follows:
    Adventure of merchandise, cost. $3,430.68
    Premium paid for insurance.-. 500.00-
    Amounting in all to.-.. 3,930.68
    Less amount received on insurance... 2,225.00
    Leaving amount of losses 1,705.68-
    
      VIII. In Case No. 2494. Nathan Leech was the owner of an adventure of merchandise on board of the Betsey of the cost in Batavia of $499.98, as set forth in Finding IV. Upon this adventure he procured insurance for $600 in the name of William Leech, and paid as premium $120. Subsequently he received from the insurers the full amount of his loss, to wit, $594.
    The losses of Nathan Leech, by reason of the capture of the Betsey, for which he was entitled to indemnity, are as follows:
    Adventure of merchandise, value.,. $600
    Premium paid for insurance... 120
    Amounting in all to... 720
    Less amount received on insurance. 594
    Leaving amount of loss.-. 126
    IX. In Cáse No. 842. Peter Chardon Brooks procured the insurance of various underwriters upon the vessel and cargo, to wit:
    (1) For Sylvanus Gray, $1,000 on tlie ship and $3,000 on the cargo. $4,000
    (2) For Samuel Gray, $3,000 on the ship and $7,000 on the cargo... 10,000
    (3) For Samuel and Sylvanus Gray, jointly, on the cargo. 4,000
    Amounting in all to. 18,000
    It is confessed by the petition of the administrator of Samuel Gray, in Case No. 3792, that the insurers paid to him upon such insurances the sum of $ 13,000, but it does not appear that the insurers and underwriters upon the first and third of the policies above referred to ever paid to Sylvanus Gray any of ■the lossee against which he was insured.
    Of the underwriters who insured Samuel Gray upon the second policy above referred to for $10,000, the following assigned their claims to Peter Chardon Brooks, for the following amounts, to wit:
    William Smith. $1,000
    David Greene. 1,000
    Tuthill Ilubhart.■ 2,000
    Amounting on this policy to. 4,000
    Of the underwriters who insured Samuel and Sylvanus Gray jointly for $4,000, upon the third policy above referred to, the following assigned their claims to Peter Chardon Brooks, for the following amounts, to wit:
    Benjamin Bussey. — -— —.-.§1,000
    Daniel Sargent. 500
    John I. Clark... 500
    Total. — . 2,000
    But it does not appear that the one-fourth of the losses, to wit, §1,000, due to Sjlvanus Gray on this policy was ever paid. Therefore the amount due to Peter Chardon Brooks under such assignments, so far as appears, was only the sum of $1,500.
    It does not appear that Peter Chardon Brooks was the as-signee of any other underwriter on the two policies in favor of Samuel Gray, nor that he possessed any interest therein ; nor is Charles Francis Adams, who prosecutes this case as administrator of Brooks, the administrator of any such deceased' underwriter.
    X. In Case No. 894. Crowell Hatch was an underwriter to the amount of $1,000 on policy of $10,000 in favor of Samuel Gray, as set forth in Finding YI, which policy is confessed and conceded by the representative of Samuel Gray, as set forth in his petition, to have been paid in full.
    XI. The following claimants have produced letters of administration for the parties whom they respectively claim to represent, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons of whose estates they are respectively administrators are the same persons who suffered loss through the capture of the ship Betsey, as set forth in the preceding findings, and that they were citizens of the United States, to wit:
    In Case No. 2. William Gray, of the estate of William Gray, jr., deceased.
    In Case No. 3792. Francis A. Gray, of the estate of Samuel Gray, deceased.
    In Case No. 1999. Horace Obear, of the estate of Josiah Obear, deceased.
    In Case No. 2494. Franklin Leach, of the estate of Nathan Léaeh, deceased.
    In Case No. 842. Charles Francis Adams, jr., of the estate •of Peter Chardon Brooks, deceased.
    
      In' Case No. 1894. Henry W. Blagge and Susan B. Samuels,, of tbe estate of Crowell Hatch, deceased.
    
      Messrs. William Gray, George 8. Boutwell, Edward Landert and William E. Earle for claimants.
    
      Mr. Benjamin Wilson and Mr. Gharles W. Russell (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard) for the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

read an opinion, but at the same time said—

“ This opinion is not read as the opinion of the court, and it will be understood as expressing the opinion of the court only in the legal conclusions which it announces.

Those “legal conclusions” are now set forth in and as the' syllabus of the case. It is to be noted that several of them are reiterated and referred to in the cases of the Hiram (post).

The concluding order of the court was as follows:

The findings modified as indicated by this opinion will be filed in the stead of those filed January 3,1888. The following claims will be reported to Congress:

In case No. 2, the claim of William Gray, administrator of William Gray, jr.

In case No. 3792, the claim of Francis A. Gray, administrator of Samuel Gray.

In case No. 1999, the claim of Horace Obear, administrator of Josiah Obear.

In case No. 2494, the claim of Franklin Leech, administrator of Nathan Leech.

In case No. 1894, the claim of Henry W. Blagge and Susan B. Samuels, administrator of Crowell Hatch.

Incase No. 842, the claim of Charles Francis Adams, administrator of Peter Chardon Brooks.

The following claims are remanded to the trial docket with leave to the parties named to file supplemental petitions and offer additional evidence:

Case No. 3443, Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor.

The claim of Nicholas Gilman, underwriter.

The claim of Arnold Welles, underwriter.

The claim of James Prince, underwriter.

The claim of Marston Watson, underwriter.

The claim of Nathaniel Fellowes, underwriter.

The claim of Thomas Amory, underwriter.

The claim of Samuel Dexter, underwriter.

The claim of Jeffrey and Russell, underwriters.

The claim of John C. Joues, underwriter.

The claim of Benjamin Homer, underwriter.

The claim of Daniel D. Rogers, underwriter.

The claim of Stephen Gorham, underwriter.

The claim of Benjamin Cobb, jr., underwriter.

The claim of John Codman, underwriter.  