Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1856-09-05
For tho Waterman 4 Iounst
Circuit Court of the United
States--District of Vermont.

verdict was taken subject to the opinion of
the court on the law arising upon the iAcIs
proved, and was to stand, be altered or amea-
ded, aud Judgment rendered thereon, or set
aside and a new trial granted according as
that opinion might be. The facts and ques-
tons in the case will fully appear from the
opinion delivered by the Court.
O. SrEvtNs. for Plaintiff
L. b, PICK. District Attorney, for Der.
pRrNrtss. This IS an action of trover
10 recover the value of a vessel, taken and
detained by the defendant while acting ia the
capacity OF military officer, under the act
of Congress Of March 10, 1893 commonly
called the Neutrality Act Two questions
arise in the case: !. Whether the defendant
had authority 10 take and detain the vessel.
.. Whether the action is barred by he stat
ute Of limitations.
]. Admitting that no officer but such as Is
mentioned M the first section of the act.--
collector, naval officer, surveyor. Inspector of
lhe customs, marshall, deputy mar-hsll or
other officer specially appointed by the Prosi-
dent for he purpose, could make Seizure,
properly speaking, under the act, or, 10 other
words, could take property for the purpose
Of holding md proceeding with % 10 the
manner prescribed by the act the question
still remains, whether the defendant, by tok-
ing The vessel IN question into bic possession,
under the circumstances, md n the manner
nud for the purpose he old, assumed unau-
ihorized power, aud is consequently liable TO
the plaintiff for u.
BY The o'h section Of the act, it was made
lawful for the President, or such person rs be
might empower for the purpose, to employ
such p1rt of the land or naval forces OF the
United States, or Of the militia, as should
be necessary Ito prevent the violation, and
Ia enforce the due execution, of the act"
Under instructions from the President, and
pursuant 10 the power thus given him, a mil
ilary force by orders issued by the Secretary
of War. was placed at different points upon
the northern ironuer,-at Niagara, at Sack
eirs ilarbor and ut Paitsburgh upon Lake
Chlmplain The defendant was a Captain
10 the army stationed at the latter place, and
was ordered by the commanding general of
the station, 10 take post, with his company,
at Rouse's Point on the Lake, near the from
tier line, for the purposes mentioned in the
section Of the act Just referred 10, with in
struciions faithfully to execute those purpos-
es. uder the orders thus gwen him and
while stationed at the post so assigned him,
the defendant, at Champlaln, post a short
distance this side of the line, took possession
of the vessel. I he vessel was fastened 20
the dock but was wrecked and destroyed in
the night Of the same day by storm, so that
1t could no longer be the subject OF deten-
ton, Of redelYery, or Of any proceeding I'M
der The act
Though the destination of the vessel, az
proved. was onlv 10 Chamolaip and IL .os
not intended IN mass the line il had arms anil
mup,tions NJ war aboard which were inland
eJ m be taken ocr,.s me line tbopgb bv so-
other conveyance 40 and for the use Of the
io.prrents in canada then IN arms poor tho
limo If the weasel itself as tbe nl,,rrG
,,orlJ ,,.,,n,ai, v,s not i,bte =, 60.
M, h.,,,, IT,, f,n, n,,J,,,5 T., ,.,,s, ne 80. =
,ha a,,,s and ,,rr,,,ons - co. oi,o,r4 q,
o,,,or., ,t;-t, -; ,t, ,,s ~ 60 -,
n,tion clearly wore 40 I,abls and H.
conld NOT be .a,ysd and sec,red vi,bo,,t ~
o,be,uise tbsn he s,rss,in,, md raj ,,, W..
sossio, If tho vessel RI, ubsteysr ,,,.,
- W ''. - nay
,b.' ,eoi ,ie.t,,s,,3n Dr ,b, 80 ,e go,
-, ~. ,,.i,.t, :, 80 -, -. "
,y,,,ld rnro,sh n,obahlo canse sntgcier, 90 ~,
,yarre,, ,,s so,.,,,ro c,- rrrcosd,,ro a,d -
,,o, ,,oy,dsd no snd aya', -
,n,, ta, ia ,,,,l,,ar 10 90 Cs
,-,,,,es ,c ,,,,ner,y vas ,o,"ndad 49, ~,
a,Ja ~ he c,,.,i sn,bo,it,, ,a,ha,,.c,t
~. -. a.. ~, W .''s
,.1 ,' ~ .''e '''s' ,,o ." .'i
49, ,.,.. ,,'. ''s 49,. W 49,. 90,
had, he might. at least. when necessary
take property AS a precautionary measure. Id
prevent an Intended violation of the act. and
detaln the property, until an officer. Eayipo
the power 10 seize and hold il for the nnro,sa
Of proceeding with il IN the manner dIrected
might be procured and act IN the matter
Without such power, how could the military
force fully perform the duty assigned H. of
be etiectually employed, 10 Drepenf ibs ria.
i1tion and 10 enforce the due erecaiion. Of N,
0cL' in this view. which Is perhaps WOW
more limited and restricted than might o,
consistently taken, the defendant did not .x
coed the authority given hun by the net an,
as II does not appear that the loss of OBJ,
vessel was the consequence of any want OF
4 ordinary cure on his part, he cannot be he'll,
liable for IT,.
:. The plaintiff having, as appears from
what has been said, no cause Of acton
, gainst the defendant, The question arisin.
, under the statute Of limitations ceases to b,
of any Importance in the case. Sui, th'
+ question having claimed and received con
, slderaton, II may be well To say a few wordi
upon II, rather than pass it over in entire 81
, lence.
The statute Of limitations Of this State
, runs no favor Of party, if he have, to us,
the WORDS Of the statute, kHolen propai
lr'ihh NE State, irkich could BY the common
! and ordinary process Of lar, be attached
The meaning aud intention are, that the stat
ute snail not run IN favor Of party VIII
Is not subject TO process; but if he be sub
Iect TO process, either by being PERSONALLY
wlthln the state, or having known attach
able property within it, the statute runs in hi
f favor.
II was settled by the Supreme Court Of III,
. state, 10 the case of bheeler u.s. Brewer, q
/ Vermont Repi lib, that "uctunl knOwledg,
. OF the property and OF the defendants ttl'
10 II, need not be possessed by the plaintiff
It by reasonable diligence he could acquir,
that knowledge but in order To yyarrau