1816. Walden V. The Heirs of Gratz. procuring an interest in any legal or equitable claim to land held, &c., shall be precluded from prosecuting or defending said claim, under such purchase or contract; neither shall any suit, or suits, brought to establish such purchase, or make good the title to such claim, be considered as coming within the provisions, either at common law or by statute, against champerty or maintenance," &c. This court is of opinion, that this statute enabled the lessors of the plaintiff to maintain a suit in their own name for the lands conveyed to them, and that there is no error in this instruction of the circuit court. On the third question the circuit court instructed the jury that an adverse possession under a survey, previous to its being carried into grant, could not be connected with a subsequent possession, but that the computation must commence from the date of the patent. In giving this opinion, the court unquestionably erred. No principle can be better settled than that the whole possession must be taken together. The counsel for the defendants in error have endeavoured to sustain this opinion by a construction of the statute of limitations of Kentucky. They contend, that after the statute has begun to run, it stops, if the title passes to a person under any legal disability, and recommences after such disability shall be removed. This construction, in the opinion of this court, is not justified by the words of the statute. Its language does not vary essentially from the language of the statute of James, the construction of which has been well settled; and it is to be construed as that statute. and all other acts of limi tation founded on it, have been construed. This court is, therefore, of opinion, that there is error in It has been contended by the counsel for the plaintiff, that there is also error in the judgment rendered against Joseph Day by default; but of his case the court can take no notice, as he is not one of the plaintiffs in error, and the judgment rendered against him is not before us. The judgment must be reversed for error in the directions of the court to the jury on the third point, on which instructions vere given. JUDGMENT. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, from the circuit court for the district of Kentucky, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof this court is of opinion, that there is error in the proceedings and judgment of the circuit court in this, that the judge thereof directed the jury that the tenants in possession could not connect their adverse possession previous to the date of the patent under which they claimed with their adverse possession subsequent thereto, but in the length of time which would bar the action could compute that only which had passed subsequent to the emanation of their grant. Wherefore, it is considered by the court, that the judgment of the cir a Vide 4 T. R. 300. Doe, ex dem. Durouse, v. Jones, VOL. I. 2 P 1816. Walden V. The Heirs of 1816. cuit court be reversed and annulled, and that the cause be remanded to the circuit court, with direcHarrison. tions to award a new trial therein. The Judgment reversed. (PRIZE.) The Harrison.-HERBERT, Claimant, if the national character of property, captured and brought in for adjudicatio, appears ambiguous or neutral, and no claim is interposed, the cause is postponed for a year and a day after the prize proceedings are commenced; and if no claimant appears within that time, the property is condemned to the captors. In prize causes this court has an appellate jurisdiction only, and a claim cannot for the first time be interposed here; but where the court below had proceeded to adjudication before the above period had elapsed, the cause was remanded to that court, with directions to allow a claim to be filed therein, and the libel to be amended, &c. APPEAL from the circuit court for the district of Maryland. The libel filed by the captors, in this case, in the district court, alleged, that the goods for which condemnation was gought, were captured and taken out of a Spanish vessel. No claim was filed for the goods in either of the courts below. But, upon the hearing, the district court dismissed the libel, upon the ground, that the property, to whomsoever belonging, was protected by the 15th article 1816. The of the treaty of 1795 with Spain, by which, free ships make free goods; and this decree was affirmed, upon the same principle, in the circuit court. The Harrison. captors brought the cause, by appeal, to this court; and a motion was made by Winder, in behalf of Elry Herbert, an asserted claimant, to be admitted to file a claim in this court. STORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court. We have considered this question with a view to the general rules of practice. Whenever a prize is brought to adjudication in the admiralty, if, upon the hearing of the cause upon the ship's papers, and the evidence taken in preparatory, the property appears to belong to enemies, it is immediately condemned. If its national character appear doubtful, or even neutral, and no claim is interposed, the court do not proceed to a final decree, but the cause is postponed, with a view to enable any person, having title, to assert it, within a reasonable time, before the court. This reasonable time has been, by the general usage of nations, fixed to a year and a day after the institution of the prize proceedings; and if no claim be interposed within that period, the property is deemed be abandoned, and is condemned to the tors for contumacy and default of the supposed owner. In the present case the prescribed period had not elapsed at the time when the district court proceeded to decree a dismissal of the libél. A claim cannot, by the practice of this court, be for the first time interposed here. In prize causes this court can exercise only an appellate jurisdiction, and between сар March 18th. Harden V. Fisher. 1816. parties who have litigated in the court below. We are all, therefore, of opinion that this cause ought to be remanded to the circuit court, with directions to allow the claim to be filed in that court; and, also, to allow the libel to be amended so as to conform to the general allegation of prize, and enable the captors to obtain condemnation of the property, if the asserted claim shall not be sustained, and the property shall not appear entitled to the protection of the Spanish treaty. Case remanded." a Vide APPENDIX, note II (COMMON LAW.) HARDEN U. FISHER ET AL. Under the 9th article of the treaty of 1794, between the United States and Great Britain, by which it is provided that British subjects, holding lands in the United States, and their heirs, so far as respects those lands, and the remedies incident thereto, should not be considered as aliens; the parties must show that the title to the land for which the suit was commenced was in them, or their ancestors, at the time the treaty was made. ERROR to the circuit court for the district of NewYork. This case was argued, with great learning and ability, by Hoffman, for the plaintiff in error, and defendant in ejectment, and by Stockton, for the |