Rodney v. Jones

Supreme Court of Delaware

Rodney v. Jones

1 Del. Cas. 25

DecidedOctober 15, 1794

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 25 (Rodney v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodney v. Jones, 1 Del. Cas. 25 (Del. 1794).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are not acquainted with the decisions of the-Admiralty here before the late constitution. Section 12 did provide for the appointment of a judge. The Act, chapter 93, February, 1777, provided for his salary. We do not decide upon the-Act cited by counsel, 2 Del.Laws 343 (1777), whether it embraces these kind of bonds and consequently should have been taken in the name of the State, as we think it good at common law and we refer you to recognizances etc., Salk. 564, 2 Ld.Raym. 756, 2 Hawk.P.C. 414; he as judge had power to appoint his marshal, and it was his duty to secure his suitors against any malconduct of such marshal; for when an officer is appointed bebas the incidental powers, 1 Roll.Abr. 526, 2 Com.Dig. 610, p. 4. The Judges of Admiralty in Pennsylvania used to appoint their own marshal and sometimes deputy judges. As to the second reason, we admit the exclusive jurisdiction of the Admiralty in cases of prize, but do not choose to determine the extent of Lord Mansfield’s words “and all its consequences,” but we think this, stipulation can not be sued in the Admiralty, because no man can. be a judge in his own cause, and because the two sureties in the bond can not be sued in the Admiralty. This bond would enure to obligee’s executors. No remedy could be had in the Admiralty [27]*27against the sureties, yet every wrong has its remedy, Bull.N.P. .588, therefore judgment was given for the plaintiff.

Vide my notes which are more full.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We are not acquainted with the decisions of the-Admiralty here before the late constitution. Section 12 did provide for the appointment of a judge. The Act, chapter 93, February, 1777, provided for his salary. We do not decide upon the-Act cited by counsel, 2 Del.Laws 343 (1777), whether it embraces these kind of bonds and consequently should have been taken in the name of the State, as we think it good at common law and we refer you to recognizances etc., Salk. 564, 2 Ld.Raym. 756, 2 Hawk.P.C. 414; he as judge had power to appoint his marshal, and it was his duty to secure his suitors against any malconduct of such marshal; for when an officer is appointed bebas the incidental powers, 1 Roll.Abr. 526, 2 Com.Dig. 610, p. 4. The Judges of Admiralty in Pennsylvania used to appoint their own marshal and sometimes deputy judges. As to the second reason, we admit the exclusive jurisdiction of the Admiralty in cases of prize, but do not choose to determine the extent of Lord Mansfield’s words “and all its consequences,” but we think this, stipulation can not be sued in the Admiralty, because no man can. be a judge in his own cause, and because the two sureties in the bond can not be sued in the Admiralty. This bond would enure to obligee’s executors. No remedy could be had in the Admiralty [27]*27against the sureties, yet every wrong has its remedy, Bull.N.P. .588, therefore judgment was given for the plaintiff.

Vide my notes which are more full.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-v-jones-del-1794.