When the Anna Maria was boarded, her master

gave a plain and true account of the character of

1817.

The

the vessel and cargo, which was verified by the Anna Maria. ship's papers, and which does not appear to have been doubted. But although the vessel and cargo were American, the trade might be hostile; and the right to examine fully into this fact was complete.

There was no prevarication in the statements of the master which could excite suspicion, and the search for other papers was continued for two hours without intermission. Although the character of British officers was maintained, nothing indicating British connection in the voyage was discovered; and, although the trunks were broken open and searched, no additional papers were found. It was pressing the right of search as far as it could bear, to determine on repeating it the next day; and an inattention to the safety of the Anna Maria, which only her neighbourhood to the island of St. Thomas could excuse, longer to detain her. But there is some reason to doubt whether further search was the real object of this detention. It does not appear to have been recommenced at nine the next morning; and this leads to the opinion that the vessel was detained, not so much to make farther search as in the hope of drawing from the master, or some of the crew, who were all in irons, something which might lead to the condemnation of the vessel and cargo. This conduct must be viewed with much lenity to be pardoned. But whatever excuse may be made for the detention thus far, none can be given for the transactions which remain to be noticed.

1817.

The

Before the captain of the Nonsuch left the Anna Maria, in pursuit of other objects, he ought to have Anna Maria. decided either to seize her as prize or to restore her. Had he seized her as prize, her master, at least, ought to have been returned to her, and her papers should have been sealed and put in possession of a prize master. If he determined not to seize her as prize, her master and crew ought to have been restored, that she might have prosecuted her voyage. No apology can be made for leaving her in the condition in which she was placed. Stripped of her crew and of her papers, left in possession of an offi cer and two men, without orders whither to proceed, she was exposed to dangers; for the loss resulting from which, those who placed her in this situation must be responsible. Had she been regularly captured, many of the difficulties encountered in St. Jago del Cuba might have been avoided; had she been restored, she might, and probably would, have reached her port of destination in safety.

The proceedings of the Nonsuch, after a search, converted the whole transaction into a wanton marine trespass, for which no sufficient excuse has been given.

However meritorious may have been the services of the private armed vessels of the United States, in the aggregate, those individuals who have acted with this culpable disregard to the rights of others ought not to escape the animadversion of the law. The conduct of the officers of the Nonsuch on board the Anna Maria was unjustifiably licentious. Break

1817.

The

ing open trunks when keys were offered them, taking out the crew and putting them in irons, and leaving her in this situation, were acts not to be excused.. Anna Maria. The honor and the character of the nation are concerned in repressing such irregularities; and the justice of the court requires that compensation should be made for the injury which the libellants have sustained.

The sentence of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit, with directions to reverse the sentence of the district court, and to direct commissioners to ascertain the amount of damages sustained by the libellants; in doing which, the value of the vessel, and the prime cost of the cargo, with all charges, and the premium of insurance, where it has been paid, with interest, are to be allowed. Out of this decree must be deducted the amount of the proceeds of the Anna Maria and cargo, unless the libellants shall choose to abandon those proceeds to the defendants.

Sentence reversed.

Vide APPENDIX, Note k

Bill for the specific execution of an alleged agreement to convey to the plaintiff one third of a certain tract of land in Kentucky, belonging to the defendant, as a compensation for locating and surveying the same. Bill dismissed.

In order to obtain a specific performance of a contract, its terms should be so precise as that neither party can reasonably misunderstand them. If the contract be vague and uncertain, or the evidence to establish it be insufficient, a court of equity will not enforce it, but will leave the party to his legal remedy.

The plaintiff, who seeks for the specific performance of an agreement, must show that he has performed, or offered to perform, on his part, the acts which formed the consideration of the alleged undertaking on the part of the defendant.

APPEAL from a decree of the circuit court for the district of Kentucky.

The appellee filed his bill in that court, stating that, in the year 1779, a number of persons, amongst whom was the defendant below, who is the appellant in this court, employed him, the complainant, to locate lands for them, in the then district of Kentucky; that he received from the defendant certain land warrants to the amount of 25,000 acres, which he located for him on the 20th of May, 1780. That the terms on which he was to do the business were, that the owner of the warrants should furnish all the money that should be necessary for locating and surveying the said lands. That the complainant should direct the doing thereof, and receive, for his compensation, what

should be given to other persons for similar services. The bill then avers, that the usual proportion which

was then generally given to locators for similar services, was one third part of the land so located by them. The complainant further alleges, that he was prevented from surveying the above entry by the Indians, who were very troublesome, and who rendered the execution of such business difficult and dangerous; that, during this time the defendant procured a survey to be executed of the entry made in his name by the complainant, and obtained a patent for the same. The bill admits that the complainant received a sum of money from the defendant, which, however, he charges as paid on account of the expenses attending the locating and surveying the said entry, and not as a compensation for his services. The prayer of the bill is, for a conveyance of one-third part of the above-mentioned tract of 25,000 acres of land. It appears by the exhibits in the cause, that the above entry was surveyed on the 28th October, 1786.

The defendant states in his answer, that previous ly to his employing the complainant to locate and survey his warrants, he received offers from other persons to do the business upon the terms stated in the bill, which he rejected, and that he was induced to authorize his friend, Mr. Webb, to place the warrants in the complainant's hands, in consequence of his having understood that he would undertake the business for a fair compensation in money. That Mr. Peachy, the agent of the defendant, paid to the complainant upwards of 7,000 pounds of tobacco, within a few months after the entry was made. The

1817.

Colson

V.

Thompson.