| 
1. Butler, n. 138. to lib. 3. Co. Litt. Pothier's Charter Party, by Gushing, n. 1. Valin's Com. tom. 1, 617. The translation of Pothier's treatises on maritime contracts, by Mr. Cushing, and published at Boston in 1821. is neat and accurate, and the notes which are added to the volume are highly creditable to the industry and learning of the author. It would contribute greatly to the circulation and cultivation of maritime, law in this country, if some other treatises of Pothier, and especially the commentaries of Valin, could also appear in an English dress.
2. Abbott on Shipping, part 3, ch 1, sec. 6.
3. Pothier, Charte-Partie, No. 4. Abbott on Shipping, part 3, ch. 1, sec. 3.
4. Pothier, ibid. No. 8. Abbott, part 3, ch. 1, sec. 4.
5. Putnam v. Wood, 3 Mass. Rep. 481.
6. Havelock v. Geddes, 10 East's Rep. 555.
7. Laws on Charter Parties, 130.
8. Leer v. Yates, 3 Taunton, 387. Harman v. Gandolph, 1 Holt's N. P. 35. The argument is fairly stated, and this rigorous rule ably vindicated, by Mr. Holt, in a note to the case last referred to, and that note was afterwards transferred to his Treatise on Shipping, vol. ii. 17. note.
9. Ord. de la Mar. liv. 3. tit. des Charte-Parties, art. 1, and Valin's Com. ibid. Code de Commerce, art. 273.
10. Molloy, de Jure Mar. b. c. 4. sec. 3. Smith v. Shepherd, cited in Abbott on Shipping, part 3, ch. 4, sec. 1 Boulay Paty, tom. ii. 268, 269.
11. Duffie v. Hayes, 15 Johns. Rep. 327.
12. Ord. du Fret. art. 2. Pothier, Charte-Partie, n. 20, 21, 22, 24, 25. Code de Com. n. 287.
13. Lyon v. Mells, 5 East's Rep. 428. Putnam v. Wood, 3 Mass. Rep. 481. Silva v. Low, 1 Johns. Cas. 184. Ord. de la Marine, liv. 3. tit. 3. Du Fret, art. 12. Valin's Com. h. t. says, that the owner is answerable, on his contract, for latent defects, even though the ship had been previously visited by experienced shipwrights, and the defect had escaped detection; though Pothier, (Charte-Partie, n. 30.) dissents from this opinion of Valin, so far as it relates to latent defects unknown to the owner.
14. Abbott, part 3, ch. 3, sec. 4. Baring v. The Royal Exchange Assurance Company, 5 East's Rep. 99. The same v. Christie, ibid. 398. Baring v. Claggett, 3 Bos. & Pull. 201. Lothian v. Henderson, ibid. 499. Ord. de la Marine, liv. 3. tit. 1. Charte-Parties, art. 10. Valin's Com. h. t.
15. Jackson v. Sharnock, 8 Term Rep. 509.
16. See vol. ii. 472.
17. Cobban v. Downe, 5 Esp. N. P. Rep. 41.
18. Runguist v. Ditchell, 3 Esp. N.P. Rep. 64.
19. Beawes' Lex Mer. 133, 142.
20. Wilson v. Dickson, 2 Barnw. & Ald. 2.
21. See vol. ii. 434. This is also the law in France. Code de Commerce, art. 281.
22. Caldwell v. Ball, 1 Term Rep. 205. 1 Bell's Com. 545.
23. The duties of the captain are prescribed minutely in the French statute codes. Every ship must be inspected by the captain, under the forms prescribed, before she sails, and if he has no such official report of the vessel, he becomes responsible for every accident. He must keep a regular journal of events on the voyage; and the ordinances prescribe very sage regulations in case of the death of any seaman on board, touching his effects. He must be exact in providing the requisite ship's papers before he sails; such as the bill of sale, register, role d'equipage, bill of lading, and charter party, process verbal, clearance at the customs, and a license to sail. He must be on board when the vessel breaks ground. He is answerable for damages even by cas fortuit, when the goods were on deck, unless he had the consent of the owner in writing, or it was a coasting voyage; and if he fails in conformity to the regulations of the ordinances, he becomes responsible for all damages, and cannot invoke the exception of force majeure, when those regulations have not been observed. (Ord. de la Mar. art. 10. tit. Testament, art. 4. Ord. 1720, 1739, and 1779. Code de Com. art. 224, 225, 226, 228, 229. Code Civil, art. 59, 86. 1 Emerig. 374. Boulay Paty, tom. ii. p. 1-35. We have seen, in the preceding part of these lectures, that the master was responsible as a common carrier for the carriage and safe delivery of the goods; and in the case of Sprott v. Brown, in the Scottish courts, (Bell's Com. vol. i. 557. note,) a large mirror was shipped from London to Edinburgh, in a case marked glass, and the master had assumed to carry it safe, and it was found broken, on delivery without any known cause, and the master was held responsible.
24. Roccus, note 56. Ord. of Rotterdam, art. 128.
25. Morley v. Bordieu, Str. Rep. 1265. Lilly v. Ewer, Doug. Rep. 72. Jefferies v. Legendra, Carth. Rep. 216.
26. Webb v. Thomson, 1 Bos. & Pull. 5. Anderson v. Pitcher, 2 ibid. 164. Victorin v. Cleeve, Str. Rep. 1250.
27. Constable v. Cloberie, Palmer's Rep. 397. Davidson v. Gwynne,12 East's Rep. 381.
28. Shubrick v. Salmond, 3 Burr. Rep. 1637.
29. Roccus on Ins. note 52. Patrick v. Ludlow, 3 Johns. Cas. 10. Post v. Phoenix Ins. Company, 10 Johns. Rep. 79. Reade v. Com. Ins. Company, 3 Johns. Rep. 352. Suydam v. Marine Ins. Company, 2 Johns. Rep. 138. Marshall, Ch. J., Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch's Rep. 257, note.
30. Burgon v. Sharpe, 2 Campb. N. P. Rep. 529.
31. Molloy, b. 2. c. 4. sec. 5. Griswold v. New York Insurance Company, 3 Johns. Rep. 321. Bradhurst v. Columbian Insurance Company, 9 Johns. Rep. 17. Schieffelin v. New York Insurance Company, ibid. 21.
32. Dig. 14. 2. 10. 1.
33. Vinnius, notae ad Com. Peckii, ad Rem Nauticam, p. 294, 295, and Anthony Faber, Com. ad Pand, whom Vinnius cites and follows.
34. Jugemens d'Oleron, art. 4. Laws of Wisbuy, art. 16. Ord. de la Mar. tit. Du Fret, art. 11.
35. Valin, tit. Du Fret, art. 11. tom. i. 618. Pothier, Charte-Partie, n. 68. Emerigon, tom. i. 428, 429.
36. Code de Commerce, art. 296. Boulay Paty, Cours de Droit, Com. t. 2. 400-405.
37. Lord Ellenborough, 10 East's Rep. 393.
38. Mumford v. The Commercial Insurance Company, 5 Johns. Rep. 262. Searle v. Scovell, 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 218.
39. Herbert v. Hallet, 3 Johns. Cas. 93. Clarke v. Mass. F. & M. Ins. Co., 2 Pickering, 104.
40. Saltus v. The Ocean Ins. Co., 12 Johns. Rep. 107. Tredwell v. Union Ins. Co., 6 Cowen's Rep. 270.
41. Roccus, n. 40. 55. Dale v. Hall, 1 Wils. Rep. 281. Vinnuis, notae ad Peckium, p. 259. 1 Emerigon, 373. Proprietors of the Trent Navigation v. Wood, 3 Esp. N.P. Rep. 127.
42. Cheviott v. Brooks, 1 Johns. Rep. 364.
43. Emerigon has collected all the authorities, pro and con, on this very debatable question. See Hall's Emerigon on Maritime Loans, p. 92. Non nostrum tantas componere lites. In favor of the right of the merchant to be paid, see the laws of Wisbuy, art. 68. Valin's Com. tit. Du Fret, art. 14. vol i. p. 655. Cushing's Pothier on Maritime Contracts, p. 19. Charte-Partie, n. 34, and Cleirac, Judgmens d'Oleron, art. 22. n. 2. In opposition to such a claim, Emerigon reasons from the provisions and omissions in the Consolato del Mare, and the Ordinances of Oleron and Antwerp, that the merchant is not entitled to pay. Pothier also admits, that experienced persons whom he consulted on the subject, were against his opinion. Mr. Abbott, in his Treatise on Shipping, part 3. ch. 3. sec. 10. is also against the claim of the shipper to be paid for the goods sold.
44. Abbott, part 3, ch. 3, sec. 11. Soldergreen, v. Flight, cited in 6 East's Rep. 622.
45. Abbott, ub. supra.
46. Laws of Wisbuy, art, 57. Ord. de la Marine, liv. 3. tit. Du Fret, art. 23.
47. Wardell v. Mourillyan, 2 Esp. N.P. Rep. 693.
48. Hyde v. Trent and Mersey Navigation Company, Term Rep. 389.
49. Strong v. Natally, 4 Bos. & Pull. 16. See vol. ii. 469.
50. Abbott, part. 3, ch. 9, sec. 25.
51. The Constantia, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep. 321. 1 Emerigon des Ass. 317.
52. See vol. ii. 464-473.
53. Pickering v. Barkley, Styles, 132. Barton v. Wolliford, Comb. 56.
54. Forward v. Pittard, 1 Term Rep. 27. Hyde v. Trent and Mersey Navigation Company, 5 Term Rep. 389.
55. Garside v. Trent and Mersey Navigation Co., 4 Term Rep. 581
56. Smith v. Shepherd, cited in Abbott, part. 3, ch. 4, sec. 1.
57. See vol. ii. 470. There is an exemption in Massachusetts by statute of 1818.
58. Lewin v. East India Company, Peake's Rep. 241.
59. Smith v. Elder, 3 Johns. Rep. 105.
60. 1 Peters' Adm. Rep. 206.
61. Roccus, note 72, 73, 74, 75. Edwin v. East India Company, 2 Vern. Rep. 210. Atkinson v. Ritchie, 10 East's Rep. 530. Peters, J., in Giles v. The Brig Cynthia, 1 Peters Adm. Rep. 207.
62. 2 Taunt. Rep. 286.
63. Lawes on Charter Parties, 152.
64. Boulay Paty, tom. ii. 391.
65. Chandler v. Belden, 18 Johns. Rep. 157. Clarkson v. Edes, 4 Cowen's Rep. 470. Ruggles v. Bucknor, 1 Paine's Rep. 358. Christie v. Lewis, 2 Brod. & Bing. 410. Pickman v. Wood, 6 Pick. Rep. 248.
66. Roberts v. Holt, 2 Show. Rep. 332.
67. Cock v. Taylor, 2 Campb. N. P. Rep. 587.
68. Mansfield, Ch. J,, in Brouncker v. Scott, 4 Taunt. Rep. 1.
69. Abbott on Shipping, part 3, ch. 4, sec. 4.
70. Artaza v. Smallpiece, 1 Esp. N.P. Rep. 23.
71. Morgan v. Insurance Company of North America, 4 Dallas' Rep. 455.
72. Ord. tit. Du Fret. art. 15. Valin, ibid. Code de Commerce, art. 299.
73. Scott v. Libby, 2 Johns. Rep. 336. Liddard v. Lopes, 10 East's Rep. 526.
74. 3 Rob. Adm. Rep. 180.
75. Hadley v. Clarke, 8 Term Rep. 259. McBride v. Marine Insurance Company, 5 Johns. Rep. 308. Baylies v. Fettyplace, 7 Mass. Rep. 325.
76. Curling v. Long, 1 Bos. & Pull. 634.
77. 16 Johns. Rep. 348.
78. Ord. de la Mar. liv. 3. tit. 3. Fret, art. 15. and tit. Charter Parties, art. 8. Valin, h. t. Pothier, Charte-Partie, No. 69, 100, 101. Laws of Oleron, art 4. Consulat, par Boucher, ch. 80, 82, 84. Roccus de Nav., n. 54. Jacobsen's Sea Laws, by Frick, p, 295.
79. Valin's Com. t. 1. 670. Pothier, Charte-Partie, No. 59.
80. Dis. 22. n. 48. and Disc. 23. n. 86 and 87
81. 3 Johns. Rep. 321. Mr. Bell says it is likewise the law in Scotland. 1 Bell's Com. 570.
82. Ord. tit. Du Fret, art. 25. Ord. of Rotterdam, art. 155. Code de Com. art 305,310. Boulay Paty, tom. 2, 488.
83. Molloy, b. 2. c. 4. sec. 15. Frith v. Barker, 2 Johns. Rep. 327.
84. Dig. 14. 2. 10. Molloy, b. 2. c. 4. sec. 8.
85. Ord. de la Mar. tit. Du Fret. art. 18. Roccus, de Nav. et Naulo, not. 80. Cleirac, les Us et Coutumes de la Mar, p. 42. Code de Com. art. 302.
86. 3 Johns. Rep. 335.
87. 3 Pick. Rep. 20.
88. Com, tom. i. 661.
89. Straccha, in his Tractatus de Mercatura, tit. De Nav. part. 3, n. 24, as referred to by Valin, does not support the reference. He only says, it was a question, whether the advanced freight was to be returned when the goods were not carried, and that a rateable freight, in such case, was equitable.
90. 4 Maule & Selw. 37.
91. Ritchie v. Atkinson, 10 East's Rep. 295.
92. Bright v. Cowper, 1 Brownlow, 21. and this case is cited with approbation by Grose, J., in 7 Term Rep. 385. Malynes, in his Lex Mer. p. 100, is of opinion, that there is no freight due, though he speaks in a loose and questionable manner. But Mr. Abbott, in his Treatise on Shipping, part 3, ch. 7, sec. 9., thinks it hard that the owners should lose the whole benefit of the voyage, where the object of it has been in part performed. and no blame is imputable to them. Holt, in his System of Shipping, Int. p. 89., says that a partial freight is due, when the ship has brought part of the goods in safety to the place of destination, for a proportionate benefit has been received.
93. Post and Russell v. Robertson, 1 Johns. Rep. 24. See, also, Clarke v. Gurnell, 1 Bulst. 167. Cook v. Jennings, 7 Term Rep. 381. Osgood v. Grosing, 2 Campb. N. P. Rep. 466, in which the necessity of a precise performance of the covenant to transport and deliver the cargo is required, before an action for the freight can be maintained.
94. Laws of Oleron, art 4. Ord. of Wisbuy, art 16. Roccus, note 81. Straccha, de Navibus, part 3, n. 24. Ord. de la Marine, lit. 3. tit. 3. Du Fret. art 21, 22.
95. Luke v. Lyde, 2 Burr. 883. Cooke v. Jennings, 7 Term Rep. 381. Hunter v. Prinsep, 10 East's Rep. 378. Liddard v. Lopez, ibid. 526. Abbott on Shipping, part 3, ch. 7, sec. 13. Robinson v. Marine Insurance Company, 2 Johns. Rep. 323. Hurton v. Union Insurance Company, cited in Cond's Marshall on Ins. 281, 691. Caze & Richard v. Baltimore Insurance Company, 7 Cranch's Rep. 358. Armroyd v. Union Insurance Company, 3 Binney, 437. Welch v. Hicks, 6 Cowen's Rep. 504.
96. Laws on Charter Parties, p. 149, 150.
97. Marine Insurance Company v. Lenox, cited and approved of in Robinsons v. The Marine Insurance Company, 2 Johns. Rep. 323. Coffin v. Storer, 5 Mass. Rep. 252.
98. The Woodrop-Sims, 2 Dod. Adm. Rep. 83. The Thames, 5 Rob. Adm. Rep. 345.
99. Neptune 2d, 1 Dods. Adm. Rep. 467.
100. Dig. 9. 2. Consulat de la Mar. par Boucher, 200-203. Abbott on Shipping 354. Marshall on Insurance, 493.
101. Cleirac, Us et Coutumes de la Mar. 63. The Woodrop-Sims, 2 Dod. Adm. Rep. 85.
102. Com, tom. tit. 166.
103. This case was decided in the House of Lords in 1824. See Bell's Com. Vol. i. 580-583, who has collected and digested the foreign authorities on the subject.
104. Dig. 14. 2. 1. This Rhodian law is discussed in the Pandects, by Paulus, Papinian, and other eminent lawyers. It forms the subject of the distinguished commentaries of Peckius and Vinnins. in the treatise ad Rem Nauticam, and of a treatise of Bynkershoek; and it has received the most ample illustrations in the dissertations upon it by numerous other civilians, among whom may be selected Emerigon and Abbott.
105. Laws of Oleron, art. 8. of Wisbuy, art. 20, 21, 38. Code de Commerce, art. 410.
106. Targa says, that during the sixty years he was a magistrate in the Consulat of the Sea at Genoa, he met with only four or five cases of a regular jettison, and they were suspicious by reason of their very formalities.
107. Consulat de la Mar. ch. 284. Targa, ch. 68. Casaregis, Dics. 40. n. 28.
108. Code de Commerce, art. 411. Emerigon, t. i. 609, has beautifully illustrated from Juvenal, the growth and progress of an irregular jettison, and that imminent danger and absorbing terror which justifies it. At first the skill of the pilot fails.
Rectoris conferret opem.
Catullus becomes restless with terror as the danger presses, and at last he cries —
Fundite quae mea sunt
Praecipitare volens pulcherrima. — Juvenal, sat. 12.
109. Pothier, tit. Avaries, n. 113.
110. Maggrath v. Church, 1 Caine's Rep. 196.
111. Walden v. Le Roy, 2 Caine's Rep. 263. Padelford v. Boardman, 3 Mass. Rep. 548.
112. Lex Mercat. vol. i. 161.
113. Ricard, négoce d'Amsterdam, p. 280. Emerigon, Traité des Ass., t. i. 624
114. Abbott on Shipping, part 3. ch. 8. sec. 8.
115. Power v. Whitmore, 4 Maule & Selw. 141.
116. 3 Maule & Selw. 482. 4 ibid. 141.
117. Ricard, négoce d'Amsterdam, p. 279. Boulay Paty, tom. iv. 444. Leavenworth v. Delafield, 1 Caine's Rep. 474. Kingston v. Girard, 4 Dallas' Rep. 274.
118. Robertson v. Ewer, 1 Term Rep. 127. Penny v. New York Insurance Company, 3 Caine's Rep. 155. McBride v. Marine Insurance Company, 7 Johns. Rep. 431.
119. Insurance Company of North America v. Jones, 2 Binney's Rep. 547.
120. Bynck. Quaest. J. Priv. lib. 4. ch. 25. Bynkershoek, in one of the adjudged cases which he cites, complains that the existing usages had extended contribution to every kind of danger, and frequently comprehended wages and provisions of the crew as proper objects of it, and that the practice might be abused to the destruction of the merchant. His history of the vexatious litigation in these cases is quite curious. In one of them, the maritime court at Amsterdam, in November, 1697, and again in November, 1698, adjudged, that the wages and provisions were a proper subject for contribution. The decisions were affirmed, on appeal, in July, 1700, and reversed on a further appeal in July, 1710. On a still further appeal to the Supreme Senate, of which Bynkershoek was a member, after great discussion, and much division in opinion, the original decisions of the Amsterdam maritime judges were restored in March, 1713. Magens, in his Essay on Insurance, vol. 166-69, shows the uncertainty and difficulty abroad, as well as in England, of settling the proper items for a general average, and particularly as to the wages and provisions of the crew.
121. Ord. de la Mar. Des Avaries, art. 7. Code, art. 400, 401. Boulay Paty, t. 4. 466.
122. Ord. de la Mar. tit. Avaries, art. 6. Valin's Com. tom. ii. 165. 1 Emerigon, 620-1.
123. 5 Bos. & Pull. 378.
124. Emerigon, tom. 1. 622, states an interesting case to illustrate the general doctrine. A French vessel, being pursued by two cruisers of the enemy, the master, as soon as it was dark, hoisted a boat into the sea, furnished with the mast and sail, and a lantern at the mast head, and then changed his course, and sailed during the night without any light on board his ship. In the morning no enemy was in sight; and the value of the boat thus voluntarily abandoned for the common safety, was made good by general contribution.
125. In a case of voluntary stranding, if it be done to save the cargo, the damage to the ship and cargo is the subject of general average; but if it was resorted to for the purpose of saving the lives or liberty of the crew, it is particular average. This distinction, Mr. Benecke says, is conformable to the practice of all countries. —Benecke on the Principles of Indemnity, p. 220-1.
126. 9 Johns. Rep. 9.
127. Caze v. Richards, in the Circuit Court of the United States for Pennsylvania, cited 2 Serg. & Rawle, 237. Gray v. Waln, ibid. 229.
128. Vinnius, in Peckium ad legem Rhodiam, p. 346. 250. Boulay Paty, tom. iv. 443.
129. Smith v. Wright, 1 Caines' Rep. 43. Boulay Paty, tom. 4. 566.
130. Dig. 14. 2. 2.
131. Abbott, part 3, ch. 8, sec. 14.
132. Magens on Insurance, vol. i. 62, 63.
133. Ord. de la Marine, tit. Du Fret. art. 11. Code de Commerce, art. 419. Pothier, Des Avaries, n. 125. 1 Emerigon, 645. Boulay Paty, tom. iv. 561, 562.
134. 1 Emerigon, 642.
135. Hall's Emerigon on Maritime Loans, p. 94. The Gratitudine, 3 Rob. Adm. Rep. 264.
136. Mr. Benecke has discussed at large and very ably, the complicated and difficult subject of general average, and the adjustment of it; and to him I must refer for a more minute detail of the learning and principles applicable to the case. Principles of Indemnity, ch. 5 and 7.
137. The Consolato del Mare, and the usage of diverse countries, made a distinction as to the rule of valuation, and they took the value at the place of departure, if the jettison took place before the middle of the voyage; and the value at the place of discharge, if afterwards. But the ordinance of the marine did not make any such distinction. 1 Emerigon, 654.
138. 3 Mason's Rep. 439.
139. Abbott on Shipping, part 3, ch.8, sec. 14, 15. Strong v. Fire Ins. Co., 11 Johns. Rep. 323. Simonds v. White, 2 Barnw. & Cress. 805. Gray v. Waln, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 229, 257, 258.
140. 1 Caines' Rep. 574.
141. 2 Johns. Rep. 98.
142. 11 Johns. Rep. 323.
143. Barnw. & Cress. 805. There is a remarkable coincidence on all points, in the discussions and decisions in the two cases last cited. That delivered in the K. B. by Lord Ch. J. Abbott, is by no means superior, though it was ten years subsequent, in point of time, to the one delivered in the Supreme Court of New York, by the late William W. Van Ness; and that distinguished judge examined the law on that occasion with his usual discernment, and expressed himself with accuracy and perspicuity.
144. Lenox v. United Ins. Company, 3 Johns. Cases, 178. Power v. Whitmore, 4 Maule & Selw. 141.
145. Abbott, part 3, ch. 8, sec. 17.
146. The Aquila, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 32. The two friends, ibid. 235. The Sarah, cited in a note to 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 263. Marshall, Ch. J., 2 Cranch's Rep. 267.
147. L'Esperance, 1 Dods. Rep. 46
148. 2 Cranch's Rep. 268.
149. Newman v. Walters, 3 Bos. & Pull. 612.
150. Sir William Scott, in The Joseph, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 257. Phil. edit.
151. Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch's Rep. 240.
152. Talbot v. Seaman, 1 Cranch's Rep. I.
153. The War Onskan, 2 Rob. Adm. Rep. 299. The Carlotta, 5 ibid. 54.
154. The Santa Cruz, 1 Rob. Adm. Rep. 42.
155. Act of Congress, March 3d, 1800, ch. 14. sec. 3.
156. The two Catherines, 2 Mason's Rep. 319.
157. Liddard v. Lopes, 10 East's Rep. 526.
158. The Hiram, 3 Rob. Adm. Rep. 180.
159. Scott v. Libby, 2 Johns. Rep. 336. The Tuleta, 6 Rob. Adm. Rep, 177.
160. Hadley v. Clarke, 8 Term Rep. 259. McBride v. Marine Insurance Company, 5 Johns. Rep. 308. Baylies v. Fettyplace, 7 Mass. Rep. 325.
161. Palmer v. Lorillard, 16 Johns. Rep. 348.
162. Code de Commerce, art. 276, 277.
163. A new edition of Abbott on Shipping has been for some time impatiently expected, from the same able hand that favored the public with the American edition of 1810: but it had not appeared, or at least had not come to hand, when these lectures were put to the press.
164. In the immense collection which was published at Amsterdam in 1669, of the various works of Straccha, Santerna, and others, on nautical and maritime subjects, we have laborious essays, replete with obsolete learning, on different branches of commercial law, of no less than twenty Italian civilians, whose works are now totally forgotten, and even their very names have become obscured by the oblivion of time; subsequent civilians may have erected stately tomes from the matter which their ruins have furnished.