IN this case further proof was ordered at the last term. (See
PINKNEY, for the Claimants.
The property vested in Dunham and Randolph by the shipment.
It was made in consequence of, although not strictly in conformity
with, their orders; and delivery to the master of the vessel was
tantamount to a delivery to themselves. The invoices and bills of
lading all stated the goods to be shipped on their account and
But if the property did not pass by the shipment, there is no
reason why it should not pass in transitu, so that it be before
capture. It is true that it cannot vest in transitu so as to
defeat a vested belligerent right. But if the transfer take place,
according to the original terms of the contract, before a
belligent right has accrued, it is not within the principle nor
the spirit of the rule. If the further proof shows that the
property had absolutely vested in Dunham and Randolph before the
capture, it must be restored.
The further proof shows that the invoice, stating the
shipment to be made for their account and risk, was
sent to them; and that D. and R. wrote a letter ...