This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1897 Excerpt: ... Mr. Phillips' Argument for Appellees. sioned by arrests or detention of the ship or goods insured by the authority of any prince " or public body claiming to exercise sovereign power under what pretence soever." B. 1, ch. 12, sec. 5. In the same section the author observes that the word "people" in the policy means a people or nation, not a mob. "By the word 'people' in the policy is not to be understood any promiscuous or lawless, rabble that may be guilty of attacking or detaining the ship; it means a people--that is, a nation in its collective and political capacity." In Park Mar. Ins. (2 Am. ed. 1799), 78, it is said: "What the word 'people' in this clause of a policy of insurance means has lately been judicially settled." In Mauran v. Inswance Company, 6 Wall. 1, this court confirms such construction, and discusses its bearing upon our neutrality acts. Chancellor Kent was quoted to the effect that the stipulation of indemnity against takings at sea, arrests, restraints and detainment of all kings, princes and people, refers only to the acts of government for government purposes, whether right or wrong. 3 Com. 302, note D, 6th edition. Other illustrations were made of governments de facto, which, for certain purposes, are recognized as if they were dejure and regularly constructed nationalities: "The court, in the case of Nesbitt v. Lushington, 4 T. It. 763, fitly described the character of the government contemplated in the clause respecting the restraints, etc., of kings, princes or people, viz., 'the ruling power of the countn', ' 'the supreme power, ' ' the power of the country, whatever it might be'--not necessarily a lawful power or government, or one that had been adopted into the family of nations." The court concluded that the so-called Confeder...