MSA SC 5339-275-1
|
|
1794
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
GLASS v. THE SLOOP BETSEY
3 U.S. 6; (1794) 3 Dall. 6
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff claimants, ship and owners, sought review of an order of a United States circuit court, which affirmed the district court's order allowing the plea of defendants, captor and related parties, in the claimants' libel brought against the captor and related parties to recover restitution for a seizure of the ship on the high seas as a prize.
OVERVIEW: The captor, a French captain, seized the ship at sea and claimed it as a prize. Upon the ship's arrival in Baltimore, the ship and its owners filed a libel for restitution, claiming that the ship belonged to subjects of the King of Sweden, and that the cargo belonged to citizens of Sweden and the United States. The captor's plea challenged the district court's jurisdiction. The court ruled that the plea was improperly allowed. In so ruling, the court observed that every district court had the power of a court of admiralty, even with respect to actions involving prizes. Moreover, the court noted that the district court possessed the jurisdiction to decide the issue of restitution, under foreign and United States law. Finally, the court ruled that the French government's efforts to exercise jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of the United States courts was improper.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the circuit court's order affirming the district court's order allowing the plea of the captor and the related parties. The court remanded the matter to the district court for a final decision. The parties were directed to pay their own costs.
Quasi –war; French captor
Prize
Opinion: Jay
Lawyers: ???
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
MASON v. SHIP BLAIREAU.
6 U.S. 240 (1804) 2 Cranch 240
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Libelants, a master, officers, the crew, the owner, and the freighters of a British merchant-ship, filed a libel for salvage against a French ship and its claimants. From a decree of a district court, certain libelants and other claimants of the French ship sought review. Further appeal was taken from the decree of the federal circuit court of appeals, which affirmed the district court's judgment in part.
OVERVIEW: While on a voyage, the French ship was run down by a gun ship. Water entered the vessel. The gun ship's commander took all the French ship's crew and passengers on board his ship except one libelant, a mariner. He lightened the bows of the ship and hoisted a distress signal. The British ship found the French ship the next day. The other libelants boarded the French ship and took possession of it despite the great risk, navigating it into port. The master of the British ship later embezzled part of the cargo. The district court had awarded a salvage and compensation to all but the master. The circuit court affirmed the decree as to the salvage rate. The Court upheld the circuit court's judgment in part. The Court agreed that the master had forfeited his right to salvage by embezzling cargo. The Court then held that the mariner who remained on the ship when it was abandoned was discharged from his contract as a mariner of that ship and entitled to salvage. It further held that the masters of the apprentices were not entitled to the apprentices' share of the salvage. The Court reversed the decree in part by reducing the rate of salvage and altering the proportions for distribution.
OUTCOME: The Court affirmed that portion of the decree of the circuit court that denied salvage to those who embezzled saved cargo and that established the rights of the mariner and apprentices. The Court reversed the part of the decree relating to the rate of salvage and the proportions for distribution and remanded the action for further proceedings in accordance with the Court's directions. The parties were to pay their own costs.
Napoleonic War: British confiscation of French ship
Salvage rate
Opinion: Marshall C.J.
Counsel: ??
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
MANELLA, PUJALS, AND COMPANY v. JAMES BARRY.
7 U.S. 415 (1806) 3 Cranch 415
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff foreigner challenged a judgment from the circuit court which found in favor of defendant American in his action to recover the price of three cargoes of tobacco, purchased and shipped by defendant for the plaintiff.
OVERVIEW: The foreigner hired the American, via an agent, to purchase and ship tobacco to the foreigner in Spain. The agent was given specific instructions which were relayed to the American. Three of the seven ships containing the tobacco were captured on their way to Spain and condemned. The foreigner brought an action against the American to recover the price of the three cargoes of tobacco. The circuit court found in favor of the American and the foreigner appealed. The United States Supreme Court heard the appeal. It affirmed the judgment. The foreigner argued that the American deviated from the instructions given to govern his conduct and was therefore, liable for the loss which had been sustained. The question to be decided was whether the American had deviated from his instructions. The court found that from the expression of the letter, that the directions from the foreigner were actually for the agent who hired the American and the American was to comply with the directions given from the agent. The conduct of the American was sanctioned by the agent. Therefore, his actions were justifiable and he was not liable for the loss.
OUTCOME: The United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court which found that the American was not liable for the loss sustained when three shipments of tobacco shipped to the foreigner were captured and condemned.
Napoleonic Wars
French capture of tobacco shipped by American agent to Spainish national
Counsel: Harper for American shipper; Pinkney and Martin, contra
Opinion, Marshall, C.J.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
YEATON AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER GENERAL PINKNEY AND CARGO, v. THE UNITED STATES.
9 U.S. 281(1809) 5 Cranch 281
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant claimants sought review of a sentence of the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, which condemned a schooner and its cargo for breach of the Act of Congress prohibiting intercourse with certain ports of the Island of St. Domingo. Appellee United States filed a motion for the Court to certify that there was probable cause for the seizure.
OVERVIEW: The Act of February 28, 1806, vol. 8, p. 11 was passed by Congress and prohibited intercourse with certain ports of the Island of St. Domingo. The Act was limited to one year but was continued by the Act of February 24, 1807, and it expired on April 26, 1808. The schooner went to one of the prohibited ports, and upon its return to the United States, it was seized and condemned in a district court. The condemnation was affirmed in the circuit court. The claimants appealed. The appeal was heard in March of 1809, and the only question argued was whether the Court could affirm the sentence of condemnation after the law had expired. The Court held that in admiralty cases an appeal suspended the sentence altogether and that the cause in the appellate court or in the Court was to be heard de novo, as if no sentence had been passed. In reversing the circuit court's sentence and dismissing the libel, the Court concluded that after the expiration or repeal of a law, no penalty could be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violations of the law committed while it was in force, unless some special provision had been made for that purpose by statute.
OUTCOME: The Court reversed and annulled the circuit court's sentence affirming the sentence of the district court. The Court directed the dismissal of the libel and the restoration of the libeled property to the claimants, who were instructed to pay duties on the property if they had not already been paid. The Court then granted the United States' motion and certified that there was probable cause of seizure.
Violation of Act of Congress
Condemnation of ship and cargo
Counsel: C.Lee, Martin, Harper and Youngs for Owners; Rodney A-G for U.S.
Opinion: Marshall, C.J.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
THE MARYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY v. WOODS.
10 U.S. 29 (1810) 6 Cranch 29
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant insurer appealed a judgment of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Maryland, which held defendant was liable to plaintiff under a policy of insurance for the seizure and condemnation of plaintiff's schooner and cargo by a British naval vessel enforcing a blockade off Amsterdam, on the island of Curacao.
OVERVIEW: Defendant insurer argued that it was not liable to plaintiff under a policy of insurance following the seizure and condemnation of plaintiff's schooner and cargo by a British naval vessel enforcing a blockade off Amsterdam, on the island of Curacao. The decision below supported plaintiff's cause of action, because the schooner's master apparently did not believe that Curacao was blockaded when he departed his original destination, Laguira, approached the island, and attempted to enter the port of Amsterdam. In stressing an exception asserted by defendant, the court noted that defendant's requested jury instruction -- to reject plaintiff's claim if the master entered Amsterdam after finding it not blockaded, and was then captured -- had been refused. The court explained that if the master's ultimate destination when detouring to Amsterdam was not contemplated by the policy, then plaintiff was not covered. But if that destination was covered as a neighboring port, then the detour to Amsterdam was a deviation for which defendant also was not liable, the court stated. Failure to allow the jury to consider evidence on the master's destination was error, the court concluded.
OUTCOME: Judgment holding defendant insurer liable to plaintiff under insurance policy following seizure and condemnation of plaintiff's schooner and cargo at sea reversed, and remanded, as jury was not allowed to consider evidence of schooner master's ultimate destination after being refused entry to destination originally contemplated by policy, as such ultimate destination may have barred plaintiff's suit under the policy.
Napoleonic Wars: British capture of U.S. for violating blocade
Counsel: P.B. Key & Martin for insurer?: Harper contra
Opinion: Marshall, C.J.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
OLIVER v. MARYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY
11 U.S. 487(1813) Cranch 487
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff appealed a judgment of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, which held that defendant insurers were not liable under an
insurance policy, following seizure by a British naval vessel of plaintiff's ship and cargo after departing Spain for the United States.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff argued that defendant insurers were liable under a policy of insurance for the seizure of plaintiff's ship and cargo while enroute from Spain to Baltimore. Specifically, plaintiff denied that the ship's delay at Barcelona and its stoppage at Salou constituted deviations that voided the policy, because the delay was due to usage of the trade and fear of capture, and the stoppage due to usage of the trade. Rejecting all such justifications, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that an idle waste of time on the part of any vessel discharged its insurers. The Court then found that plaintiff's ship remained at Barcelona, after discharging cargo, longer than the usage of the trade allowed for taking in cargo there and, thus, vacated the insurance policy by thereafter proceeding to Salou to pick up cargo destined for the United States. Plaintiff's justification of delay based on fear of capture was also without merit. The danger would have to have been obvious and immediate to plaintiff's ship at that point in time and imminent. Here, the Court concluded, the danger to plaintiff's vessel was a mere general danger, distant and indefinite. OUTCOME: The United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that defendant insurers were not liable under an insurance policy following seizure by a British naval vessel of plaintiff's ship and cargo after departing Spain for the United States, because port delays in Spain by plaintiff's ship was longer than usage of trade allowed for taking in cargo, and because fear of capture at sea was distant and indefinite, and not obvious and imminent.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
M'CALL. v. THE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY
12 U.S. 59 (1814) 8 Cranch 59
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff sought review of a decision of the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland holding that plaintiff was not entitled to abandon as for a total loss of its ship and voyage against defendant underwriter.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff sought review of a decision of the lower court holding that plaintiff was not entitled to abandon as for a total loss against defendant underwriter. The Court affirmed the order and held that the loss of the voyage was occasioned by the lawful arrest and restraint of a blockading squadron and thus was not covered under plaintiff's policy with defendant because defendant did not engage to indemnify plaintiff for such loss. Plaintiff violated the law when its ship entered the lawful blockade, and thus its property was subject to the penalty of confiscation. The Court further held that according to the policy defendant only agreed to indemnify against unlawful restraints and detrainments.
OUTCOME: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and held that plaintiff was not entitled to recover from defendant because the loss of voyage was a result of a lawful arrest and such loss was exempt from coverage under the policy. Plaintiff's entering a neutral blockade was unlawful; and, thus, its property was lawfully confiscated.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
**THE MERRIMACK
12 U.S. 317 ( 1814 ) 8 Cranch 317
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant captors sought review of a decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland in favor of claimants, two merchants, a partnership, and several consignees, affirming a district court decree directing restitution of a ship's cargo captured as prize of war by a privateer during the War of 1812.
OVERVIEW: The captors contended on appeal that no transfer of the property had taken place at the time of the capture and that the shippers were British subjects. The court affirmed the decree in part and reversed it in part. The court was of opinion that some of the property was vested in the partnership and was consequently not liable to condemnation as enemy property. The court stated, as to the consignees, that as no change of property could take place until the consignees had acceded to new propositions and the capture had taken place before the contract was complete, those goods had to be considered enemy property. The court remarked that the goods ordered by the merchants were shipped to an agent for their use subject only to a right which unquestionably existed in the shippers, that in their letter to the merchants they enclosed a bill of parcels containing a positive acknowledgment of the sale, and that the letter itself as well as that to the agent spoke of the goods expressly as the merchants' goods. The court stated that the immediate consignee of those goods could thus only be considered as the bailee of the merchants.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the parts of the circuit court decree that had affirmed the district court decree for the merchants and partnership and reversed those parts of the decree that had affirmed the decree for the consignees on appeal by the captors in the libel seeking condemnation of the cargo of a ship.
War of 1812 Us. Confiscation of British goods
Counsel: Harper for American consignees; Pinkney contra for claimants
Opinion: Marshall C.J, Dissent by Story J. joined by Judges WASHINGTON and TODD.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
**THIRTY HOGSHEADS OF SUGAR v. BOYLE
13 U.S. 191 (1815) 9 Cranch 191
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant claimant, a Danish citizen, sought review of the sentence of the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, condemning his sugar, which was grown on his plantation in Santa Cruz, and put on board a vessel for shipment to England after the capture of that island by the British. The sugar was captured after the declaration of war by the United States against Great Britain, and libeled as British property by appellee privateers.
OVERVIEW: The Santa Cruz inhabitants retained their property and were permitted to ship their produce, but only to Great Britain. The sugar was on board a British ship captured by the privateers and brought to the United States, where the vessel and cargo were libeled as enemy property. The claimant acquired the plantation while Santa Cruz was a Danish colony, and he withdrew from it after its capture. Affirming the decision, the Court explained that the claimant was incorporated, so far as respected his plantation in Santa Cruz, with the permanent interests of Santa Cruz, which was at that time, British. Although as a Dane, the claimant was at war with Great Britain, and an enemy; yet, the Court said, as a plantation owner in Santa Cruz, he was no enemy, and could have shipped his produce to Great Britain in perfect safety. The Court added that personal property may have followed the person anywhere, but land was fixed. Wherever the owner may have resided, the Court concluded that land was hostile or friendly according to the condition of the country in which it was placed. The claimant, with regard to his land, while he remained unchanged, was subject to the same disabilities as the land.
OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the decision condemning, as enemy property, the sugar belonging to the claimant, a Danish owner of a plantation on an island that had been captured by the British.
War of 1812; Privateer capture of British cargo
Opinion: Marhshall, C.J. ,Todd absent
Counsel: Harper for Danish owner; Pinkney for Privateer
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
The ANNE
16 U.S. 435 (1818) 3 Wheat. 435
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant, the foreign owner of a ship captured in time of war, sought review of a judgment from the United States Circuit Court of the District of Maryland, which pronounced a sentence of condemnation to appellee captors.
OVERVIEW: The captured ship was the first to commence hostilities against the captors. The testimony of the carpenter and cook of the captured vessel asserted that the capture was made within the territorial limits of a Spanish colony. The captors claimed that the ship was outside territorial waters at the time. The Spanish consul interposed a claim on behalf of his sovereign. The Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the captors, holding that their testimony was admissible despite their interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Because the Spanish consul had not been granted special authority by his sovereign to pursue the claim, he lacked standing to do so. Moreover, although the capture might have been made in a neutral territory, it was nevertheless deemed rightful as between enemies, and the captured ship forfeited any neutral protection by commencing hostilities.
OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the judgment that pronounced a sentence of condemnation to the captors.
War of 1812: Privateer capture of British ship
Counsel: Harper for owner of ship/ D.B. Ogden and Winder contra for captors
Opinion: Story, J.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
The GRAN PARA, 20 U.S. 471( 1822) 7 Wheat. 471
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Libelant, the Consul General of Portugal, filed a libel alleging that silver and gold coins had been taken out of a Portuguese ship by a United State ship in violation of the neutrality acts. The Circuit Court of Maryland entered a decree restoring the property to the original owners, and a claimant, owner of the United States ship, appealed.
OVERVIEW: The libel alleged that money taken from the Portuguese ship had been deposited in a Baltimore bank. The agent for the claimant, the owner of the capturing vessel, alleged that the claimant was a citizen of the Oriental Republic and that he was claiming the money as a lawful prize of war. The evidence showed that the claimant was a citizen of the United States when his vessel was launched. When the ship left port, a commission from the Chief of the Oriental Republic was produced, under which the claimant declared that he intended to cruize. During this cruize, several Portuguese vessels were captured, and the money claimed was taken out of them. The Court found that the claimant's vessel sailed out of the port of Baltimore, armed and manned as a vessel of war, for the purpose of being employed as a cruizer against a nation with whom the United States was at peace. The size of the crew and the lack of cargo demonstrated the intent with which the claimant's ship sailed out of Baltimore. The Court found that the vessel was clearly armed and manned in Baltimore in violation of the Act of June, 1794, c. 296 and the neutral obligations of the United States.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the circuit court's decree.
Latin American wars of independence
Uruguay privateer took gold and silver from Portuguese ship bound to Brazil
Counsel: Winder for Portugal ; Hoffman contra
Opinion: Marshall, C.J.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
The SANTA MARIA.
20 U.S. 490 (1822) 7 Wheat. 490
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Libellant Spanish Consul filed a libel on behalf of Spanish owners of certain goods allegedly captured on the high seas and taken out of a Spanish ship by a privateer. Claimant insisted that he had title to the property as a bona fide purchaser under an condemnation and sale in a prize tribunal. The district court dismissed the libel, but the Circuit Court of Maryland (United States) reversed. The cause was brought by appeal to the Court.
OVERVIEW: The libel alleged that the goods were captured by a privateer who was illegally armed and equipped in the United States. The evidence established that the privateer was owned by citizens of the United States and that she was armed, equipped, and fitted out in violation of the laws and treaties of the United States. The district court dismissed the libel, however, finding in favor of claimant. The circuit court reversed. In affirming the circuit court, the Court found that there was no reason to disturb the sentence of the circuit court because there were no witnesses examined who threw any doubt on the circuit court's finding that the goods were part of the cargo of the Spanish ship and that it was captured by the privateer.
Latin American wars of independence
Privateer captured Spanish ship
Counsel: Winder for privateer; Hoffman for Spanish consul
Opinion; Livingston
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-14
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
LA NEREYDA
21 U.S. 108 (1823) 8 Wheat. 108
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Libellant Spanish consul appealed from the decree of the Circuit Court of Maryland, which pro forma affirmed a district court's decree of restitution in favor of claimant, who insisted that he had purchased the vessel claimed by the consul at auction following a capture and condemnation in Venezuela. Claimant was ordered to produce a copy of the papers upon which the sentence of condemnation was founded and the asserted sale was made.
OVERVIEW: A Spanish vessel of war was captured by a privateer operating under a foreign commission, and she was carried into Venezuela and claimed as a prize to the captors. Thereafter, the vessel sailed under the command of the original prize master to the privateer's home port in the United States, where she underwent extensive repairs and a new master was appointed. When the Spanish consul laid claim to the vessel, alleging that the capture was illegal, claimant appeared by an agent and asserted that he held title under a sale in pursuance of a sentence of condemnation. A decree in favor of claimant was upheld, but the consul appealed. Claimant was ordered to produce further proof of the Venezuelan proceedings to support his claim, but none was produced. In reversing, the court ruled that claimant failed to meet his burden of proving that the Venezuelan court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the prize cause. Not only did claimant's non-production of proof of the Venezuelan proceedings justify rejection of his claim, but the circumstantial evidence suggested that no real sale ever took place, and that the vessel remained with the original captors, such that he had no proprietary interest.
OUTCOME: The decree was reversed, and the vessel was ordered to be restored to the consul, with costs.
Latin American wars of independence
Capture of Spanish vessel by Privateer licensed by Uruguay
Harper and Hoffman for Spanish consul; Winder fo privateer
Opinion; Story, J.
|
|
MSA SC 5339-275-15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
The FANNY.
22 U.S. 658 (1824) 9 Wheat. 658
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Libellant, the Consul General of Portugal, filed a libel on behalf of Portuguese subjects, owners of hides that were brought from St. Thomas to Baltimore on a brig. The district court decreed the claimants to pay libellant the appraised value of the hides, together with interest and costs, after deducting freight. The parties sought review of a decision of the Circuit Court of Maryland, which wholly affirmed the district court's decree.
OVERVIEW: The capturing vessel was built at Baltimore, purchased by United States citizens, and armed and equipped as a vessel of war within the waters and jurisdiction of the United States. The court determined that the circuit court was correct in restoring to the original Portuguese owners the proceeds of the hides that were taken from the subjects of a friendly power. Property that was illegally captured by a privateer had to be restored to the original owners unless it could be maintained that the sale of the hides to the claimant divested the owners of their right to the same. The claimant's asserted purchase of the hides for a valuable consideration was unsupported by any evidence or written document whatsoever. The claimant was a purchaser from the agent of a tortious possessor of property to which he had no title and could consequently transfer none to the claimant. Therefore, the court concluded that the circuit court's decree was right and out to be affirmed so far as it restored the hides to libellant. However, the circuit court erred in ordering freight to be deducted from the proceeds of the hides that included freight of the lignum vitae that did not belong to libellants.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed so much of the circuit court's decree as ordered the claimant to pay libellant the appraised value of the hides, together with costs of suit, with costs, subject to such deduction for freight as the circuit court might direct. The court reversed the circuit court's decree and remanded for further proceedings to ascertain and separate the freight upon lignum vitae from that due upon the hides.
|
|
