CROWELL AND OTHERS
v.
MCFADON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A federal customs collector seized and detained a ship under the Embargo Act of 1807 based on his belief that the vessel intended to violate the embargo laws, and subsequently had the cargo landed and stored to preserve it. The Supreme Court held that the collector acted lawfully within his statutory authority and that officers executing embargo laws honestly according to their judgment cannot be held liable for damages, reversing the lower court's judgment against the collector.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Duvall, J.,
(a)
after stating the facts of the ease, delivered the opinion oi the court, as follows : — This court is unanimously of opinion, that the direction of the judge of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts was erroneous. The law of congress under which the collector acted is clear and exjilicit. The collector was bound by law to seize and detain the Union, on her arrival in his district, if, in his opinion, it was the intention to violate or evade any of the provisions of the embargo laws, and his conduct was approved and confirmed by the president. The landing and storing the cargo, whether to preserve it from injury or to secure it from ruin (which, in this case, was done with the consent of the agent of the owner), was a necessary consequence of the detention. The law places a confidence in the opinion of the officer, and he is bound to act according to his opinion; and when he honestly exercises it, as he must do in the execution of his duty, he cannot be punished for it. The judgment of the court below is reversed, with costs.
Judgment reversed.
(a)
Judge Livingston was absent when this opinion was delivered. Judge Stoky gave no opinion, having some impression that he was, at a former period, retained as counsel in the cause, although he did not remember arguing it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)…at use of the liquor as evidence violated their constitutional rights. . This is not a proceeding to forfeit seized goods; nor is it an action against the seizing officer for a tort. Cases like the following are not controlling: Crowell v. M’Fadon, 8 Cranch 94, 98; United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch 398, 403, 405; Otis v. Watkins, 9 Cranch 339; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, 310, 318; Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342; Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197, 205. They turned upon express provisi…
-
Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246 (U.S. 1818)
-
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Am. Trading Co., 195 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1904)