THE SALLY, PORTER, MASTER
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.
During the War of 1812, the merchant vessel Sally was captured while engaged in illegal trade with the enemy and condemned as a prize of war; the Supreme Court held that property involved in illicit intercourse with the enemy loses its neutral character and becomes enemy property subject to capture, and that the United States' claim to forfeit the cargo under the non-intercourse act was superseded by the law of war, with the Prize Act of 1812 awarding all rightfully captured property to the privateering captors rather than the government.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Story, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case cannot be distinguished from that of The Rapid. It was there decided, that property engaged in an illicit intei-course with the enemy, is *3841 t0 confiscation *as prize of war, and the only remaining ques-J tion now before us, is, to Avhom it shall be condemned — to the captors, or to the United States ?
By the general laAv of prize, property engaged in an illegal intercourse with the enemy, is deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence, Avhether it belong to an ally or to a citizen; the illegal traffic stamps it with the hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy OAAmership. In conformity with this rule, it has been solemnly adjudged, by the same course of decisions Avhich has established the illegality of the intercourse, that the property engaged therein must be condemned as prize to the captors, and not to the croAvn. This principle has been fully recognised by Sir William Scott, in The Nelly, 1 Rob. 219 ; and indeed, seems never to have admitted a serious doubt.,
But a claim is interposed by the United States, claiming a priority of right to the property in question, upon the ground of an antecedent forfeiture to the United States, by a violation of the non-intercourse act (of March 1st, 1809, § 5, 2 U. S. Stat. 529), the goods having been put on board at a British port, Avith an intent to import the same into the United States. We are all of opinion, that this claim ought not to prevail. The municipal forfeiture under thd non-intercourse act, Avas absorbed in the more general operation of the law of war. The property of an enemy seems hardly to be Avithin the purview of mere municipal regulations ; but is confiscable under the^ws gentium.
But even if the doctrine were otherwise, Avhich we do not admit, we are all satisfied, that the prize act of 26th June 1812, ch. 107, operates as a grant from the United States of all property rightfully captured by commissioned privateers, as prize of war. The language of the 4th, 6th and 14th sections is decisive. The decree of the circuit court, condemning the vessel and cargo to the captors, is affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1953)…arine and Fisheries, H. R. Rep. No. 852, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 18, 20; 50 Cong. Rec. 5761-5792. Plamals v. Pinar Del Rio, n. 6, supra. See the famous opinion of Mr. Justice Story in De Lovio v. Boit, Fed. Cas. No. 3,776, 2 Gall. 398; The Sally, 8 Cranch 382 and 2 Cranch 406; The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170; Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States, 101 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 26, 28-29, 792, 803-816. See Slater v. Mexican National R. Co., 194 U. S. 120; New York Central R. Co.…
-
The San Pedro-Valverde, 2 Wheat. 132 (U.S. 1817)
-
The Hampton, 5 Wall. 372 (U.S. 1866)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence