THE BRIG CONCORD, TAYLOR, 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.
Cargo owned by neutral merchants aboard a British ship captured by a French privateer and brought into New York for prize proceedings was held to belong to the claimants, but the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' ruling that exempted the goods from import duties. The Court established that while goods forcibly brought into the United States by superior force are not initially subject to duties, once those goods are sold within the country by court order, they become retroactively liable for duties, which should have been deducted from the sale proceeds.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Story, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court, as fol- . I0WS •
This is the ,case ot a stnpment made by' a neutral house on board of a British ship which was captured, on a voyage fr,om Teneriffe to London, by the private armed ship Marengo, and brought into the port of New York for adjudication. Pending the prize proceedings, the goods were sold by an interlocutory order of the District Court, and the proceeds brought into the registry. Upon the . hearing, the property was decreed to be restored to the claimants without payment of duties ; and this decree was afterwards affirmed in the Circuit Court. The cause has been brought, by appeal, to this Court for a final decision.
We are all of opinion that the proprietary interest of tjie claimants is completely proved ; and therefore the decree of restoration must be affirmed.
With respect to the duties, we are all of opinion that the decree of the Courts below was erroneous. Where goods are brought.b'y superior force, or by inevitable ne- . cessity, into the United States, they are not deemed to he so imported, in the sense of the law, as necessarily to attach the right to duties. If, however, such goods are afterwards sold or consumed in the country, or incorporated into the general mass of its property, they become retro-actively liable to the payment of duties. In the present case, if the goods had been specifically restored* and afterwards withdrawn from the United States by the. Claimants, they would haye beenexempt from duties. But having been sold, by order of the Court, for the general benefit, the duties indissolubly attached, and'ought to have been deducted from the proceeds by the Courts below. The decree in this resnéct must be reversed.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. G. Falk & Brother, 204 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1907)
-
The Santa Maria. The Spanish Consul, 10 Wheat. 431 (U.S. 1825)
-
Grogan v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Ltd., 259 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1922)
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