UNITED STATES
v.
HALLOCK
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.
The United States seized the bark Pilgrim for attempting to breach a Union blockade of New Orleans in 1861 after departing from France with knowledge of the blockade. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decree and ordered a new judgment, holding that the cargo and two-thirds of the vessel (owned by New Orleans residents) were subject to confiscation as enemy property, while the remaining one-third was liable for illicit trading with the enemy.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Grier delivered the opinion of the court.
The questions which affect the decision of this case have all been before this court in the “prize cases” decided at last term, and reported in 2 Black, 665.
On the 7th of July, 1861, the bkrk Pilgrim was attempting to enter the port of New Orleans, but ran aground in the night near Pass á P Outre and was captured by the blockading vessels of the United States.
She had left Bordeaux, in France, about the 8th of May, after the news of the blockade of the southern ports had reached that place, and the American Consul would give no more papers to vessels bound for southern ports. In passing the Bahamas she' had full information of the blockade. The master persisted, however, to continue his voyage and attempt to enter the port of New Orlearfs, till arrested by the blockading ships.
The cargo was consigned to owners in New Orleans. Twothirds of the vessel belonged to citizens of New Orleans, the other third to the master and another, citizens óf New York and Connecticut. The cargo and two-thirds of the vessel were liable to confiscation as “enemy’s property,” and the remainder for illicit trading with the enemy.
Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Charles Eames for the appellants.
The decree of the court below is therefore reversed, and record remitted with directions to enter a decree in conformity to this opinion. Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Skirvin v. Mesta, 141 F.2d 668 (10th Cir. 1944)…ests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and its ac-tion thereon will not be overturned on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U.S. 235, 25 L.Ed. 339; Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. Soutter, 154 U.S. 540, 14 S.Ct. 1158, 17 L.Ed 604; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U.S. 176, 55 S.Ct. 380, 79 L.Ed. 841, 96 A.L.R. 1166; Hutchinson v. Fidelity Inv. Ass’n, 4 Cir., 106 F. 2d 431, 133 A.L.R. 1061; Lee v. Farmers Co-Op. Ass’n of Mountain View, 189 Okl. 55, 1…
-
Maxwell v. Enter. Wall Paper MFG. Co., 131 F.2d 400 (3d Cir. 1942)…quiring, for an ex parte appointment of a receiver, a showing of the “gravest emergency and of peril immediately threatening the security and safety of property * * * ”). (Italics added.) Milwaukee & Minnesota R. Co. v. Soutter, 3864, 154 U.S. 540, 14 S.Ct. 1158, 17 L.Ed. 604; Fosdick v. Schall, 1878, 99 U.S. 235, 253, 25 L.Ed. 339; Kingsport Press, Inc., v. Brief English Systems, Inc., 2 Cir., 1931, 54 F. 2d 497, certiorari denied, Owen v. Kingsport Press, 1932, 286 U.S. 545, 52 S.Ct. 497, 76 L.Ed. 1282.…
-
Nicholson v. W. Loan & Bldg. Co., 60 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1932)…erty. The order entered by the court was clearly an exercise of judicial discretion, so far as the receiver is concerned. American Manganese Steel Co. v. Alaska Mines Corp. (C. C. A.) 250 F. 614; Milwaukee & Minn. R. Co. v. Soutter, 154 U. S. 540, 14 S. Ct. 1158, 17 L. Ed. 604. The receiver had no greater right in the properly than the defendant corporation possessed, Odell v. H. Batterman Co. (C. C. A.) 223 F. 292, at page 297, and no right of appeal is open to the receiver; no equity being disclosed or…