THE UNITED STATES VERSUS LA VENGEANCE
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 Supreme Court affirmed a Circuit Court decree in an admiralty action against the ship La Vengeance for illegal exportation of arms and ammunition, holding that the case fell within federal admiralty and maritime jurisdiction as a civil in rem proceeding rather than a criminal matter, and therefore required no jury trial. The Court initially affirmed with costs but subsequently struck the costs provision, leaving open for future consideration whether the Court could award costs against the United States.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
By the Court.
Weate.perfeilly fatisfied upon the two points that have been agitated in this caufe. In the firflr place, wc think, that it is a caufe of Admiralty and Maritime Jurif-diclion. The exportation of arms and ammunition is, limply, the offence ; and exportation is entirely a water tranfadlion. It appears, indeed, on the face of the libel, to have commenced at Sandy Hook-, which, certainly, mult have been upon the water. In the next place, we are unanimouily of opinion, that it is a civil caufe-: It is a procefs of the nature of a libel in rem ; and does not, in any degree, touch the perfon of the offender. •
In this' view of the fubjeil, it follows, of courfe, that no jury was neceffary, as it was a civil caufe ; and that the-appeal to the Circuit Court was regular, as it was a caufe of Admiralty and Maritime jurifdiilion.—Therefore,
Let the decree of the Circuit Court be affirmed with cojis.
But on opening the court the next day, the chief justice directed the words “ with coils” to be ilruck out of .the entry, as there appeared to have been fome caufe for the profe-, cution. He'obfervéd, however, that, in doing this, the Court did not mean to be underlldod, as, at all, deciding.the queftion, whether, in any cafe, they could award coils againll the United States 5 but left it entirely open for future difeuffion-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
The United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76 (U.S. 1820)…aritime jurisdiction, because those places were not, according to the common law interpretation in England of the statutes of Richard It. within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. But this Court has repeatedly overruled the objection, (La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297. The Sally, 2 Cranch, 406. The Betsey and Charlotte, 4 Cranch, 443. The Samuel, Ante, vol. I. p. 9. The Octavia, Ib. p„ 20.) and thereby established the doctrine that .the constitutional admiralty jurisdiction includes ports, arms, and creeks of th…
-
Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243 (U.S. 1913)
-
Butler v. Boston & Savannah S.S. Co., 130 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1889)
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence