DEL GOL VERSUS ARNOLD
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.
In this admiralty case arising from the seizure of the privateer Grand Sachem and damage to cargo, the Supreme Court held that privateers and their owners are fully responsible for all injury and loss to property caused by their agents, and that the seizure of a vessel for examination does not authorize or excuse any spoliation or damage to cargo, with captors proceeding at their peril. The Court affirmed the Circuit Court's decree, establishing that owners of privateers are liable to the full value of property destroyed or injured, regardless of the original irregularity in the capture.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The^ Court delivered, at different times, the following opinions: .
On thefirji point,- that there was a fufficient probable caufe for feizing and bringing the Grand Sachem into port.
On (he fecond point, that the right of feizing and bringing in a vefiel for further examination, does not authorife, or ex-cufe, anv fpoliation, or damage, done to the property; brít that the capto¡ s proceed at their peril, and are liable fcr all the confcquent injury and lofs.
On the third point, that the owners of the privateer are re- • fponlible for the conduct of their agents, the officers and crew, fo all the world; and that the meafure of fuch refponftbility is the full value of the property injured, or deftroyed.*
On the fourth point, that whatever might, originally, have been the irregularity in attaching the Indujlry and her cargo, it is compleatly obviated, lince the captors had a power to fell the prize ; and by their own agreement, they have confented that the proceeds of the fale ihould abide the iffue of the pre-fent fuit.
The decree of the Circuit Court affirmed.'
*
Chase,and Iredej.l, JuJlices, agreed that the owners were reipotifi-ble, but differed as to the extent, obferying that the privateer’s men were juftifiablc in abandoning, to fave themfei ves from captivity; but that the revoval of the money into the privateer, and the fubfequent fcutling of the brig, were unlawful acts.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Umbria, 166 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1897)…ish its application, and so many difficulties in sustaining its legal correctness, that the court cannot believe it proper to entertain it. In several cases in this court, the claim-for profits has been expressly overruled; and in Del Col v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 333, and The Anna Maria, 2 Wheat. 327, it was, after strict consideration, held, that the prime cost, or value of the property lost, at the time of the loss, and in case of injury, the diminution in value, by reason of the injury, with interest upon suc…
-
The N.J. Steam Navigation Co. v. The Merchs'. Bank of Boston, 6 How. 344 (U.S. 1848)…en regarded as a general principle of maritime law ” to make the owners liable for a tort by the master, and that now the whole injury was the measure' of damage, .without Reference to the value of the vessel and freight. See also Del Col v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 333; The Appollon, 9 Wheat. 376; 3 Story, R. 347; 2 Story, R. 187. This is modified by some State laws, under certain .circumstances. See The Rebecca and Phebe, Ware, D. C. And England, by 53 Geo. III. ch. 99. But even there the owner is still liable…
-
Butler v. Boston & Savannah S.S. Co., 130 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1889)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence