THE AMELIA. TALBOT
v.
THE SHIP AMELIA, SEEMAN, CLAIMANT
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 a maritime salvage dispute, the Supreme Court held that while a lower court correctly determined that a seized ship should be restored to its claimant, the court erred in ordering restoration without compensation for salvage services. The Court reversed the portion of the decree denying salvage and required that the ship and cargo be returned to the claimant only upon payment of salvage equal to one-sixth of the net value after deducting incurred charges.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
On the 18th of August, Paterson, Justice, stated, that it was the wish of the court to postpone the cause, for further argument, before a fuller bench. It was, accordingly, argued again, at Washington, in August term 1801, by Ingersoll and Bayard (of Delaware), for the plaintiff in error; and by M. Levy, J.
T. Mason (of Maryland) and Dallas, for the defendant in error. And Marshall, Chief Justice, delivered the judgment of the court, “ that the decree of the circuit court was correct, in reversing the decree of the district court, but not correct in decreeing the restoration of the Amelia, without paying salvage. This court, therefore, is of opinion, that the decree, so far as the restoration of the Amelia without salvage is ordered, ought to be reversed r and that the Amelia and her cargo ought to be restored to the claimant, on paying for salvage one-sixth part of the net value, after deducting therefrom the charges which have been incurred.”(a)
(a)
A full report of the arguments, on the first hearing of this cause, was prepared: but they are found so ably incorporated with the arguments on the second hearing, in Mr. Cranch’s Reports, that it has beer thought unnecessary to publish it in this volume. 1 Cr. 1.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1903)…conform, to the expressions of the legislature, to the letter of the statute, when free from ambiguity and doubt; without indulging a speculation, either upon the impolicy or the hardship of the law.” Mr. Justice Chase in Priestman v. United States, 4 Dall. 30, note. When therefore Congress, in words perfectly clear and- free from doubt, declared that'the municipal legislation of Hawaii, not contrary to the Constitution, should remain in force, does not the court usurp the function of making laws when it…