THE TERESITA
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.
A United States naval vessel captured the merchant bark Teresita and its cargo of cotton near the Rio Grande in 1863, claiming the ship was in Texan waters and thus subject to blockade interdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's order for restitution, holding that temporary anchorage in waters occupied by blockading vessels does not justify capture absent other evidence of intent to break the blockade, particularly where the vessel had drifted due to weather and the master intended to return to his former anchorage.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court.
The bark Teresita was captured near the mouth of the Rio Grande, on the 16th of November, 1863, by the United States steamer Granite City. The cargo consisted of one hundred and fifty-eight bales of cotton.
She was brought into New Orleans for adjudication; and, upon hearing, the District Court directed restitution of the vessel and cargo.
There was no question of the neutrality of the ship or her cargo; but it was claimed for the captors that she was in Texan waters when-captured, and therefore subject to just suspicion of intent to break the blockade.
The captain and the mate of the ship, in their preparatory depositions, testified that she was in Mexican waters; but the captain being on shore at the time, could not be certainly informed as to this. A stevedore, who had been employed on board the vessel and had not been discharged, testified that shVhad drifted to the place where she was taken, under stress of weather. He did not know whether she was then in Texan or American waters. Her full cargo had .been taken in at her former anchorage.
The preliminary hearing took place on this evidence, which, doubtless, warranted restitution.
Further proof, however, was allowed. ' It consisted of depositions by the captain and some other officers of the Granite City to the effect that the Teresita when-captured was a quarter or half a. mile north of the line, according to the bearings by the compass, and that the mate admitted that she was in Texan waters. But the same deposition showed that the mate declared that his vessel had drifted to the spqt, his anchor and chain being too light; and assigned, as one reason for not returning to the former anchorage as soon as the wind became fair, that the captain was at Matamoras with the ship’s papers,' and he did not like to move the vessel without orders; and, as another, that the ship was fully laden and ready'to sail, and had been seen by two American men-of-war, which did not disturb her, and he thought, therefore, that she might safely remain where she was till the captain returned. It appeared, also, that the mate proposed if not^ captured, to return at once to the anchorage from which he had drifted.
We are of opinion that, under such circumstances, temporary anchorage in waters occupied by the blockading vessels, does not justify capture, in the absence óf other grounds. The case for the captors was not improved by the further proof. The decree of restitution must be affirmed, and vre shall direct the costs and expenses to be paid by the captors.
Decree and direction accordingly.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coudert v. United States, 175 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1899)…y rendered in favor of the claimant against the United States, from which the latter appealed to the Supreme Court, obtaining a supersedeas pending the appeal. The judgment was affirmed and restitution of the vessel and cargo directed. The Teresita, 5 Wall. 180. Pending the appeal to the Supreme Court, the bank failed, and a receiver was duly appointed of its assets. In liquidating its affairs the receiver paid Madrazo during his lifetime, and to' his representatives after his death, dividends amounting i…
-
United States Ex rel. Schwarzkopf v. UHL, 137 F.2d 898 (2d Cir. 1943)…ation and have never elected to accept the sovereignty of the new government, their allegiance is not so transferred. Inglis v. Trustees of the Sail- or’s Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 122, 123, 7 L. Ed. 617; United States v. Repentigny, 5 Wall. 211, 260, 18 L.Ed. 627; Jones v. McMasters, 20 How. 8, 20, 15 L.Ed. 805; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 162, 12 S.Ct. 375, 36 L.Ed. 103. See also Halleck, Int. Law, 4th ed., II, 506 et seq.; Hackworth, Digest Int. Law III, 346; Moore, Digest Int. Law III, §§ 379, 380 (pre…
-
United States v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. (D. Utah 1924)…ect to the authority of the Attorney General to bring this suit. Defendants claim no such authority exists. In support of their contention counsel for defendants cite, among other authorities, the following: United States v. Repentigny, 5 Wall. 267, 18 L. Ed. 627; United States v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 177 U. S. 441, 20 S. Ct. 706, 44 L. Ed. 836; United States v. Tennessee & Coosa R. D. Co., 176 U. S. 242, 20 S. Ct. 370, 44 L. Ed. 452; Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 63, 22 L. Ed. 551; United States v.…