THE MERRITT
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 upheld the forfeiture of the merchant vessel Merritt under the Tariff Act of 1817, which prohibited the importation of foreign goods except in vessels of the United States or in foreign vessels wholly owned by citizens of the country producing the cargo. The Court held that the Merritt, a foreign-built vessel owned by American citizens carrying Canadian iron and lumber, violated the statute because it was neither a registered U.S. vessel nor a foreign vessel owned by British subjects, and lacked proper documentation of British nationality to qualify for the statutory exemption. The Court established that a vessel's nationality is determined solely by official documentation, not by place of construction or ownership.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opiniQn of the court.
The first section of the act of 1817 prohibits the importation of any goods or wares from any foreign port into the United States, except in two cases;
1st. They-may be imported in vessels of the United States; or,
2d. In such'foreign vessels as truly and wholly belong to the citizens or subjects of the country of which the goods -are the production, or from which they are most usually first shipped for transportation.
. The claimant’s answer does not bring him within either of these classes.
1. The Merritt is not a vessel of the United States. The information alleged — it was not denied — and that is all that the ease contains upon the subject, — that the Merritt was the property of citizens of the United States, and that she was a foreign-built vessel. That she was owned by citizens of the United States did not make her a vessel of the United States. By the statute of 1792 only ships which have been registered in the manner therein prescribed shall be denominated or deemed vessels of the United States, entitled to the benefits or privileges appertaining to such ships. There is no allegation that the Merritt had been so registered. Indeed, she could not have been under the provisions of the act last referred to.
2. The cargo of the Merritt was iron and lumber, the production of the British provinces of Canada, while her owners were citizens of the United States. She did not, therefore, come within the second description of the statute of 1817, as.a foreign vessel truly and wholly belonging to citizens of the country of which the cargo was the growth or production. On the contrary, it is conceded by the pleadings that her owners were American citizens. The Merritt, therefore, falls within 'the prohibition of the act, and is liable to forfeiture. She was neither a vessel of the United States nor a foreign vessel, wholly belonging to citizens of the country of. which her cargo was the production.
But the claimant seeks the benefit of the proviso of the act, viz.’: “ That this regulation shall not extend to the vessels of any foreign nation which has not adopted, and shall not adopt,-a similar regulation.” He-alleges that neither the kingdom of Great Britain nor the province of Canada has adopted similar regulations.
The case does not show that the Merritt has any of the evidences of being a British ship. She produces no register, or certificate, or document of any kind to entitle her to make that claim. The fact that she is foreign-built does not prove it. Proof even that she was built in Great Britain would not establish it. Pirates and rovers may issue from the most peaceful and most friendly ports. The documents a vessel carries furnish the only evidence of her nationality.* Of these the Merritt is entirely destitute, so far as the case shows. IT'hcre is nothing, therefore, to bring her within the terms of the proviso.
Decree affirmed.
*
See 1 Parsons on Shipping and Admiralty, 26, 27.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Conqueror, 166 U.S. 110 (U.S. 1897)…oasting trade or the fisheries, they must be entitled either to registry, or to enrolment and license, a privilege, as above stated, not granted to foreign built vessels though owned by American citizens. Rev. Stat. §§ 2497, 4131, 4311; The Merritt, 17 Wall. 582. The privilege, then, of owning foreign built vessels, and of navigating them under the protection of the American flag, is practically confined to vessels used for the purposes of pleasure, which is probably the reason why the question presented i…
-
In re Penglase Sand & Gravel Co. Bowman v. Andres, 76 F.2d 593 (7th Cir. 1935)…was not, obligatory is a question which is not now before us. The Wolverine did not become a vessel of the United States until it was, in fact, enrolled, though built and owned by citizens of the United States. The Merritt, 17 Wall. (84 U. S.) 582, 21 L. Ed. 682; The Alta (C. C. A.) 136 F. 513. The proof offered on the question of enrollment of the Wolverine is not as clear as might be desired. The vessel was enrolled on September 23, 1932, a month after the Penglase Sand & Gravel Company had been adjudged…
-
Gerradin v. United Fruit Co. (E.D.N.Y. 1931)…ths before by the bill of sale, and her domicile followed that of her owner. The certification did not make her a ‘vessel of the United States/ nor give her the general rights or privileges of vessels of the United States. The Merritt, 17 Wall. 582 [21 L. Ed. 682]. She could not enter into the foreign trade, nor into the internal or coastwise trade of the country. Sections 2497, 4131, 4311. The only use of the certification was to serve as ‘proof of American ownership/ for her convenience in navigation as a…1 / 2