Summary
In Del Col v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 333, a prize case decided in 1796, we affirmed a decree awarding the libellant interest from "the day of capture."
Summary of this case from Milwaukee v. Cement Div., National Gypsum Co.Opinion
AUGUST TERM, 1796.
On the evidence, it appeared, that the Grand Sachem, had been engaged in a smuggling trade at New Orleans, the Spanish Main, c. and for the purpose of carrying it on, she had procured a register in the name of a Spanish subject, and failed under Spanish colours. Besides other suspicious circumstances, she had on board, at the time of her capture, a variety of accounts describing her as Spanish property; and a trunk containing her papers (among which, it was alledged, there was a Spanish register) had been collusively delivered up to the owner, the Defendant in error, by one of the sailors. The money removed from her, and taken in the privateer by the British frigate, had been condemned in Jamaica.
The District Court pronounced a decree, in favor of the Libellant, for the sum of 33,329 dollars 87 cents (the full value of the Grand Sachem, and her cargo) with interest at 10 per cent. from the 8th of August, 1795, the day of capture; declared "that the proceeds of the ship Industry and her cargo, attached in this cause, be held answerable to that amount;" and directed, that the Defendant in error should enter into a stipulation to account to the Plaintiffs in error, for the money condemned as prize to the British frigate, or any part of it, that he might recover, as neutral property. This decree was affirmed, in the Circuit Court, and thereupon the present writ of error was instituted.
The case was considered in four points of view: — 1st. Whether there was sufficient probable cause for seizing and bringing the Grand Sachem into port for further examination, and adjudication? 2d. Whether, if there was such sufficient cause, the captors can, at all, be made liable for the consequent injury and loss? 3d. Whether if the immediate captors, who run the vessel into shoal water, and scutled her, are responsible, that responsibility can be devolved on the owners of the privateer, who had not authorised, or contributed to the misconduct? And 4th. Whether the Industry and her cargo could, before condemnation, be attached, and made liable in this suit, as the property of the captors?
The first and second points were argued, at the last Term, by Dallas and Reed (of South Carolina) for the Plaintiffs in error, and by Pringle (of South Carolina) for the Defendant: and the third and fourth points were argued at the present Term, by the same counsel for the Plaintiffs in error, and by Ingersoll and Lewis for the Defendant.
ALIBEL was filed in the District Court of South Carolina, by the Defendant in error, against Del Col, and others, the owners of a French privateer called La Montagne, and of the ship Industry and her cargo, a prize to the privateer, lying in the harbour of Charleston, which the Libellant had caused to be attached. The case appeared to be briefly this: — The privateer had captured, as prize, on the high seas, an American brig called the Grand Sachem, commanded by Ebenezer Baldwin, and owned by the Defendant in error. At the time of taking possession of the brig, a sum of 9993 dollars was removed from her into the privateer, a prize-master and several mariners were put on board of her, and they were directed to steer for Charleston. Just, however, as they hove in fight of the light-house, the Terpsichore, a British frigate, captured the privateer, and gave chace to the prize: whereupon the prize-master run her into shoal water, and there she was abandoned by all on board, except a sailor originally belonging to her crew, and a passenger. In a short time, she drove on shore, was scutled and plundered. When the Marshal came, with process against the brig, she was in the joint possession of the Custom-house Officers, and the privateer's men; the latter of whom prevented the execution of the process. The Industry and her cargo were then attached by the Libellant, and an agreement was entered into between the parties, that they should be sold, and the proceeds paid into court, to abide the issue of the suit.
THE COURT delivered, at different times, the following opinions:
On the first point, that there was a sufficient probable cause for seizing and bringing the Grand Sachem into port.
On the Second point, that the right of seizing and bringing in a vessel for further examination, does not authorise, or excuse, any spoliation, or damage, done to the property; but that the captors proceed at their peril, and are liable for all the consequent injury and loss.
On the third point, that the owners of the privateer are responsible for the conduct of their agents, the officers and crew, to all the world; and that the measure of such responsibility is the full value of the property injured, or destroyed.
CHASE, and IREDELL, Justices, agreed that the owners were responsible, but differed as to the extent, observing that the privateer's men were justifiable in abandoning, to save themselves from captivity; but that the revoval of the money into the privateer, and the subsequent scutling of the brig, were unlawful acts.
On the fourth point, that whatever might, originally, have been the irregularity in attaching the Industry and her cargo, it is compleatly obviated, since the captors had a power to sell the prize; and by their own agreement, they have consented that the proceeds of the sale should abide the issue of the present suit.
The decree of the Circuit Court affirmed.