Summary
In Jackson, the Second Circuit concluded that because the petitioner "necessarily raised the entirety of his federal claim" when he raised his state due process claim in his appellate briefing.
Summary of this case from Wieland v. ThompsonOpinion
AUGUST TERM, 1796.
Reed, for the Plaintiff in error, contended that this was an original construction or out-fit of a vessel for the purpose of war; and that if it was tolerated as legal, it would be easy by collusion to subvert the neutrality of the United States, and involve the country in a war.
THE allegation in this case, as supported by the evidence, was, that the privateer, which took the British prize in question, had been built in New York, with the express view of being employed as a privateer, in case the then existing controversy between Great Britain and the United States should terminate in war; that some of her equipments were calculated for war, though they were also frequently used by merchant ships; — that the privateer was sent to Charleston, where she was sold to a French citizen; — that she was carried by him to a French island, where she was completely armed and equipped, and furnished with a commission; — and that she afterwards failed on a cruize, during which the prize was taken, and sent into Charleston.
THE COURT, however, without hearing the opposite Counsel, directed
The Decree to be affirmed.