The jurisdiction of the French courts as to seizures is not
confined to seizures made within two leagues of the coast.
A seizure beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction for
breach of a municipal regulation is warranted by the law of
nations.
When the reversal is in favor of the defendant upon a bill of
exceptions, a new trial must be awarded by the court below.
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland in an
action of trover for coffee and logwood, the cargo of the brig
Sea Flower, which had been captured by the French for
trading to the revolted ports of the Island of Hispaniola contrary
to the ordinances of France and carried into the Spanish port of
Baracoa, but condemned by a French tribunal at Guadaloupe, and sold
for the benefit of the captors and purchased by the defendant
Guestier.
Upon the former trial of this case in the court below, a
statement of certain facts was agreed to by the counsel for the
parties and read in evidence to the jury, which then found a
verdict for the plaintiffs. One of the facts so admitted, and which
was then deemed wholly immaterial by both parties, was that the
Sea Flower was captured within one league of the coast of
the Island of Hispaniola. Upon this fact, which was the only fact
in which this case differed from that of
Rose v.
Himely, 8 U. S. 241, the
Supreme Court reversed the first judgment of the court below,
see ante, 8 U. S. 8 U.S. 293,
which had been for the plaintiffs, and remanded the cause for
further proceedings.
Upon the second trial in the court below, the verdict and
judgment were for the defendant.
Page 10 U. S. 282
The plaintiffs took a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the
court, who directed the jury
"That if it finds from the evidence produced that the brig
Sea Flower had traded with the insurgents at Port au
Prince in the Island of St. Domingo, and had there purchased a
cargo of coffee and logwood, and, having cleared at the said port
and coming from the same, was captured by a French privateer, duly
commissioned as such, within six leagues of the Island of St.
Heneague, a dependency of St. Domingo, for a breach of said
municipal regulations, that in such case the capture of the
Sea
Flower was legal, although such capture was made at the
distance of six leagues from the said Island of St. Domingo, or St.
Heneague, its dependency, and beyond the territorial limits or
jurisdiction of said island, and that the said capture, possession,
subsequent condemnation, and sale of the said
Sea Flower,
with her cargo, divested the said cargo out of the plaintiffs, and
the property therein became vested in the purchaser. "
Page 10 U. S. 283
LIVINGSTON, J.
In this case, when here before, I dissented from the opinion of
the Court because I did not think that the condemnation of a French
court at Guadaloupe of a vessel and cargo lying in the port of
Page 10 U. S. 284
another nation had changed the property; but this ground, which
was the only one taken by two of the judges in this case and by
three in that of
Himely v. Rose, and was principally and
almost solely relied on at bar, was overruled by a majority of the
Court, as will appear by examining those two cases, which were
decided the same day. I am not, therefore, in determining this
cause as it now comes up at liberty to proceed upon it, and such
must have been the opinion of Judge Chase on the trial of it, who
was one of the court who had proceeded on that principle.
Considering it, then, as settled that the French tribunal had
jurisdiction of property seized under a municipal regulation within
the territorial jurisdiction of the government of St. Domingo, it
only remains for me to say whether it will make any difference if,
as now appears to have been the case, the vessel were taken on the
high seas, or more than two leagues from the coast. If the
res can be proceeded against when not in the possession or
under the control of the court, I am not able to perceive how it
can be material whether the capture were made within or beyond the
jurisdictional limits of France or in the exercise of a belligerent
or municipal right. By a seizure on the high seas, she interfered
with the jurisdiction of no other nation, the authority of each
being there concurrent. It would seem also that if jurisdiction be
at all permitted where the thing is elsewhere, the court exercising
it must necessarily decide, and that ultimately, or subject only to
the review of a superior tribunal of its own state, whether, in the
particular case, she had jurisdiction if any objection be made to
it. And although it be now stated as a reason why we should examine
whether a jurisdiction was rightfully exercised over the
Sea
Flower that she was captured more than two leagues at sea, who
can say that this very allegation, if it had been essential, may
not have been urged before the French court, and the fact decided
in the negative? And if so, why should not its decision be as
conclusive on this as on any other point? The judge must have had a
right to dispose of every question which was made on behalf of the
owner of the property,
Page 10 U. S. 285
whether it related to his own jurisdiction or arose out of the
law of nations, or out of the French decrees, or in any other way,
and even if the reasons of his judgment should not appear
satisfactory, it would be no reason for a foreign court to review
his proceedings or not to consider his sentence as conclusive on
the property.
Believing, therefore, that this property was changed by its
condemnation at Guadaloupe, the original owner can have no right to
pursue it in the hands of any vendee under that sentence, and the
judgment below must therefore be
Affirmed.
The other judges (except THE CHIEF JUSTICE) concurred.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL observed, that he had supposed that
the former opinion delivered in these cases upon this point had
been concurred in by four judges. But in this he was mistaken.
The opinion was concurred in by one judge. He was still of
opinion that the construction then given was correct.
He understood the expression "
en sortant" in the
arrete as confining the case of vessels coming out, to
vessels taken in the act of coming out. If it included vessels
captured on the return voyage, he should concur in the opinion now
delivered.
However, the principle of that case
(Rose v. Himely) is
now overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
