TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Harrison

The Harrison.— Herbert, Claimant

The Harrison, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 298 (1816)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 18, 1816
Judges
Story
Citations
14 U.S. 2984 L. Ed. 951 Wheat. 2981816 U.S. LEXIS 331
Headnotes
U' the national character of property, captured and brought in foi adjudicatioj., appears ambiguous qr neutral, and no claim is interposed, the cause is postponed for a. year and a day after the prize proceedings are’ commenced; and if no claimant appears within that time, the property is condemned to the captors. In prize causes this court has an appellate jurisdiction only, and » claim cannot for the first time be interposed here ;' but where the ■ court below bad proceeded to adjudication before the above period bad elapsed, the cause was remanded to that court, with directions to allow a- claim to be filed therein; and the. libel to', be amend-' ¿d, &c.
Summary
, Appeal from the circuit court for the district of Maryland. The libel filed by the captors, in thi§ base, in the district court, alleged, that the goods for which condemnation was slight* were captured and taken put of a Spanish vessel. No claim was filed for the goods in either -.of the courts below. But, upon'the hearing, the district court dismissed the libel, upon the ground, that the property, to whomsoever belonging, was protected by the 15th article ®f the treaty of 1795 with Spain, by. which» free ships make free goods; and this decree was affirm- • ® # # # , ■ • * cd» upon the same principle, in the circuit court. The captors brought the cause, by appeal, to this éourt; and a motion was made by Winder, in behalf of Elry Herbert, aii asserted claimant, to be admitted to file, a claim in this court. .

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Story

Story, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

We have considered this question with a view to the general rules of practice. Whenever a prize is brought to adjudication in the admiralty, if, upon the hearing of the cause upon the ship’s papers, and the evidence taken in preparatory, the property appears to belong to enemies, it is immediately condemned.

If its national character appear doubtful, or even neutral, and no claim is interposed, the court do not proceed to a final decree, but the cause is postponed, with'a view to enable any person, having title, to assert it, within a reasonable time, before the court. This reasonable time has been, by the general usage of nations, fixed to a year and a day after the institution of the prize proceedings ; and if no claim be interposed within that period, the property is deemed V* be abandoned, and is condemned to the captors for contumacy and default of the supposed owner. In the . present case the prescribed period had not elapsed at the time when the district court proceeded to decree a dismissal of the libél. A claim cannot, by the practice of this court, be for the first time interposed here, in prize causes this court can exercise only an appellate jurisdiction,-and between *300 parties who have litigated in the court below. We are all, therefore, of opinion that this cause ought to be remanded to the circuit court, with directions to allow the claim to be filed in that court; and, also, to allow the libel to be amended so as to conform to the general allegation of prize, and enable the captors to obtain condemnation of the property,, if the asserted claim shall not be sustained, and the property shall not appear entitled to the protection of the Spanish treaty.

Case remanded.

a a Vide Appendix, note II,

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1831–1832: 11839–1840: 11847–1848: 11857–1858: 11865–1866: 11867–1868: 11899–1900: 12019–2020: 218312026peak 2019 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. The William Bagaley72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 377 (1867)
  2. The Carlos F. Roses177 U.S. 655 (1900)
  3. Ferris v. Coover11 Cal. 175 (1858) · Dissent
  4. Bell v. Hagerstown Bank7 Gill 216 (1848)
  5. The William Bagaley5 U.S. 377 (1866)
  6. Flack v. Green3 G. & J. 474 (1831)

Most recent

  1. (HC) Blakesley v. FisherNo. 2:20-cv-00567 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020)
  2. Burton v. BurtonNo. 2:14-cv-11760 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2020)
  3. The Carlos F. Roses177 U.S. 655 (1900)
  4. The William Bagaley72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 377 (1867)
  5. The William Bagaley5 U.S. 377 (1866)
  6. Ferris v. Coover11 Cal. 175 (1858) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list