TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Langdon Cheves: Lamb

The Langdon Cheves.—Lamb, Claimant

The Langdon Cheves: Lamb, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 103 (1819)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 16, 1819
Judges
Story
Citations
17 U.S. 1034 L. Ed. 5254 Wheat. 1031819 U.S. LEXIS 307
Headnotes
A question of' fact upon a seizure in port, as a droit of admiralty, for trading with the enemy, and using his license. The circumstance of the vessel having been sent into an enemy’s port, for adjudication, and afterwards permitted to resume her voyage, held to raise a vior lent presumption that she had a license, which the Claimant not having repelled by explanatory evidence, condemnation was pronounced.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Rhode-Island.

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

Opinion — Story

Mr. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the Court. This case differs in no essential respect, from, that of the Caledonian. The'brig sailed from the United States on a voyage to Lisbon, with a cargo of provisions, in May, 1813, and was captured by a British sloop of war, and sent into Bermuda, where she was either not proceeded against as prize, or was acquitted on trial; and after a detention of about six weeks, was permitted to resume her original voyage; and on the return, voyage from Lisbon, with a cargo of salt, was, on her arrival at Newport, on the 16th of December, 1813, seized by the collector of that port, as forfeited tp the United States jure belli, for using a British license, and trading with the enemy.

There is no positive proof, that the brig had a British license on board; but, we think, that under the. circumstances, there arises a violent presumption that she had such a license, and'that the burthen of proof to repel this presumption rests on the claimant. He has not attempted this in the slightest degree, there being a total absence of all evidence in his favour; and, therefore, as the case remains with all its original imperfections, the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed, with costs.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1819–1820: 11891–1892: 12023–2024: 218192026peak 2023 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Robinson v. Arizona, State ofNo. 3:23-cv-08050 (D. Ariz. Aug. 30, 2023)
  2. Palmer v. McCarthy2 Colo. App. 422 (1892)
  3. The Friendschaft: Moreira17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 105 (1819)
  4. (SS)Gutierrez v. Commissioner of Social SecurityNo. 1:22-cv-01112 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2023)

Most recent

  1. (SS)Gutierrez v. Commissioner of Social SecurityNo. 1:22-cv-01112 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2023)
  2. Robinson v. Arizona, State ofNo. 3:23-cv-08050 (D. Ariz. Aug. 30, 2023)
  3. Palmer v. McCarthy2 Colo. App. 422 (1892)
  4. The Friendschaft: Moreira17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 105 (1819)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
The Joseph, Sargent, Master, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 451 (1814) 12

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