The Venus, Jademerowsky
The Venus, Jademerowsky, Claimant
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. When this case was first brought to the view of this Court, it was accompanied by some others, in which Russian claimants presented themselves under circumstances which satisfied this Court, that their claims were false and fraudulent. On comparing those cases with this, there was such a striking similitude in their machinery, that it was impossible not to suspect that they were all fashioned upon the same model, and adapted to the same end. With the St. Nicholas a and the Fortuna,b full in view,„this Court ...
r t • , , could not adjudge the case of this vessel to be a case . ... oí restitution. Still, however, there was a possibility that those may have been the forged copies, and *131 this the genuine prototype. This Court, therefore, trusting that a Russian character of high standing could not have pledged himself for the fairness of the transaction, but without better evidence than was then presented to our view, gave the most liberal indulgence for procuring evidence to support the claim. We now express our satisfaction in having done so; inasmuch as it has enabled an honest man both to save his property, and vindicate his reputation. And we cannot omit this opportunity to remark, how much it becomes the interest, as well as principles of the fair neutral, to discountenance the conduct of him who indulges himself in fraudulent practices. The claimant in this case had nearly fallen a sacrifice to the bad faith of some of his countrymen; a great loss from it he must unavoidably incur: For, this is one of those cases in which, by the course of the admiralty, we shall be obliged to throw the costs and expenses upon the claimant, although we decree restitution. It is altogether upon the evidence of Jones, and the test-affidavit of the claimant, introducing and verifying their original correspondence, that restitution is now decreed. Unsupported, and unexplained by the evidence introduced as further proof, the condemnation was unavoidable. It is, therefore, the claimant’s misfortune, not that of the captors, that the agent Jones had furnished the vessel with the defective documents which accompanied her.
capior’s cost.» tTL^dby thecUmant- Decree reversed.
Decree. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Circuit. Court for the *132 district of Georgia, and on the farther proof exhibited *n cause5 ail>d was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is decreed and ordered, that the decree of the Circuit Court for the district of Georgia in this case, condemning the cargo of the ship Venus, be, and the same is, hereby reversed and annulled. And this Court, proceeding to pass such decree as the said Circuit Court should have passed, it is further decreed and ordered, that the said cargo of the ship Venus be restored to the claimant; and it is further decreed, that the said claimant pay to the libellants the costs and expenses incurred, in the pr«r secution of this suit,
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.