TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Battle

The Battle, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 498 (1868)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 18, 1868
Judges
Nelson
Citations
73 U.S. 49818 L. Ed. 9336 Wall. 4981867 U.S. LEXIS 997
Syllabus
Capture as prize of war, jure belli, overrides all previous liens.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida. The libel set forth a seizure of the steamer Battle and cargo on the 18th July, 1863, on the high seas, as prize of war, which were brought into the port and harbor of Key West. She was captured about fifty miles south-southeast from Mobile Point by the United States steamer De Soto, Walker commanding. No claim of ownership for vessel or cargo was presented to the coui’t. The vessel had just run, or was in the act of running, the blockade of Mobile when Bhe was captured. The vessel and cargo were sold pending the suit. The proceeds of the sale of the vessel were $23,000, and of the cargo, $240,895.62. The vessel and cargo were condemned for breach of blockade, and also as enemy property. There were two claims set up against the steamer in the court below, one by James Brooks, of New Albany, State of Indiana, for supplies furnished at that port in May, 1860, to the amount of $3408.32, and another by Daniel Hippie and others for materials furnished, and for work and labor in building a cabin on said boat, in January, 1860, to the amount of $7230.92, at the port of New Albany aforesaid; that after deducting all payments a balance remains due of $3615.45. These claims were dismissed by the court below.

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

Opinion — Nelson

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

The principle is too well settled that capture as prize of war, jure belli, overrides all previous liens, to require examination.

* Decree affirmed.

* The Hampton, 5 Wallace, 372; The Frances, 8 Cranch, 418 .

How later courts describe this case

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

1900: 11919: 11921: 11928: 11947: 119002026peak 1900 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. The Carlos F. Roses177 U.S. 655 (1900)
  2. United States v. One Saxon Automobile257 F. 251 (4th Cir. 1919)
  3. The Thomaston26 F.2d 279 (D. Maryland 1928)
  4. One 1941 Oldsmobile Sedan v. United States161 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1947)
  5. The Nyanza276 F. 415 (E.D.N.Y. 1921)

Most recent

  1. One 1941 Oldsmobile Sedan v. United States161 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1947)
  2. The Thomaston26 F.2d 279 (D. Maryland 1928)
  3. The Nyanza276 F. 415 (E.D.N.Y. 1921)
  4. United States v. One Saxon Automobile257 F. 251 (4th Cir. 1919)
  5. The Carlos F. Roses177 U.S. 655 (1900)

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 Frances, Boyer, Master: Irvin’s Claim, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 418 (1814) 11

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