Case ID: scl_1/html/0020-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pendleton, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Turnbull against Ross.
    Captures made on and by unauthorised manuals, from an enemy, does nut divest the original owner of the right of property, unless there has been some kind of condemnation or distribution made by some competent authority. Vic/e case of Jenkins v. Putnam ante, p. 8.
    This was an action of trover, brought to recover a negro wench, Nancy. This cause was tried before Justice J PENDLETON, at Camden.
    
    
      During the war, it seems, some of Dr. Turnbull’s negroes ran off, or were taken by a plundering party, from a settlement of his, called Smyrnea, in East-Florida, and carried into Georgia. The wench in question (with one or two others) was afterwards brought into this state, and she came fairly and honestly into the possession of the defendant, by purchase. The plaintiff, in the mean time, removed from East-Florida into this state, and became an American citizen.
    On the part of the defendant it was urged, that the plaintiff being, at the time these negroes were taken from him, a Biitish subject, residing in the dominions of his Britannic majesty, it was lawful for the citizens of America, to go into the enemy’s country, and make captures. And if lawful to make captures, to bring them into the limits of the United States, and to dispose of them for the use of the captors. That a subsequent sale of such property, to bona fide purchasers, for a valuable consideration, was such a divestment of the original owner’s right, as to bar the present action.
    To this the plaintiff’s counsel answered, that the elopement, or plundering of the negroes, by unauthorised individuals, though in time of war, did not deprive the original owner of his property; and relied in support of this position on Fuff’, b. 2. c. 6. s. 14. p. 180. That if the United States, or any individual state, had given commissions, (as in cases of privateers, &c.) and there had been a sentence of condemnation, there might have been weight, in the objection. But nothing of the kind was alleged, not even a shadow of an authority given. The taking was by renegado individuals, who went not to annoy an enemy, or to bring resources into the country to enable it to carry cn the war, but to enrich themselves. A species of private warfare and rapine, discouraged by all enlightened nations. In further confirmation of this doctrine, several cases were relied on. In Doug. 595. Lord Mansfield lays it down, that no property vests in any goods taken at sea or land., by a ship or her crezv} till condemnation as a lawful prize. Se in 2 Burr. 694. the property is never changed, so as to bar the original ozvner, in favour of a vendee, till there has been a sentence of condemnation. Therefore, the court of admiralty decreed restitution of a ship retaken by a privateer, after she had been fourteen weeks in possession of an enemy, because she had not been condemned.
    In the case, likewise, of-- v. Sands, a ship was taken. in 1691, off Yarmouth, carried into North-Bergen, and then sold to A. A. sold to B. B. sold again, and she was sent to the East-Indies; then to Francefrom France to England, five years after her capture. She was then claimed by the original owner, and recovered ; because there had been no condemnation.^ Lu. Cas. in 10 Mod. 79. The case of Sir George Rodney, (Doug. 392.) at St. Eustatia, where the principal part of the captures was made on land, was next relied on. tie was an admiral entrusted with the command of a fleet, when he took that island; and general Yaugh&n, who was with him, commanded the land forces : and although they took upon them to fleece the unfortunate Jezvs of all the money and valuable effects they had, as well as others who traded to that island, and gave orders for the sale of the whole of their property ; yet all Europe was exasperated at this conduct. It was considered as a most wanton abuse of power, a violation of the laws of nations, and nothing less than downright robbery and plunder. The court of admiralty in England was impressed with the same idea, for it gave no sanction to so unwarrantable a proceeding ; and restitution was decreed as fai-ns it was possible to identify the property of the sufferers.
    Another ground taken on behalf of the plaintiff, was, that admitting, for the sake of further argument, the property ivas lawfully taken, and that it became a forfeiture by being-brought within the limits of the United States ; that in such a case, it was not a forfeiture to the individuals capturing, but to the state of which they are citizens. That, therefore, in the present instance, as the state had admitted the plaintiff to the right of citizenship, and he had found his property unappropriated by the state, he became entitled to it; as much so, as any other citizen in the state, was to any property he possessed. That the act for the admission to citizenship or naturalization, had a retrospective energy, and made him a citizen to all intents and purposes, as effectually as if he had been born one; and consequently, if it had such a retrospective energy, it secured every right to him. Even children born before, shall inherit as if bom after such act.
    
      
       See the case determined July, 1786, in England) since the trial of this cause, of governor Johnstone and general Jtleadows, -who ma.de the captures on land, near the Cape of Good Hope ; where it was determined that they belonged to the croan, winch hada right to distribute them as it thought proper.
    
    
      
      
        Co. Litt 129
      
    
   Pendleton, J.

charged the jury in favour of the plaintiff ; and mentioned, that neither the laws of this state, the United States, or the laws of nations, authorised individuals to seize and plunder private property, though at the time within the territory of the enemy. That even in cases of captures made at sea, by ships or other vessels legally commissioned, a condemnation by a court of admiralty, of competent jurisdiction, was essentially necessary, before the original owner could be legally divested of his property. The plaintiff moreover, by becoming an American citizen, and so soon after the revolution, had every privilege secured to him, as much so, as if he had been born in the country. And certainly was entitled to his property wherever he found it.

The jury found for the plaintiff to the amount of the’ value of the wench and children.