Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/72/377/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:22:51+00:00

Document:
1. Personal property left in a hostile country by an owner who abandons such country in order to go to the other belligerent, and so to return to his proper allegiance and soil, becomes, unless an effort is made with promptitude to remove it from such country, impressed with its character, and as such liable to the consequences attaching to enemy's property.
2. The presumption of the law of nations is against an owner who suffers such property to continue in the hostile country for much length of time.
3. The effect of war is to dissolve a partnership subsisting between citizens of nations at war, and if the person abandoning the hostile country have had his property in partnership with citizens of the enemy country, it is his duty to dispose of and withdraw his interest in the firm. If he do not, such interest is subject to the rule above stated with regard to individual property.
4. Ships in time of war are bound by the character impressed upon them by the government from which their documents issue and under whose flag and pass they sail. The share of a citizen in a ship sailing under an enemy's flag and papers, and who has had ample time and every facility to withdraw his effects from the enemy country or dispose of such interests as could not be removed, but who has not attempted so to withdraw or dispose of them, is accordingly subject to capture and condemnation equally with the shares of enemies in the same ship. And where the cargo and ship are owned by the same person, the cargo follows the fate of the ship.
5. During the late rebellion, a loyal citizen domiciled at the time it broke out in one of the rebellious states and trading there as a member of a commercial firm abandoned it and removed to a loyal state. He never in any way aided or abetted the rebellion, but there was no evidence that he ever attempted or desired to withdraw his property from the rebellious region. In a year, more or less, after the rebellion broke out, the rebel authorities professed by one of their decrees to confiscate his interest in the firm, and the partners resident in the rebellious states -- he having no connection with or knowledge of their action -- loaded a ship which he alleged belonged to his firm when be left it and which, in attempting, under papers, flag, officers, and crew of the Confederate States, to run the blockade established by the United States, two years before, of the Southern coast, was captured by a federal cruiser.
that the alleged confiscation was no excuse for his not having previously made an effort to withdraw or dispose of his interest in the firm, and that neither his loyal domicil during the rebellion nor, under the circumstances, the confiscation, nor his want of connection with or knowledge of the enterprise, nor all combined, defeated the right of the captors.
6. In proceedings in prize, parties who were not in any way parties to the litigation in the district court and are neither appellants nor appellees cannot come into this Court and be heard as "intervenors."
The steamer William Bagaley -- with a register issued at Mobile, June 16, 1863, under the authority of the "Confederate States" and reciting a previous enrollment in 1857 and a present ownership -- "property having changed" -- by Waring and others ("citizens of the Confederate States" and "trustees of association of stockholders)," with a master appointed by these trustees, and bearing the Confederate flag -- sailed from Mobile, July 17, 1863, during the blockade of that port proclaimed April 19, 1861, by the United States, for Havana. Her cargo was of cotton, turpentine &c. No papers were on board, for "fear of being captured." The "cotton was shipped for the benefit of the owners in Mobile." All the officers and crew were, with one exception, "citizens of the Confederate States." The master had instructions to escape the blockading vessels, but not to resist.
Being perceived by the blockading squadron, she was pursued and, after a brisk chase, captured. Being brought into New Orleans and libeled for condemnation, a claim for one-sixth of the vessel and cargo was interposed by Joshua Bragdon, and of this sixth he prayed restitution.
he had never in any way transferred. That he was and always had been a true and loyal citizen of the United States, and that he had never in any way aided or abetted the rebellion, and after the breaking out of the same had never exercised any act of ownership or control over the property or the captured steamer, and that he had no connection with or knowledge of the unlawful voyage of the steamer which occasioned her capture. That in consequence of his loyalty, the so-called Confederate government seized all his interest and property in said firm of Cox, Brainerd & Co., and by a decree and process of one of her pretended courts, "at some time during the year 1862 -- the exact date not known" -- confiscated the same. That all such acts and proceedings of the insurrectionary government were void, and that the title of the claimant to his property remains unimpaired.
On the trial, these facts were admitted of record by the District Attorney as true. The court dismissed the claim with costs and condemned both vessel and cargo.
No other claim having been interposed in the proceedings in the lower court for any portion of the captured property or its proceeds, the only question presented by the appeal was the legal sufficiency and merit of the claim of Bragdon for his one-sixth.
After the case came into this Court by appeal, however, the owners of the remaining five-sixths filed a petition asking to intervene for their interests. Their excuse for not appearing or putting in any claim in the district court, it may be here stated, was that they were residents of a state hostile to the United States, and had therefore no standing in that court; that this disability continued till after the case was removed into this Court by appeal. And they set up as reason for the restitution of their shares to them that since the appeal they had received from the President "a full pardon and amnesty for all offenses by them committed arising from participation, direct or implied, in the said rebellion."
1. That the petitioner was and for many years had been a citizen of the State of Indiana; that at the breaking out of the rebellion, he was a member of the firm of Cox, Brainard & Co., at Mobile, Alabama; that the partners of the firm, as such, were the sole owners of the steamer and cargo, and that he had never parted with his share or in any way transferred his interest in the partnership.
2. That the steamer, after the rebellion broke out to the time of the capture, was continually in the waters of the rebellious states, and under the control and management of those engaged in the rebellion, which rendered it impracticable and unlawful for him to proceed to the place where the steamer was or to exercise any control over the steamer or any part of the partnership property.
3. That he was and always had been a true and loyal citizen, that he had never given any aid, encouragement or assistance to the rebellion, and that he had no connection with or knowledge of the unlawful voyage of the steamer on account of which she was condemned as lawful prize.
4. That some court of the Confederate States, so called, at some time in the year 1862 had condemned and confiscated his interest in the partnership, but he averred that the decree was wholly nugatory and void, and that his interest in the steamer and cargo had never been extinguished or destroyed.
Basing his claim upon these allegations of fact, he prayed that he might be paid out of the proceeds of the sale one-sixth of the amount required to be paid into the registry of the court.
owner of one-sixth part of the steamer and cargo, is entitled to one-sixth of the proceeds of the sale.
1. Captors contend that the steamer and cargo were both rightfully condemned as enemy property and also for breach of blockade. Appellant denies the entire proposition as respects his interest in the captured property, and insists that the one-sixth of the same belonging to him cannot properly be condemned on either ground, because he was never domiciled in the rebellious states and because he never employed the property, either actually or constructively, in any illegal trade with the enemy or in any attempt to break the blockade.
Projected voyage of the steamer was from Mobile to Havana, and the master testified that she sailed under the Confederate flag. Proofs show that she left her anchorage in the night time, and that she was captured, as alleged in the libel, after a brisk chase by several of our blockading squadron more than two hundred miles from the port of departure. When captured, she had on board a permanent register, issued at Mobile under Confederate authority, and which described her owners as trustees of a certain association and citizens of the Confederate States.
blockade. Such an admission was hardly necessary to establish the charge, as every fact and circumstance in the case tended to the same conclusion. Five-sixths of the steamer and cargo were confessedly enemy property, and the whole adventure was projected and prosecuted for the benefit of resident enemy owners. None of these facts is controverted by the appellant, but he insists that inasmuch as he was domiciled in a loyal state and had no connection with the adventure or the voyage, his interest cannot properly be held liable to capture.
be so declared to be in insurrection, if found at sea or in the port of any loyal state, may be forfeited. Reference is made to those provisions, as showing that our citizens were duly notified that Congress as well as the President had recognized the undeniable fact that civil war existed between the constitutional government and the Confederate States; and that seasonable notice was given to all whose interests could be affected, and that ample opportunity and every facility were extended to them, which could properly be granted, to enable them to withdraw their effects from the states in rebellion, or to dispose of such interests as in the nature of things could not be removed.
"that there is in such cases an utter incompatibility created by operation of law between the partners as to their respective rights, duties, and obligations, both public and private, and therefore that a dissolution must necessarily result therefrom independent of the will or acts of the parties. [Footnote 8]"
of blockade was issued before any such pretended confiscation took place. Members of a commercial firm domiciled in the enemy country, whether citizens or neutrals, after having been guilty of such delay in disposing of their interests or in withdrawing their effects, cannot, when the property so domiciled and so suffered to remain, is captured as prize of war, turn round and defeat the rights of the captors by proving that their own domicile was that of a friend, or that they had no connection with the illegal voyage.
Property suffered so to remain has impressed upon it the character of enemy property, and may be condemned as such or for breach of blockade. Prize courts usually apply these rules where the partnership effects of citizens or neutrals is suffered to remain in the enemy country, under the control and management of the other partners who are enemies. But there are other rules applicable to ships owned under such circumstances which must not be overlooked in this case.
6. Decision of Lord Stowell, in the case of The Mercurius, [Footnote 19] was that violation of blockade by the master affects the ship, but not the cargo, unless it is the property of the same owner, or unless the owner of the cargo was cognizant of the intended violation.
Latest reported decision in that country is that of Baltazzi v. Ryder, [Footnote 21] which was heard on appeal before the Privy Council, and the determination, both in the admiralty court and in the appellate court, was that where the cargo belonged to the same owners as the ship, the owners of the cargo as well as the ship were in general concluded by the illegal act of the master.
Giving full effect to the admissions in this case, the appellant shows no just ground for the reversal of the decree made by the district court.
Evidently the application in this case is in its nature original, and not appellate, and it is well settled that this Court has no original jurisdiction in prize causes. [Footnote 24] Such an application cannot be first presented in this Court and allowed, because it would be assuming jurisdiction not granted either by the Constitution or the laws of Congress.
Decree of the district court affirmed.
Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 498.
The Hoop, 1 Robinson 196; Maclachlan on Shipping 473; The Rapid, 8 Cranch 155; Potts v. Bell, 8 Term 561; Wheaton's International Law by Lawrence 547.
Helme v. Smith, 7 Bingham 709.
Smith's Mercantile Law, 6th ed. 197.
Maude & Pollock on Shipping 67, 72.
§ 3 Kent's Com., 11th ed. 154; Wright v. Hunter, 1 East 20; Lamb v. Durant, 12 Mass. 54.
12 Stat. at Large 1258, 257.
Maclachlan on Shipping 475; Story on Partnership, sec. 316; Griswold v. Waddington, 15 Johnson 57; Same Case, 16 id. 438.
Exposito v. Bowden, 7 Ellis & Blackburne 763.
The Vigilantia, 1 C. Robinson 1; The Venus, 8 Cranch 288; 3 Phillimore's International Law 128.
Maclachlan on Shipping 480; The Ocean, 5 Robinson 91; The Venus, 8 Cranch 278.
Wheaton's International Law by Lawrence, p. 580.
1 Stat. at Large 489. Maude & Pollock on Shipping 95.
Story on Prize 61; The Elizabeth, 5 C. Robinson 3; The Fortuna, 1 Dodson 87; The Success, id., 132.
1 Kent's Com., 11th ed. 91.
33 Eng.Law & Eq. 572.
The Primus, 29 Eng.Law & Eq. 589.
The Alexander, 4 C. Robinson 94; The Adonis, 5 id. 259; The Exchange, 1 Edwards' Adm. 39; The James Cook, ibid., 261.
12 Moore's Privy Council 183.
Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. 484; Canter v. Am. Ins. Co., 3 Pet. 318; Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Pet. 4; Airey v. Merrill, 2 Curtis' C.C. 8; Allen v. Hitch, 2 id. 147; Buckingham v. McLean, 13 How. 150.
Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch 28; The Collector, 6 Wheat. 194.
The Harrison, 1 Wheat. 298; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 173.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

§ 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.