Case Name: THE SCHOONER "SEA FLOWER." NATHAN MATTHEWS, Jr., ADMINISTRATOR OF DANIEL SARGENT, v. THE UNITED STATES; DANIEL W. WALDRON, ADMINISTRATOR OF JACOB SHEAFE, v. THE UNITED STATES; FRANCIS W. BOUTWELL, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN McLEAN v. THE UNITED STATES; CHARLES T. LOVERING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH TAYLOR, v. THE UNITED STATES; JAMES C. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF CORNELIUS DURANT, v. THE UNITED STATES; GEORGE G. KING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES SCOTT, v. THE UNITED STATES; WILLIAM G. PERRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF NICHOLAS GILMAN, v. THE UNITED STATES; FRANK DABNEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL W. POMEROY, v. THE UNITED STATES; CHARLES T. LOVERING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH TAYLOR, v. THE UNITED STATES; AUGUSTUS P. LORING, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM H. BORDMAN, v. THE UNITED STATES; DAVID G. HASKINS, ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVID GREENE, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1914-01-05
Citations: 49 Ct. Cl. 211
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE SCHOONER “SEA FLOWER.” NATHAN MATTHEWS, Jr., ADMINISTRATOR OF DANIEL SARGENT, v. THE UNITED STATES. DANIEL W. WALDRON, ADMINISTRATOR OF JACOB SHEAFE, v. THE UNITED STATES. FRANCIS W. BOUTWELL, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN McLEAN v. THE UNITED STATES. CHARLES T. LOVERING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH TAYLOR, v. THE UNITED STATES. JAMES C. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF CORNELIUS DURANT, v. THE UNITED STATES. GEORGE G. KING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES SCOTT, v. THE UNITED STATES. WILLIAM G. PERRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF NICHOLAS GILMAN, v. THE UNITED STATES. FRANK DABNEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL W. POMEROY, v. THE UNITED STATES. CHARLES T. LOVERING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH TAYLOR, v. THE UNITED STATES. AUGUSTUS P. LORING, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM H. BORDMAN, v. THE UNITED STATES. DAVID G. HASKINS, ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVID GREENE, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 211–216

Head Matter:
THE SCHOONER “SEA FLOWER.” NATHAN MATTHEWS, Jr., ADMINISTRATOR OF DANIEL SARGENT, v. THE UNITED STATES. DANIEL W. WALDRON, ADMINISTRATOR OF JACOB SHEAFE, v. THE UNITED STATES. FRANCIS W. BOUTWELL, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN McLEAN v. THE UNITED STATES. CHARLES T. LOVERING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH TAYLOR, v. THE UNITED STATES. JAMES C. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF CORNELIUS DURANT, v. THE UNITED STATES. GEORGE G. KING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES SCOTT, v. THE UNITED STATES. WILLIAM G. PERRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF NICHOLAS GILMAN, v. THE UNITED STATES. FRANK DABNEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL W. POMEROY, v. THE UNITED STATES. CHARLES T. LOVERING, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH TAYLOR, v. THE UNITED STATES. AUGUSTUS P. LORING, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM H. BORDMAN, v. THE UNITED STATES. DAVID G. HASKINS, ADMINISTRATOR OF DAVID GREENE, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[French spoliations 3054, 3652, 3653.
Decided January 5, 1914.]
On the Proofs.
The schooner Sea Flower was a duly registered vessel oi the United States and sailed on a commercial voyage from Boston bound for St. Croix, mile on this voyage she was seized on December 20, 1799, by a French privateer, and on January 1, 1800, condemned. The insurance effected was later paid by the insurers.
I.The condemnation of the cargo, bang after the abrogation of the treaty of 1778, with France, and it not appearing that the vessel earned any documents to establish ownership and neutrality of the cargo, or that proof thereof was offered at the prize proceedings, was not illegal.
II.In the absence of proof it will be assumed that all documents and papers carried by the ship were kept as a final record and not destroyed.
III.The United States as the defending nation has the right t» rely upon the facts of the case and thereby justify the condemnation. This is so even where on the face of the decree the ground of condemnation appears to be illegal.
IV. Where there is nothing showing, or tending to show, the presence of the necessary papers to establish neutrality, the only alternative is to find that the fault lay with the master and owners of the vessel in not carrying the papers necessary for their protection.
The Reporter’s statement of tbe case:
Tbe following are tbe facts of tbe case as found by tbe court:
I. Tbe schooner Sea Flower, whereof Luke Baker was then master, sailed from Boston December 1, 1799, on a commercial voyage bound for St. Croix. '
While peaceably pursuing said voyage she was seized on tbe high seas, December 20, 1799, by tbe French privateer L’Aimable Jeannette, Capt. Gautier. On January 1,1800, tbe vessel was condemned by tbe tribunal of commerce and prizes at Basse Terre, Guadeloupe, tbe grounds of condemnation being as follows:
That tbe sea letter was not certified by a maritime official.
That tbe master bad no róle d’équipage.
It is not shown that tbe vessel carried any documents to estabbsb tbe neutrabty of her cargo or that proof thereof was offered to tbe French court.
II. Tbe Sea Flower was a duly registered vessel of tbe United States, a schooner of 85 59/95 tons burden built at Plantation No. 2, east of Penobscot, in tbe State of Massachusetts, in 1796, and was owned by Thomas Godfrey and Luke Baker, three-quarters and one-quarter, respectively, both owners being citizens of tbe United States.
III. Tbe cargo of tbe Sea Flower at tbe time of her capture consisted of lumber, fish, beef, flour, pork, corn, lard, and onions, but it does not appear by competent evidence who were tbe owners thereof.
IV. November 27, 1799, Luke Baker effected through tbe office of Joseph T aylor insurance in tbe sums of $500 on tbe vessel and $500 on tbe cargo, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent, tbe policy being underwritten by tbe following persons, citizens of tbe United States, each in tbe sum set opposite bis name, to wit:
William H. Bordman..■.$400
David Greene. 600
Thereafter Joseph Taylor, as agent, paid the insured $1,000, in full for a total loss as aforesaid, the loss to each of the two underwriters being the sum underwritten on said policy.
December 3, 1799, Thomas Godfrey effected through the office of Joseph Taylor insurance in the sums of $2,250 on the vessel and $2,250 on the cargo, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent, the policy being underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum written opposite his name, to wit:
Cornelius Durant. $1, 000
Samuel W. Pomeroy. 1,000
John McLean. 500
Daniel Sargent. 500
James Scott. 500
Jacob Sheafe. 500
Nicholas Gilman. 500
Thereafter Joseph Taylor, as agent, paid the insured the sum of $4,500 for a total loss as aforesaid, the loss to each underwriter being the sum underwritten on said policy.
The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Sea Flower, as set forth in the preceding findings.
Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of Apri1, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831.
The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned.
CONCLUSIONS OF LA*W.
The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation of the vessel were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States, being the respective amounts underwritten on the vessel as aforesaid, to wit:
Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, two hundred and fifty dollars ($250).
Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, two hundred and fifty dollars ($250).
Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, two hundred and fifty dollars ($250).
James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, five hundred dollars ($500).
George G. King, administrator of James Scott, two hundred and fifty dollars ($250).
William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, two hundred and fifty dollars ($250).
Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, five hundred dollars ($500).
Augustus P. Loring, administrator of William H. Bord-man, two hundred dollars ($200).
David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, three hundred dollars ($300).
Amounting in all to the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($2,750).
No persons claiming to represent Thomas Godfrey or Luke Baker have appeared herein.
The estate of Joseph Taylor has proved no valid claim.
As to the cargo, the court decides that the condemnation thereof was not illegal, the same having been after the abrogation of the treaty of 1778 with France, and it not appear ing that the vessel carried any documents to establish the ownership and neutrality of the cargo, or that proof thereof was offered at the prize proceedings.
Mr. T. J. Pickett and Mr. W. T. S. Curtis for the plaintiffs. Mr. Ceorge G. King is on the briefs.
Mr. John TF. Trainer, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Huston Thompson, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Howry, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
These' are underwriters' claims, the owners of both vessel and cargo not being represented in court. The court finds the facts sufficient to draw the necessary conclusion that the condemnation of the vessel was illegal and that an award must be made for the insurance paid thereon.
As to the cargo there is controversy. Claimants contend that the recitals of the deci'ee show that there was an analysis of the ship's papers, and that the grounds assigned for the sale of the cargo on the papers as analyzed were not good and sufficient to justify the conclusions of the decree of the prize tribunal condemning the cargo.
According to the language of the decree all documents aboard the ship were placed with the records. These records do not show any documentation of the cargo, and there are also wanting the necessary proofs of neutrality. We must assume in the absence of proof that all documents and papers carried by the ship were kept as a final record and not destroyed. It does not appear that the neutral offered on the hearing any proof of documentation of the cargo of that proof of the neutrality of the cargo was put before the prize court. Nor does it appear that the original invoice was on board. If it was, there is nothing contained in it, as we now find the invoice, to establish neutrality, even if the invoice could be taken as sufficient proof on that point. Hiram, Whitney, 41 C. Cls., 12. The master's protest is silent on the subject.
The United States as the defending nation has the right to rely upon the facts of the case and thereby justify the condemnation. This is so even where on the face of the decree the ground of condemnation appears to be illegal. Ship Joanna,, 24 C. Cls., 198.
Nothing appearing to have been offered to establish the neutrality of the cargo, and with nothing in the protest asserting its innocence, but looking to the evidence as contained in the record before us and the want of proof to establish a fact vital to recovery, it can only be held that the condemnation of the cargo was proper. The case of the Betsey, Wyman, 36 C. Cls., 256, summarizes the general rule and need not be restated.
The ultimate findings cover the entire admissible proof. There was an invoice of the schooner's cargo on the voyage to St. Croix; a protest of the master of the ship disclosing that his vessel and the cargo aboard were sold by and on account of the captors and the owners of the privateer, supplemented by the decree of the prize court assigning insufficient causes for the condemnation of both ship and cargo. But it also appears that an analysis of all the ship's papers was made and that all of these documents were put with the records, as stated, and everything of a documentary character found lodgment in this court. As there is nothing showing, or tending to show, the presence of the necessary papers to establish neutrality, the only alternative this court has is to find that the fault lay with the master and owners of the vessel in not carrying the papers necessary to their protection. For the want of proof relating to the essential matter of neutrality the case is stronger for the defendants even than that of the Nantasket, Higgins, 39 C. Cls., 119; 46 Ib., 291.
The findings necessarily redound to the benefit of the United States as to the cargo. As to the ship, the findings show an allowance for the insurance paid thereon amounting to $2,750.
The findings of the court, together with a copy of this opinion, will be certified to Congress.