Case Name: THE UNITED STATES v. CHARLES L. STEEVER
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1885-03-16
Citations: 20 Ct. Cl. 535
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE UNITED STATES v. CHARLES L. STEEVER.
Judges: Mr. Justice Q-bay delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 16, 1885.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 535–536

Head Matter:
THE UNITED STATES v. CHARLES L. STEEVER.
(19 C. Cls. R., 51; 113 U. S. R., 747.)
On the defendants’ Appeal.
Tlio captors o± the Albemarle, including the commander of the vessel making the capture, are paid prize-money in proportion to their respective rates of pay in the service. Before distribution three officers are promoted as of the day of the capture, and are paid according to this subsequently acquired rank. In 1889 Congress refer the claims .of the captors to this court, and direct that if any captor lias not received “ Ms full and just share of the prize-money” the court shall render judgment for the deficit which should have been originally distributed to him.
The court below decides—
(1.) Under the JPrize Act ldfi-1 (13 Slat. L , p. 305, $ 10, oh. 174) the commander of a single ship making a capture is entitled to one-tenth of the prize-money, and cannot take, like the others, in proportion to his “ rate of pay in the service,” oven though his one-tenth be less than the shares of his subordinate officers.
(2.) In the Prize Act 1864, wherever the term “vessel”refera to a vessel belonging to the Navy, it must be construed to include, under 5 32, “ all armed vessels”; and the term “ship” in $ 10 is to be construed as synonymous with “vessel.” '
(3.) An armed torpedo launch attached to a squadron, without books, commanded by an officer assigned to that duty by the commander of the squadron, is a “ship” within the meaning of the Prize Act 1864 (§ 10), and her commander “ the commander of a single ship.”
(4.) The term “ distribution” in the Prize Act 1864 ($ 4)-rofers to a division of prize-money (1) among vessels or between a capturing vessel and the government; (2) among-the fleet officers and individual captors. The former division must he decreed by the prize court, the latter by the Treasury and Navy Departments; and a prize court is without jurisdiction to make distribution among individual captors except in the ease of captures by privateers.
(5.) The rights of individual captors become fixed at the moment of capture. Therefore, the promotion of an officer between capture and distribution, though his commission take effect from the date of capture, can neither increase his share of the prize-money nor diminish, the share of others.
(6.) Where a statute provides that if “ any of said captors lias not received his full and just share of'the prise-money” the court shall render judgment in his favor, it is no defense that a captor acquiesced in an erroneous distribution which exhausted the fund.
(7.) Though a statute conferring jurisdiction of certain cases declares that they shall be subject to “ all defenses thereto which are or may he open to the United States,” yet if Congress were advised by the reports of their committees that the claimants had received two payments of prize-money when the act passed, such payments cannot be pleaded by way of estoppel.

Opinion:
The judgment of tbe court below is affirmed on tbe following-grounds: (1) A torpedo steam-launch attached to a division of a naval squadron, though not proved to have had any books, is a ship within the meaning of the Prize Act of June 30, 1864, ch. 174, § 10, rules 4 and 5; and her commander is entitled to one-tenth of prize-money awarded to her, and cannot elect to take instead a share proportioned to his rate of pay; but her other officers and men are entitled to share in proportion to their rates of pay. (2) The distribution of prize-money among the subordinate officers and crew of a ship," in proportion to their respective rates of pay in the service," under the Prize Act of June 30, 1864, ch. 174, § 10, rule 5, is to he made according to their pay at the time of the capture, and not according to the pay of grades to which thay have since been promoted as of that time. (3) Under the act of August 8; 1882, ch. 480, referring the claims of the captors of the ram Albemarle to the Court of Claims, each captor is entitled to recover such a sum as together with the sum formerly paid him by tbe Secretary of tbe Navy under the prize decrees in the case of the Albemarle will equal his lawful share of the prize-money in that case.
Mr. Justice Q-bay delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 16, 1885.