Case: WILLIAM C. HILL, SURVIVING EXECUTOR OF WILLIAM W. CORCORAN, v. UNITED STATES; JAMES M. JOHNSTON, SURVIVING ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE W. RIGGS, v. UNITED STATES; ROBERT S. CHEW, ADMINISTRATOR OF RICHARD SMITH, v. UNITED STATES; J. BAYARD HENRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF ANDREW BAYARD, v. UNITED STATES; FRANCIS R. PEMBERTON, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN CLIFFORD, v. UNITED STATES; GEORGE McCALL, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM McMURTRIE, v. UNITED STATES; FRANCIS A. LEWIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN MILLER, JR., v. UNITED STATES; MARY JACKSON, ADMIRISTRATRIX OF ROBERT SMITH, v. UNITED STATES; WILLIAM BROOKE-RAWLE, ADMINISTRATOR OF JESSE WALN, v. UNITED STATES; J. LARDNER HOWELL, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL HOWELL, v. UNITED STATES; CHARLES McCAFFERTY, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL BLODGETT, v. UNITED STATES; WILLIAM G. SQUIRES, ADMINISTRATOR OF HENRY PRATT, v. UNITED STATES; THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY FOR INSURANCE ON LIVES, ETC., ADMINISTRATOR OF THOMAS M. WILLING, v. UNITED STATES; CRAWFORD D. HENNING, ADMINISTRATOR OF ABIJAH DAWES, v. UNITED STATES; J. BAYARD HENRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE RUNDLE AND THOMAS LEECH, v. UNITED STATES; CHARLES PRAGER, ADMINISTRATOR OF MARK PRAGER, JR., v. UNITED STATES; SARA LEAMING, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THOMAS MURGATROYD, v. UNITED STATES; SAMUEL H. JANNEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN JANNEY, v. UNITED STATES; CHARLES SELDEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF ISAAC McPherson, v. UNITED STATES; FRANCES H. RIDOUT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF WILLIAM WILSON, v. UNITED STATES; JULIAN T. BURKE, ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE TAYLOR, v. UNITED STATES; HARRIET R. WATTLES, ADMINISTRATRIX OF NATHANIEL WATTLES, v. UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Hill v. United States
Decision Date: 1913-12-01
Docket Number: 
Citation: 49 Ct. Cl. 133
Volume: 49
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE BRIG “FAIR COLUMBIAN.”
Judges: 
Pages: 133–144

Head Matter:
THE BRIG “FAIR COLUMBIAN.”
[French Spoliations 1201, 1586, 2163, 2548, 3689, 4369, 5508.
Decided December 1, 1913.]
WILLIAM C. HILL, SURVIVING EXECUTOR OF WILLIAM W. CORCORAN, v. UNITED STATES. JAMES M. JOHNSTON, SURVIVING ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE W. RIGGS, v. UNITED STATES. ROBERT S. CHEW, ADMINISTRATOR OF RICHARD SMITH, v. UNITED STATES. J. BAYARD HENRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF ANDREW BAYARD, v. UNITED STATES. FRANCIS R. PEMBERTON, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN CLIFFORD, v. UNITED STATES. GEORGE McCALL, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM McMURTRIE, v. UNITED STATES. FRANCIS A. LEWIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN MILLER, JR., v. UNITED STATES. MARY JACKSON, ADMIRISTRATRIX OF ROBERT SMITH, v. UNITED STATES. WILLIAM BROOKE-RAWLE, ADMINISTRATOR OF JESSE WALN, v. UNITED STATES. J. LARDNER HOWELL, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL HOWELL, v. UNITED STATES. CHARLES McCAFFERTY, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL BLODGETT, v. UNITED STATES. WILLIAM G. SQUIRES, ADMINISTRATOR OF HENRY PRATT, v. UNITED STATES. THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY FOR INSURANCE ON LIVES, ETC., ADMINISTRATOR OF THOMAS M. WILLING, v. UNITED STATES. CRAWFORD D. HENNING, ADMINISTRATOR OF ABIJAH DAWES, v. UNITED STATES. J. BAYARD HENRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE RUNDLE AND THOMAS LEECH, v. UNITED STATES. CHARLES PRAGER, ADMINISTRATOR OF MARK PRAGER, JR., v. UNITED STATES. SARA LEAMING, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THOMAS MURGATROYD, v. UNITED STATES. SAMUEL H. JANNEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN JANNEY, v. UNITED STATES. CHARLES SELDEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF ISAAC McPherson, v. UNITED STATES. FRANCES H. RIDOUT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF WILLIAM WILSON, v. UNITED STATES. JULIAN T. BURKE, ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE TAYLOR, v. UNITED STATES. HARRIET R. WATTLES, ADMINISTRATRIX OF NATHANIEL WATTLES, v. UNITED STATES.
On the Proofs.
The brig Fair Columbian sailed March 26, 1798, on a commercial voyage bound from Alexandria, Va., to Antigua. While pursuing this journey she was seized by a French privateer on April 17, and on April 27 both vessel and cargo were condemned by the French tribunal of commerce.
I.The act conferring jurisdiction in this class of cases provides relief for such citizens of the United States, or their legal representatives, as had valid claims to indemnity on the French Government arising out of illegal captures, detentions, seizures, condemnations, and confiscations within the period named by the statute.
II.Where after the vessel had been condemned the former master buys her in at the sale the presumption follows that the vessel was purchased by the master for the registered owners.
III. The cases of the Liberty, the Delaware, and the Little John Butler on the question of demurrage explained and that question treated by the court by way of precedent for all future cases under this jurisdiction.
IV. Where the findings of fact disclose a repurchase by the former owners through the master or other agents of the owners demurrage can only cover that period dating from the illegal capture to the condemnation.
V.In international law it is settled doctrine that the sentence of condemnation by a prize court completely extinguishes the title of the original proprietor and such condemnation transfers title to the captor or his sovereign.
The Reporter's statement of the case:
The following axe the facts of the case as found by the court:
I. The brig Fair Columbian, Nathaniel Wattles, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Alexandria, Va., on March 26, 1798, bound for Antigua. While peacefully pursuing her said voyage she was seized on the high seas on April 17, 1798, by the French privateer Sevola, Capt. Gradia, and carried into St. Martins. Thereafter, on April 27, 1798, both vessel and cargo were condemned by the French Tribunal of Commerce sitting at Basse Terre, Guadeloupe.
The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows:
That the clearance papers of the master of said brig are not in due form; that his róle d’equipage wants the signatures of witnesses and public officers; that^this róle appears to be false, as all tbe men composing the crew are Stated to be American, when it is proved by the records of the proceedings that two are foreigners, one Irish and the other Maltese.
Alter the vessel had been condemned she was repurchased at the condemnation sale by her former master for the sum of $366.66 on June 5, 1798.
The cargo became a total loss by reason of said condemnation.
II. The Fair Columbian was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 142 66/95 tons burthen, built at Salisbury, Md., in the year 1795, and was owned solely by George Taylor, a citizen of the United States.
III. The cargo of the Fair Columbian at the time of capture consisted of corn, flour, and shingles, and was owned in the proportion of one-third each by said George Taylor, Isaac McPherson, and Nathaniel Wattles, citizens of the United States. Said cargo was of the value of $5,116.83.
IV. The loss to the owners on said vessel was the sum for which the same was repurchased after condemnation, to wit, $366.66 plus the allowance for demurrage from April 17, 1798, the date of capture, to April 27, 1798, the date of con-
.demnation, of $233.34, or a total of $600. The two-thirds freight earnings for the voyage amounted to the sum of $2,377.
V. March 20, 1798, George Taylor effected insurance on one-half the vessel through one Derrick Peterson, in the sum of $2,000 in the office kept by Wharton & Lewis, of Philadelphia, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. The said policy was underwritten as follows:
John Savage..$500
William McMurtrie. 400
John Miller, jr.. 500
Robert Smith & Oo.• 600
Thereafter said’ underwriters duly paid the said insured the sum of $1,960, as a total loss thereon less the customary abatement of 2 per cent.
The loss on one-half the vessel being the sum of $300, as hereinbefore set forth, the loss on this policy can not exceed that sum, and, the respective underwriters’ claims abate to the following amounts:
John Savage. $75
William McMurtrie. 60
John Miller, jr. 75
Robert Smith & Co. 90
300
VI. March 20, 1798, George Taylor effected insurance on one-half the freight through one Derrick Peterson, in the office of said Wharton & Lewis, in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent, said policy being under-
written as follows:
Jesse Wain.$400
Samuel Blodgett. 500
Rundle & Leech.1. 500
Samuel Howell. 600
Thereafter said underwriters duly paid the insured the sum of $1,960, as a total loss less the customary abatement of 2 per cent.
The loss of one-half the freight being the sum of $1,188.50) as hereinbefore set forth, the loss on this policy can not exceed that sum, and the respective underwriters’ claims abate to the following amounts:
Jesse Wain.$237.70
Samuel Blodgett. 297.13
Rundle & Leech. 297.12
Samuel Howell.. 356.55
1,188.50
VII. In March, 1798, George Taylor effected in the office of James Bruce Nickolls, of Alexandria, Va., insurance on one-half the freight in the sum of $2,500, paying therefor a premium of 16 per cent, said policy being underwritten as follows:
John Janney. $500
William Wilson. 500
Joseph Cary. 300
And other persons who are unknown in the balance of said sum.
Thereafter said insurers paid the insured the sum of $2,450 as a total loss less the customary abatement of 2 per cent.
The loss on one-half the freight being the sum of $1,188.50, as hereinbefore set forth, the loss on this policy can not exceed that sum, and the claims of the respective underwriters named abate to the amounts:
JohnJanney. $237.70
William Wilson. 237.70
Joseph Cary. 142.62
VIII. March 20, 1798, George Taylor, through the agency of Derrick Peterson, effected insurance on his one-third of the cargo in the office of Wharton & Lewis in the sum of $1,900, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent, said policy being underwritten as follows:
Bundle & Leech.$300
Pragers & Co. 800
Thomas & John Clifford. 400
Jeremiah Warder.1. 400
Thereafter the said underwriters paid the insured the sum of $1,862 as a total loss, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent.
One-third of said cargo being of the value of $1,705.61, the loss on said policy can not exceed that sum, and the claims of the respective underwriters abate to the following amounts:
Bundle & Leech. $269.30
Pragers & Co. 718.15
Thomas & John Clifford:. 359.08
Jeremiah Warder. 359.08
1, 705. 61
IX. March 30, 1798, Isaac McPherson effected insurance on his one-third of the cargo, through Owen & Jonathan Jones, in the office of Wharton & Lewis, in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium unknown,'said policy being underwritten by the following:
Thomas Murgatroyd. $600
Pratt & Kintzing. 500
Willings & Francis.■ 600
Abijah Dawes. 300
Thereafter said underwriters paid the said insured the sum of $1,960 as a total loss less the customary abatement of 2 per cent.
One-third of said cargo being of the value of $1,705.61, as hereinbefore set forth, thi loss on said policy can not exceed that sum, and the claims of the respective underwriters abate to the following amounts:
Thomas Murgatroyd. $511. 68
Pratt & Kmtzing. 426.41
Willings & Francis. 511. 68
Abijah Dawes. 255.84
1, 705. 61
X. In March, 1798, Nathaniel Wattles effected insurance on his one-third of the cargo in the office of James Bruce Nickolls, of Alexandria, Va., in the sum of $2,400, paying therefor a premium unknown. The underwriters on said policy are also unknown.
Thereafter said underwriters paid the said insured the sum of $2,352, being in full for a total loss less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. One-third of said cargo being of the value of $1,705.61, there was an overpayment on said policy to the amount of $646.39.
XI. All of the above-named underwriters on whose behalf claims have been filed herein were citizens of the United States.
The firm of Robert Smith & Co. was composed solely of Robert Smith and James Robertson. Said Robert Smith was the survivor of the firm.
The firm of Rundle & Leech was composed solely of George Rundle and Thomas Leech. Both parties are in court by their legal representatives.
The firm of Pragers & Co. was composed solely of Mark Prager, jr., and John Prager. Said Mark Prager, jr., was the survivor of the firm.
The firm of Thomas & John Clifford was composed of the persons named. Said John Clifford was the survivor of the firm.
Tbe firm oí Pratt & Kintzing was composed solely of Henry Pratt and Abrabam Kintzing. Said Henry Pratt was tbe survivor of tbe firm.
Tbe firm of Willings & Francis was composed solely of Thomas Willing, Thomas M. Willing, and Thomas W. Francis. Said Thomas M. Willing was tbe surviving partner.
XII. George Taylor, Nathaniel .Wattles, and Isaac McPherson, owners of vessel and cargo, were each reimbursed by the said insurers in a sum greater than their respective losses herein.
XIII. 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 brig Fair Columbian, as set forth in the preceding findings.
Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Kepublic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 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 day 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 except as aforesaid.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure, detention, and condemnation 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 Kepublic, 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 relinquish ment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States:
D. Fitzhugh. Savage, administrator of John Savage, seventy-five dollars. $75.00
George McOall, administrator of William McMurtrie, sixty dollars. 60.00
Francis A. Lewis, administrator of John Miller, jr., seventy-five dollars. 75.00
Mary Jackson, administratrix of Robert Smith, surviving partner of Robert Smith & Co., ninety dollars. 90.00
William Brooke-Rawle, administrator of Jesse Wain, two hundred and thirty-seven dollars and seventy cents. 237. 70
Charles McCafferty, administrator of Samuel Blodgett, two hun- . dxed and ninety-seven dollars and thirteen cents. 297.13
J. Bayard Henry, administrator of George Rundle, two hundred and eighty-three dollars and twenty-one cents. 283 21
J. Bayard Henry, administrator of Thomas Leech, two hundred and eighty-three dollars and twenty-one cents. 283. 21
J. Lardner Howell, administrator of Samuel Howell, three hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-five cents. 356. 55
Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager, jr., surviving partner of Pragers & Co., seven hundred and eighteen dollars and fifteen cents. 718.15
Francis R. Pemberton, administrator of John Clifford, surviving partner of Thomas & John Clifford, three hundred and fifty-nine dollars and eight cents. 359. 08
Sara Learning, administratrix of Thomas Murgatroyd, five hundred and eleven dollars and sixty-eight cents. 511. 68
William G. Squires, administrator of Henry Pratt, surviving partner of Pratt & Kintzing, four hundred and twenty-six dollars and forty-one cents. 426. 41
The Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance on Lives, etc., administrator of Thomas M. Willing, surviving partner of Willings & Francis, five hundred and eleven dollars and sixty-eight cents. 511.68
Crawford Dawes Henning, administrator of Abijah Dawes, two hundred and fifty-five dollars and eighty-four cents. 255. 84
Samuel H. Janney, administrator of John Janney, two hundred and thirty-seven dollars and seventy cents. 237.70
Frances H. Ridout, administratrix of William Wilson, two hundred and thirty-seven dollars and seventy cents. 237. 70
Amounting in all to the sum of five thousand and sixteen dollars and four cents.L..5,016. 04
The estates of George Taylor, Nathaniel Wattles, and Isaac McPherson are entitled to no allowances, for the reasons stated in Finding XII.
The estates of William W. Corcoran, George W. Riggs, Richard Smith, and Andrew Bayard have proved no valid claims.
No persons claiming to represent Jeremiah Warder and Joseph Cary, underwriters, have appeared herein.
Mr. Witliam T. 8. Curtis, Mr. Theodore Pickett, Mr. John St. 0. Brooks, and Mr. Thomas Stokes for the plaintiffs.
Mr. John W. Trainer, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Huston Thompson for the defendants.

Opinion:
Howry, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
There is but one issue and that relates to an illegally condemned vessel. The owners of both vessel and cargo were indemnified by their insurers for a greater sum than the amount of their losses. The proper distribution of the insurance appears in the findings. Nevertheless, the owners claim demurrage for the detention of the vessel independent of their losses for its value and for which they were otherwise reimbursed by their insurers as stated.
The act conferring jurisdiction in this class of claims provides relief for such citizens of the United States or their legal representatives as had valid claims to indemnity upon the French Government arising out of illegal captures, detentions, seizures, condemnations, and confiscations within the period named by the statute. The immediate question before the court, then, is whether there was such an illegal detention as will entitle the proper parties to further relief.
After the vessel had been condemned the former master bought her in under the decree of condemnation at the sale. The presumption follows that the vessel was purchased by the master for the registered owners. The contention is that demurrage is allowable in cases where the vessel is shown to have been repurchased at the condemnation sale by or for the former owners whenever the date of the sale is disclosed. According to that contention the court eliminates from consideration the case of the Hiram, 23 C. Cls., 431, because in that case the court was advised that the time of sale and the time of condemnation were coincident, or, if not coincident, that the condemnation and sale were so contemporaneous as to escape notice. In the case now before the court the circumstances show a difference.
But in further support of their contention the claimants rely upon the case of the Liberty, Caldwell, H. Doc. No. 639, 59th Cong., 1st sess., the Delaware, Dunphy, H. Doc. No. 904, ib., and the Little John Butler, Smith, H. Doc. No. 531, 59th Cong., 2d sess.
Defendants contend that no demurrage should be allowed for this detention, because in a number of repurchase cases (set forth in the margin) demurrage was not allowed.
Besides' the cases mentioned in the margin it has been made to appear that the court has refused to allow demurrage in other claims not yet certified to Congress. While it is true that in some of the cases relied upon by the defendants the findings do not disclose the repurchase price by the American owner, and while it is also true that no claim appears for the allowance of damages by way of demurrage, nevertheless there are many cases where the principle was applied that demurrage could only be allowed up to the time of the decree condemning the property.
In the first case relied on by the claimants that damages should be allowed up to the date of the sale, we find that the Liberty was not condemned or sold at all, but that the vessel was released, and consequently demurrage was allowed for such detention as there was. The allowance therein was proper, but the action of the court furnishes no precedent for the case now under consideration. In the next case relied on an examination wñl show that the Delaware presented a case of salvage in the British Admiralty court and the matter of demurrage did not appear to have been in issue at all. This leaves for consideration the case of the Little John Butler, supra, which was decided in 1907. We are of opinion that the conclusion of the court there was erroneous, as we shall undertake to fully show by way of precedent for all future cases under this jurisdiction in the matter of demur-rage.
Where findings disclose the fact of a repurchase by the former owners, through the master or other agents of the owners, demurrage can only cover that period dating from the capture to the condemnation.
The time at which demurrage for detention begins is when the property has been illegally detained. It ceases when the owner becomes divested of his title to the property because such owner becomes a stranger to, the res when the title is extinguished. In international law it is settled doctrine that the sentence of condemnation by a prize court completely extinguishes the title of the original proprietor and such condemnation transfers title to the captor or his sovereign.
In Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 423, the court declared that a sale before condemnation by one acting under the possession of the captor does not divest the court of jurisdiction, but the condemnation relates bach to the capture, affirms its legality and establishes the title of the purchaser. More direct authority is found in the case of the Star, 3 Wheat., 78, where it washeldthat in cases of capture a firm possession changes the title to the property and that the senteuce of condemnation completely extinguishes the title of the original proprietor and transfers the full right.
The capture, detention, condemnation, and sale were illegal. The proper adjustment of insurance and the amounts thereunder due the insurers appear in the findings. The various items aggregate $5,016.03. The item of demurrage in favor of the insurers is restricted to the period dating from the capture to the condemnation and no further. This period was 10 days.
The foregoing findings, together with a copy of this opinion, will be certified to Congress.
Alert, Gray, S. Doc. No. 5,52d Cong., 1st sess.; Packet, Smith, S. Doo. No. 35,51st Cong., 1st sess.; Three Friends, Miller, H. Doo. No. 301, 57th Cong., 1st sess.; Two Friends, Pond, H. Doo. No. 151, 58th Cong., 3d sees.; Flora, Bourn, H. Doo. No. 656, 59th Cong., 1st sess. Centurión, Greely, H. Doo. No. 798, 60th Cong., 1st sess.; Mercury, Gilpatrick. H. Doe. No. 1137,60th Cong., 2d sess.; Anna, Chase, S. Doc. No. 104,61st Cong., 1st sess.; Yea imán, Crane, 8. Doo. No. 5, 62d Cong., 1st seas.; Alciope, Bice, H. Doo. No. 32, 62d Cong., 1st sess.; and JEifca, Milier, H. Doo. No. 34,62d Cong., 1st sess.