Little v. Barreme
| Decision Date | 01 February 1804 |
| Citation | 2 Cranch 170,2 L.Ed. 243,6 U.S. 170 |
| Parties | LITTLE et al. v. BARREME et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeal from the circuit court of Massachusetts.
On the 9th of February 1799 an act was passed by congress, entitled 'an act further to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and France, and the dependencies thereof.' 1 Story's L. U. S. 558.
The first section proceeds,
The fifth section enacts,
'That it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, to give instructions to the commanders of the public armed ships of the United States, to stop and examine any ship or vessel of the United States on the high sea, which there may be reason to suspect to be engaged in any traffic or commerce contrary to the true tenor hereof; and if, upon examination, it shall appear that such ship or vessel is bound or sailing to any port or place within the territory of the French Republic, or her dependencies, contrary to the intent of this act, it shall be the duty of the commander of such public armed vessel to seize every such ship or vessel engaged in such illicit commerce, and send the same to the nearest port in the United States; and every such ship or vessel, thus bound or sailing to any such port or place, shall, upon due proof thereof, be liable to the like penalties and forfeitures, as are provided in and by the first section of this act.'
Under the provisions of this act, the president of the United States gave the following instructions to the commanders of the armed vessels of the United States.
'Whenever, on just suspicion, you send a vessel into port to be dealt with according to the aforementioned law, besides sending with her all her papers, send all the evidence you can obtain to support your suspicions, and effect her condemnation.
'At the same time that you are thus attentive to fulfil the objects of the law, you are to be extremely careful not to harass or injure the trade of foreign nations with whom we are at peace, nor the fair trade of our own citizens.'
On the 2d of December 1779, the brigantine Flying Fish was captured near the island of Hispaniola bound to Jeremie, by the United States frigates Boston and General Greene, and sent into Boston as liable to seizure under the act of congress.
The Flying Fish and her cargo were owned by Samuel Goodman, a Prussian by birth, but at the time of the capture an inhabitant of the Danish island of St. Thomas. The master was born in,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc.
...as 1804 that, as in England, direct suits against government officers were not barred by sovereign immunity. In Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170, 2 L.Ed. 243 (1804), the Court held that a damages suit could proceed against a naval officer who directed the seizure of a ship sailing f......
-
Butz v. Economou
...acted outside of his federal statutory authority would be held strictly liable for his trespassory acts. For example, Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch 170, 2 L.Ed. 243 (1804), held the commander of an American warship liable in damages for the seizure of a Danish cargo ship on the high seas. Con......
-
Youngstown Sheet Tube Co v. Sawyer Sawyer v. Youngstown Sheet Tube Co
...by the Constitution or the Congress.6 In my view—taught me not only by the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch 170, 2 L.Ed. 243, but also by a score of other pronouncements of distinguished members of this bench—the Constitution does grant to the President exte......
-
FRANKLIN TP. IN SOMERSET COUNTY, NJ v. Tugwell
...does not protect its officers from personal liability to persons whose rights of property they have wrongfully invaded. Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch, 170, 2 L.Ed. 243; United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171, 181, 182; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 18, 16 S.......
-
Separation of Powers, Individual Rights, and the Constitution Abroad
...noting that “it was never suggested” that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the search or seizure on the high seas). 25. Little , 6 U.S. at 170, 178. Similarly, in The Apollon the Court assessed damages against an executive official for the seizure of a ship and cargo owned by a citize......
-
From Nadir to Zenith: The Power to Detain in War
...Executive’s war making powers in the face of Congressional action. The Court noted that “[i]f, indeed, there be a limit imposed as to 110 6 U.S. 170 (1804). 111 Little v. Berreme, 6 U.S. 170, 171 (1804) (emphasis added). 112 Id. (emphasis added). 113 Id. 114 Id . at 177 (citing U.S. CONST. ......
-
RECALIBRATING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: HOW TANZIN V. TANVIR, TAYLOR V. RIOJAS, AND MCCOY V. ALAMU SIGNAL THE SUPREME COURT'S DISCOMFORT WITH THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
...at 178. (59) Id at 170. (60) Id. at 176, (61) Engdahl, supra note 34, at 14; Pfander & Hunt, supra note 28, at 1877-81. (62) Little, 6 U.S. at 170 (italics (63) Id. ax 179. (64) See Pfander & Hunt, supra note 28, at 1900-03. (65) BLACKSTONE, supra note 36, at 55-56. (66) Marbury v. ......
-
A Hail Mary for the Administrative State: An Originalist Defense of Chevron Deference
...(refusing to issue advisory opinions out of concern for the separation of powers drawn in the Constitution). 83. See Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170, 177–79 (1804) (finding that the “Take Care” clause meant that the executive could not ignore a law passed by Congress, and the President had v......