Ribas Hijo v. United States

Decision Date16 May 1904
Docket NumberNo. 151,151
Citation48 L.Ed. 994,194 U.S. 315,24 S.Ct. 727
PartiesRIBAS Y HIJO, Appt. , v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This action was brought against the United States by J. Ribas Y Hijo, a Spanish corporation, to recover the sum of $10,000 as the value of the use of a certain merchant vessel taken by the United States in the Port of Ponce, Porto Rico, when that city was captured by the United States Army and Navy on July 28th, 1898.

The vessel was kept and used by the quartermaster's department of the Army until some time in April, 1899, when the War Department ordered its return to the owner, if all claim for use or damage for detention should be waived. Such conditional return was refused by the captain, who claimed to be a part owner, and with his crew he left the vessel.

Subsequently the consignees of the vessel were notified that it was at their disposal; that the government was about to discharge those having it in care; and they were requested to put some one in control of it. This they declined to do, and the vessel was abandoned, and in August, 1899, was wrecked in a hurricane.

The vessel was never in naval custody nor condemned as prize. When seized it was a Spanish vessel, carried the Spanish flag, and its owner, captain, and crew were all Spanish subjects. It did not come within any of the declared exemptions from seizure set forth in the Proclamation of the President dent of April 26th, 1898. 30 Stat. at L. 1770. A claim filed in the War Department in February, 1900, for its use was rejected.

Such being the facts found, the court below, upon final hearing, dismissed the action, upon the general ground that the vessel was properly seized as enemy's property, and its use was by the war power for war purposes.

A rehearing was asked and was denied, the court saying: 'A rehearing is asked upon the ground that the court has found, as a matter of fact, that the use continued until in April, 1899, and, as the protocol, followed by the President's proclamation, was dated August 12th, 1898 [30 Stat. at L. 1780], the complainants should recover on a quantum meruit the value of the use of the vessel between those dates. This was a seizure in time of war, and not in time of peace. It was, as has been said, a special case, arising from the necessary operation of war, and the war power of the government concluded it was necessary to take and use the property. Even conceding that the seizure did not terminate all right of the Spanish owner in the property, or to any use of it, yet the protocol and proclamation did not end the war. The protocol worked a mere truce. The President had not the power to terminate the war by treaty without the advice or consent of the Senate of the United States. If a treaty be silent as to when it is to become effective, the weight of authority is that it does not become so until ratified, and this was not done until in April, 1899 [30 Stat. at L. 1754], and the war did not end by treaty until then, and all the use made by the government of the vessel was justified by the rules of law and international law, without compensation.'

Mr. Charles M. Boerman for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from page 317 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Hoyt and Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for appellee.

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

1. By the 35th section of the act of Congress of April 12th, 1900, chap. 191, temporarily providing revenues and civil government for Porto Rico, it was declared that 'writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of the supreme court of Porto Rico and the district court of the United States shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner, and under the same regulations, and in the same c

ases, as from the supreme courts of the territories of the United States; and such writs of error and appeal shall be allowed in all cases where the Constitution of the United States, or a treaty thereof, or an act of Congress is brought in question, and the right claimed thereunder is denied; . . .' As the value of the matter here in dispute exceeds the sum of $5,000, and as the final judgment in a like case in the supreme court of one of the territories of the United States could be re-examined here, we have jurisdiction of the present appeal from the dis- trict court of the United States for Porto Rico. 23 Stat. at L. 443, chap. 355 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 572); 31 Stat. at L. 85 chap. 191, §§ 34, 35; Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, 192 U. S. 149, ante, p. 247, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247.

2. This action, we have seen, was brought to recover the value of the use of a vessel belonging to Spanish subjects, and taken by our Army and Navy during the war with Spain, and used by the quartermaster's department of the Army.

By the above act of April 12th, 1900, the court below was given, 'in addition to the ordinary urisdiction of district courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizant in the circuit courts of the United States, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court.' 31 Stat. at L. 84, chap. 191, § 34. If, therefore, this action could have been brought in a circuit court of the United States, it was within the cognizance of the court below We must, then, look to the act of March 3d, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker act, and which provides for the bringing of suits against the government of the United States. 24 Stat. at L. 505, chap. 359 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 752).

By the 1st section of that act it is provided that the court of claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine 'all claims founded upon the Constitution of the United States or any law of Congress, except for pensions, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the government of the United States, or for damages,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 cases
  • Chambers v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 15, 1971
    ...341, 25 L.Ed. 1010 (1879); Bigby v. United States, 188 U.S. 400, 23 S.Ct. 468, 47 L.Ed. 519 (1903); J. Ribas y Hijo v. United States, 194 U.S. 315, 323, 24 S.Ct. 727, 48 L.Ed. 994 (1904)); and liability for damages occasioned by wrongful regulatory action smacks more of tort than of non-tor......
  • U.S. v. White
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 11, 1975
    ...in the case of a conflict between an Act of Congress and a treaty, the one last in date must prevail. Hijo v. United States, 194 U.S. 315, 324, 24 S.Ct. 727, 48 L.Ed. 994 (1904). However, a treaty will not be deemed to have been abrogated or modified by a later statute unless such purpose o......
  • Moon v. Hines
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1921
    ... ... Hines, as Director ... General of Railroads of the United States, successor in ... office to William G. McAdoo ... The ... against the government without its consent. Ribas y Hijo ... v. U.S., 194 U.S. 315, 24 Sup.Ct. 727, 48 L.Ed. 994; ... ...
  • Eastport Steamship Corporation v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • February 17, 1967
    ...341, 25 L.Ed. 1010 (1879); Bigby v. United States, 188 U.S. 400, 23 S.Ct. 468, 47 L.Ed. 519 (1903); J. Ribas y Hijo v. United States, 194 U.S. 315, 323, 24 S.Ct. 727, 48 L.Ed. 994 (1904); and liability for damages occasioned by wrongful regulatory action10 smacks more of tort than of non-to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Boumediene, Munaf, and the Supreme Court?s Misreading of the Insular Cases
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-1, November 2011
    • November 1, 2011
    ...(1909). 176. Id . at 308. The Court decided a similar case arising in July 1898, but from Puerto Rico. Ribas y Hijo v. United States, 194 U.S. 315 (1904). During the war, the U.S. Army seized a Spanish-owned and Spanish-flagged vessel and used it for one year. See id. at 316. The Spanish ow......
  • TREATY OVERRIDE: THE FALSE CONFLICT BETWEEN WHITNEY AND COOK.
    • United States
    • Florida Tax Review Vol. 24 No. 2, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...Horner v. United States, 143 U.S. 570 (1892). Alverez y Sanchez v. United States, 216 U.S. 167 (1910), and Ribas y Hijo v. United States, 194 U.S. 315 (1904), followed the same pattern, but Alverez y Sanchez involved special circumstances in which a repugnancy, were it to exist, would have ......
  • THE PEACE POWERS: HOW TO END A WAR.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 170 No. 3, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...v. Hopkins, 58 P.2d 1278, 1279 (Cal. 1936) (interpreting "in time of war" in veterans' benefit statute); J. Ribas y Hijo v. United States, 194 U.S. 315, 323 (1904) (characterizing wartime seizure as a case "sounding in (20) See, e.g., Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170, 174 (1804) (de......
  • How Much Blood to Cross the Northern Border?: Reconsidering the Blood Quantum Requirement of Ina §289
    • United States
    • Full Court Press AILA Law Journal No. 1-1, April 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...552 U.S. 491 (2008).13.. Id. at 504.14.. Id. at 508.15.. Jay Treaty, supra note 4, at art. III.16.. J. Ribasy Hijo v. United States, 194 U.S. 315, 324 (1904).17.. For example, U.S. immigration laws on refugees deviate from international laws on refugees in conventions to which the United St......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT