The Amiable Nancy

Decision Date11 March 1818
Citation3 Wheat. 546,16 U.S. 546,4 L.Ed. 456
PartiesTHE AMIABLE NANCY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

lines and cordage, and also, of poultry; and greatly ill-treated the libellants, and, in particular, knocked down and greatly bruised the libellant, Frederick Roux, and put the libellants in bodily fear and danger of their lives; that about twelve o'clock of the same night, the armed boat's crew aforesaid left the Amiable Nancy, and the said schooner was permitted to proceed on her course as aforesaid, and did so proceed, but her papers were not restored, nor any other article of apparel, money, nor any of the valuable effects of which the said schooner and libellants had been robbed and plundered, although the said captain and supercargo did frequently and urgently remonstrate with the boarding officer upon the impropriety of such conduct as aforesaid; and did then and there state, that the said schooner could not proceed without her said papers; but, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the said libellants, nothing whatever which had been taken from the said schooner, and from the libellants, was restored. That the libellant, Galien Amie, was not permitted to go on board of the said private armed brig, although he earnestly requested permission so to do, with the intent to complain to the commander of the said private armed brig, of the conduct of his said armed boat's crew, and of requesting him to cause the papers and articles taken as aforesaid, to be restored to the libellants and the said schooner. That the said schooner continued on her course as aforesaid, and on or about the morning of the 8th of November, in the year aforesaid, arrived at the entrance of the harbour of St. John's, in the island of Antigua, when she was seized and detained by his Britannic majesty's guard-brig Spider, on account of the want of her papers; and both the vessel and cargo were, for the same reason, libelled and proceeded against in the vice admiralty prize court in the said island. That the amiable Nancy was detained in the possession of the said guard-brig Spider until the 24th of November; and in consequence of an agreement previously made between the captors aforesaid and the said supercargo, which he was advised to make, in order to avoid the farther detention, deterioration of the cargo, and total loss of the same, as of the said schooner, the schooner and her cargo were condemned as good and lawful prize, and were immediately delivered up to the libellant, the supercargo aforesaid, on the engagement to pay to the said captors the sum of $1,000, and all law and court charges, to a great amount, to wit, to the amount of about $542 21, which said compromise, law and court charges together, amounted to the sum of $1,542 21, which the libellant, Frederick Roux, was obliged to pay, and did actually pay, in order to procure the liberation of the said vessel and cargo. And in order to pay the same, the said last mentioned libellant was obliged to pay, and did pay the farther sum of $536 44 by selling bills to procure specie to make the said payment; besides which, the said cargo of corn sustained a loss of $1,200, by its detention in port as foresaid, deterioration and fall in price; and the owner of said schooner did sustain farther loss by the breaking up of his voyage, and the said schooner being obliged to leave Antigua in ballast, although a full freight was offered to him. That in consequence of the robbery and plunder of the said schooner, and the ill treatment of the libellants, and the capture and detention, as aforesaid, heavy loss and damage accrued to the libellants, respectively, amounting in the whole to $15,000.

The libel then prays, that the defendants, as the owners of the Scourge, may be decreed to pay to the libellants the damages respectively sustained by them by the illegal conduct of the said boat's crew, with all other charges and expenses thereby incurred, and losses therefrom accruing, and for such other relief as may be suited to the case.

The defendants, by their answer and plea, admit that they were, at the time mentioned in the libel, the owners of the Scourge, which was regularly commissioned as a private armed vessel during the late war; and that whilst cruising on the high seas, she met with the said Haytian schooner; but they do not admit that the plundering, outrages, and other unlawful acts mentioned in the libel, were committed as therein charged; they do, however, admit, that the said schooner was boarded by a crew from the scourge, under the belief that she was an enemy, and that some improper acts were committed by some of the said crew; but they deny their responsibility therefor, especially as the said crew, or some of them, were punished for their improper conduct.

Samuel C. Lathrop, captain of marines on board the Scourge, proved, that whilst the said vessel was on a cruise they fell in with the Amiable Nancy, about the 4th or 5th of November, 1814, and boarded her; that Lieutenant Dickenson and himself, with twelve or thirteen of the crew, went in the boarding boat, under the command of Lieut. Dickenson, and that as soon as the boat came alongside of the schooner, Dickenson and himself went on board of her, and all the men but one followed; that the men immediately commenced plundering the vessel, which Dickenson saw, and took no measures to prevent; that the witness examined her papers, and found her to be a Haytian Schooner, and that they were all regular, and so reported to Lieut. Dickenson. That the boat's crew ought not to have gone on board of the schooner at all; but Dickenson did not order them back, and permitted them to proceed in breaking into the cabin, breaking open the trunks of the captain and supercargo, plundering their contents, and the schooner's crew of their clothes and effects, and throwing them in bundles into the boat along side the schooner; that the captain and supercargo complained to Dickenson of the conduct of his crew, and especially of their destruction of the schooner's papers; and the supercargo also complained of being knocked down; but Dickenson took no notice of their complaints, and suffered the boat's crew to continue their plundering two hours on board of the schooner, though he had examined the schooner's papers, and made his report, as before stated, in ten minutes after going on board.

Commissions were issued to Antigua and Port-au-Prince to take testimony on the part of the libellants. Under the Antigua commission, it was proved, that the Amiable Nancy and her cargo were seized, libelled, and condemned at Antigua, on account of her want of papers. That the supercargo compromised with the captors for $1,000, and court charges $542 21, which he was advised to do, as most for the interest of the owner. That it was necessary to pay this amount in specie, which could only by raised by a sale of the bills for which the cargo was sold, and was done at a loss of $536 44: that other sums were disbursed for the vessel, making in the whole $2127 60. During the detention of the vessel, the price of corn fell a dollar a bushel, and the cargo was injured by the search of the schooner, made by the Spider's crew, which occasioned a loss of $1,200. The expenses of the schooner at Antigua were proved to be $414. The value of the articles plundered from the vesel, captain, supercargo, and crew was proved by one of the witnesses, and by the protest; also, the ill treatment and personal violence complained of.

Under the commission to Port-au-Prince, it was proved that the libellant, Peter Joseph Mirault, was the owner of both the schooner and cargo, and that the schooner was a Haytian vessel, regularly documented as such. The detention and plunder of the schooner, by the boat's crew of the Scourge, is fully and particularly proved by one of the seamen on board of the schooner. The object of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
115 cases
  • Carscallen v. Coeur D'Alene & St. Joe Transportation Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 24 Noviembre 1908
    ... ... vessel substituted. ( The Emma Kate Ross , 50 F. 845, ... 2 C.C.A. 55; The Amiable Nancy , 16 U.S. 546, 3 ... Wheat. 546, 4 L.Ed. 456; The North Star , 44 F. 492; ... The City of Alexandria , 40 F. 697.) It has also been ... ...
  • Henderson By and Through Hartsfield v. Alabama Power Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 25 Junio 1993
    ... ... of the jury, as the degree of the punishment to be thus inflicted must depend on the peculiar circumstances of each case.' In The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546 [4 L.Ed. 456] [1818], which was the case of a marine tort, Mr. Justice Story spoke of exemplary damage[s] as 'the proper ... ...
  • Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 20 Noviembre 1907
  • Greene v. Keithley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 10 Noviembre 1936
    ... ... 261, 37 L.Ed. 97. The long-established rule in federal courts is that, in many kinds of torts, exemplary damages may be recoverable. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546, 558, 559, 4 L.Ed. 456; Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 371, 14 L.Ed. 181; Philadelphia, etc., Railroad Co. v. Quigley, 21 How ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Oil and Water Do Not Mix: An Argument for the United States Supreme Court's Deferral to Congress in Exxon v. Baker
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 38-1, September 2009
    • 1 Septiembre 2009
    ...L. & COM. 73 (1997) (providing a thorough historical overview of punitive damage awards in general maritime law). 59 The Amiable Nancy, 16 U.S. 546, 558 (1818). 60 SCHOENBAUM, supra note 27, at 171. 61 Id. 62 498 U.S. 19 (1990). 238 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [38:229 legislation. 63 Some......
  • PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN MARITIME BEFORE AND IN THE WAKE OF BATTERTON: THE FUTURE.
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 22 No. 1, January 2023
    • 1 Enero 2023
    ...Alpha Navigation Co. v. N. Pac. Grain Growers, Inc., 767 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1985). (64) Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977). (65) 16 U.S. 546, 557 (1818). At the time, vessel owners could not seek limitation of liability in admiralty. The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Statute which ......
  • PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN MARITIME BEFORE AND IN THE WAKE OF BATTERTON: THE FUTURE.
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 21 No. 1, January 2021
    • 1 Enero 2021
    ...Marine Sulphur Queen]. (8) EXXON VALDEZ, 554 U.S. at 475. (9) Townsend, 557 U.S. at 407. (10) Batterton, 139 S. Ct. 2275. (11) 16 U.S. 546, 3 Wheat. 546 (1818). The only reference is a statement by Justice Story regarding the action which was brought by the claimant: "And if this were a sui......
  • RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT: DOES THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 PRECLUDE RECOVERY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES?
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 20 No. 1, December 2020
    • 22 Diciembre 2020
    ...Auto Ins. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 419 (2003) (citing BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 585 (1996)). (11) The Amiable Nancy, 16 U.S. 546 (12) CEH, Inc. v. F/V Seafarer, 70 F.3d 694, 699 (1st Cir. 1995). (13) The Amiable Nancy, 16 U.S. 546 (1818). (14) Id. (15) Id. at 558. (16) U.......

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