The Brig Ann, McClain Master

• Decision Date: 10 March 1815
• Parties: THE BRIG ANN, MCCLAIN, MASTER
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

13 U.S. 289

9 Cranch 289

3 L.Ed. 734

THE BRIG ANN, MCCLAIN, MASTER.

March 10, 1815

Absent. TODD, J.

APPEAL from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the district of Connecticut, which reversed that of the District Court, and restored the property to the Claimant.

STORY, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

This is an information against twelve casks of merchandize, part of the cargo of the brig Ann, alleged to have been imported or put on board with an intent to be imported contrary to the non-importation act of 1st March, 1809, ch. 91, § 5.

It appears from the evidence that the Ann sailed from Liverpool for New York in July, 1812, having on board a cargo of British merchandize. She was seized by a revenue cutter of the United States, on her passage toward New York, while in Long Island Sound, about midway between Long Island and Falkland Island, and carried into the port of New Haven about the 7th of October, 1812, and immediately taken possession of by the collector of that part, as forfeited to the United States. On the morning of the 12th of October the collector gave written orders for the release of the bring and cargo from the seizure, in pursuance of directions from the secretary of the treasury, returned the ship's papers to the master, and gave permission for the brig to proceed without delay to New York. Late in the afternoon of the same day, the present information was allowed by the district judge, and on the ensuing day, the brig and cargo were duly taken into possession by the marshal, under the usual monition from the Court. On the trial in the District Court, the property now in controversy was condemned; and, upon an appeal, that decree was reversed in the Circuit Court.

It has been argued that the decree of the Circuit Court ought to be affirmed, because, on the whole facts, the District Court had no jarisdiction over the cause: and this argument is maintained on two grounds; first, That the original seizure was made within the judicial district of New York; and, secondly, That if the seizure was originally made within the judicial district of Connecticut, the jurisdiction thereby acquired by the District Court was, by the subsequent abandonment of the seizure and want of possession, completely ousted.

It is unnecessary to consider the first ground, because we are of opinion that sufficient matter is not disclosed in the evidence to enable the Court to decide whether the seizure was within the district of New...