The Schooner Rachel v. the United States
| Decision Date | 01 February 1810 |
| Citation | 10 U.S. 329,6 Cranch 329,3 L.Ed. 239 |
| Parties | THE SCHOONER RACHEL v. THE UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the district court of the United States for the district of Orleans, which condemned the schooner Rachel for having traded with certain prohibited ports of St. Domingo, contrary to the act of congress.
The sentence of condemnation was passed, and the vessel sold, and the proceeds paid over to the United States, while the act was in force. The act had since expired. It was a case within the principle decided at last term, in the case of Yeaton and Young v. The United States, but it having been made a question whether the sale and payment over of the money did not prevent the operation of that principle, and there being also a question of jurisdiction, the cause stood over to this term for consideration.
The general question of jurisdiction of that court having been settled at this term in the case of Serre and Laralde v. Pitot and others, and the fact of the sale and payment over of the money being admitted,- Martin and P. B. Key, for the claimants, prayed the court to direct that the proceeds should be paid over to the claimants.
But the court said that it was a matter to be left to the consideration of the court below. This court will only make a general order for restitution of the property condemned.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Williams, 6051.
...all suits founded upon it, even though commenced before the date of the repeal: Rex v. Justices of London, 3 Burr. 456; Schooner Rachel v. United States, 6 Cranch, 329 ; The Irresistible, 7 Wheat. 551 ; United States v. Preston, 3 Pet. 57 ; Pope v. Lewis, 4 Ala. 489; Lewis v. Foster, 1 N. H......
-
State of Washington v. United States
...1917, 242 U.S. 468, 37 S.Ct. 208, 61 L.Ed. 441 (repeal); Yeaton v. U. S., 1809, 5 Cranch 281, 3 L.Ed. 101 (repeal); The Rachel v. U. S., 1810, 6 Cranch 329, 3 L.Ed. 239 (expiration). (b) The later enactment of a Statute or negotiation of a treaty; Crozier v. Fried Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, ......
-
De Rodulfa v. United States
...18 L. Ed. 540 (1867); United States v. Preston, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 57, 66, 7 L.Ed. 601 (1830). See also Schooner Rachel v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 329, 3 L. Ed. 239 (1810) (expiration of law conferring jurisdiction); Yeaton v. United States, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 281, 3 L.Ed. 101 (1809)......
-
Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co.
...they cannot be recovered: Potter's Dwarris on Statutes 160; Yeaton v. U. S., 5 Cranch 281; Rex v. Justices, 3 Burr. 1456; Rachel v. U. S., 6 Cranch 329; The Irresistible, 7 Wheaton 551; S. v. Preston, 3 Peters 57; Pope v. Lewis, 4 Ala. 489; Lewis v. Foster, 1 N. H. 61; C. J. LANG, in Maryla......