The Ship Richmond v. the United States
| Decision Date | 15 February 1815 |
| Citation | 9 Cranch 102,13 U.S. 102,3 L.Ed. 670 |
| Parties | THE SHIP RICHMOND, v. THE UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the sentence of the Circuit Court for the
district of Georgia affirming the sentence of the district Court, which condemned the ship Richmond, for a violation of the non-intercourse act of 28th of June, 1809, vol. 10, p. 13, by departing from Philadelphia, bound on a foreign voyage to a permitted port, without having given bond not to go to a prohibited port.
The case was argued by HARPER for the Appellant and JONES and PINKNEY for the United States.
The ship Richmond, an American registered vessel, sailed from Philadelphia in ballast, in December, 1809, with a clearance for New York, but proceeded to Portsmouth in Great Britain, where she arrived in 1810. She made two voyages to Amelia island in East Florida, during the second of which she was seized in St. Mary's river by gun-boat N., 62, January 14th, 1812, and libelled in the district Court of Georgia, for violating the act passed the 28th of June, 1809, for amending the non-intercourse law. The Richmond was condemned in both the district and circuit Courts, and from their sentence the Claimants have appealed to this Court.
The Claimants contend,
1. That the vessel was not liable to forfeiture.
2. That the seizure was made within the territory of Spain, and that all proceedings founded thereon are void.
When the Richmond sailed from Philadelphia, commercial intercourse between the ports of Great Britain, and those of the United States, was permitted. But the act of the 28th of June, 1809, vol. 10, p. 13, enacts, that 'no ship or vessel bound to a foreign port of place with which commercial intercourse has been or may be thus permitted, except, &c. shall be allowed to depart unless the owner or owners, consignee or factor of such ship or vessel shall, with the master, have given bond, with one or more sureties, to the United States, in a sum double the value of the vessel and cargo, that the vessel shall not proceed to any port or place with which commercial intercourse is not thus permitted, nor be directly nor indirectly enguged during the voyage in any trade with such port or place.' If a vessel shall depart without having given such bond, the vessel with her cargo are declared to be wholly forfeited.
It is contended that this act does not apply to vessels departing from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffers v. United States
...Court was secured by the fact that the res was in the possession of the prohibition director when the libel was filed. The Richmond, 9 Cr. Cranch 102 3 L.Ed. 670. The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391, 403 6 L.Ed. 118. The Underwriter 2 Cir., 13 F.(2d) 433, 434. We can see no reason for doubting the sou......
-
United States v. Alvarez-Machain
...of a court to later try an individual who has been so abducted. More to the point for our purposes are cases such as The Ship Richmond, 9 Cranch 102, 3 L.Ed. 670 (1815), and The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391, 6 L.Ed. 118 (1824), both of which hold that a seizure of a vessel in violation of internati......
-
U.S. v. Conroy
...crew of the vessel involved, but to the foreign government whose territoriality has been infringed by the action. In The Richmond, 1815, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 102, 3 L.Ed. 670, the Court rejected a challenge similar to the one we face here to the seizure of an American registered vessel in the......
-
United States v. Sobell
...forfeiture proceedings against it for violation of the prohibition laws. Because of the liquor smuggling problem during prohibition, the United States and Great Britain had entered into a treaty which permitted British ships to enter United States ports with personal liquor stores on board in ret......