United States v. Coolidge

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJOHNSON
Citation1 Wheat. 415,14 U.S. 415,4 L.Ed. 124
Decision Date21 March 1816
PartiesThe UNITED STATES v. COOLIDGE, et. al

14 U.S. 415
4 L.Ed. 124
1 Wheat. 415
The UNITED STATES
v.
COOLIDGE, et. al.
March 21, 1816

THIS was an indictment in the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, against the defendants, for forcibly rescuing a prize, which had been captured and taken possession of by two American privateers. The captured vessel was on her way, under the direction of a prize master and crew, to the port of Salem for adjudication. The indictment laid the offence as committed upon the high seas. The question made was, whether the circuit court has jurisdiction over common law offences against the United States? on which the judges of that court were divided in opinion.

The Attorney-General stated that he had given to this case an anxious attention; as much so, he hoped, as his public duty, under whatever view of it, rendered necessary. That he had also examined the opinion of the court, delivered at February term, 1813, in the case of the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin. That considering the point as decided in that case, whether with, or without, argument, on the part of those who had preceded him as the renew

Page 416

sentative of the government in this court, he desired respectfully to state, without saying more, that it was not his intention to argue it now.

STORY, J. I do not take the question to be settled by that case.

JOHNSON, J. I consider it to be settled by the authority of that case.

WASHINGTON, J. Whenever counsel can be found ready to argue it, I shall devest myself of all prejudice arising from that case.

LIVINGSTON, J. I am disposed to hear an argument on the point. This case was brought up for that purpose, but until the question is re-argued, the case of the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin must be taken as law.

March 21st.

JOHNSON, J. delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon the question now before the court a difference of opinion has existed, and still exists, among the members of the court. We should, therefore, have been willing to have heard the question discussed upon solemn argument. But the attorney-general has declined to argue the cause; and no counsel appears for the defendant. Under these circumstances the court would not choose to review their former decision in the case of the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, or draw it into doubt. They

Page 417

will, therefore, certify an opinion to the circuit court in conformity with that decision.

Certificate for the defendant.a

a Vide, 1 Gallison,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., Civ. A. No. 83-2864.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • September 20, 1984
    ...Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263, 72 S.Ct. 240, 249, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952); United States v. Coolidge, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 415, 4 L.Ed. 124 (1816); United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). See also United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 185 (3d Cir.19......
  • United States v. Bink, No. C-16937.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • September 30, 1947
    ...States v. McKay, D.C., 45 F.Supp. 1007. 22 United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259; United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415, 4 L. Ed. 124. 23 United States v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. 401, 27 Fed.Cas. 91, No. 15,867. "Locality in crimes, as in torts, has ever ......
  • Gatton v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 28, 1895
    ...been asserted, and the general acquiescence of legal men shows the prevalence of opinion in favor of the negative." U. S. v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415, 4 L.Ed. 124. Peter S. Duponceau, provost of the law academy of Philadelphia, was an early and eminent [95 Iowa 123] advocate of the theory tha......
  • Oench, Duhme Co v. Federal Deposit Ins Corporation, No. 206
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1942
    ...Tyson, led that scholar to conclude that United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259, and United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat, 415, 4 L.Ed. 124, establishing the above proposition, were probably wrongly decided. Warren, History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harvard Law Revie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., Civ. A. No. 83-2864.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • September 20, 1984
    ...Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263, 72 S.Ct. 240, 249, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952); United States v. Coolidge, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 415, 4 L.Ed. 124 (1816); United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). See also United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 185 (3d Cir.19......
  • United States v. Bink, No. C-16937.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • September 30, 1947
    ...States v. McKay, D.C., 45 F.Supp. 1007. 22 United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259; United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415, 4 L. Ed. 124. 23 United States v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. 401, 27 Fed.Cas. 91, No. 15,867. "Locality in crimes, as in torts, has ever ......
  • Gatton v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 28, 1895
    ...been asserted, and the general acquiescence of legal men shows the prevalence of opinion in favor of the negative." U. S. v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415, 4 L.Ed. 124. Peter S. Duponceau, provost of the law academy of Philadelphia, was an early and eminent [95 Iowa 123] advocate of the theory tha......
  • Oench, Duhme Co v. Federal Deposit Ins Corporation, No. 206
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1942
    ...Tyson, led that scholar to conclude that United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259, and United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat, 415, 4 L.Ed. 124, establishing the above proposition, were probably wrongly decided. Warren, History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harvard Law Revie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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