Yeaton and Others, Claimants of the Schooner General Pinkney and Cargo v. the United States

• Decision Date: 01 February 1809
• Citation: 5 Cranch 281,9 U.S. 281,3 L.Ed. 101
• Parties: YEATON AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER GENERAL PINKNEY AND CARGO, v. THE UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

9 U.S. 281

5 Cranch 281

3 L.Ed. 101

YEATON AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF THE SCHOONER GENERAL

PINKNEY AND CARGO,

v.THE UNITED STATES.

February Term, 1809

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the circuit court for the district of Maryland, which condemned the schooner General Pinkney and cargo, for breach of the act of congress prohibiting intercourse with certain ports of the island of St. Domingo; passed February, 28th 1806. Vol. 8, p. 11. This act was limited to one year; but by the act of February 24th, 1807, it was continued until the end of the then next session of congress, when it expired on the 26th of April, 1808.

The schooner General Pinkney, on the 23d of August, 1806, was cleared from Alexandria for St. Jago de Cuba with a cargo, but went to Cape Francois in the island of St. Domingo, one of the prohibited ports. On her return, she was seized on the 17th of November, 1806, and libelled on the 5th of January, 1807, and condemned in the district court on the 23d of July following, which condemnation was affirmed in the circuit court on the 7th of November, from which sentence the claimants immediately appealed, in open court, to the supreme court of the United States, then next to be holden on the first Monday of February, 1808, where the cause was continued until the present term.

The only question now argued was, whether this court could now affirm the sentence of condemnation, inasmuch as the law which created the forfeiture, and authorized the condemnation, had expired?

C. Lee, Martin, Harper and Youngs, for the appellants, contended that, in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, an appeal suspends entirely the sentence appealed from; and that in the appellate court the cause stands as if no sentence had been pronounced. 1 Browne's Civil Law, 495. 501. 1 Br. Parl. Cas. 70. 590. Rochfort v. Nugent. 2 Domat, 686. 2 Browne's Civil Law, 436. 437. 3 Dall. 87. 114. 118. Penhallow v. Doane. 4 Cranch, 2. Jennings v. Carson. Id. 443. United States v. The Betsey & Chatlotte. Purker, 72.

If then the case stands as if no sentence of condemnation has been passed, the question arises, can this court now proceed to condemn the vessel when there is no law authorizing a condemnation?

The act of congress makes no provision for the recovery (after the expiration of the act) of penalties or forfeitures which had been incurred under that act during its existence.

And in such cases the law has always been understood to be, that the penalty or forfeiture cannot be enforced, nor the punishment inflicted. The court has no longer any jurisdiction in the case. 2 East's Cr. Law, 576. Jones's case. 1 W. Bl. 451. Miller's case. 4 Dal. 373. 1 Hale, 291. The case of the United States...