Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Little v. Barreme
Citation: 6 U.S. 171
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; February 27, 1804; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The court opinion delivered by Chief Justice Marshall addresses the case of the Flying Fish, a Danish vessel captured by the United States frigate Boston on December 2, 1799, while transporting Danish and neutral property from Jeremie to St. Thomas. The vessel was libelled as an American ship violating the non-intercourse law. The initial judge ordered the vessel and cargo to be restored as neutral property but denied damages for the capture, citing probable cause to suspect it was American. On appeal, this decision was reversed, as the Flying Fish was not bound to a French port and thus not liable to capture, even if it were American. The non-intercourse law in question mandated the forfeiture of vessels involved in trade with individuals in the French republic. It allowed the President to instruct armed vessels to stop and examine suspected American ships on the high seas, permitting their seizure if they were headed to French ports. However, the law's wording suggested that seizures should occur only for vessels specifically bound to French ports. Captain Little's suspicion of the Flying Fish's status as an American vessel did not justify its detention, as the law did not authorize the seizure of vessels not bound for France. The court highlighted that the law's interpretation by the administration seemed to allow broader enforcement than intended, which could lead to evasion of the law. A copy of the act was sent by the Secretary of the Navy to the captains of armed vessels, instructing them to prevent any interaction between U.S. ports and those of France or its dependencies. Captains were warned to be vigilant against vessels that, while genuinely American, might be disguised under foreign papers. The act mandated the seizure of American vessels departing from French ports, raising the question of whether officers following these orders could be held liable for damages resulting from such seizures. Initially, there was a belief that executive orders might excuse officers from liability even if they did not provide legal rights. A distinction was considered between civil and military officers and their actions on land versus at sea. However, it was ultimately concluded that such instructions cannot alter the fundamental nature of the act, which would otherwise be a trespass. Therefore, if Captain Little seized a vessel mistakenly believed to be American, he would still be liable for damages to the owner of a neutral vessel. The judgment of the circuit court, which did not present any objections, was affirmed with costs.