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.
The Fanny. The Consul-General of Portugal, Libellant
Citations: 22 U.S. 658; 6 L. Ed. 184; 9 Wheat. 658; 1824 U.S. LEXIS 405
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; February 28, 1824; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves a libel filed by the Consul-General of Portugal on behalf of Portuguese subjects claiming ownership of hides brought to Baltimore on the brig Fanny. The background includes the actions of U.S. citizens who outfitted a privateer, La Republicana, in Buenos Ayres in 1817, capturing the Portuguese brig Aurora in 1818 and selling it for $20,000. This led to the purchase of another privateer, the New Republicana, which captured the Portuguese ship Don Pedro de Alcantara, carrying a cargo of hides and sugar. Goodwin transshipped much of the cargo to St. Thomas, where the American Consul purchased 4,004 hides and 555 logs of lignum vitae. These goods were shipped to Baltimore in January 1819 but were later libelled as illegally taken Portuguese property. Lyde Goodwin, acting as agent for the Consul, claimed that the hides were purchased legitimately from Souffron & Co., denying knowledge of any illegal actions. The hides were appraised at $12,000 and delivered upon stipulation. Additionally, the owners of the Fanny presented a petition indicating a charter-party agreement with Nathan Levy for transporting goods, including the hides, from St. Thomas to Baltimore. Upon arrival, the cargo was seized by the Marshal under court process just as it was about to be delivered to consignee Levy. Petitioners claimed $2,094.50 due on the charter-party, acknowledged by Levy, and sought payment from the cargo proceeds. An account dated December 28, 1818, signed by Levy, confirmed this balance. The freight on the cargo, totaling $1,047.25 for 4,004 hides and 555 sticks of lignum vitae, was ordered to be paid by the claimant's agent. The District Court decreed the claimants to pay the libellant the hides' appraised value, plus interest and costs, after deducting the freight amount. This decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court, leading to appeals from both parties. Libellant's counsel argued several points: first, the seizure constituted a piratical taking due to insufficient evidence of a valid commission, asserting that even if the commission were valid, it had been misused by a new vessel and commander, rendering the captors trespassers from the outset. The appellant, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser under valid condemnation, failed to prove good faith, as the circumstances suggested otherwise. Even if a valid purchase occurred, it could not override the original owners' title due to the absence of proper condemnation. Second, Levy could not invoke the doctrine of market overt for protection, as property taken during war requires condemnation before such protection applies, and this doctrine is not recognized under international law. Third, while a condemnation exists, it does not affect the court's authority to restore property taken in violation of law, and it was issued after Levy's alleged purchase and shortly before the libel filing. Lastly, regarding the claim to freight, the appellant was deemed responsible for the entire value of the hides, as stipulated, including interest. Although the freight was paid to the ship-owner, the illegal captor cannot deduct this from the amount owed to the libellant. The argument emphasized that this was not a claim for freight by the ship-owner but for its allowance from the fund by the appellant. If the Court denies the appellant's claim to property based on its illegal capture, it raises the question of whether a bona fide purchaser can impose any charges or encumbrances on it. The appellant, described as an unworthy claimant, brought the property into an American port without the owner's consent and should not seek compensation for actions harmful to the rightful owner. The claim to the property is only valid regarding the innocent owner, as one without legitimate ownership cannot create a lien or impose charges. Even if the appellant seeks to be subrogated to the rights of the innocent ship-owner, the claim lacks merit since the illegal captors cannot enforce a lien against the fund if they have already satisfied any personal obligation. Unlike a neutral's claim for freight from a belligerent, this situation involves transferring the freight payment obligation from the illegal captor to the rightful owner. The ship-owner, acting on behalf of the captors, cannot claim against the goods and, if the illegal captor has paid the freight, he cannot seek reimbursement from the ill-gotten gains. The claim to freight is based on a conventional agreement, and there is no implied consent from the owners for the shipment. The Court below erred in allowing the full freight bill, which incorrectly included charges for property not owned by the libellant. The appellant requests that the Court reject the freight claim entirely and award the full value of the property, including interest, asserting that the captor is not entitled to any lien or benefit from the claim. Mr. Winder contended that the purchase of the cargo was legitimate. The Court, led by Mr. Justice WASHINGTON, considered two primary issues: 1) the appropriateness of restoring the cargo of the Fanny to its Portuguese owner, and 2) whether the freight costs should be deducted from the hides' appraised value. The Court found that the evidence clearly established that the New Republicana, a privateer, was built, manned, and equipped in the U.S., and that it captured the Don Pedro de Alcantara, which belonged to Portuguese subjects. The 4,004 hides in question were confirmed to be part of this cargo at the time of capture. The Court noted that the captured property belonged to subjects of a friendly nation and, following established legal principles, must be returned to the original owners unless a legitimate sale had occurred. However, the claim by Levy of purchasing the hides was unsupported by any evidence, documentation, or witness testimony, despite having ample opportunity to provide such proof during the lengthy proceedings. Even if the sale were accepted as true, Levy's purchase from an agent of a tortious possessor—who had no title—would not confer ownership. The earlier proceedings in the Vice-Admiralty Court did not result in condemnation but rather acknowledged a recapture, directing the remainder of the property to be returned to the Portuguese owners if claimed in a timely manner. Consequently, the Court upheld the Circuit Court’s decision to restore the hides or their proceeds to the libellant. The freight deduction from the appraised value of hides, as ordered by the lower court, is deemed incorrect due to a misunderstanding regarding the ownership of the lignum vitae, which was not subject to the libel. The judge likely overlooked this fact, necessitating a reversal of the decree and a remand for further proceedings to differentiate the freight owed for the hides from that for the lignum vitae. The claimant's petition for freight acknowledges a debt of $2,094.50, which includes freight for various items but does not clearly include the freight for the hides and lignum vitae. If it is determined that the claimant, Nathan Levy, has already paid the freight for the hides, that amount should not be deducted from their value unless he can prove he is a bona fide purchaser. Conversely, if he is found to be a bona fide purchaser without notice or has not paid the freight, then the freight for the hides should be deducted from their appraised value. The court affirmed the requirement for the claimant to pay the appraised value of the hides, subject to future deductions for freight as determined by the Circuit Court after further examination. The decree regarding freight deductions was reversed, and the case was remanded for a thorough investigation into the claimant’s payment and status in relation to the hides.