Jump to content

Talbot v. Seeman: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Disambiguate forfeit to wiktionary:forfeit
already linked
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case |Litigants=Talbot v. Seeman
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|ArgueDate=
|Litigants=Talbot v. Seeman
|ArgueYear=
|ArgueDateA=August 4
|DecideDate=
|ArgueDateB=7
|ArgueYear=1801
|DecideDate=August 11
|DecideYear=1801
|DecideYear=1801
|FullName=Silas Talbot v. Hans Frederick Seeman
|FullName=Silas Talbot v. Hans Frederick Seeman
|USVol=5
|USVol=5
|USPage=1
|USPage=1
|ParallelCitations=1 [[William Cranch|Cranch]] 1; 2 [[L. Ed.]] 15; 1801 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 116
|NewCitation={{usscr|5|1|1801|1|Cranch}}
|Prior=on [[writ of error]] to the [[Circuit Court]] of the District of [[New York]]
|Prior=on [[writ of error]] to the [[Circuit Court]] of the District of [[New York (state)|New York]]
|Subsequent=
|Subsequent=
|Holding=A vessel captured from the enemy in time of war is subject to salvage rights even if the vessels owner was not party to the conflict
|Holding=A vessel captured from the enemy in wartime is subject to salvage rights even its owner is not party to the conflict.
|Majority=Marshall
|SCOTUS=1801-1804
|JoinMajority=''unanimous''
|Majority=
|LawsApplied=Salvage Act of 28 June 1798
|PerCuriam=yes
|JoinMajority=
|Concurrence=
|JoinConcurrence=
|Concurrence2=
|JoinConcurrence2=
|Concurrence/Dissent=
|JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
|Dissent=
|JoinDissent=
|Dissent2=
|JoinDissent2=
|NotParticipating=
|LawsApplied=Salvage act of 28 June, 1798
}}
}}

'''''Talbot v. Seeman''''', {{ussc|5|1|1801|1|Cranch}} is a case of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. It was a [[maritime law|maritime]] case involving the circumstances under which [[Marine salvage|salvage rights]] attach to a neutral vessel, captured by enemy forces, and then recaptured by the [[United States]] [[Navy]].
'''''Talbot v. Seeman''''', 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801), was a [[United States Supreme Court]] case. It involved [[maritime law]], specifically the circumstances under which [[marine salvage|salvage]] rights attach to a neutral vessel captured by enemy forces and then recaptured by the [[United States Navy]].


==Background==
==Background==
The ''Amelia'' was a merchant vessel owned by citizens of [[Hamburg]]. It was captured on the [[high seas]] by the [[France|French]] military vessel ''La Diligente'' during the [[Quasi-War|Franco-American Naval Conflict]] of [[1798]]-[[1800]]. The vessel was then recaptured during the same period by the ''[[USS Constitution]]'' under the command of Captain Talbot. Talbot asserted salvage rights over the captured vessel. The Court considered two issues:
The ''Amelia'', a merchant vessel owned by citizens of [[Hamburg]], was captured on the [[high seas]] by the [[France|French]] military vessel ''La Diligente'' during the French-American Naval Conflict (1798-1800), also known as the [[Quasi-War]]. The vessel was then recaptured during the same period by the ''[[USS Constitution]]'' under the command of Captain Talbot, who asserted salvage rights over the captured vessel. The Court considered two issues:
# Whether the recapture by the ''Constitution'' was legal
# Whether the recapture by the ''Constitution'' was legal
# Whether ''meritorious service'' (a prerequisite for salvage) was performed in the recapture.
# Whether ''meritorious service'' (a prerequisite for salvage) was performed in the recapture.
The first issue was complicated by two factors. First, an enemy vessel captured in time of war is captured legally. However, in this case the vessel was not an enemy vessel, but a vessel legally owned by a non-party to the conflict. Second, there was no [[declaration of war]] in the conflict between the United States and France.


The former issue was complicated by two factors. Firstly, an enemy vessel captured in time of war is captured legally. However, the vessel was not an enemy vessel but a vessel legally owned by a non-party to the conflict. Secondly, there was no [[declaration of war]] in the conflict between the United States and France.
The Hamburg vessel was on its way to France at the time it was recaptured by Captain Talbot. The Seeman and other owners of the vessel claimed that under the [[Laws of War]] the French would have to release it to them and thus Captain Talbot's capture of the vessel did them no service. Talbot claimed that he saved the vessel from adjudication under the laws of France, which could have [[wiktionary:forfeit|forfeit]]ed the vessel or demanded salvage payment to France.

The Hamburg vessel was on its way to France when it was recaptured by Captain Talbot. Hans Seeman and other owners of the vessel claimed that under the [[laws of war]], the French would have to release it to them and thus Talbot's capture of the vessel did them no service. Talbot claimed that he saved the vessel from adjudication under the laws of France, which could have [[wiktionary:forfeit|forfeited]] the vessel or demanded salvage payment to France.


==Decision==
==Decision==
The Court held that although there was no declaration of war with France, [[United States Congress|Congress]] had authorized the [[military]] seizure of French vessels. Since the ''Amelia'' was armed and in the possession of the French Navy, [[probable cause]] existed for Captain Talbot to capture it. The capture was therefore legal. It further held that meritorius servous had been performed in rescuing it from French hands. In exchange for its return to its rightful owners, Captain Talbot and the [[Military officer|officers]] of the ''Constitution'' should be compensated.
The Court held that although there was no declaration of war against France, the United States had authorized the [[military]] seizure of French vessels. Since the ''Amelia'' was armed and in the possession of the [[French Navy]], [[probable cause]] existed and so Captain Talbot had captured it legally.


The Court further held that a meritorious service had been performed in rescuing it from French hands. In exchange for its return to its rightful owners, Talbot and the [[military officer|officers]] of the ''Constitution'' should be compensated.
The court reversed the [[Circuit Court of New York]] and ordered the vessel returned to its Hamburg owners upon their payment of salvage in the amount of one sixth of its value.

The court reversed the Circuit Court of New York and ordered the vessel returned to its Hamburg owners upon their payment of salvage in the amount of one sixth of its value.


==See also==
==See also==
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5]]
* [[Maritime Law]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}


==External links==
==External links==
{{Wikisource}}
*{{Wikisource-inline}}
* {{caselaw source
*[http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/1/case.html Full text of the decision on Justica]
| case = ''Talbot v. Seeman'', {{Ussc|5|1|1801|Cranch|1|el=no}}
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/1/
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep005/usrep005001/usrep005001.pdf
| openjurist =https://openjurist.org/5/us/1
}}


[[Category:1801 in law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court]]
[[Category:United States admiralty case law]]
[[Category:United States admiralty case law]]
[[Category:1801 in United States case law]]

{{SCOTUS-case-stub}}

Latest revision as of 03:05, 15 March 2024

Talbot v. Seeman
Argued August 4–7, 1801
Decided August 11, 1801
Full case nameSilas Talbot v. Hans Frederick Seeman
Citations5 U.S. 1 (more)
1 Cranch 1; 2 L. Ed. 15; 1801 U.S. LEXIS 116
Case history
Prioron writ of error to the Circuit Court of the District of New York
Holding
A vessel captured from the enemy in wartime is subject to salvage rights even its owner is not party to the conflict.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington
Alfred Moore
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Salvage Act of 28 June 1798

Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case. It involved maritime law, specifically the circumstances under which salvage rights attach to a neutral vessel captured by enemy forces and then recaptured by the United States Navy.

Background

[edit]

The Amelia, a merchant vessel owned by citizens of Hamburg, was captured on the high seas by the French military vessel La Diligente during the French-American Naval Conflict (1798-1800), also known as the Quasi-War. The vessel was then recaptured during the same period by the USS Constitution under the command of Captain Talbot, who asserted salvage rights over the captured vessel. The Court considered two issues:

  1. Whether the recapture by the Constitution was legal
  2. Whether meritorious service (a prerequisite for salvage) was performed in the recapture.

The former issue was complicated by two factors. Firstly, an enemy vessel captured in time of war is captured legally. However, the vessel was not an enemy vessel but a vessel legally owned by a non-party to the conflict. Secondly, there was no declaration of war in the conflict between the United States and France.

The Hamburg vessel was on its way to France when it was recaptured by Captain Talbot. Hans Seeman and other owners of the vessel claimed that under the laws of war, the French would have to release it to them and thus Talbot's capture of the vessel did them no service. Talbot claimed that he saved the vessel from adjudication under the laws of France, which could have forfeited the vessel or demanded salvage payment to France.

Decision

[edit]

The Court held that although there was no declaration of war against France, the United States had authorized the military seizure of French vessels. Since the Amelia was armed and in the possession of the French Navy, probable cause existed and so Captain Talbot had captured it legally.

The Court further held that a meritorious service had been performed in rescuing it from French hands. In exchange for its return to its rightful owners, Talbot and the officers of the Constitution should be compensated.

The court reversed the Circuit Court of New York and ordered the vessel returned to its Hamburg owners upon their payment of salvage in the amount of one sixth of its value.

See also

[edit]
[edit]