Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 U.S. 498

The Battle

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 1, 1867

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1867-12

The libel set forth a seizure of the steamer Battle and cargo on the 18th July, 1863, on the high seas, as prize of war, which were brought into the port and harbor of Key West. She was captured about fifty miles south-southeast from Mobile Point by the United States steamer De Soto, Walker commanding. No claim of ownership for vessel or cargo was presented to the coui’t. The vessel had just run, or was in the act of running, the blockade of Mobile when Bhe was captured.

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The principle is too well settled that capture as prize of war, jure belli, overrides all previous liens, to require examination.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including The Carlos F. Roses

Relies on The Frances

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 8–0 · Opinion by Samuel Nelson · Decided 1867-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1977

10 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

40186718701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Capture as prize of war, jure belli, overrides all previous liens.

¶2Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida.

¶3The libel set forth a seizure of the steamer Battle and cargo on the 18th July, 1863, on the high seas, as prize of war, which were brought into the port and harbor of Key West. She was captured about fifty miles south-southeast from Mobile Point by the United States steamer De Soto, Walker commanding. No claim of ownership for vessel or cargo was presented to the coui’t. The vessel had just run, or was in the act of running, the blockade of Mobile when Bhe was captured. The vessel and cargo were sold pending the suit. The proceeds of the sale of the vessel were $23,000, and of the cargo, $240,895.62. The vessel and cargo were condemned for breach of blockade, and also as enemy property.

¶4There were two claims set up against the steamer in the court below, one by James Brooks, of New Albany, State of Indiana, for supplies furnished at that port in May, 1860, to the amount of $3408.32, and another by Daniel Hippie and others for materials furnished, and for work and labor in building a cabin on said boat, in January, 1860, to the amount of $7230.92, at the port of New Albany aforesaid; that after deducting all payments a balance remains due of $3615.45. These claims were dismissed by the court below.

¶5The appellant was not represented by counsel; Mr. N. Wilson, for the captors, and Mr. Ashton, special counsel, for the United States.

¶6Mr. Justice NELSON

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8The principle is too well settled that capture as prize of war, jure belli, overrides all previous liens, to require examination.* Decree affirmed.

/73/us/498 · .json · Public domain