THE MONTE ALLEGRE AND THE RAINHA DE LOS ANJOS. THE PORTUGUESE CONSUL GENERAL, LIBELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Portuguese consul general libeled two vessels, the Monte Allegre and the Rainha de los Anjos, that were captured by La Fortuna, a privateer commissioned by the Oriental Republic but owned, equipped, and manned by United States citizens from Baltimore. The Supreme Court held that the captures violated United States neutrality laws because the evidence of the Oriental Republic's alleged purchase of La Fortuna was insufficient, the vessel remained under American ownership and control, and prizes were regularly returned to Baltimore, making the seizures unlawful and requiring their restoration. The Court affirmed the lower court's decree that the captured vessels should be restored and costs awarded to the Portuguese consul general.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion, of the Court.
The Monte Allegre was captured by the private armed vessel called La Fortuna, cruising at the time under a commission from the chief of the Oriental Republic. She was completely fitted out, equipped, and manned, in Baltimore, from which port she sailed on her first cruize, in December, 1816 ; owned and commanded by citizens of the United States; but commissioned by the government of Buenos Ayres. She sailed again oil her second cruize, in August, .1317, from the port of Baltimore. This cruize terminated at Buenos Ayres, where she was in part dis-. mantled, some of her rigging and. arms being deposited in a store ship which lay near her. The crew also were discharged. After lying in port four or five weeks, she sailed on her third cruize, having the same armament with which she sailed from Baltimore, and about twenty or thirty of the same crew. Her commandei was changed, but was still a citizen of the United States; and she sailed under a commission from the Oriental Republic. On this cruize, the Monte Allegre was* taken, and sent into the port of Baltimore; where she was libelled by the Consul General of Portugal. She was claimed by William Foster, the prize master, in behalf of the Oriental Republic, who alleged, that while she lay in the port of BueVos Ayres, she was purchased by the government of the Banda Oriental.
The reality of this sale constitutes the only, question which can arise in this case.
The testimony in support of it is found in the depositions of James Brown, James Williams, William Towson, and Alexander Towson. They mention the partial dismantling of the vessel, and speak of a report that she was sold, but they give no positive information on the subject, nor did they even hear to whom the sale was made. This testimony would weigh very little, were it even uncontradicted. But the regular transmission of her prizes to Baltimore, her returning to that port, at the termination of her cruize, the'depositions taken to show that the original proprietors had not parted with their interest. are proofs of a continuing American ownership,, which are entirely conclusive.. There can, then, be no doubt but that the captures made by the Fortuna are in violation of the law's of the United States, enacted for the preservation of our neutrality, and that they ought to be restored when brought within our territory.
The Rainha de los Anjos was a Portuguese vessel, captured by the La Fortuna, in the same cruize in which she captured the Monte AUegre. The cases are, in all material respects, thé same.
Sentences affirmed with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Monte Allegre, 9 Wheat. 616 (U.S. 1824)…pellant, in his petition^ it ought to be borne in mind, that the Monte Allégre and her cargo' were illegally captured and brought within •the United States, and that judgment of restitution [*641] hás been awarded in favour of the original owners,. (7 Wheat. Rep. 520.) Granting the claim now set up, will be throwing upon the owners an additional sacrifice of their property, without any misconduct of theirs, but, on the contrary, growing out of the illegal and wrongful, acts of others. Such a, result, in order to…
-
The S.S. Appam, 243 U.S. 124 (U.S. 1917)
-
Pullman Co. v. Bullard, 44 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1930)…rue, and in Northern Pacific Railroad v. Paine, 119 U. S. 561, 7 S. Ct. 323, 30 L. Ed. 513, where the only evidence of plaintiffs title was an admission in a plea which was not a good one, hut was not stricken. See also Crocket v. Lee, 7 Wheat. 523, 5 L. Ed. 513. The charge and refusal to charge were therefore erroneous, in that they applied to the pleadings under which the trial was proceeding the rule which would have been proper if the admission had been proven by a stricken pleading or a pleading in ano…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence