American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton

26 U.S. 511, 7 L. Ed. 242, 1 F. Cas. 658, 1 Pet. C.C. 511, 1 Pet. 511, 1828 U.S. LEXIS 421
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 15, 1828
StatusPublished
Cited by443 cases

This text of 26 U.S. 511 (American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Insurance v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511, 7 L. Ed. 242, 1 F. Cas. 658, 1 Pet. C.C. 511, 1 Pet. 511, 1828 U.S. LEXIS 421 (1828).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall .

delivered-, the opinion of theCogrt.—

.• .The plaintiffs filed their libel in this-cause in the District Court of-..South Carolina, to obtain .restitution of 356 bales of cotton; -part'of thé cargo- of the ship Point a Petre; which had been insured, by them on a voyage from-Néw-Orleans tó Havre de Grace, -in France. The Point a, Petre was wrecked on "the coast-pf. Florida, the cargo-saved .by. the inhabitants; and.carried-into Key West, where it was sold for the purpose of satisfying'the .salvors;, by virtue of a decree of a Court, consisting of a notary and five jurorsj .which was erected by-ah Act of the territorial; legislature of Florida; The owners abandoned to the underwriters,- who .' having accepted, the. .same, proceéde^l against the property; alleging thait the sale was not made' by order of a Court competent, to change the property. ;

David Canter claimfed the'cotton as. a bonk-fide purchaser, under the decree of a competenf COurt, which awarded seventy-six per-cent-'to the-salvors, on the'value of the property saved.

J The .District Judge pronounced the decree-pf. the .territorial Court a-hulhty, and awarded restitution. to-the liDellants-of such pari of the cargo as-.He supposed to be identified by the evidence; deducting therefromb salvage of. fifty per cent;

' The libellants ■ and' .claimant both- appealed. . The. Circuit .Court reversed-the decree pf the District Court,- and decreed-the whole .cotton, to the’claimant, with cost?.; on the ground that the proceedings of the Court .at Key West were -legal, and transferred the. property-to. the purchaser. .

■ From this decree the libellants have appealed to this Court.

The c^.ase'depends, mainly, on thé ¡question whether the property in the cargo saved, was changed'by the sale. .at Key West. .Thé conformity-of that sale-tó-the orderundér whifeh it was made,-has not been-controverted. Its validity, has been denied, on th.e ground that it was ordered by an incompetent tribunal. . '

The tribunal was constituted by an Act- of the territorial le-. gislatúre of Florida,-passed on the-4th July 1823,. which is inserted, in the record. That; Act purports-.to give the power which, has,- beep exercised-; consequently;the-salé is.valid, if the territorial legislature was,competent t6 enact-the law.

The,course which-the argument has.taken"; -will require, that, *542 in deciding this question, the Court should take into view the relation in which Florida stands to the United States.

The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union, the powers of making war, and of making, treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquire ing-territory,- either by conquest or by treaty.

The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, .to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occupation, until its fate shall be determined at the treaty, of peace.- -If it- be ceded by the treaty, the acquisition is'confirmed, and’the-ceded territory becomes’a part of the nation to which, it is annexed;- either ,on the terms stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on suchi as its new master shall impose. On such transfer of territory, it has never been held, that the relations of'the-inhabitants with each other undergo any change.. Their -relations with their former sovereign arc dissolved, and new relation^ are created between them, and the government • which has acquired their territory.’ Thé sam'e Act which transfers their' country, transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and thp law, which may-be denominated political, is necessarily changed,- although' that whichiegulátes the intercourse, and general conduct of. individuals,-remains in force, until altered by'the newly created .power of the state.

’ On the 2d of February 1819, Spain'ceded Florida to the United States. The 6th article qf the treaty of cession, contains the following provision — “ The inhabitants of the territories, which his Catholic majesty cedes to the United States by this treaty, shall be incorporated in the -Union of the Upited States, as soon., as may be consistent with the principles of the federal Constitution; and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.”-

This -treaty is the law of .the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privilege's, rights, and immunities-, of -the citizens of the'United States. It is-unnecessary to -inquire; whether'this is-not their-condition, independent of stipulation.; They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not-share in the government, till Florida shall-become, á state- In the mean time, Florida continues to be a territory of the United States; governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution, which empowers Congress “to make all’neédfuí rules and regulations, respecting the-territory, or other property belonging to the. United States.”

Perhaps the; power of governing a territory belonging- to the’United'States,-which has not, by becoming a state, acquired the mean’s of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts, that it is not withili the jurisdiction of any particular, state, "arid is within the power and jurisdiction of the United *543 States. The right to govern, may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source, whence the power is derived, the. possession of it is .'Unquestioned. In execution of it, Congress, in 1822, passed “ an Act for the establishment of a territorial government in Florida;” and, on the 3d of March 1823, passed another Act to amend ' the Act of 1822. Under this Act', the territorial legislature enacted the law now under consideration.

. The 5th section of the'Act of 1823,-creatés a territorial legislature, which shall Rave legislative powers over all- rightful objects of legislation';, but no law.shall .be valid, which is inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the United . States. ■ _

_ The 7th section . enacts “ That the judicial power shall be vested,in two Superior Courts, and in such inferior Courts, and justices of. the peace, as the legislative council of the territory may from time to time establish.'*’ After prescribing the place of cession, and the jurisdictional limits, of each Court, the Act proceeds to say;'“within its limits herein. described, each Court shall Rave jurisdiction in all criminal cases,- and exclusive jurisdiction in all capital offences; and original jurisdiction in all-civil cases of the valúe of one hundred . dollars, arising under and cognizable by the. laws of the territory, "now in force therein, or-which may, at' any time, be enacted by the legislative council thereof. ”

The 8 th section enacts “That each' of-the.said! Superior Courts shall moreover Rave and exercise the same jurisdiction .within its limits, in all cases arising und,er the laws and Constitution of the United States,;which', by án Act to-establish the. judicial Courts of the United-States, approved, the'24th of September 1789, and an. Act iii addition to the Act, entitled- án . Act to. establish the judicial Courts of-the United'States; ..approved the 2d of March 1793, was. vested in the Court of ¿en-tucky. district.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Daniel Masters v. Ussec
Ninth Circuit, 2023
Perdue v. Post Master
E.D. Washington, 2021
I.A. v. City of Redondo Beach
C.D. California, 2020
Ortiz v. United States
Supreme Court, 2018
Mercer v. United States
Federal Claims, 2016
Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif
575 U.S. 665 (Supreme Court, 2015)
United States v. David Hollingsworth
783 F.3d 556 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
Nancy C. Gazaille v. Robert A. McDonald
27 Vet. App. 205 (Veterans Claims, 2014)
Peter Kuretski v. Commissioner of IRS
755 F.3d 929 (D.C. Circuit, 2014)
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC
671 F.3d 736 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Constructive Hands, Inc. v. Baker
446 F. Supp. 2d 88 (N.D. New York, 2006)
United States v. Clifton S. Corey
232 F.3d 1166 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Koren v. Martin Marietta Services, Inc.
997 F. Supp. 196 (D. Puerto Rico, 1998)
Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Stern
136 F.R.D. 63 (S.D. New York, 1991)
United States v. ZP Chandon
889 F.2d 233 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
In re Sequoia Auto Brokers, Ltd. v. Idell
827 F.2d 1281 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 U.S. 511, 7 L. Ed. 242, 1 F. Cas. 658, 1 Pet. C.C. 511, 1 Pet. 511, 1828 U.S. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-insurance-v-356-bales-of-cotton-scotus-1828.