Del Col v. Arnold

3 U.S. 333, 1 L. Ed. 624, 3 Dall. 333, 1796 U.S. LEXIS 412
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedAugust 11, 1796
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 3 U.S. 333 (Del Col v. Arnold) 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
Del Col v. Arnold, 3 U.S. 333, 1 L. Ed. 624, 3 Dall. 333, 1796 U.S. LEXIS 412 (1796).

Opinion

The^ Court

delivered, at different times, the following opinions: .

On thefirji point,- that there was a fufficient probable caufe for feizing and bringing the Grand Sachem into port.

On (he fecond point, that the right of feizing and bringing in a vefiel for further examination, does not authorife, or ex-cufe, anv fpoliation, or damage, done to the property; brít that the capto¡ s proceed at their peril, and are liable fcr all the confcquent injury and lofs.

On the third point, that the owners of the privateer are re- • fponlible for the conduct of their agents, the officers and crew, *335 fo all the world; and that the meafure of fuch refponftbility is the full value of the property injured, or deftroyed. *

On the fourth point, that whatever might, originally, have been the irregularity in attaching the Indujlry and her cargo, it is compleatly obviated, lince the captors had a power to fell the prize ; and by their own agreement, they have confented that the proceeds of the fale ihould abide the iffue of the pre-fent fuit.

The decree of the Circuit Court affirmed.'

*

Chase,and Iredej.l, JuJlices, agreed that the owners were reipotifi-ble, but differed as to the extent, obferying that the privateer’s men were juftifiablc in abandoning, to fave themfei ves from captivity; but that the revoval of the money into the privateer, and the fubfequent fcutling of the brig, were unlawful acts.

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

Related

Sellers v. Dobbs
D. South Carolina, 2021
Jody King v. Huntress, Inc.
94 A.3d 467 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2014)
Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc.
662 F.3d 212 (Third Circuit, 2011)
The Newaygo
205 F. 178 (E.D. Michigan, 1913)
The Umbria
166 U.S. 404 (Supreme Court, 1897)
City of Cincinnati v. Evans
5 Ohio St. 594 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1855)
The Apollon.
22 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1824)
La Nereyda. The Spanish Consul , Libellant
21 U.S. 108 (Supreme Court, 1823)
The Amiable Nancy
16 U.S. 252 (Supreme Court, 1818)
Tunno v. Preary
24 F. Cas. 323 (D. South Carolina, 1794)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 U.S. 333, 1 L. Ed. 624, 3 Dall. 333, 1796 U.S. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/del-col-v-arnold-scotus-1796.