The Antelope

25 U.S. 546, 6 L. Ed. 723, 12 Wheat. 546, 1827 U.S. LEXIS 408
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 10, 1827
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 25 U.S. 546 (The Antelope) 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
The Antelope, 25 U.S. 546, 6 L. Ed. 723, 12 Wheat. 546, 1827 U.S. LEXIS 408 (1827).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Trimble

delivered the opinion of the Court. This case having been before this Court, and a decree rendered therein at February term, 1825, and again brought up, and an explanatory decree made therein at February term, 1826. the reports of the case in 10 Wheat. Rep. 66. and 11 Wheat. Rep. 413., are referred to for 'the general history of its facts and circumstances, and for the principles settled in it by the former decrees of this Court. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to make *547 a final disposition of the controversy between the parties, pursuant to the principles of the decrees of 1825 and 1826 of this Court.

The Circuit Court, in order to enable it to decree finally' in the. case, directed the register to take and report an ac - count of the costs, and also of the expenses of keeping, maintaining, &c. of the Africans, by the marshal, and which account was accordingly reported. Exceptions were filed to the report by both the Portuguese and Spanish claimants.

The Circuit Court also caused proofs to be taken for the purpose of identifying individually the Africans to be delivered to the Spanish claimants, as directed by the decree of 1826.

Thus circumstanced, the case came on for final hearing before the Circuit Court. The Court decreed that the Portuguese claimant should not be made liable for costs, or any proportion of the expenses and charges of the marshal fot maintaining, &c. the Africans; and being of opinion that thirty-nine of the Africans were sufficiently identified by proof, as being the property,of the Spanish claimants, directed the thirty-nine Africans, so identified, to be delivered to the Spanish claimants, upon their paying a proportion of the costs and expenses reported by the registrar, in the ratio of the number of Africans delivered, to the whole number; and the Circuit Court was further of opinion, that the residue of the Africans not directed to be-delivered to the Spanish claimants, should be delivered to the United States, to be disposed of according to law; but, on the question whether they shall be delivered absolutely, or on condition of payment of the balance of the expenses which will remain .unsatisfied after charging the Africans adjudged to the Spanish claimants in their due ratio, the judges of the Circuit Court being divided in opinion, ordered this difference of ■ opinion to be certified to this Court.

The case comes up on this certificate of division, and, also, upon an appeal prayed by the District Attorney on behalf of the United States, and allowed, “ From so much of the said final order of the Circuit Court, as relates to the apportionment among the several parties of the costs and expenses, in the preservation, maintenance, *548 and custody, of the said'Africans, and of the costs and expenses of-the various proceedings which have been had in relation to the said Africans, and, also, from so much of said order as decrees thirty-nine of the said Africans to the Spanish claimants.”

tiucstion ns to the marshal's expenses.-

We will first consider the question arising upon the certificate of'division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court.

It appears, from the opinion delivered by the Circuit Court, and from the registrar’s report, that, in making up that report as to the amount of expenses, sixteen cents per diem was allowed the marshal for the custody, maintenance, &c. of the Africans ; and the Spanish claimants were charged, as a condition precedent, with the proportion of expenses of the marshal, after this rate, in the ratio of the number of Africans to be delivered to them. The residue of the marshal’s expenses, at the same rate per diem, is supposed to be meant by the term “ expenses,” in the question on which the judges were opposed in opinion; and it is supposed the question upon which the judges were opposed in opinion was, whether the Africans not directed to be delivered to the Spanish claimants, should be delivered by the marshal to the United States, absolutely and unconditionally, to be disposed of according to law, or whether it-should he imposed on the United States asa condition precedent to their delivery, that the United 'Stales, should pay to the marshal his claim for expenses at the rate aforesaid, in the ratio of the number of Africans, to be delivered to the United States.

' The Spanish claimants have not appealed from the decree of the Circuit Court. As the Court had decided that they ought to bear some proporlion of the expenses, it was necessary, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount which they were to pay, to fix upon some data for making up the account of expenses so far as related to them; But, as they do not complain, this Court is not called upon to decide whether they were overcharged or not, nor to determine whether the rate of sixteen cents per diem was warranted by law, as the Circuit Court supposed, so far as the Spa - nish claimants are concerned. •

*549 As relates to the United States, the question propounded by the judges of the Circuit Court, and upon which they, were divided in opinion, does not necessarily draw in ques-lion the data or rate of the marshal’s allowance for expenses; but whether the payment qí his expenses, at any rate, or to any amount, ought to be-made a precedent condition to the delivery of the Africans' to the United States. It may well he doubted, however,.whether the State law does, as supposed by the Court, authorize the marshal to charge, as matter of right, sixteen cents per diem, for keeping, maintaining, &c. the Africans; although it might, furnish ,some guide, in an appeal to the sound discretion and- justice of the government, in making him a reasonable Compensation. It is true, the first section of the “ Act for providing compensation for the marshal,” (3d vol. oh. j á5.) after declaring the fees and comreifsaticn to be allowed the marshal for certain enumerated services, &c. adds, “For all other services not herein enumerated, such fees or compensation as are allowed in the Supreme Court of the State where the services are rendered.” This has generally been construed, and, wc think, rightly, to mean, that where the services performed are not enumerated in the act of Congress, hut such services are enumerated, and a fixed .allowance made therefor in the State laws, they shall fix the rule of • compensation. The case under consideration is wholly unprovided for by tjie ■ laws and usages of the State. The Africans to be delivered to the United States, are neither slaves in contemplation of law, nor prisoners of war, nor persons charged with crimes. The compensations allowed by the laws of the State to sheriffs and jailors, in these cases, do not, therefore, furnish any positive rule of law or right, as to the compensation which ought to be allowed the marshal in the peculiar circumstances attending these Africans. He is, no doubt, entitled to a reasonable compensation ; but that must depend upon the circumstances of the case, and not any positive' rule. But be that as it may, it could not legally enter into the judgment and decree of the Court, so far as that judgment or decree waste affect the rights of the United States., or the rights of the marshal as

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

Related

United States v. Ullman
115 F. Supp. 211 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1953)
State Ex Rel. Com'rs of the Land Office v. Johnson
1933 OK 515 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
United States v. Skinner & Eddy Corporation
35 F.2d 889 (Ninth Circuit, 1929)
Monarch Mills v. South Carolina Tax Commission
146 S.E. 870 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota
275 U.S. 70 (Supreme Court, 1927)
City of Williston v. Ludowese
208 N.W. 82 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1926)
James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States
267 U.S. 86 (Supreme Court, 1925)
State v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
143 S.W. 223 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
State v. Williams
61 A. 297 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1905)
United States v. Verdier
164 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court, 1896)
Stanley v. Schwalby
162 U.S. 255 (Supreme Court, 1896)
Carlisle v. Cooper
64 F. 472 (Second Circuit, 1894)
Marine v. Lyon
62 F. 153 (Fourth Circuit, 1894)
United States v. Stevens
8 Utah 3 (Utah Supreme Court, 1892)
Bowler v. Board of Immigration
7 Haw. 715 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1889)
State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lazarus
40 La. Ann. 856 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1888)
Curtis v. Banker
136 Mass. 355 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Jerman v. Stewart
12 F. 271 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 U.S. 546, 6 L. Ed. 723, 12 Wheat. 546, 1827 U.S. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-antelope-scotus-1827.