The Rugen .—Buhring

14 U.S. 62, 4 L. Ed. 37, 1 Wheat. 62, 1816 U.S. LEXIS 308
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 19, 1816
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 14 U.S. 62 (The Rugen .—Buhring) 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 Rugen .—Buhring, 14 U.S. 62, 4 L. Ed. 37, 1 Wheat. 62, 1816 U.S. LEXIS 308 (1816).

Opinion

Livingston, J.,.

delivered the opinión of the court.

It has been contended, that this vessel and, cargo were bom fide the' property of the appellant, a subject of Sweden, who had a right to trade with the enemy of the United States; and that having done nothing to forfeit his neutral character, both the sen- ' tences below were erroneous, and ought to be reversed. To entitle himself to such reversal, the claimant has undertaken to show, arid insists that he has shown, that at the time of, arid previous to, the departure of the Rugen from the United States, she, as well as the cargo on board, was his property, and that he was then, and still ife, a subject of the king of Sweden, with whom the United States were at peace.

The court will now proceed to inquire how %■ Mr. *67 Buhring has succeeded in establishing the facts on which he relies for a restitution of this property, fn pursuing this inquiry, it may become unnecessary to decide whether the papers which wére on. board were sufficient to entitle the Rugen to'fhe privileges or national character of a Swedish vessel; because, whatever may be their regularity and effect, yet, if the court shall be of opinion that they were only colourable, and that an American citizen, and not the claimant, was owner of the vessel and cargo, it will nob be pretended that belligerent' rights can be eluded in this way; or that the subject of a state at war can, urder cover of neutral muniments, however regularly procured, or formal they may be, violate, with impunity, his duty and allegiance to his own country. . So far from such documents, .when intended only as a cover, affording any protection to the property, they render the party resorting to then! doubly criminal, by the scene of fraud and perjury which must be waded, through in order to obtain them; and then, in case of disaster, to make a court believe that such papers disclose .nothing but the real truth of the case. The whole controversy will then be resolved into the. single question,, whether, in point of fact, Mr. Buhring, or Messrs. Sámuel and Charles Howard, who are citizens of the United States, were owners of the Rugen and her cargo at the time of- her sailing from Savannah, and on her return to the United States. It must ever be a painful task to investigate testimony Where a result unfavourable to the claimant can only proceed from a conviction that the principal agents in the transac *68 tion have acted either fraudulently, or contrary to their known duty as good citizens; Such is the düty now imposed on the eourt.

't’he claimant is said to be a Swede. If this be admitted, and it seems not to be denied, we are compelled, by the very suspicious circumstances of this case, to look beyond his national character, and to inquire very particularly into his situation at the time he embarked, or became connected with this adventure. Had he ever been a merchant in his own couhtiy* dr elsewhere ? Had he ever resided in any of our seaports, or carried on business of any kind there, or in any other place ? Had he, at any time» means to purchase this vessel and cargo; or was he sufficiently known to have acquired a credit to that extent? These questions were all asked by the advocate of the captors, to which no satisfactory answer was given on the argument ; and it is in vain that the proceedings are searched for a solution of either of them at all favourable to the present claim. On the contrary, easily as every difficulty on these points might have been dispelled, if this were á fáir proceeding, no attempt of: the kind has been made, or if it has, it has terminated in establishing that Mi, Buhring’s situation, and circumstances were such as preclude all reasonable doubt of his being any other than the ostensible owner of the vessel and cargo. He was a young man, only twenty-one . years old, residing, as well as his brother William, in South Carolina, with-Mr. .Scarborough, Vice Commercial Agent of the king of Sweden, for the state of Georgia, From this retirement he is drawn, and, for the *69 first time, introduced to the notice of the mercantile world by the Messrs. Howards, who appear hr be merchants oí considerable property and credit, résiding.at Sávannah, in the State of Georgia., -Between these gentlemen and Mr. Buhring there could have been but very little previous acquaintance ; for the latter arrived at Savannah from Europe only two or three months before wé find him engaged m tb com cetns of the Rugen; and after remaining not more than three or four days in that city he went to reside in the country of South Carolina, whence he did not return to Savannah until he came back with Mr. Q. Howard, a very few days before the Rugen sailed. It is/not, then, harsh to presume, that the strongest and only recommendation of Mr. Buhring was his national character. The Messrs. Howards appear,'at the time, to. have been in search of a Swede, and were not long in meeting with one whose youth and inexperience well fitted him for the purposes for which, there is so much reason to believe, he was wanted. A feeble attempt, however, has been made to show that Mr,. Buhring was not without credit as well as ftmds. To the former point one witness has been examined, and to establish that he was. not entirely destitute of property, it has been shown that fie actually gave two notes, amounting, together, to about 4,3.00. dollars, for the Rugen and her cargo,, in the month óf May, 1813, payable in four'months after date; that these notes, ás they became due, were taken up by him with great punctuality "at, one of the banks in Savannah. Whether these notes were really made at the time when they bear date, may *70 well be doubted; but it admits of no doubt, that they were discharged with the proper moneys of the Messrs. Howards, wh’di, had almost the moment before been drawn, by one of them, out of the bank, and put into the hands of Mi1. Buhring for that purpose. With the funds, then, of Mr. Howard, and not with those of Mr. Buhring, were these notes taken up; and a contrivance, which was intended to make Mr. Buhring appear as a man of property, has not only altogether failed, but has added very considerable weight to the suggestion of the captors, that he was a young man. totally destitute of the means of purchasing and paying for the property which, it is now alleged, belonged to him. But we now find Mr. Buhring at Savannah; and what is done with him ? or what does hé do with himself, on his arrival there ? Does he go about to purchase a vessel? Does he, when he is told that the Rugen belongs to him, take any measures to fit her out ? Does he provide a crew ? Does he agree for their wages ? Does he purchase a cargo ? Does he see to its being put on board ? Does he effect insurance ? or is he found doing any one act which might naturally be expected from an owner ? All this trouble had already been most-kindly taken off his hands by his new friend and acquaintance, Mr. Howard. This gentleman had already (if we are to believe the history of this transaction as it is narrated by the claimant) provided him with a vessel and cargo, although it does hot appear that he had instructions or funds of Mr. Buhring for the purpose. It is true, that with a caution-that was very excusable, consider- *71 i'ng ihe circumstances' of Mr.

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

Related

Quine v. Ola
N.D. California, 2024
(PC) Hill v. Newsom
E.D. California, 2022
Denezpi v. United States
596 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2022)
(HC) DeAnda v. Koenig
E.D. California, 2021
(HC) Scott v. Fox
E.D. California, 2020
(HC) Goodwin v. Spearman
E.D. California, 2019
Giampa v. Illinois Civil Service Commission
411 N.E.2d 1110 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1980)
Wisconsin Bankers Ass'n v. Mutual Savings & Loan Ass'n
275 N.W.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1978)
Waddell v. Morris
14 Wend. 76 (New York Supreme Court, 1835)
Griswold v. Waddington
16 Johns. 438 (New York Supreme Court, 1819)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 U.S. 62, 4 L. Ed. 37, 1 Wheat. 62, 1816 U.S. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-rugen-buhring-scotus-1816.