The Schooner Rachel v. The United States

10 U.S. 329, 3 L. Ed. 239, 6 Cranch 329, 1810 U.S. LEXIS 348
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 10 U.S. 329 (The Schooner Rachel v. The United States) 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 Schooner Rachel v. The United States, 10 U.S. 329, 3 L. Ed. 239, 6 Cranch 329, 1810 U.S. LEXIS 348 (1810).

Opinion

10 U.S. 329

6 Cranch 329

3 L.Ed. 239

THE SCHOONER RACHEL
v.
THE UNITED STATES.

February Term, 1810

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the district court of the United States for the district of Orleans, which condemned the schooner Rachel for having traded with certain prohibited ports of St. Domingo, contrary to the act of congress.

The sentence of condemnation was passed, and the vessel sold, and the proceeds paid over to the United States, while the act was in force. The act had since expired. It was a case within the principle decided at last term, in the case of Yeaton and Young v. The United States, but it having been made a question whether the sale and payment over of the money did not prevent the operation of that principle, and there being also a question of jurisdiction, the cause stood over to this term for consideration.

The general question of jurisdiction of that court having been settled at this term in the case of Serre and Laralde v. Pitot and others, and the fact of the sale and payment over of the money being admitted,Martin and P. B. Key, for the claimants, prayed the court to direct that the proceeds should be paid over to the claimants.

But the court said that it was a matter to be left to the consideration of the court below. This court will only make a general order for restitution of the property condemned.

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

Related

De Rodulfa v. United States
461 F.2d 1240 (D.C. Circuit, 1972)
State of Washington v. United States
214 F.2d 33 (Ninth Circuit, 1954)
Washington v. United States
214 F.2d 33 (Ninth Circuit, 1954)
Stone v. McKay Plumbing Co.
26 So. 2d 349 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1946)
First Nat. Bank of Chattanooga v. Coffey
96 S.W.2d 270 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1936)
Hamilton v. Lawrence
167 A. 509 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Jones v. Williams
45 S.W.2d 130 (Texas Supreme Court, 1931)
Mutual Life Ins. v. Lipp
28 F.2d 863 (Ninth Circuit, 1928)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Dennis
224 U.S. 503 (Supreme Court, 1912)
People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo
112 P. 866 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Lears v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway
60 S.E. 343 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
American Railroad Co. v. Hernández
8 P.R. Dec. 516 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1905)
Pensacola & Atlantic Railroad v. State
45 Fla. 86 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Gwin v. United States
184 U.S. 669 (Supreme Court, 1902)
First Natl. Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Henderson
35 P. 899 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co.
101 Pa. 119 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1882)
Higginbotham v. State
19 Fla. 557 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1882)
Hargroves v. Chambers
30 Ga. 580 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 U.S. 329, 3 L. Ed. 239, 6 Cranch 329, 1810 U.S. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-schooner-rachel-v-the-united-states-scotus-1810.