Yeaton and Others, of the Schooner General Pinkney and Cargo v. The United States

9 U.S. 281, 3 L. Ed. 101, 5 Cranch 281, 1809 U.S. LEXIS 431
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 18, 1809
StatusPublished
Cited by145 cases

This text of 9 U.S. 281 (Yeaton and Others, of the Schooner General Pinkney and Cargo 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
Yeaton and Others, of the Schooner General Pinkney and Cargo v. The United States, 9 U.S. 281, 3 L. Ed. 101, 5 Cranch 281, 1809 U.S. LEXIS 431 (1809).

Opinion

March 7.

Marshall, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court io the following effect:

The majority of the court is clearly of Opinion, •that in admiralty cases an appeal suspends the tence altogether; and that it is not res adjudicuiá until the final sentence of the appellate court be pronounced. The cause in the appellate court is to be heard de novo, as if no sentence had been passed. ‘ This has been the uniform practice not only • in cases of appeal from the district to the circuit courts of the United States, but in this court also.

In prize causes, the principle has never been disputed; and in the instance court, it is stated in 2 Browne's Civil Law, that in cases of appeal it is -kaoful to allege zvhat has not before been alleged, and to prove what has not before been proved. *

The court is, therefore, of opinion, that this cause is to be considered as if no sentence had been pronounced ; and if no sentence had been pronounced, it has been long settled, on general principles, that after the expiration . or repeal of a law, no penalty can be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violations of the law committed-while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute.

*284 The following sentence was then pronounced by the court:

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof the courtis of opinion, that an appeal from the sentence of a court of admiralty brings the whole case before the appellate? court unaffected by the sentence of condemnation from which the appeal is made, and that a sentence of condemnation cannot be pronounced on account of a forfeiture which accrued under a law not in force at the time of pronouncing such sentence, unless, by some statutory provision, the right to enforce such forfeiture be preserved.

The court is, therefore, of opinion, that the sentence pronounced in this cause by the circuit court of the district of Maryland, affirming the sentence of the judge of the district court in this cause, be reversed, and annulled; and the court, proceeding to pronounce the proper sentence, doth direct that th libel be dismissed, and the property libelled be restored to the' claimants, they paying the duties thereon if the same have not been already paid.

And, on the motion of the attorney-general, it is ordered to be certified that in the opinion of this court, there was probable cause of seizure.

*

Clerke’s Praxis, Hi, 54. “ Nam in appellatione a sententia definitiva licet non allegata allegare et non probala probare.”

The cases ot IVilmnt et ul claimants of the schooner Collector, ami ijcwis, claimant of the schooner Gottenburgh v. United States, were reversed opon The same principle.

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

Related

Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP
931 F.3d 1094 (Eleventh Circuit, 2019)
Vandyke, Roger Dale
538 S.W.3d 561 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2017)
United States v. Masciandaro
638 F.3d 458 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
548 U.S. 557 (Supreme Court, 2006)
White v. Sunrise Healthcare Corp.
692 N.E.2d 1363 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1998)
Landgraf v. USI Film Products
511 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno
494 U.S. 827 (Supreme Court, 1990)
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida
719 F.2d 525 (Second Circuit, 1983)
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Gibbens
608 S.W.2d 706 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
People v. Rossi
555 P.2d 1313 (California Supreme Court, 1976)
In Re Moreno
58 Cal. App. 3d 740 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
United States v. Bonn Brown
505 F.2d 261 (Fourth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. United States Coin & Currency
401 U.S. 715 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Martorano v. Hughes
302 F. Supp. 50 (E.D. New York, 1966)
Hamm v. City of Rock Hill
379 U.S. 306 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Bell v. Maryland
378 U.S. 226 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Stinson v. State
344 S.W.2d 369 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1961)
Wilentz v. Hendrickson
38 A.2d 199 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 U.S. 281, 3 L. Ed. 101, 5 Cranch 281, 1809 U.S. LEXIS 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeaton-and-others-of-the-schooner-general-pinkney-and-cargo-v-the-united-scotus-1809.