The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||
| Argued Unknown Decided Unknown |
||||
|
||||
| Holding | ||||
| An allied nation's property remains that nation's property when it comes into an allied nation's territory. | ||||
| Court membership | ||||
|
||||
| Case opinions | ||||
|
||||
| Laws applied | ||||
The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, is a United States Supreme Court case.
[edit] Background
The Schooner Exchange, a U.S. owned shipping group, claimed that they owned and were entitled to possession of the Balaou, which had docked at a U.S. port due to bad weather. They believed that the Balaou was illegally seized by the government of France. At the time, France was involved with the War of 1812. The district court in the case found in favor of the French Government, finding that the Schooner Exchange had no right to the Balaou as it belonged to the French government who were properly allies of the United States. The circuit court, on appeal, reversed the decision of the district court, granting property rights to the Schooner Exchange.
[edit] Supreme Court decision
Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, said that
The U.S. had jurisdiction over the case via the territorial prescription jurisdiction, and territorial enforcement jurisdiction."
Marshall also stated that the ship belongs to the French government under of the assumptions of allegiance.
But in all respects different is the situation of a public armed ship. She constitutes a part of the military force of her nation; acts under the immediate and direct command of the sovereign; is employed by him in national objects. He has many and powerful motives for preventing those objects from being defeated by the interference of a foreign state. Such interference cannot take place without affecting his power and his dignity. The implied license therefore under which such vessel enters a friendly port, may reasonably be construed, and it seems to the Court, ought to be construed, as containing an exemption from the jurisdiction of the sovereign, within whose territory she claims the rites of hospitality (11 U.S. 144).
