United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/9th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 19

←

United States Statutes at Large, Volume 2
United States Congress

Public Acts of the Ninth Congress, 2nd Session, XIX

→

2468978United States Statutes at Large, Volume 2 — Public Acts of the Ninth Congress, 2nd Session, XIXUnited States Congress

Feb. 24, 1807.

Chap. XIX.—An Act respecting seizures made under the authority of the United States, and for other purposes.

Costs to be paid by claimants when there was a reasonable cause for seizure.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when any prosecution shall be commenced on account of the seizure of any ship or vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise, made by any collector or other officer, under any act of Congress authorizing such seizure, and judgment shall be given for the claimant or claimants, if it shall appear to the court before whom such prosecution shall be tried, that there was a reasonable cause of seizure, the said court shall cause a proper certificate or entry to be made thereof: and in such case the claimant or claimants shall not be entitled to costs, nor shall the person who made the seizure, or the prosecutor, be liable to action, suit or judgment on account of such seizure and prosecution:^[1] Provided,Proviso. that the ship or vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise be, after judgment, forthwith returned to such claimant or claimants, his, her, or their agent or agents.

Officers of the treasury to allow the collector of New York for certain sums recovered of him, &c.
1792, ch. 1.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the accounting officers of the treasury be, and they are hereby authorized and directed to allow to the collector of New York, in the settlement of his accounts, the amount of damages and costs recovered from and paid by him, by virtue of judgments rendered in the supreme court of the state of New York, on account of the seizure of the ship Liberty, and of the ship Two Marys; which vessels had been seized and libelled for a presumed infraction of the provisions of the act, intituled “An act concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels.”

Approved, February 24, 1807.

↑ Seizure. “Probable cause” means less than evidence which would justify condemnation. It imports a seizure made under circumstances which warrant suspicion. Locke v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 339; 2 Cond. Rep. 521.
A doubt concerning the construction of a law, may be a good ground for seizure, and authorize a certificate of probable cause. The United States v. Riddle, 5 Cranch, 311; 2 Cond. Rep. 266.
If a collector justify the detention of a vessel under the 11th section of the embargo law of April 25, 1808, he need not show that his opinion was correct, nor that he used reasonable care and diligence in ascertaining the facts upon which his opinion was founded. It is sufficient is he honestly entertained the opinion in which he acted. Otis v. Watkins, 9 Cranch, 339; 3 Cond. Rep. 424.
Where a seizure for a breach of the laws of the United States, is finally adjudged wrongful and without probable cause by the courts, the party may proceed, at his election, by a suit at common law, or in the instance court of the admiralty for the illegal act. But the common law remedy in such cases must be sought in the state courts, the courts of the United States having no jurisdiction to decide on the conduct of their officers in the execution of their laws, in suits at common law, until the case shall have passed through the state courts. Slocum v. Mayberry et al., 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1.
If a suit be brought against the seizing officer for a supposed trespass in making a seizure of a vessel for a supposed forfeiture, while the suit is depending, the fact of such pendency may be pleaded in abatement, or as a temporary bar to the action; if after a decree of condemnation, then that fact may be pleaded as a bar; if after an acquittal without a certificate of probable cause, then the officer is without any justification for the seizure, and it is definitively settled to be a tortious act. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244.
To justify a seizure there must be probable cause of seizure; and if an officer of the customs seize without probable cause, no indictment lies for resisting him in the seizure, for he is not in the execution of his office. United States v. Gay, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 359.
Seizures for breach of municipal laws, are made at the peril of the seizers. If made without probable cause, the seizers are liable for all the consequences; for the act is construed a tortious act, and his diligence for the preservation of the property, is no defence against losses occasioned by the superior force, or inevitable casualty. Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 96.

[p424-1] Seizure. “Probable cause” means less than evidence which would justify condemnation. It imports a seizure made under circumstances which warrant suspicion. Locke v. The United States, 7 Cranch, 339; 2 Cond. Rep. 521.
A doubt concerning the construction of a law, may be a good ground for seizure, and authorize a certificate of probable cause. The United States v. Riddle, 5 Cranch, 311; 2 Cond. Rep. 266.
If a collector justify the detention of a vessel under the 11th section of the embargo law of April 25, 1808, he need not show that his opinion was correct, nor that he used reasonable care and diligence in ascertaining the facts upon which his opinion was founded. It is sufficient is he honestly entertained the opinion in which he acted. Otis v. Watkins, 9 Cranch, 339; 3 Cond. Rep. 424.
Where a seizure for a breach of the laws of the United States, is finally adjudged wrongful and without probable cause by the courts, the party may proceed, at his election, by a suit at common law, or in the instance court of the admiralty for the illegal act. But the common law remedy in such cases must be sought in the state courts, the courts of the United States having no jurisdiction to decide on the conduct of their officers in the execution of their laws, in suits at common law, until the case shall have passed through the state courts. Slocum v. Mayberry et al., 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1.
If a suit be brought against the seizing officer for a supposed trespass in making a seizure of a vessel for a supposed forfeiture, while the suit is depending, the fact of such pendency may be pleaded in abatement, or as a temporary bar to the action; if after a decree of condemnation, then that fact may be pleaded as a bar; if after an acquittal without a certificate of probable cause, then the officer is without any justification for the seizure, and it is definitively settled to be a tortious act. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244.
To justify a seizure there must be probable cause of seizure; and if an officer of the customs seize without probable cause, no indictment lies for resisting him in the seizure, for he is not in the execution of his office. United States v. Gay, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 359.
Seizures for breach of municipal laws, are made at the peril of the seizers. If made without probable cause, the seizers are liable for all the consequences; for the act is construed a tortious act, and his diligence for the preservation of the property, is no defence against losses occasioned by the superior force, or inevitable casualty. Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason’s C. C. R. 96.

[1]