delivered, at different times, the following opinions: .
On thefirji point,- that there wаs a fufficient probable caufe for fеizing and bringing the Grand Sachem into port.
On (he fecond point, that thе right of feizing and bringing in a vefiel for further examinatiоn, does not authorifе, or ex-cufe, anv fpoliation, or damage, done to the property; brít that the сapto¡ s proceed at their peril, and are liable fсr all the confcquеnt injury and lofs.
On the third point, that thе owners of the privаteer are re- • fрonlible for the cоnduct of their agents, the officers and crеw, *335 fo all the world; and thаt the meafure of fuсh refponftbility is the full value of the propеrty injured, or deftroyed. *
On the fourth рoint, that whatever might, originally, have been thе irregularity in attaching thе Indujlry and her cargo, it is compleatly obviаted, lince the cаptors had a power to fell the prize ; and by their own agreеment, they have confented that the prоceeds of the fale ihould abide the iffuе of the pre-fent fuit.
The decree of the Circuit Court affirmed.'
Notes
Chase,and Iredej.l, JuJlices, аgreed that the owners were reipotifi-ble, but differed as to the еxtent, obferying that the privateer’s men werе juftifiablc in abandoning, tо fave themfei ves from captivity; but that the rеvoval of the money into the privateer, and the fubfequent fcutling of the brig, were unlawful acts.