1 Cai. Cas. 60 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1803
It will be observed that this is the case of a special verdict, and the court can intend nothing but what is found by the jury.
1st. Whether the vessel and cargo, although literally American, according to the implied warranty in the policy had forfeited the privilege of that character, by accepting the protection of a passport from one of the belligerent nations ?
2d. Whether the purchase of the cargo in a French port was within the prohibition of the act of Congress of the 13th June, 1798, and an illegal trade?
As to the first, it appears that the Haney sailed with the usual documents of an American vessel, and was in every respect entitled to be considered as such, unless the French passport which she received at St: Domingo would deprive her of that privilege. The general rule by which to determine the national character of a vessel is the domicil of the owner. In the present case the owners resided in the state of Ehode Island. We admit the exception to this rule where the vessel navigates under the flag or assumed character of a country to which she does not belong; but the instance before us, we apprehend, is not the case of a vessel sailing under that protection, or, as it is termed by Sir William Scott, under the pass of a different nation; her papers were all American, except the one in question; she was in fact American, if we believe the verdict, and she professed no other than the American character. The additional paper which she received on board at the Cape, according to its import, was not inconsistent with that character ;
In determining the second question it is again neces sary to recur to the facts found by the verdict. From them it appears that the vessel was compelled to put into the Cape in distress; that when there the cargo was landed for the purpose of repairing her; that nearly all the provisions were taken by the French government, which prohibited relading any part of the cargo, and permitted to barter what was left for the produce of the island only, and to dispose of it in no other way; if this be true, they had no alternative but to comply with the terms prescribed, or sacrifice the whole of their property. Their acts were acts of necessity and coercion, and the law of congress which sus
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 406; Birckhead v. Brown, 5 Hill, 634
Sue Blagge v. New York Ins. Co., post, 564.
Therefore, a certificate of origin from a French consul, is no breach of the warranty of American property. Le Roy v. United Ins. Co., 7 Johns. Rep. 343.
Judgment affirmed in the court of errors, (1 Caines’ Cas. in Error, 47,) end in the supreme court of the United States, (3 Cranch, 219.)