Talbot v. Seeman

Infobox SCOTUS case |Litigants=Talbot v. Seeman
ArgueDate=
ArgueYear=
DecideDate=
DecideYear=1801
FullName=Silas Talbot v. Hans Frederick Seeman
USVol=5
USPage=1
NewCitation=usscr|5|1|1801|1|Cranch
Prior=on writ of error to the Circuit Court of the District of New York
Subsequent=
Holding=A vessel captured from the enemy in time of war is subject to salvage rights even if the vessels owner was not party to the conflict
SCOTUS=1801-1804
Majority=
PerCuriam=yes
JoinMajority=
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=Salvage act of 28 June, 1798

"Talbot v. Seeman", ussc|5|1|1801|1|Cranch is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a maritime case involving the circumstances under which salvage rights attach to a neutral vessel, captured by enemy forces, and then recaptured by the United States Navy.

Background

The "Amelia" was a merchant vessel owned by citizens of Hamburg. It was captured on the high seas by the French military vessel "La Diligente" during the Franco-American Naval Conflict of 1798-1800. The vessel was then recaptured during the same period by the "USS Constitution" under the command of Captain Talbot. Talbot asserted salvage rights over the captured vessel. The Court considered two issues:
# Whether the recapture by the "Constitution" was legal
# Whether "meritorious service" (a prerequisite for salvage) was performed in the recapture.The first issue was complicated by two factors. First, an enemy vessel captured in time of war is captured legally. However, in this case the vessel was not an enemy vessel, but a vessel legally owned by a non-party to the conflict. Second, there was no declaration of war in the conflict between the United States and France.

The Hamburg vessel was on its way to France at the time it was recaptured by Captain Talbot. The Seeman and other owners of the vessel claimed that under the Laws of War the French would have to release it to them and thus Captain Talbot's capture of the vessel did them no service. Talbot claimed that he saved the vessel from adjudication under the laws of France, which could have forfeited the vessel or demanded salvage payment to France.

Decision

The Court held that although there was no declaration of war with France, Congress had authorized the military seizure of French vessels. Since the "Amelia" was armed and in the possession of the French Navy, probable cause existed for Captain Talbot to capture it. The capture was therefore legal. It further held that meritorius servous had been performed in rescuing it from French hands. In exchange for its return to its rightful owners, Captain Talbot and the officers of the "Constitution" should be compensated.

The court reversed the Circuit Court of New York and ordered the vessel returned to its Hamburg owners upon their payment of salvage in the amount of one sixth of its value.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5
* Maritime Law

Notes and references

External links

* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/1/case.html Full text of the decision on Justica]