THE SANTA MARIA, 23 U. S. 431 (1825)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 23 U. S. 431

U.S. Supreme Court

The Santa Maria, 23 U.S. 10 Wheat. 431 431 (1825)

The Santa Maria

23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 431


Upon an appeal from a mandate to carry into effect a former decree of the court, nothing is before the court but the proceedings subsequent to the mandate.

But the original proceedings are always before the court so far as is necessary to determine any new points in controversy between the parties, which are not terminated by the original decree.

After a general decree of restitution in this Court, the captors, or purchasers under them, cannot set up in the court below new claims for equitable deductions, meliorations, and charges, even if such claims might have been allowed had they been asserted before the original decree.

Nor can the claimants or original owners in such a case set up a claim for interest upon the stipulation taken in the usual form for the appraised value of the goods, interest not being mentioned in the stipulation itself.

Nor can interest be decreed against the captors personally by way of damages for the detention and delay, no such claim having been set up, upon the original hearing in the court below or upon the original appeal to this Court.

The case of Rose v. Himely, 5 Cranch 313, reviewed, explained, and confirmed.

Upon a mandate to the circuit court to carry into effect a general decree of restitution by this Court, where the property has been delivered upon a stipulation for the appraised value and the duties paid upon it by the party to whom it is delivered, the amount of the duties is to be deducted from the appraised value.

This cause was formerly before the Court, and the decision then pronounced will be found reported

Page 23 U. S. 432

in 20 U. S. 7 Wheat. 490. The claim of Mr. Burke as a bona fide purchaser was then rejected upon the ground of the illegality of the original capture, it having been made in violation of the neutrality of the United States, and a general decree of restitution was awarded in favor of the libellant, suing in his official character as the Consul of Spain, for the benefit of the original owners. A mandate issued from this Court to the court below to carry that decree into effect. Pending the original proceedings in the court below, and before the appeal, the property, upon the application of Mr. Burke, was delivered to him upon a stipulation given with sureties in the usual manner, for the payment of the appraised value, according to the future decree of the court. The appraisers estimated the property at $7,473.43, being, as they declare, "the long price, including custom house duties," and for this sum the stipulation was given. Upon the application to the court below to enforce the mandate of this Court, Mr. Burke filed a petition asserting that he had incurred cost and expenses and paid certain liens upon the property. The specifications now insisted on were the following: (1) insurance on the property from Galveztown to Baltimore, viz., $751.25; (2) duties paid on the same at Baltimore, viz., $1,945.14. A petition was also filed on behalf of Mr. Burke and a Mr. Forbes (who now for the first time appeared in the cause) as joint owners of the schooner Harriet, in which the property in question

Page 23 U. S. 433

was brought from Galveztown to Baltimore, praying for the allowance of freight for the voyage, amounting to $1,500. The libellant also made an application for interest upon the amount of the stipulation to be decreed in his favor, either from the time of capture, from the date of the stipulation, or from the decree of this Court.

The respective claims of all the parties for these allowances were rejected by the circuit court, and from the decree dismissing them an appeal was taken to this Court.

Page 23 U. S. 441

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :