Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The Rachel Vs. United States

The Rachel vs United States

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1810
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78518

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
10 U.S. 329
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Rachel

Respondent

United States

Excerpt

the rachel v. united states - 10 u.s. 329 (1810) u.s. supreme court the rachel v. united states, 10 u.s. 329 (1810) the rachel v. united states 10 u.s. 329 appeal from the district court for the district of orleans syllabus no sentence of condemnation can be affirmed if the law under which the forfeiture accrued has expired, although a condemnation and sale had taken place, and the money had been paid over to the united states before the expiration of the law. the court reversing the sentence will not order the money to be repaid, but will award restitution of the property as if no sale had been made. this was an appeal from the sentence of the district court of the united states for the district of orleans, which condemned the schooner rachel for having traded with certain prohibited ports of st. domingo contrary to the act of congress. the sentence of condemnation was passed, and the vessel sold, and the proceeds paid over to the united states, while the act was in force. the act had since expired. it was a case within the principle decided at last term in the case of yeaton and young v. united states, but it having been made a question whether the sale and payment over of the money did not prevent the operation of that principle, and there being also a question of jurisdiction, the cause stood over to this term for consideration. the general question of jurisdiction of that court having been settled at this term in the case of serre and laralde v. pitot, and the fact of the sale and payment over of the money being admitted, page 10 u. s. 330 martin and p. b. key, for the claimants, prayed the court to direct that the proceeds should be paid over to the claimants. but the court said that it was a matter to be left to the consideration of the court below. this court will only make a general order for restitution of the property condemned.

Full Judgment

The Rachel v. United States - 10 U.S. 329 (1810)
U.S. Supreme Court The Rachel v. United States, 10 U.S. 329 (1810)

The Rachel v. United States

10 U.S. 329

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ORLEANS

SYLLABUS

No sentence of condemnation can be affirmed if the law under which the forfeiture accrued has expired, although a condemnation and sale had taken place, and the money had been paid over to the United States before the expiration of the law. The court reversing the sentence will not order the money to be repaid, but will award restitution of the property as if no sale had been made.

This was an appeal from the sentence of the District Court of the United States for the District of Orleans, which condemned the schooner Rachel for having traded with certain prohibited ports of St. Domingo contrary to the act of Congress.

The sentence of condemnation was passed, and the vessel sold, and the proceeds paid over to the United States, while the act was in force. The act had since expired. It was a case within the principle decided at last term in the case of Yeaton and Young v. United States, but it having been made a question whether the sale and payment over of the money did not prevent the operation of that principle, and there being also a question of jurisdiction, the cause stood over to this term for consideration.

The general question of jurisdiction of that court having been settled at this term in the case of Serre and Laralde v. Pitot, and the fact of the sale and payment over of the money being admitted,

Page 10 U. S. 330

Martin and P. B. Key, for the claimants, prayed the Court to direct that the proceeds should be paid over to the claimants.

But the Court said that it was a matter to be left to the consideration of the court below. This Court will only make a general order for restitution of the property condemned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial