Sailing with an intention to further the views of the enemy is sufficient to condemn the property, although that intention be frustrated by capture.

The Aurora, ibid., 203.

Capture as prize of war, jure belli, overrides all previous liens.

The Frances, 8 Cranch, 418; the Hampton, 5 Wall., 372; the Battle, 6 ibid., 498. No lien upon enemy's property, by way of pledge for the payment of purchase-money, or otherwise, is sufficient to defeat the rights of the captors in a prize court, unless in very peculiar cases where the lien is imposed by a general law of the mercantile world, independent of any contract between the parties.

The Frances, 8 Cranch, 418.

If a vessel be captured by a superior force and a prize-master and a small force be put on board, it is not the duty of the master and crew of the vessel so captured to attempt to rescue her, as they may thereby expose the vessel to condemnation, though otherwise innocent.

Brig Short Staple v. U. S., 9 Cranch, 55.

The circumstance that a ship is found in the possession of the enemy affords prima facie evidence that it is his property. But if it was originally of a friendly or neutral character, and has not been changed by a sentence of condemnation, or by such possession as nations recognize as firm and effectual, it will be restored absolutely or conditionally, as each case requires.

Schooner Adeline, ibid., 244.

The test affidavit should state that the property, at the time of shipment and capture, did belong, and, if restored, will belong, to the claimant. If the principal is without the country, or at a great distance from the court, the claim and affidavit may be made by an agent. Ibid.

As has been already noticed, where a capture is made by a privateer which had been illegally equipped in a neutral country, the prize courts of such neutral country have power, and it is their duty, to restore the captured property if brought within their jurisdiction to its owner.

Brig Alerta v. Moran, 9 Cranch, 359. Supra, § 329.

To constitute a capture some act should be done indicative of an intention to seize and to retain as prize; and it is sufficient if such intention is fairly to be inferred from the conduct of the captor.

The Grotius, ibid., 368.

Where captured goods, claimed by a neutral owner, are by consent sold under an order of the court, and the proceeds are finally ordered to be paid to such owner, the amount of the duties should be deducted by the court.

Brig Concord, 9 Cranch, 387; the Nereide, 1 Wheat., 171.

The captors of a neutral ship, laden in part with enemy's property, are responsible only for the freight on the property condemned, and not for the whole freight.

The Antonia Johanna, 1 Wheat., 159.

In prize questions the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only. The Harrison, ibid., 298.

It is a general rule in prize causes that the decision should be prompt, and should be made, unless some good reason for departing from the rule exist, on the papers and testimony afforded by the captured vessel, or which can be invoked from the papers of other vessels in possession of the court. But in cases of joint and collusive capture, the usual simplicity of the prize proceedings is necessarily departed from; and where, in these cases, there is the least doubt, other evidence may be resorted

to.

The George, ibid., 408.

It is the duty of neutrals to put on board of their ships sufficient papers to show the real character of the property; and, if false or colorable documents are used, the necessity or reasonableness of the excuse ought to be very clear and unequivocal to induce a court of prize to rest satisfied with it.

The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat., 76.

Claimants of property which is liable to condemnation cannot litigate the question of the captor's commission. They have no standing before the court to assert the rights of the United States. If the capture was without a commission, the condemnation must be to the United States generally; if with a commission as a national vessel, it must still be to the United States, but the proceeds are to be distributed by the court among the captors according to law.

Ibid.

If a party attempt to impose on the court by knowingly or fraudu lently claiming as his own property belonging in part to others, he shall not be entitled to restitution of that portion which he may ulti mately establish as his own.

Ibid.

It is the duty of the captors, as soon as practicable, to bring the ship's papers into the registry of the district court, and to have the examinations of the principal officers and seamen of the captured ship taken upon the standing interrogatories.

Ibid.; the Pizarro, 2 Wheat., 227.

It is exclusively upon these papers and the examinations that the cause is to be heard before the district court. If, from the whole evidence, the property clearly appear to be hostile or neutral, condemna

tion or acquittal immediately follows. If the property appear doubtful, or the case be clouded with suspicions or inconsistencies, further proof may, in the discretion of the court, be taken. If the parties have been guilty of gross fraud or misconduct, or illegality, further proof is not allowed, and the parties are visited with all the fatal consequences of an original hostile character.

Ibid.

In prize causes the evidence to acquit or condemn must come, in the first instance, from the papers and crew of the captured ship.

The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat., 76.

Where an enemy's vessel was captured by a private armed vessel of the United States, and subsequently dispossessed by force or terror of another vessel of the United States, the prize was, under the circumstances of the case, adjudged to the first captor, with costs and damages.

The Mary, ibid., 123.

In a case of grave doubt as to whether the capture was collusive, the court adjudged the vessel to the captors.

The Bothnia and the Jahnstoff, ibid., 169.

Concealment or even spoliation of papers is not of itself a sufficient ground for condemnation in a prize court; but it is a material circumstance calculated to excite the vigilance and justify the suspicions of the court, though it is open to explanation.

The Pizarro, ibid., 227.

Under the Spanish treaty of 1795, stipulating that free ships shall make free goods, the want of such a sea-letter, passport, or such certificates as are described in the 17th article of the treaty, is not a substantive ground of condemnation. It only authorizes capture and sending in for adjudication, and the proprietary interest in the ship may be proven by other equivalent testimony. The Spanish character of the ship being ascertained, the proprietary interest of the cargo cannot be inquired into, unless so far as to ascertain that it does not belong to citizens of the United States, whose property, engaged in trade with the enemy, is not protected by the treaty.

Ibid.

In a suit by the owners of captured property, lost through the fault and negligence of the captors, the value of the captured vessel, and the prime cost of the cargo, with all charges, and the premium of insurance, were allowed in ascertaining the damages.

The Anna Maria, 2 Wheat., 327.

Where a capture has actually taken place with the assent of the commander of a squadron, express or implied, the question of liability as

sumes a different aspect, and the prize-master may be considered as bailee to the use of the whole squadron who are to share in the prize money; but not so as to mere trespasses unattended with a conversion to the use of the squadron.

The Eleanor, ibid., 345.

A bill of lading, consigning the goods to a neutral, but unaccompanied by an invoice or letter of advice, is not a sufficient evidence to entitle the claimant to restitution, but affords a ground for the introduction of further proof. The fact of invoices and letters of advice not being found on board may induce a suspicion that papers have been spoliated. But even if it were proved that an enemy master carrying a cargo chiefly hostile, had thrown papers overboard, a neutral claimant to whom no fraud is imputable ought not thereby to be precluded from further proof.

The Friendschaft, 3 Wheat., 14.

A vessel recaptured from the enemy after condemnation must be condemned as enemies' property, and is not to be restored to the former owner on payment of salvage. The act of June 26, 1812, sec. 5 (2 Stat. L., 760), has not changed the law in that respect. A sentence of condemnation completely extinguishes the title of the original proprietor, and transfers a complete title to the captor.

The Star, ibid., 78.

It is a relaxation of the rules of the prize court to allow time for further proof in a case where there has been a concealment of material papers.

The Fortuna, ibid., 236.

On an illegal capture the original wrong-doers may be made responsible beyond the loss actually sustained in case of gross and wanton outrage; but the owners of the offending privateer, who are only constructively liable, are not liable for punitive damages.

The Amiable Nancy, ibid., 546.

The fact of a vessel having been sent into an enemy's port for adjudication, and afterwards permitted to resume her voyage, was held to raise a violent presumption that she had a license; and, the claimant having produced no evidence to repel the presumption, condemnation was pronounced.

The Langdon Cheves, 4 Wheat., 103.

In the absence of any act of Congress on the subject, the courts of the United States would have authority, under the general law of nations, to decree restitution of property captured in violation of their neutrality, under a commission issued within the United States, or under an

armament, or augmentation of the armament or crew of the capturing vessel, within the same.

The Estrella, ibid., 298.

The onus probandi of a neutral interest rests on the claimant; but the evidence to acquit or condemn shall, in the first instance, come from the ship's papers and persons on board. If the neutrality of the property is not established finally beyond a reasonable doubt, condemnation ensues. The assertion of a false claim, in whole or in part, by an agent of, or in connivance with, the real owners, leads to condemnation.

The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat., 1, 78.

The commission of a public ship, signed by the proper authorities of the nation to which she belongs, is complete proof of her national character; and the courts of a foreign country will not inquire into the means by which the title to the property has been acquired.

The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat., 283.

Where a capture is made by captors acting under the commission of a foreign country, such capture gives them a right which no other nation neutral to them has a right to impugn, unless for the purpose of vindicating its own violated neutrality.

La Nereyda, 8 Wheat., 108.

Whoever sets up a title under condemnation is bound to show that the court had jurisdiction of the cause; and that the sentence has been pronounced upon the application of parties competent to ask for it.

Ibid.

If property has been wrongfully brought into the United States, and the duty paid by a wrongful captor, and a decree of restitution is made after a sale, the captor is liable on such a decree only for the balance, without interest, after deducting the amount paid as duties.

The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat.. 431.

In every case of a proceeding for condemnation upon captures made by the public ships-of-war of the United States, whether the same be cases of prize strictly jure belli, or upon public acts in the nature of captures jure belli, the proceedings are in the name and authority of the United States.

The Palmyra, 12 Wheat., 1.

Prize proceedings should be in the name of the United States; but if conducted in the name of the captors until the Supreme Court is reached, they will not be reversed on that ground.

Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 How., 110.

Prize courts properly deny damages or costs where there has been probable cause for seizure. Probable cause exists where there are cir