Maryland Archives Court Records.....Yeaton and others, Claimants of the Schooner General Pinckney and Cargo, v. The United States, 1808 File transcribed for use in USGenWeb Archives by: Allie Griffith-Nelson Sep 7, 2006 *********************************************** Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/md/mdfiles.htm ************************************************ Image can be viewed at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~archcrtc/US/Supreme/volii/toc.html Yeaton and Others,Claimants of the Schooner General Pinckney and Cargo, v. The United States 5 Cranch's Reports,281 to 284 In admiralty cases, an appeal suspends the sentence altogether; and the cause is to be heard in the appellate court as if no sentence had been pronounced. [see note at the end of he case] If the law under which the sentence of condemnation was pronounced to be repealed after sentence in the court below, and before final sentence in appellate court; no sentence of condemnation can be pronounced; unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute. [see note at the end of the case] This was an appeal from the sentence of the circuit court for the district of Maryland, which condemned the schooner General Pinckney and cargo, for breach of the act of congress prohibiting intercourse with certain ports of the island of St. Domingo; passed February 28th, 1806.This act was limited to one year; but by the act of February 24th, 1807, it was continued until the end of the next session of congress, when it expired on the 26th of April,1808. The schooner General Pinckney , on the 23rd of Agust,1806, was cleared from Alexandria for St. Jago de Cuba with a cargo; but went to Cape Francois in the island of St. Domingo, one of the prohibited Ports. On her return, she was seized on the 17th of November, 1806, and libeled on the 5th of January, 1807, and condemned in the district court on the 23rd of July, following, which condemnation was affirmed in the circuit court on the 7th of November, from which sentence the claimants immediately appealed, in open court, to the supreme court of the United States, then next to be holden on the first Monday of February, 1808, where the cause was continued until the present term. The only question argued was, whether this court could now affirm the sentence of condemnation, in asmuch as the law which created the forfeiture and authorize the condemnation, had expired. C. Lee, Martin, Harper, and Youngs, for the appellants, contended, that in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, an appeal suspends entirely the sentence appealed from, and that in the appellate court the cause stands as if no sentence has been pronounced. Cited,1 BROWN'S CIVIL LAW,495. 2 DOMAT,687. 2 BROWN'S CIVIL LAW,436,437. Rochfort v.Nugent, 1 BRO. PARL. CASES,70.590. Penhallow v. Doane, 3 DALL. 87. 114. 118. Jennings v. Carson,2 CRANCH,2.The United States v.The Betsey Charlotte, 2 CRANCH,143. PARKER,72. To show that the penalty cannot be enforced after the law has expired,2 EAST'S CROWN LAW,576. 1 W.Bl. 451. 4 DALL.373. 1 HALE,291. The Uniteed States v. The chooner Peggy, 1 CRANCH,103. Rodney, attorney-general for the United States, did not controvert the principles contended for by the appellants, and cited Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 DALL. 327. Pennington v.Coxe, 2 CRANCH,61. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. The majority of the court is clearly of the opinion, that in admiralty cases an appeal suspends the sentence altogether; and that it is not res adjudicata until the final sentence of the appellate court be pronounced.The case in the appellate court is to be heard de novo, as if no sentence had been passed. This has been the uniform practice, not only in the cases of appeal from the district to the circuit courts of The United States, but in this court also. In prize causes, the principle has never been disputed; and in the instance court, it is stated in 2 Brown's Civil Law, that in cases of appeal it is lawful to allege what has not before been alleged,and to prove what has not yet before been proved. The court is,therefore,of the opinion,that this case is to be considered as if sentence had been pronounced; and if no sentence had been pronounced,it has been long settled, on general principles, and after the expiration or repeal of a law, no penalty can be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violation of the law committed while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute. vol. II.-33 The following sentence was then pronounced by the court: This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record and was argued by councel;on consideration whereof the court is of the opinion, that an appeal from the sentence of a court of admiralty brings the whole case before the appellate court unaffected by the sentence of condemnation from which appeal is made, and that a sentence of condemnation cannot be pronounced on account of a forfeiture which accrued under a law not in force,at the time of pronouncing such a sentence,unless,by some statutory provision, the right to enforce such a forfeiture be preserved. The court is, therefore, of the opinion, that the sentence pronounced in this cause by the circuit court of the district of Maryland,affirming the sentence of the judge of the district court in this cause,be reversed and annulled;and the court,proceeding to pronounce the proper sentence, doth direct that the libel be dismissed, and the property libelled be restored to the claimants, they paying the duties thereon, if the same have not already been paid. And, on the motion of the attorney-general, it is ordered to be certified, that, in the opinion of this court, there was probable cause of seizure. Effect of an appeal. 1 Peter's Digest,224. An appeal suspends the effect of the decree appealed from.PENHALLOW v.DOAN'S ADMINISTRATRIX 3 DALL.87.119. Where an appeal is entered from a part of a decree of an inferior court,the rights of a party in the inferior court,not affected by the part appealed from, will not be noticed in the court above. McDonough v. Dannery, 3 Dall.198. In all proceedings in rem, on an appeal, the property follows the cause into the circuit court and is subject to the disposition of that court;but it does not follow the cause into the supreme court,on an appeal to that court. THE COLLECTOR, 6 Wheat.194. After an appeal from the district to the circuit court,the former can make no order respecting the property;whether it has been sold and the proceeds paid into the court, or whether it remains specifically in the hands of the marshall.Ibid. Effect of a repeal of a statute in proceedings under it. A vessel having violated a law, is not subject to seizure for such violation after the law is repealed. UNITED STATES v.THE HELEN,6 Cranch,203. 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 memory had been paid over to the United States before the expiration of the law. THE RACHEL v.THE UNITED STATES, 6 Cranch,329. See THE UNITED STATES v. PRESTON,3 PETERS,57. Source: Condensed Reports of Cases in The Supreme Court of the United States Containing the Whole Series of the Decisions of the Court from its Organization to the Commencement of Peters's Reports at January Term, 1827with Copious Notes of Parallel Cases in the Supreme and Circuit Courts of the United States. Edited by Richard Peters,Counsellor at Law and Reporter of the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States Second Edition in Six Volumes.Vol. II.Philadelphia:Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co. No. 253 Market Street,1841