Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

The Sybil

Sybil, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 98 (1819)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1819-02-15
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that neither a corporation nor its representatives 18 have a Fifth Amendment privilege
  • calling this the “ ‘adoptive forfeiture’ doctrine”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed The Sybil. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
52 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Salvage The amount of salvage to be awarded and the mode of its distribution are matters committed to the discretion of the court; because reasonable minds contemplating the same facts may reach different conclusions on these questions, an appellate court will not reverse the decision of a lower court in this class of cases unless it manifestly appears that some important error has been committed.
  2. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Salvage In a salvage proceeding, a ship owner asserting a claim for freight or average as against the salvors must pursue that claim by petition or libel directed against the portion of the proceeds of the cargo adjudged to the shippers, who are entitled to be heard on such a claim and may be called upon to answer only in that mode; where the ship owner has not proceeded in that manner, the claim cannot be allowed in the salvage case then before the court.
  3. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Salvage A ship owner who has not properly asserted a maritime claim or lien against salvage proceeds before judgment is not foreclosed from relief, where the proceeds remain in the possession of the law and may still be subjected to any maritime claim or lien in the court below.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opi *99 nion of the Court. This is a case, in which, under its- peculiar circumstances, the amount of salvage is ,. . T ■’ . 1 . &.tl discretionary. . In such cases, it is almost impossible that different minds, contemplating the same subject, should not form different conclüsions as to the amount of salvage to be decreed, and the mode of distribution;. ’ Appeals should not be encouraged upon the ground of minute distinctions; nor would this Court choose to reverse the decision óf a Circuit Court, in this class of cases, unless it manifestly appeared, that some important, error had been committed. In this particular case, the Court is well satisfied, both with the amount of salvage decreed by the Circuit Court, and with the mode of distribution ; and the decree is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.

Decree affirmed.

A question afterwards arose, upon a claim of the ship owners for freight, &c.

Mr. Justice Johnson

delivered the opinion of

the Court. In this case, the attention of the Court has been particularly called to the claim" interposed by the ship owners, for. freight and average.

This Court, as at present advised, are very well satisfied that no freight was earned, and that average may have been justly claimed. But in the case then depending, the Circuit Court could not have awarded either of those demands. The question is inter alios. There wás no. pretext for claiming either,, as against the salvors; and the ship owners ought to *100 have pursued their rights- by 'irbe^ oi petition by way of libel, against the portion of the proceeds of the . , . , v j j . ,. rp, cargo which was adjudged to the shippers. 1 hese parties were entitled to be heard upon such a claim, and Could only be called upon to answer in that mode.

■ But the ship owners are not yet too late to pursue their remedy. The proceeds are still in the possession of the law, and may be subjected to any maritime claim or lien in the Court below.

Claim rejected.