The Brig Concord — 13 U.S. 387

Majority

p. 387

THE BRIG CONCORD, Taylor, master.

1815. March 11th.

dbsenL,..Torn}, J,

Syllabus

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court, affirming that.of the .District Court, whicji re" stored 1o the Claimants,, neutral Spanish merchants at Teneriffe, 20 pipes of -wine, part of the cargo of the British brig Concord, captured by the American privateer Marengo, in August, 1812, without payment of duties; although the same had been,- by consent of proctors for the parties, sold under an order of. the Court.

if captured f00^’ neutral owner,”be by consent sold . of the Court^ and afterwards Court, thé proceeds are prdered to be restored to such owner, the amount of the duties due to the u.s.upop the importation of the goods must « Paid-

The cause being submitted without argument;

delivered the opinion of the Court, as fol- . I0WS •

This is the ,case ot a stnpment made by' a neutral house on board of a British ship which was captured, on a voyage fr,om Teneriffe to London, by the private armed ship Marengo, and brought into the port of New

p. 388

York for adjudication. Pending the prize proceedings, the goods were sold by an interlocutory order of the District Court, and the proceeds brought into the registry. Upon the . hearing, the property was decreed to be restored to the claimants without payment of duties ; and this decree was afterwards affirmed in the Circuit Court. The cause has been brought, by appeal, to this Court for a final decision.

We are all of opinion that the proprietary interest of tjie claimants is completely proved ; and therefore the decree of restoration must be affirmed.

With respect to the duties, we are all of opinion that the decree of the Courts below was erroneous. Where goods are brought.b'y superior force, or by inevitable ne- . cessity, into the United States, they are not deemed to he so imported, in the sense of the law, as necessarily to attach the right to duties. If, however, such goods are afterwards sold or consumed in the country, or incorporated into the general mass of its property, they become retro-actively liable to the payment of duties. In the present case, if the goods had been specifically restored* and afterwards withdrawn from the United States by the. Claimants, they would haye beenexempt from duties. But having been sold, by order of the Court, for the general benefit, the duties indissolubly attached, and'ought to have been deducted from the proceeds by the Courts below. The decree in this resnéct must be reversed.'