and flowing in a uniform current." As to foreign sentences, it is settled in this court that a sentence of condemnation, by a competent court, having jurisdiction over the subject matter of its judgment, is conclusive as to the title of the thing claimed under it.b And that the sentence of a prize court, condemning a vessel for breach of a blockade, is conclusive evidence of the fact as between the insurer and insured. But what is still more pertinent to the present case, the court has determined that the question, under a seizure for a breach of the laws of the United States, whether a forfeiture has been actually incurred, belongs exclusively to the courts of the United States, and it depends upon their final decree whether the seizure is to be deemed rightful or tortious. The distinction which has been suggested between the conclusiveness of condemnations and of acquittals, has been considered in several of the authorities, and it is now perfectly settled that no such distinction exists. A condemnation may be founded on the oath of the seizing party; and though by α d Vandenheuval v. The United Ins. Com. 2 Johns. Cas. 127, and the authorities there cited. The authorities collected in the same case, 2 Caines' Cases in Error, 217, and by Mr. Chief Justice (now Chancellor) KENT, in his opinion in Ludlow v. Dale, Id. 217. Wheaton on Capt. 274, 278. Peake's Law of Evidence, (3d London ed.) 78, 79. and Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 241. c Cro udson et al. v. Leonard, 4 Cranch, 434. d Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1. 1818. Gelston V. Hoyt. 1818. Geiston V. Hoyt. the laws of the United States, he cannot share in the forfeiture if he becomes a witness, still he is interested to protect himself by a condemnation. Shall, then, a condemnation founded on such testimony be conclusive, and an acquittal not? The defendants, themselves, applied for time to plead until the district court should decide, on the ground that its decision would be conclusive.-4. The testimony offered by the defendants below could not be admitted in mitigation of damages: Because, if admitted, it would only be to show that there was reasonable cause for the seizure, and, consequently, that the defendants acted without malice, or any intention to oppress the plaintiff below. But the question whether there was or was not reasonable cause of seizure, is a question which is expressly submitted to the district court by the statutes of the United States, and over which this court has declared the district court had exclusive cognizance. A certificate of reasonable cause for the seizure having been denied by the district court, every other tribunal is as much precluded, except on appeal, from examining whether there was or was not reasonable cause for the seizure, as they are from examining whether there was or was not sufficient cause of forfeiture. The plaintiff below admitted upon the trial that the defendants had not been influenced by any malicious motives in making the seizure, and that they had not acted with any view or design of oppressing or injuring the plaintiff. And the judge who tried the cause at nisi prius a See 8 Johns. Rep. 179. b Act of the 24th February, 1807, ch. 74. charged the jury that this admission precluded the plaintiff from claiming vindictive damages, and the jury rendered a verdict only for the actual damages, as proved by uncontradicted testimony. Where a certificate of reasonable cause is refused, or not granted, a party making an illegal seizure, can be in no better state than he would be, if the law had made no provision respecting a certificate. It is well settled that probable cause is no justification of an illegal seizure, unless it be made a justification by statute. Nor can evidence of probable cause be received, to mitigate the damages in cases where there is a disclaimer as to every thing but actual damages. For whether there was or was not malice or probable cause, the actual damages sustained must be recovered for an illegal seizure, or for any other trespass, if any thing whatever is recovered.-5. The second and third pleas of the defendant below are manifestly bad on general demurrer. First. Petion and Christophe were not foreign princes, nor their territories foreign states, and consequently a seizure for fitting out the vessel to be employed in their service could not be justified. Secondly. The president had no authority by law to order the seiz ure. The 7th section of the act of 1794, does not apply to this cause. If it did, the president's order can only be a justification when applied to an illegal act. If no illegal act be proved, there can be no justification under the order. Were it otherwise, the president would be a despot. The 7th section of b See the authorities cited ante, p. 289. 1318. Gelston V. Hoyt. 1818. Gelston - V. Hoyt. the act provides, "that in every case in which a ves- scize. not He could only employ the army and navy, or the militia, for that purpose. He could only authorize an arrest or detainment, not a seizure, which is a taking and carrying away. He could only authorize a taking possession of and detaining the vessel, in order to the execution of the penalties and prohibitions of the act. The vessel might have been libelled, and taken into the custody of the officers of the court; but the defendants below have not averred themselves to be revenue officers, and as such, authorized to seize by the act of 1790, ch. 153. Thirdly. The 2d plea is not a bar in the court where it was pleaded. What could the plaintiff below have replied to this plea? That there was no forfeiture as alleged ? But the state court has no authority to try the question of forfeiture under the laws of the United States. The courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction of that question, and their decision is final and conclusive upon every other tribunal. Or suppose that the plaintiff had replied, that Petion and Christophe were not independent princes. No municipal court whatever has power to determine that question. The executive government is alone competent to recognise new states arising in the world, and it would be extremely inconvenient and embarrassing in this age of revolutions, for courts and juries to interfere in the decision of a question of such delicate and complicated policy, depending upon a variety of facts which they cannot know, and of considerations which they cannot notice. Again, if the plaintiff had replied that the president had given no such instructions as mentioned in the plea, the repli 1818. Gelston V. Hoyt. |