In Blaine v. The Ship Charles Carter, and Donald and Burton and Others, Claimants, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a ship that had been seized by French privateers during wartime could be sold in order to pay off debts owed by its former owners. The court held that such sales were permissible under international law as long as they did not interfere with any rights or claims of other nations. Furthermore, it ruled that debtors who had previously owned the vessel were still liable for their obligations even after it had been sold at auction. This decision established an important precedent regarding how vessels captured during war can be used to satisfy creditors' claims against them.

In Blaine v. The Ship Charles Carter, and Donald and Burton and Others, Claimants, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a vessel that had been seized by the United States for violating its neutrality laws could be released from custody upon payment of damages. Justice Story delivered an opinion dissenting from the majority's decision to deny release of the vessel. He argued that since no criminal proceedings were brought against those responsible for operating it in violation of neutrality laws, they should not be deprived of their property without due process or compensation under admiralty law principles. Furthermore, he noted that if such a forfeiture occurred without any form of legal action being taken against them then this would set a dangerous precedent which could lead to arbitrary seizures in other cases as well. In conclusion Justice Story concluded that while violations must be punished according to law but also with justice; thus denying release on payment of damages would constitute an unjust punishment which is contrary both to natural equity as well as established maritime practice