Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Schooner Paulina's Cargo v. The United States

1812 • 11 U.S. 52 • Marshall Court
The Supreme Court case of Schooner Paulina's Cargo v. The United States involved a dispute between the owner of a schooner, named Paulina, and the United States government over cargo that had been seized by the US Navy during wartime. The owner argued that he was entitled to compensation for his losses due to an act passed by Congress in 1804 which provided for such compensation when goods were taken from American citizens during war time. However, the US government argued that this act did not...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Marshall Court
Term: 1812
11 U.S. 52
3 L. Ed. 266
1812 U.S. LEXIS 367
Argued: Feb 15, 1812

Schooner Paulina's Cargo v. The United States

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The Supreme Court case of Schooner Paulina's Cargo v. The United States involved a dispute between the owner of a schooner, named Paulina, and the United States government over cargo that had been seized by the US Navy during wartime. The owner argued that he was entitled to compensation for his losses due to an act passed by Congress in 1804 which provided for such compensation when goods were taken from American citizens during war time. However, the US government argued that this act did not apply because it only applied to vessels owned by Americans at the time they were seized and since Paulina was owned by a British subject at the time she was captured, no compensation could be given. Ultimately, after much deliberation on both sides of this argument, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of Schooner Paulina's Cargo and ordered payment from damages caused as well as interest accrued on those damages since their seizure occurred more than two years prior to trial date.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Schooner Paulina's Cargo v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a vessel and its cargo that had been captured by an enemy of the United States during wartime could be considered as abandoned property under maritime law. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Story delivered the dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and three other justices. He argued that since there was no evidence presented in court to prove abandonment or forfeiture of ownership rights over the vessel and its cargo, it should not be assumed that they were abandoned simply because they were taken by an enemy force during war time. Furthermore, he noted that even if such proof did exist, it would still have to meet certain legal requirements before being accepted as valid evidence for abandonment or forfeiture purposes. As such, Justice Story concluded that without sufficient proof demonstrating otherwise, any presumption regarding abandonment must fail in this case and thus judgment should go against The United States' claim for possession of said vessel and cargo

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms