| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The Corsica was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The question before the court was whether or not an American vessel could be seized and sold for debts incurred while it was under foreign registry. The plaintiff, who owned the ship, argued that since it had been registered as a British vessel at one point, any debt owed should have been paid to creditors in Britain rather than those of America. On appeal from a lower court decision ordering sale of the ship to satisfy its debtors, Chief Justice Chase delivered an opinion on behalf of all eight justices present that affirmed this ruling. He held that although registration abroad did not extinguish existing obligations due to creditors within America's jurisdiction, such obligations were still subject to enforcement through legal proceedings in U.S courts if necessary; thus allowing seizure and sale of vessels when appropriate remedies are sought out by creditors against their debtor owners regardless of where they may have previously registered their ships abroad.
In The Corsica, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a ship's captain had the authority to sell goods from his vessel without permission of its owner. In an 8-1 decision, Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that captains do not have such authority and that any sale made by them is voidable at the option of the true owners. He argued that while it may be necessary for captains to make sales in order to preserve their vessels or protect cargo, they must still obtain consent from their employers before doing so. Furthermore, he noted that if captains are allowed to act as agents on behalf of their employers without explicit authorization then this could lead to potential abuse and fraud since there would be no way for employers to verify what happened during these transactions. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating that allowing ships' masters unfettered discretion over property belonging others would create "a dangerous power" which should not be sanctioned under law.