OF THE BRIG DELIGHT The Supreme Court case of The Gazelle and Cargo of the Brig Delight was a case that was heard in 1812. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Gazelle and the owners of the Brig Delight. The Gazelle was a British vessel that was captured by the French during the Napoleonic Wars. The Brig Delight was a neutral vessel that was transporting the cargo of the Gazelle to the United States. The owners of the Gazelle argued that the Brig Delight was liable for the cargo of the Gazelle, as it was transporting it without the permission of the Gazelle's owners. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the owners of the Gazelle, finding that the Brig Delight was liable for the cargo of the Gazelle. The Court held that the Brig Delight was liable for the cargo of the Gazelle, as it was transporting it without the permission of the Gazelle's owners. The Court also held that the Brig Delight was liable for any damages that were caused to the cargo of the Gazelle during the voyage. This case established the principle that a neutral vessel is liable for the cargo of a captured vessel, if it is transporting it without the permission of the owners of the captured vessel.

OF THE BRIG DELIGHT V. M'DONALD In the dissenting opinion of The Gazelle and Cargo of the Brig Delight v. McDonald, Justice Story argued that a vessel's master should not be held liable for damages caused by an act of God or other unavoidable circumstances beyond his control. He reasoned that if such liability were imposed, it would discourage masters from taking on risky voyages in order to protect their own interests and those of their owners. Furthermore, he noted that there was no precedent for holding a master responsible in this situation as prior cases had established clear exceptions when force majeure events occurred at sea which could not have been foreseen or avoided by any reasonable degree of care and diligence exercised by the master. As such, Justice Story concluded that McDonald should not be held liable for damages resulting from these unforeseen events since they were outside his control and thus did not constitute negligence on his part.