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

The Schooner Adeline and Cargo was a Supreme Court case that revolved around the issue of whether or not a foreign vessel could be seized by an American privateer in time of war. The court ruled against the seizure, finding that it violated international law. The ruling established important precedent for future cases involving maritime seizures during wartime. At the heart of this decision was Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion on neutral vessels being exempt from capture under certain circumstances, even if they were carrying contraband goods to enemy ports. This decision set forth principles which would later become known as "the rule of free ships making free goods." In essence, this meant that any cargo belonging to neutrals should remain safe from capture unless it is actually destined for an enemy port or contains contraband material itself. Ultimately, this case helped define how nations interact with each other at sea during times of conflict and provided clarity regarding what constitutes lawful behavior when dealing with neutral vessels in wartime situations.
In The Schooner Adeline and Cargo, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a French vessel that had been captured by an American privateer during the war of 1812 could be lawfully condemned as prize. Justice Story wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that under international law, it would have been illegal for the United States to capture this particular ship because it was sailing from one neutral port to another at the time of its seizure. He further noted that even if such captures were permissible under international law, they should not be allowed in domestic courts unless authorized by Congress or some other competent authority. In his view, since no such authorization existed here, condemnation of this vessel as prize would violate both public policy and justice. As a result, Justice Story concluded that any judgment against her must be reversed and she should instead be restored with all damages paid for her wrongful detention.