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

The Union Steamship Company of Philadelphia (Claimants and Owners) appealed a case against the New York and Virginia Steamship Company. The Claimants argued that they were entitled to damages for losses incurred when their steamer, Pennsylvania, was wrongfully detained by the Respondent in violation of an Act of Congress. The Respondent claimed that it had acted lawfully under its charter from the State of Virginia which authorized them to detain vessels suspected as being engaged in illegal trade with foreign countries or ports not open to commerce with United States citizens. After considering both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court held that while there may have been some justification for detaining Pennsylvania due to suspicion about her cargo, this did not excuse any wrongful detention beyond what was necessary for investigation purposes. Therefore, they ruled in favor of the Claimants and awarded them damages accordingly.
In this case, the Union Steamship Company of Philadelphia (Claimants) appealed a decision by the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that denied their claim against The New York and Virginia Steamship Company. Claimants argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of possession and use of their steamship, Pennsylvania, which was taken over by The New York and Virginia Steamship Company without any legal authority. In his dissenting opinion Justice Grier argued that although there were no specific laws in place to protect Claimant's rights in this particular situation, it did not mean they should be left without recourse. He believed that since both parties had acted under an agreement made between them - even if it was informal - then justice required some form of compensation or restitution from The New York and Virginia Steam Ship Company to compensate for what Claimants lost as a result. Therefore he concluded that while the majority opinion may have been technically correct according to existing law at the time, justice still demanded some form of remedy for Claimant's losses due to wrongful deprivation.