
    THE SCHOONER VANDEPUT. JOSEPH OGDEN, Executor, v. THE UNITED STATES. GORDON NORRIE, Administrator, v. THE SAME. THOMAS W. LUDLOW, Administrator, v. THE SAME. JOSEPH OGDEN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. JOSEPH OGDEN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. JOSEPH OGDEN, Administrator, v. THE SAME. BENJAMIN M. HARTSHORNE and CHARLES N. BLACK, Executors, v. THE SAME.
    [French Spoliations,
    1116, 3768, 5216, 5217, 5218, 4037.
    Decided March 31, 1902.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The suit is brought by insurers only. It does not appear that the owners of the vessel and cargo were citizens of the United States or that the schooner was a registered vessel.
    I. Where neither the American registry of a vessel nor the citizenship of the owners is established, it can not be held that the condemnation was illegal.
    II. Insurers have no higher standing in court than the owners whom they insured. If the owners can not recover, the insurers can not.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. The schooner Vandeput, George Fitzhugh, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 7th day of March, 1800, from Norfolk, Va., bound to Martinico. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer Le Renard, Captain Breton, and conducted to Port de la Liberte, and afterwards condemned and sold as good prize, for the benefit of the captors, by decree of the tribunal of commerce and prizes, sitting at Basse Terre, Guadaloupe, dated April 4, 1800.
    Tbe grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows:
    Considering that from the papers analyzed, and from those concerning the above examination, it is established that the supercargo of the vessel, who is the owner, is a native of Scotland, according to his declaration made at his examination; that he submits no documents which evidences that he was naturalized before the time of the declaration of war between France and England.
    Considering that among the papers of the said vessel there is no sea letter or commission, no róle d’equipage, but a single agreement between the captain and his crew, as was admitted by the supercargo in his examination, which document not being invested with the signatures of public officers can not take the place of a róle d’equipage, not being in proper form as it is prescribed by the model annexed to the treaty of the 6th of February, 1778, between France and the United States.
    II. The Yandeput sailed from Norfolk, Va., and was owned by James Donaldson & Co., but whether said vessel was a duh* registered vessel of the United States does not appear.
    Neither has it been established to the satisfaction of the court that said James Donaldson & Co. were citizens of the United States.
    III. The cargo of the Yandeput consisted of flour, lard, bread, and staves, and was owned bjr said James Donaldson & Co., the owners of the vessel.
    IY. The tonnage of the Vandeput and the year in which she was built not being known, her value and freight earnings can not be fixed.
    The value of the cargo, as shown by the invoice, was §1,815.35.
    No claim has been filed on behalf of the owners of the Yan-deput and her cargo.
    Y. March 20, 1800, the said James Donaldson & Co. effected insurance on said vessel through the agency of Munro & Gordon, of the city of New York, in the sum of $4,000, at a premium not stated, by policy underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz:
    Rhinelander, Hartshorne &Co. §3,000
    Thomas Ludlow. 500
    Fredk. Depeyster & Co. 500
    March 20, 1800, the said James Donaldson & Co. effected insurance through the same agency on the cargo of said vessel in the sum of $1,800, at a premium not stated, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz:
    Jas. Johnston and R. Weir_. §500
    Neilson & Bunker....— 500
    Hector Scott. 500
    Van Horne & Clarkson. 300
    March 20, 1800, the said James Donaldson & Co. effected insurance through the same agency on the freight of said vessel in the sum of $600, at a premium not stated, and policy being underwritten in that sum by Henry Hastie & Co.
    Thereafter the said insurers duly paid the said James Donaldson & Co. the face of said policies, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises.
    The underwriters on said policies who have appeared in this case by their legal representatives and the loss sustained by each are as follows:
    Rhinelander, Hartshorne & Co...§2,940
    Thomas Ludlow. 490
    Van Horne & Clarkson. 294
    The firm of Rhinelander, Hartshorne & Co. was composed of Joseph Lindley, William Kenyon, Frederick, William, and Philip Rhinelander, and Richard Hartshorne, and Richard Hartshorne survived all the above partners. This firm was succeeded by Hartshorne, Rhinelander & Co., which was composed of all-the members of the prior firm except William Kenyon, with the addition of John Titus. Richard Harts-horne was the survivor of this firm, which became liable for all the debts and entitled to all assets of the prior firm. All the members of said firm were citizens of the United States.
    The said Thomas Ludlow was a citizen of the United States.
    
      The firm of Van Horn© & Clarkson was composed of Garrit Van Horne and David M. Clarkson, both of whom were citizens of the United States. Garrit Van Horne was the survivor of the firm.
    VI. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they respectively claim to represent, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons of whose estates they are respec-' tively administrators are the same persons who suffered loss through the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Van-deput as set forth in the preceding findings.
    
      Mr. W. T. S. Owrtis for the claimants. Mr. James Lowndes was' on the brief.
    
      Mr. John W. Trainer and Mr. Gha/rles W. Russell (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.
   Weldon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The findings of fact in this case show that the schooner Vandeput, George Fitzhugh, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on March Y, 1800, from Norfolk, Va., bound to Marti-nico, and that while peacefully pursuing her voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer Le Renard, Captain Breton, and conducted to Port de la Liberte; and afterwards condemned and sold as prize by the tribunal of commerce and prizes, sitting at Basse Terre, Guadaloupe, as set forth in the decree as follows:

“Considering that from the papers analyzed, and from those concerning the above examination, it is established that the supercargo of the vessel, who is the owner, is a native of Scotland, according to his declaration made at his examination; that he submits no documents which evidences that he was naturalized before the time of the declaration of war between France and England.
“ Considering that among the papers of the said vessel there is no sea letter or commission, no roll of equipage, but a single agreement between the captain and his crew, as was admitted by the supercargo in his examination, which document not being invested with the signatures of public officers, can not take the place of a roll of equipage, not being in proper form as it is prescribed by the model annexed to the, treaty of the 6th February, 1778, between France and the United States.”

The finding’s further show that the vessel and carg’o were owned by James Donaldson & Co., but whether the vessel was registered or not does not appear, nor is it established to the satisfaction of the court that James Donaldson & Co. were citizens of the United States.

The cargo of the vessel consisted of flour, lard, bread, and staves and was owned as aforesaid.

The value of the vessel, as shown by the invoice, was §1,815.35, but no claim has been filed on behalf of the owners of the vessel or her cargo.

In March, 1800, said Donaldson & Co. effected an insurance on said vessel, amounting to §4,000, and on the same date procured insurance to the amount of §1,800 on the cargo and an insurance of §600 on the freight. A number of the persons and firms having insurance claims appear as petitioner’s in this proceeding, claiming to recover the amount paid to Donaldson & Co-, on the vessel and cargo, amounting substantially to the sum stated as insurance. The basis of their claim as insurers is the risk which they took and paid on the property of Donaldson & Co.; and in order for them to recover in this proceeding, it must be shown that the owner of the property upon which they had and jiaid insurance was a citizen of the United States. Their rights as insurers are dependent upon and incident to the ownership of Donaldson & Co.

If the property of Donaldson & Co. was legally subject to seizure and was condemned, as shown by the decree, Donaldson & Co. would have no right in the property as against the belligerent right of the French Government, and would not be entitled to recover in this proceeding.

The statute which gives the court jurisdiction provides: “That such citizens of the United States, or their legal representatives, as had valid claims of indemnity upon the French Government, arising out of illegal captures,” etc., * * * “can apply by petition to the Court of Claims within two years from the passage of this act, as hereinafter provided.” If the property at the time of seizure belonged to a subject of Great Britain, it was property seized and condemned.

The fact, as shown in this case, is that James Donaldson was a British subject, and it is not shown who or what was the nationality of his partner. That fact appearing to the French court, that Donaldson was a British subject, it was justified in the condemnation of the property, and the extent of that condemnation was commensurate with the whole property, and nothing was left to the insurers as against the legal effect of that decree. The findings do not establish a legal liability on the part of the defendants, and no allowance is therefore made, as shown in the conclusion of law.

The foregoing findings and conclusion of lav/, with a copy of this opinion, will be reported to Congress.'  