
    THE BRIG CAROLINE WILMANS. HERMAN STUMPS, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. JOHN STEWART, Receiver of the Maryland Insurance Company, v. THE SAME.
    [French Spoliations,
    2206, 2186.
    Decided March 7, 1892.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The vessel sails in July 1800, for Antigua, a British port, with a cargo not contraband. It is to he delivered according to the hill of lading and invoice “ unto MdwardL. Smifhor tohis assigns, Jieor they paying freight for the said goods.” He is an American citizen, the supercargo of the brig and on hoard at the time of capture; hut it does not appear that the captors were so informed. The vessel is never heard of again.
    I. When a cargo in 1800 was consigned to a person in a British port who was to pay freight and charges, it might he presumed hy a French naval officer obliged to act summarily on the high seas to he British property, giving probable cause for seizure, and justifying the captors in tailing the vessel into port, where the nationality of the property could he determined.
    II. Where a vessel seized for probable cause was wrecked and lost while in the hands of the captors, without fault or negligence on their part being shown, they cannot be held responsible therefor.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:
    The following are the facts of this case as found by the court: I. The brig Caroline Wilmans sailed from Baltimore, Md., on the 6th of July, 1800, for Antigua. On the 29th July, 1800, she was captured on the high seas by the French privateer Les Trois Amis. After the capture her master, the mate, the supercargo, and a portion of her crew were taken on board of the capturing vessel and subsequently put ashore at Basseterre on the 18th August, 1800. On the 1st September, 1800, the master arrived at St. Kitts, and on the 2d September made a protest before a notary, in which he alleged in due form the capture of the Caroline Wilmans, and also that he “had heard no tidings of his said brig” and “was unacquainted with what had become of her.” On the 16th January, 1801, the owner of the cargo satisfied the Maryland Insurance Company that the
    
      vessel bad not been beard from since ber capture, and tbe company paid tbe insurance upon tbe cargo as for a total loss. It does not appear that tbe Caroline Wilmans was ever brought into port or comdemned or heard of after capture. Tbe court finds that she carried ber papers and was sailing upon a lawful voyage, laden with a cargo not contraband. Tbe reason for ber capture is unknown. At tbe time of capture it appeared by tbe bill of lading and invoice on board tbe vessel that tbe cargo was to be delivered at tbe port of Antigua (then being in tbe possession of tbe British), “unto Edward L, Smith or bis assigns, be or they paying freight for tbe said goods.” Tbe said Edward L. Smith was tbe supercargo of tbe brig, and on board at tbe time of capture, and was an American citizen. It does not appear whether tbe captors were informed that be was tbe supercargo and the consignee of tbe cargo, or that tbe cargo was consigned to and tbe property of an American owner.
    II. Tbe Caroline Wilmans was a duly registered' vessel, measuring 125 tons, built in Virginia in tbe year 1793, and owned by James Biays, of Baltimore.
    III. Tbe cargo of tbe Caroline Wilmans belonged to Joseph Esher, of Baltimore, for whom no claim is made, and consisted almost entirely of 4,077 bushels of corn.
    IV. Tbe losses caused by tbe capture of tbe Oarobne Wil-mans were as follows:
    The value of the vessel was. $4, 950
    The freight earnings for the voyage, two-thirds. 2,082
    The value of the cargo was.... 3,125
    Amounting in all to. 10,157
    No insurance upon tbe vessel is shown.
    V. In case No. 2206 James Biays, of Baltimore, was tbe owner of tbe vessel. It does not appear that be bad insured ber. Tbe losses of James Biays by reason of tbe capture of tbe Caroline Wilmans were as follows:
    The value of the vessel. $4,950
    The freight earnings for the voyage, two-thirds. 2,082
    Amounting in all to. 7,032
    VI. In case No. 2186 the Maryland Insurance Company, a corporation doing business in tbe city of Baltimore, under tbe laws of tbe State of Maryland, by a policy of insurance issued on tbe 14th July, 1800, insured, the owner of the cargo, Joseph Usher, against loss for the voyage. The policy was subsequently assigned by Joseph Usher to James Allston, of Baltimore, and the Maryland Insurance Company paid to him the insurance on the 16th January, 1801.
    The loss incurred by the Maryland Insurance Company by reason of the capture of the Caroline Wilmans was $3,000.
    YII. In case No. 2186, the claimant, John Stewart, on the 23d day of January, 1886, was appointed by the Circuit Court of Baltimore, Md., receiver of the Maryland Insurance Company, with authority to collect the outstanding debts due to company, and especially the claims against the United States commonly known and described as theFrench spoliation claims. John E. Semmes was appointed May 15,1891, receiver in the place of John Stewart, who resigned, and David Stewart, and John E. Semmes became and now are the receivers of the said company. The receivers represent the stockholders of the company at the time it expired in 1843, it then being solvent.
    Yin. In case No. 2206, the claimant, Herman Stumps, has produced letters of administration for the estate of James Biays, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person of whose estate he is the administrator was the same person who suffered loss through the capture of the Caroline Wilmans and was a citizen of the United States.
    
      Mr. William M. Marie for the claimants.
    
      Mr. G. W. Bussell for the defendants. .
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The cargo being consigned to a person in a British port who was to pay freight and charges might.be presumed, by a naval officer obliged to act summarily on the high seas, to be British property, giving probable cause for the seizure, and justifying the captors in taking the vessel into port, where the nationality of the property could be determined by proper tribunals; and as the vessel was wrecked and lost while so in the hands of the captors without fault or negligence on their part being shown, the Government of France can not be held responsible therefor.

The order of the court is that the cases above set forth be so reported to Congress.  