US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

HERRERA V. UNITED STATES, 222 U. S. 558 (1912)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 222 U. S. 558 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Herrera v. United States, 222 U.S. 558 (1912)

Herrera v. United States

No. 89

Argued December 11, 12, 1911

Decided January 15, 1912

222 U.S. 558


War makes the citizens or subjects of one belligerent enemies of the government citizens and subjects of the other.

During the war with Spain, Cuba was enemy's country, and all persons residing there pending the war, whether Spanish subjects or Americans, were to be deemed enemies of the United States, and their property enemy's property and subject to seizure, confiscation, and destruction.

Property in the harbor after the capitulation of Santiago remained enemy property, and seizures thereof by the United States were acts of war.

Nothing in the President's proclamation of July 13, 1898, militated against the right of the United States to confiscate enemy's property for the use of the army of occupation.

There is a distinction between the capture of an enemy's port in a war with a foreign country and the restoration of national authority over territory in a civil war and in the protection of property after capture. The Venice, 2 Wall. 258, distinguished.

There is a distinction between a seizure of private property of an enemy for immediate use of the army and the taking of such property as booty of war. Planters Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483.

Under the prohibitions of the Tucker Act, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction for claims for seizures made in Santiago after its capitulation in violation of the President's proclamation of July 13, 1898, or of the laws of war.

Right of Spanish subjects against the United States for indemnity for illegal seizures and detention of property during the war of 1898 was taken away by the treaty of peace. Hijo v. United States, 194 U. S. 315.

43 Ct.Cl. 430 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and the liability of the United States for use of enemy vessels seized during the war with Spain, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 222 U. S. 563

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™