· 5/16/1904

R. Ribas Y Hijo v. United States

Citations

194 U.S. 315
24 S. Ct. 727
48 L. Ed. 994
1904 U.S. LEXIS 826

Syllabus

Under § 35 of the act of April 12, 1900, this court can review on writ of .error a final judgment of the District Court of the United States for Porto' Rico, where the amount in dispute exceeds $5,000, and a final judgment in' a like case in the Supreme Court of one of the Territories of the United States could be reviewed by this court. An-action, which could be brought under the Tucker Act against the United States in either a District or a Circuit Court of the United States is within the cognizance of the District Court of the United States of Porto Rico. Qucere, and not decided, whether, a foreign corporation can maintain any action under the Tucker Act in any court in view of the provisions of the act that the petition must be filéd in the District where the plaintiff resides. The seizure and detention by the military and naval forces of the United States during the war with Spain, of a vessel owned by Spanish subjects, was a seizure of enemy’s property and an act of war within the limits of military operations, although the owners were not directly connected with military operations, and a claim for damages for such seizure and detention is not founded on the Constitution of the United States, or on any act of Congress, or regulation of an Executive Department, or on any contract express or implied, and an action based thereon is not sanctioned by the Tucker Act , and cannot be maintained thereunder. The fact that the vessel was retained pending negotiations for a treaty of peace and during a cessation of hostilities does not connect the original seizure with an implied contract to compensate the owners for the detention of the vessel. If the owners had any claim against the United States it was relinquished by the stipulation in the treaty of peace relinquishing claims, such stipulation covering all claims arising prior to thé exchange of ratifications of the treaty. In case of a conflict between a statute and treaty the

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

“[Coneerning] a conflict between an act of Congress and a treaty—each being equally the supreme law of the land—the one last in date must prevail in the courts.”
seizure of enemy vessel was an \act of war\ because \[t]here is no element of contract\
seizure of enemy vessel was an “act of war” because “[t]here is no element of contract”
seizure of enemy vessel was an “act of war” because “[t]here is no element of contract”
“A truce . . . does not terminate the war. . . . At the expiration of the truce, hostilities may recommence without any fresh declaration of war.”
when there is a “conflict between an act of Congress and a treaty,-each being the supreme law of the land,-the one last in date must prevail in the courts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harlan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.