Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

Sapphire Case

1) In December 1867, the French ship Euryale, owned by then-French Emperor Napoleon III, collided with the American ship Sapphire in San Francisco harbor. 2) Napoleon III filed a case against the owners of the Sapphire. The circuit court found both ships at fault and ordered damages to be split equally. 3) The owners of the Sapphire appealed to the US Supreme Court. One issue was whether Napoleon III, as a foreign head of state, could bring a suit in US courts. The Supreme Court ruled that foreign sovereigns have the right to prosecute civil claims in US courts.

Uploaded by

Alyk Calion
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

Sapphire Case

1) In December 1867, the French ship Euryale, owned by then-French Emperor Napoleon III, collided with the American ship Sapphire in San Francisco harbor. 2) Napoleon III filed a case against the owners of the Sapphire. The circuit court found both ships at fault and ordered damages to be split equally. 3) The owners of the Sapphire appealed to the US Supreme Court. One issue was whether Napoleon III, as a foreign head of state, could bring a suit in US courts. The Supreme Court ruled that foreign sovereigns have the right to prosecute civil claims in US courts.

Uploaded by

Alyk Calion
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Sapphire Case

Facts:

Napoleon III, then the French Emperor, owned the French transport Euryale. In December 22,
1867, while traversing San Francisco harbor, parricularly at 5am, it collided with The Sapphire, an
American ship. After two days, Napoleon III filed a case against the owners of The Sapphire and
when the depositions ensued, the libellant was awarded $15,000 on which the claimants
appealed. They alleged that the damage was due to the fault of Euryale, amongst others. The
circuit court affirmed the decree. Two years after, or in 1869, they appealed to the US Supreme
Court where the parties argued 1 year after Napoleon was deposed in 1870. Contentions of
Napoleon III: The libellant insists that the Sapphire was in fault in two points: 1st, in anchoring
too near the Euryale in the first instance; 2Nd, in not having out sufficient anchors.

Issue:

Whether or not Napoleon III, a foreign national, bring a suit in US Courts.

Held:

Yes. The US Supreme Court said that a foreign sovereign, as well as any other foreign person,
who has a demand of a civil nature against any person here may prosecute it in our courts. To
deny him this privilege would manifest a want of comity and friendly feeling. They reiterated
that the US Constitution expressly extends the judicial power to controversies between a state or
citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects without reference to the subject matter
of the controversy. Their own government has largely availed itself of the like privilege to bring
suits in the English courts in cases growing out of their late civil war. Important Matter regarding
Sovereign Continuity.....

Question:

Did the deposition of Napoleon III bar the continuation of the case? Answer: No. The reigning
sovereign represents the national sovereignty, and that sovereignty is continuous and perpetual,
residing in the proper successors of the sovereign for the time being. Napoleon was the owner
of the Euryale, not as an individual but as sovereign of France. This is substantially averred in the
libel. On his deposition the sovereignty does not change, but merely the person or persons in
whom it resides. The foreign state is the true and real owner of its public vessels of war. The
reigning Emperor or national assembly or other actual person or party in power is but the agent
and representative of the national sovereignty. A change in such representative works no
change in the national sovereignty or its rights. The next successor recognized by our
government is competent to carry on a suit already commenced and receive the fruits of it. A
deed to or treaty with a sovereign as such enures to his successors in the government of the
country. If a substitution of names is necessary or proper, it is a formal matter, and can be made
by the court under its general power to preserve due symmetry in its forms of proceeding. No
allegation has been made that any change in thereal and substantial ownership of the Euryale
has occurred by the recent devolution of the sovereign power. The vessel has always belonged
and still belongs to the French nation. DECISION: Both parties being in fault, the damages ought
to be equally divided between them.

You might also like