concluding that as a matter of principle the personal and subject-matter jurisdiction of a foreign court “may *1177 be considered by that tribunal which is to decide on the effect of the sentence”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that as a matter of principle the personal and subject-matter jurisdiction of a foreign court “may *1177 be considered by that tribunal which is to decide on the effect of the sentence”
- concluding that as a matter of principle the personal and subject-matter jurisdiction of a foreign court "may be considered by that tribunal which is to decide on the effect of the sentence"
- noting that doctrine only applies when “the losing party in state court 9 filed suit in federal court after the state proceedings ended”
- observing that beyond its own territory, the laws of a country “can only affect its own subjects or citizens”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Hudson and Smith v. Guestier, 10 U.S. 281 (1810)
Listed in the Constitution Annotated's table of Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision (entry 1, expressly overruled).
The opinion
Livingston, J.
Without expressing an opinion on the invalidity of a seizure on the high seas, under a municipal regulation, if the property be immediately carried into a port of the country to which the capturing vessel belongs, and there regularly proceeded against, I concur in the judgment just delivered, because The Sarah and her cargo were condemned by a French tribunal, sitting at St. Domingo, without having been carried into that, or any other French port, and while lying in the port of Charleston, South Carolina, whither they had been carried, by and with the consent of the captor.
Cushing and Chase, Justices, concurred in opinion with Judge Livingston.