The Issue Of Belligerency, The Captured Ships, Further Readings
Owners of four ships as claimants: Hiawatha, Crenshaw, Amy Warwick, and Brilliante
That the seizure of these ships for violation of blockade was illegal, because the war was a civil war, not an international war.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Richard Henry Dana, Jr.
Justices for the Court
David Davis, Robert Cooper Grier (writing for the Court), Samuel Freeman Miller, Noah Haynes Swayne, James Moore Wayne
John Catron, Nathan Clifford, Samuel Nelson, Roger Brooke Taney
Date of Decision
10 March 1863
The Court ruled the president could insitute a wartime blockade without congressional approval.
The case determined that the Union government could pursue the naval war against the Confederacy as if it were an international war, using the rules of blockade.
- Keppel v. Petersburg R. Co., 14 F.Cas. 357 (C.C.D.Va. 1868).
- Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 571 F.Supp. 1460 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
- Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. the Proprietors of the Warren Bridge - Significance, Two Bridges In Boston, Taney's Defense Of "happiness And Well Being"
- Prince v. Prince - A Step Up, An Informal Marriage, The Court Investigates, Prenuptial Agreements
- Prize Cases - The Issue Of Belligerency
- Prize Cases - Further Readings
- Prize Cases - The Captured Ships
- Other Free Encyclopedias