Cargo of the Brig Aurora v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Administrative Law

Administrative Lawconditional revivalrevival of statutespresidential proclamationnon-intercourse actsforfeitureAmerican property exceptionburden of proof

Facts

Goods were libeled under the non-intercourse acts of March 1, 1809, and May 1, 1810. Robert Burnside, a citizen of Orleans, claimed the goods as his property and argued they were American property exempted from forfeiture by the Act of March 2, 1811. The evidence offered to show American ownership consisted mainly of a bill of lading stating the goods were shipped on account of a citizen of the United States and consigned to Burnside, but it did not name the owner. Testimony from two clerks of John Rason & Co. in Liverpool stated only that the goods were shipped by John Richardson of Liverpool, without stating on whose account they were shipped.

Issue

Whether the claimant proved that the goods were American property and thus exempt from forfeiture, and whether the Act of March 1, 1809, was validly revived by the President's proclamation so as to take effect on February 2, 1811, rather than on May 20, 1811. The case also presented whether the libel was insufficient for failing to negative that the goods were American property.

Rule

A legislature may revive an expired statute either expressly or conditionally. When a statute is revived, it is understood to have, from the time of revival, the same force and effect it had at the moment it expired. A claimant seeking the benefit of an exception or defense must prove the facts supporting it, and a libel need not allege facts that constitute the claimant's defense or an exception to the law invoked.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Federal officials in Savannah seize a shipment of woolens under a trade-restriction statute. Lena Ortiz claims the goods are exempt because they qualify as domestic property, but she offers only a shipping receipt stating the cargo was sent "for a resident of the United States" and consigned to her; the receipt does not identify the owner, and she produces no correspondence or testimony from the overseas shipper.

If Lena seeks the benefit of the domestic-property exception, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. A claimant who seeks the benefit of an exception or defense must prove the qualifying facts. Here, the only document says the goods were shipped for some U.S. resident but does not identify that person, and Lena omitted stronger evidence that could readily have been supplied, such as correspondence or testimony identifying the owner. Under the majority's reasoning, that absence of proof permits the conclusion that the exception was not established. (Derived from Cargo of the Brig Aurora v. United States (n.d.).)