Corfield v. Coryell

United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 1823 · Constitutional Law

6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawPrivileges and ImmunitiesCommerce ClauseAdmiralty and Maritime JurisdictionPrivileges and Immunities Clausefundamental rightsstate common propertyoyster beds

Facts

New Jersey law prohibited certain oyster harvesting practices and barred nonresidents from gathering oysters in the state's rivers, bays, or waters on vessels not wholly owned by New Jersey inhabitants or residents. The plaintiff's vessel, the Hiram, was seized in Maurice River Cove while engaged in dredging for oysters, then condemned and sold by Cumberland County magistrates under the statute. The plaintiff argued that the statute was unconstitutional and that the seizure location was outside New Jersey or outside Cumberland County. At the time of seizure, however, the vessel was in the possession of John Keene under a month-long hiring arrangement that had not yet expired.

Issue

Did the New Jersey oystering statute violate the Commerce Clause, the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, or the constitutional grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and, regardless of those questions, could the vessel's owner maintain trespass when the vessel was in a bailee's possession at the time of seizure?

Rule

The Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause secures only those privileges and immunities that are fundamental in nature and belong of right to citizens of free governments; it does not give citizens of one state a co-tenancy in the common property of another state. A state may regulate the use of its common property, such as fisheries and oyster beds, so long as it does not interfere with navigation or commerce as regulated by Congress. To maintain trespass for injury to a chattel, the plaintiff must have had actual or constructive possession, together with general or qualified property and a right to immediate possession, at the time of the injury.

🔒

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.

Maine enacts a statute allowing only Maine residents to dig wild clams from state-owned tidal flats in Penobscot Bay. Vermont residents remain free to enter Maine, live there, sue in its courts, and buy and sell private property there. Nora Blake, a Vermont resident, is cited while gathering clams and argues the law violates Article IV.

How should a court applying the majority opinion rule on Nora's Article IV claim?

Explanation. The majority construed Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause to secure only fundamental privileges and immunities of citizenship, such as protection, liberty, property, access to courts, travel, and residence. It rejected the argument that citizens of one state thereby gain a co-tenancy in the common property of another state. State-owned fisheries and similar resources may therefore be reserved to the state's own citizens.