The Antelope

Supreme Court of the United States · 1825 · Property

23 U.S. 66 (1825)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertySlave tradeLaw of nationsRestitutionBurden of proofpiracyright of searchtime of peace

Facts

The Antelope, a vessel belonging to Spanish subjects, was captured on the coast of Africa by the Arraganta, a privateer manned in Baltimore and said to sail under the flag of the Oriental republic, while the Antelope was receiving Africans. Africans from other vessels said to be Portuguese were also placed aboard the Antelope, whose name was changed to the General Ramirez. The vessel later came near the Florida coast, where Captain Jackson of the revenue cutter Dallas, suspecting piracy or an intent to smuggle slaves into the United States, seized and brought her in for adjudication. Spain and Portugal, through their consuls, claimed portions of the Africans as property, while the United States opposed the claims on behalf of the Africans.

Issue

Whether Africans found aboard a foreign vessel engaged in the slave trade and brought within the control of an American court in time of peace should be restored to foreign claimants as property, and if so, what proof of ownership and number is required. The case also required the Court to decide whether the slave trade was contrary to the law of nations or piracy so as to justify seizure and condemnation.

Rule

The slave trade, though contrary to natural law and condemned by many nations, was not contrary to the law of nations as fixed by general usage and could be made piracy only by statute. Therefore, in time of peace, no right exists to seize and bring in a foreign vessel for adjudication on that ground alone, and such a vessel would be restored unless violating American municipal law. Where restitution is sought for Africans as property, the claimant bears the burden of proving title and the extent of the claim, and possession alone does not suffice in the same way it might for ordinary goods.

🔒

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.

A cutter of the United States encounters the Mar Azul, a vessel owned by merchants from Cádiz, 40 miles off the coast of Georgia during peacetime. The officers board and seize the ship solely because it is transporting enslaved Africans in a trade permitted by Spanish law, and there is no evidence the vessel intended to enter the United States or otherwise violate American statutes.

If Spanish owners appear in a U.S. court seeking restoration of the vessel and cargo, what is the best result?

Explanation. The majority held that the slave trade, though abhorrent, was not contrary to the law of nations as fixed by general usage and could not be treated as piracy absent statute. In time of peace, there is no general right to seize and bring in a foreign vessel for adjudication on that basis alone. Thus, where the foreign vessel is not violating American municipal law, restitution is required.