Sapphire Case 2w6o21

Sapphire Case Facts: Napoleon III, then the French Emperor, owned the French transport Euryale. In December 22, 1867, while traversing San Francisco harbor, parricularly at 5am, it collided with The Sapphire, an American ship. After two days, Napoleon III filed a case against the owners of The Sapphire and when the depositions ensued, the libellant was awarded $15,000 on which the claimants appealed. They alleged that the damage was due to the fault of Euryale, amongst others. The circuit court affirmed the decree. Two years after, or in 1869, they appealed to the US Supreme Court where the parties argued 1 year after Napoleon was deposed in 1870. Contentions of Napoleon III: The libellant insists that the Sapphire was in fault in two points: 1st, in anchoring too near the Euryale in the first instance; 2Nd, in not having out sufficient anchors. Issue: Whether or not Napoleon III, a foreign national, bring a suit in US Courts. Held: Yes. The US Supreme Court said that a foreign sovereign, as well as any other foreign person, who has a demand of a civil nature against any person here may prosecute it in our courts. To deny him this privilege would manifest a want of comity and friendly feeling. They reiterated that the US Constitution expressly extends the judicial power to controversies between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects without reference to the subject matter of the controversy. Their own government has largely availed itself of the like privilege to bring suits in the English courts in cases growing out of their late civil war. Important Matter regarding Sovereign Continuity..... Question: Did the deposition of Napoleon III bar the continuation of the case? Answer: No. The reigning sovereign represents the national sovereignty, and that sovereignty is continuous and perpetual, residing in the proper successors of the sovereign for the time being. Napoleon was the owner of the Euryale, not as an individual but as sovereign of . This is substantially averred in the libel. On his deposition the sovereignty does not change, but merely the person or persons in whom it resides. The foreign state is the true and real owner of its public vessels of war. The reigning Emperor or national assembly or other actual person or party in power is but the agent and representative of the national sovereignty. A change in such representative works no change in the national sovereignty or its rights. The next successor recognized by our government is competent to carry on a suit already commenced and receive the fruits of it. A deed to or treaty with a sovereign as such enures to his successors in the government of the country. If a substitution of names is necessary or proper, it is a formal matter, and can be made by the court under its general power to preserve due symmetry in its forms of proceeding. No allegation has been made that any change in thereal and substantial ownership of the Euryale

has occurred by the recent devolution of the sovereign power. The vessel has always belonged and still belongs to the French nation. DECISION: Both parties being in fault, the damages ought to be equally divided between them.