Herrera v. United States
The Court ruled that Spanish merchants whose steamship was seized and used by the U.S. Army during the war with Spain could not recover payment through a lawsuit against the government, because the seizure was an act of war rather than a contract.
Following its own recent precedent, the Court held that such wartime seizures of enemy-owned property are treated as tort-like military acts, not contracts, so the Court of Claims had no power to award compensation no matter how reasonable the claim seemed.
“We only mean that the seizure was for the immediate use' of the army, a right recognized in that case”
Explaining why the Army's wartime use of the ship was lawful military action, not theft or contract.
How it got here: The Court of Claims dismissed the shipowners' suit for lack of jurisdiction, relying on Hijo v. United States, and the claimants brought the case to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A Spanish commercial partnership, Herrera Nephews, owned the steamship San Juan and operated in Havana under Spanish rule. When Santiago, Cuba surrendered to U.S. forces during the Spanish-American War, the Army seized the ship, used it to transport troops and supplies, and later returned it after months of dispute over compensation for its use and for missing equipment.
The question before the Court
When the U.S. Army seized a Spanish-owned steamship in Cuba during the Spanish-American War, could the owners sue for payment as if the government had made a contract with them?
Why it matters
The ruling meant that owners of private property seized by U.S. forces during wartime occupation of enemy territory generally could not sue the government for compensation through ordinary court claims, reinforcing that wartime property seizures are treated as military acts of war rather than contracts, leaving affected owners with no judicial remedy in the Court of Claims.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision affirming the Court of Claims' dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The claimants receive no compensation for the ship's use or the missing property, and the case ends here, with no remand. The ruling reinforces existing precedent barring similar wartime seizure claims from proceeding as contract suits.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly declined to decide the claimants' citizenship status — whether they were Spanish subjects or Cubans by later nationality — because it resolved the case entirely on the ground that the claim sounded in tort, not contract, regardless of citizenship.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice McKenna (author).
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court asked whether the claim fit within the Tucker Act, the law allowing certain suits against the United States only for contracts or non-tort damages, not for wrongful acts (torts).
- Applying the general wartime rule, the Court found that everyone residing in enemy territory during a war, whether or not personally hostile, is treated as an enemy whose property may be seized for military purposes.
- The Court rejected the claimants' argument that Santiago's capitulation (surrender by agreement) rather than capture by force, plus the President's protective proclamation, changed enemy property into protected property entitled to compensation.
- Relying on its recent decisions in Hijo v. United States and Juragua Iron Co. v. United States, the Court held that seizing and using enemy property for war purposes is an exercise of the war power, not a contract, so no compensation claim could be implied.
- The Court further reasoned that even if the seizure exceeded lawful limits, the wrong would be a tort committed in the government's interest, and the Tucker Act bars the Court of Claims from hearing tort claims against the United States.
- Because no contract could be implied and the claim sounded in tort, the Court concluded the Court of Claims correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to award any compensation.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Hijo v. United States (194 U.S. 315)
Court applies this case's rule that wartime seizure of enemy vessels is an act of war, not a contract.
Reaffirms Juragua Iron Co. v. United States (212 U.S. 297)
Court reaffirms that property in enemy territory can be seized as enemy property without creating a compensable claim.
Distinguishes The Venice (2 Wall. 258)
Court says this case's protections applied only to occupied U.S. territory, not enemy Cuban territory during the war.