Herrera v. United States
Headline: Ruling upholds dismissal of shipowners’ claim for wartime seizure and use of their steamship, holding the capture was an act of war and leaving the owners without compensation or court remedy.
Holding: The Court held that the seizure and use of the steamship San Juan during the Spanish–American War was an act of war, so the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction and the owners could not recover for its use.
- Prevents wartime shipowners from recovering use value when vessel seized as act of war.
- Leaves compensation decisions to political or military authorities, not the Court of Claims.
- Treats property used in active military operations as outside Tucker Act recovery.
Summary
Background
A commercial partnership called Herrera Nephews owned the steamship San Juan and operated from Havana. The United States seized the ship after the Spanish forces in Santiago capitulated during the war with Spain. The Government used the steamship to transport American troops and aid until November 1898 and later returned the vessel after negotiations and written receipts by the owners acknowledging the Government’s position about compensation.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the owners could recover money for the ship’s use and for missing tools after it was taken. The Court found that the seizure and use were an exercise of the war power and treated the vessel as enemy property subject to military use. Relying on earlier cases, the Court concluded there was no element of an implied contract that would let the claims proceed under the statute governing suits for money against the United States. Because the claim arose from capture and use in wartime, the claims court lacked jurisdiction and the petition was dismissed.
Real world impact
The decision leaves these shipowners without a judicial remedy for compensation in the Court of Claims after wartime seizure and use. It applies established rules that property taken or used in active military operations is treated as an act of war, not a contractual taking, and therefore is not recoverable under the statute the owners invoked. This ruling does not resolve the owners’ citizenship questions and rests on wartime authority and prior precedents.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?