The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon

The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 24, 1812
Full case name	The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon & Others
Citations	11 U.S. 116 (more) 3 L. Ed. 287 7 Cranch 116
Prior history	McFadden v. the Exchange, 16 F. Cas. 85 (C.C.D. Pa. 1811)
Holding
American courts do not have jurisdiction over a friendly nation's military vessel that enters an American port.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority	Marshall, joined by unanimous

The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812) is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the Federal courts' jurisdiction over a claim against a friendly foreign military vessel visiting an American port. The court, interpreting customary international law, determined that there was no jurisdiction.

The schooner Exchange, owned by John M'Faddon and William Greetham, sailed from Baltimore, Maryland, on October 27, 1809, for San Sebastián, Spain. On December 30, 1810, the Exchange was seized by order of Napoleon Bonaparte. The Exchange was then armed and commissioned as a French warship under the name of Balaou. When the vessel later docked in Philadelphia due to storm damage, M'Faddon and Greetham filed an action in the district court to seize the vessel, claiming that it had been taken illegally. The district court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the dispute. On appeal, the circuit court reversed the decision of the district court, and ordered the district court to proceed to the merits of the case. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action.

Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. He noted that by the definition of sovereignty, a state has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory, but that it could also by implied or express consent waive jurisdiction. Moreover, Marshall also noted that under international custom jurisdiction was presumed to be waived in a number of situations. For instance, a foreign sovereign and his diplomatic representatives were generally free from the jurisdiction of domestic courts when visiting. Similarly, if a state granted permission for a foreign army free passage across its territory, it generally implied a waiver of jurisdiction over that army. This custom was firmly enough established and necessary for international relations that it would be wrongful for a country to violate it without prior notice.