The Protector, 20 L. Ed. 463 (1872). · Go Syfert
Search
The Protector, 20 L. Ed. 463 (1872). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
91 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Richard Steinmetz (ca3, 1992-09-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1903 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1903 1964 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Richard Steinmetz (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Freeborn v. The Ship Protector, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 700, 702 , 20 L.Ed. 463 (1872). 13 .
examined Cited "see" New York Life Ins. Co. v. Durham (3×)
10th Cir. · 1948 · signal: see · confidence high
See The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 , 12 Wall. 700 , 20 L.Ed. 463 ; United States v. Anderson, 76 U.S. 56 , 9 Wall. 56 , 19 L.Ed. *876 615.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorists
OLC · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Id.; see also The Protector, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 700, 701-02 (1871) (relying on presidential proclamations to determine start and end dates for the Civil War); Salois v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 326, 333 (1898) (stating that if the government 262 227-329 VOL_25_PROOF.pdf 272 10/22/12 11:10 AM Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorists had treated a band of Indians as at war, “the courts undoubtedly would be concluded by the executive action and be obliged to hold that the defendants were not in amity”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Baker v. Carr (2×)
SCOTUS · 1962 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., The Protector, 12 Wall. 700 ; Brown v. Hiatts, 15 wall. 177; Adger v. Alston, 15 Wall. 555 ; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176, 192-193 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." National Savings and Trust Company v. Brownell (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1955 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Freeborn v. The Protector, 1872, 12 Wall. 700 , 79 U.S. 700 , 20 L.Ed. 463 ; Burke v. Miltenberger, 1874, 19 Wall. 519 , 86 U.S. 519 , 22 L.Ed. 158 ; Prize Cases (The Amy Warwick), 1863, 2 Black 635 , 67 U.S. 635 , 17 L.Ed. 459 ; The Pedro, 1899, 175 U.S. 354 , 20 S.Ct. 138 , 44 L.Ed. 195 ; United States v. Anderson, 1869, 9 Wall. 56 , 76 U.S. 56 , 19 L.Ed. 615 ; Lamar v. Browne, 1875, 92 U.S. 187 , 23 L.Ed. 650 ; McElrath v. United States, 1880, 102 U.S. 426 , 26 L.Ed. 189 ; Jacob Ruppert, Inc., v. Caffey, 1920, 251 U.S. 264 , 40 S.Ct. 141 , 64 L.Ed. 260 19 Hudson, The Duration of th…
examined Cited "see, e.g." National Savings & Trust Co. v. Brownell (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1955 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Freeborn v. The Protector, 1872, 12 Wall. 700 , 79 U.S. 700 , 20 L.Ed. 463 ; Burke v. Miltenberger, 1874, 19 Wall. 519 , 86 U.S. 519 , 22 L.Ed. 158 ; Prize Cases (The Amy Warwick), 1863, 2 Black 635 , 67 U.S. 635 , 17 L.Ed. 459 ; The Pedro, 1899, 175 U.S. 354 , 20 S.Ct. 138 , 44 L.Ed. 195 ; United States v. Anderson, 1869, 9 Wall. 56 , 76 U.S. 56 , 19 L.Ed. 615 ; Lamar v. Browne, 1875, 92 U.S. 187 , 23 L.Ed. 650 ; McElrath v. United States, 1880, 102 U.S. 426 , 26 L.Ed. 189 ; Jacob Ruppert, Inc., v. Caffey, 1920, 251 U.S. 264 , 40 S.Ct. 141 , 64 L.Ed. 260 . .
The Protector
Jan 29, 1872.
20 L. Ed. 463
Mr. Phillips contended that it was not; Mr. F. S. Blount, contra, urging that’it was.
elapsed after the rendering of the decree
The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court. "•

The question, in the present case is, when did the rebellion begin and end ? In other words, what space of time must be considered as excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations by the war of the rebellion ?

Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it[*702] would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.

The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the States. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, * embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, ' Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second, of the 27tb of April, 1861, † embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed; one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, ‡ embracing the States of Virginia, North Oaroliua, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Teunessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, § embracing the State of Texas.

In the absence of more certain criteria, of equally general application, we must take the dates of these proclamations as ascertaining .the commencement and the close of the war in the States méntioned in them. Applying this rule to the case before us, we find that the war began in Alabama on the 19th of April, 1861, and ended on the 2d of April, 1866. More than five years, therefore, had elapsed from the close of the war till the 17th of May, 1871, when this appeal was brought. The motion to dismiss, therefore, must be

Granted.

*

12 Stat. at Large, 1258.

‡

14 Stat. at Large, 811.

†

Ib. 1259.

§

Ib. 814.