The Schooner Exchange v McFaddon (Sovereign Immunity)

Global Affairs Academy
6 followers
Sep 4, 2026
AI Generated·May contain errors
Video Summary
AI GeneratedThis case examines a legal dispute over the ownership of a vessel captured by the French navy during the Napoleonic Wars. When the ship entered Philadelphia, its original American owners sought its return. The court ultimately ruled against them, prioritizing the principle of sovereign immunity for foreign naval vessels over private property claims.
In 1809 the French Emperor Napoleon was at war in Europe and had issued orders for his
navy to capture vessels including private vessels which would be suitable for naval service.
Consequently the French navy captured a sailing schooner called the Exchange which was owned by
two Americans named McFadden and Greetham. The following year France and the United States were
at peace and the same vessel now known as the Ballau put into the port of Philadelphia. McFadden
and Greetham commenced an action to recover the vessel which they said properly belonged to them.
There seems to be no doubt that the vessel was in fact their boat. The court however had to
carefully consider the implications of essentially confiscating a navy vessel from a country at peace
with the United States. This meant considering how the sovereignty of the USA interacted with
the sovereignty of France. Chief Justice Roberts said the jurisdiction of the nation within its
own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation
not imposed by itself. All exceptions therefore to the full and complete power of a nation within
its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from
no other legitimate source. Now of course the vessel in this case was not within French territory
and the court extended the principle to say this full and absolute territorial jurisdiction
being alike the attribute of every sovereign and being incapable of conferring extraterritorial
power would not seem to contemplate foreign sovereigns nor their sovereign rights as its
objects. In other words it was not legitimate for a country to exercise its sovereignty in a way that
sought to limit or regulate the sovereignty of another country. The court then found that navy
vessels have a very particular connection to national sovereignty. They said the ports of a
friendly nation are considered as open to the public ships of all powers with whom it is at
peace and they are supposed to enter such ports and to remain in them while allowed to remain
under the protection of the government of the place. Sadly for McFadden and Greetham the result
was that they did not get their boat back because such an order would have represented
an impermissible interference by the United States
with the sovereignty of France as expressed in its naval fleet.
