## Facts

- John M’Fadon shipped 650 barrels of flour and five tons of logwood from Baltimore aboard the schooner *Union* in April 1808.
- The vessel initially cleared for Passamaquoddy; after notice of the Act of Apr. 25, 1808, a new clearance issued for Machias, but the manifest continued to reflect an Eastport destination for the flour.
- En route, the *Union* put into Hymas (Barnstable district) due to headwinds, where revenue inspector Joseph Crowell boarded the vessel and referred its papers to collector Joseph Otis.
- Otis concluded, based on the change of destination and the manifest’s Eastport notation, that the voyage was intended to violate or evade the embargo laws and detained the vessel and cargo under the Act.
- The detention was reported for executive review, and the President approved and confirmed the collector’s conduct after inquiry.
- The vessel remained detained until July 25, 1808; the cargo was landed and stored with the assent of the owners’ agent.
- M’Fadon sued the officials in trover, alleging conversion of the flour.

## Issues

1. Whether § 11 of the Act of Apr. 25, 1808 required a customs collector to have objectively reasonable grounds for detention to avoid liability in trover.
2. Whether a collector is justified, and thus not liable for conversion, when he detains a vessel based on his honest opinion that an embargo violation is intended.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for M’Fadon.
- The Court held that § 11 justified detention when the collector acted on an honest opinion that the vessel or cargo was intended to violate or evade the embargo laws.
- The collector need not prove that his suspicion was reasonable to avoid tort liability for the detention.
- Because the collector acted within statutory authority and the detention was approved by the President, the officials were not liable in trover for the flour.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute authorizes an executive officer to act “whenever, in his opinion” an unlawful act is intended, the legality of the action turns on the officer’s honest formation of that opinion, not on proof of objective reasonable cause.
- A public officer acting within the scope of statutory discretion is protected from personal tort liability absent bad faith or action outside the statute’s grant of authority.
- In trover based on an official detention authorized by statute, a plaintiff cannot establish conversion merely by showing that the officer’s suspicion was unproven or later disputed if the officer acted in good faith under the statutory standard.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted the 1808 embargo statute to protect customs officers from conversion liability when they detain vessels based on an honest judgment of intended evasion, rejecting a requirement that the officer later justify the detention with objectively reasonable suspicion.


Crowell v. M’Fadon, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 94 (1814)