## Facts

- During the Quasi-War period, Captain George Little commanded the U.S. frigate *Boston*.
- On December 2, 1799, Little seized the Danish brigantine *Flying Fish* on the high seas near Hispaniola.
- The *Flying Fish* was a neutral vessel sailing from a French-controlled port (Jérémie) rather than bound to one.
- Congress had enacted the Act of Feb. 9, 1799, restricting certain commerce connected to French ports and authorizing seizure of U.S. vessels when, after examination, they appeared “bound or sailing to” French territory.
- The President, through the Secretary of the Navy, issued instructions directing naval officers to intercept suspected American vessels sailing “to or from” French ports.
- The District Court released the vessel but denied damages; the Circuit Court held Little liable in damages for wrongful seizure.

## Issues

1. Whether presidential instructions may lawfully expand seizure authority beyond the limits set by an act of Congress.
2. Whether a naval officer is personally liable in damages for a seizure made under presidential orders that exceed statutory authorization.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s judgment holding Captain Little liable in damages.
- The Court construed the 1799 statute to authorize seizure only of vessels “bound or sailing to” French ports, not vessels sailing from them.
- Presidential instructions conflicting with the statute could not legalize an otherwise unauthorized seizure.
- An officer executing unlawful instructions acts at his peril and is answerable for resulting injuries.

## Legal Principles

- Executive instructions may not contradict, enlarge, or override statutory limits established by Congress.
- Statutes authorizing maritime capture and forfeiture are strictly construed; authority must be found in the statute’s terms.
- Compliance with superior orders, including presidential orders, is not a complete defense to civil liability when the orders are not warranted by law.
- Public officers may be held personally liable in damages for trespass-like seizures executed without lawful authority.

## Conclusion

The Court held that congressional statutes control the scope of executive action in maritime seizures and that a naval officer remains civilly liable when he enforces presidential instructions that exceed or conflict with statutory authorization.


Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804)