## Facts

- Manuel X. Harmony, a U.S. citizen trader, transported goods for lawful export to Mexican provinces under federal drawback laws and Treasury regulations.
- During the Mexican–American War, Harmony traveled to Chihuahua with other traders; the trade was treated as sanctioned by federal authorities and the commanding U.S. military officer in the occupied area.
- At Chihuahua, Lieutenant Colonel David D. Mitchell seized Harmony’s horses, mules, wagons, and merchandise and compelled Harmony’s servants to leave his service, allegedly converting the property for military use.
- Harmony sued Mitchell in trespass in federal circuit court; Mitchell pleaded, among other defenses, that he acted under orders from Colonel Doniphan and that Harmony was trading with and aiding the enemy.
- A jury found for Harmony and awarded damages; Mitchell sought Supreme Court review by writ of error.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal circuit judge may express opinions on the evidence in charging the jury where local state practice permits it.
2. Under what conditions wartime military necessity permits seizure of private property.
3. Whether property may be seized as “trading with the enemy” when the trade was sanctioned by the executive branch and the commanding military authority.
4. Whether a subordinate officer is civilly justified by obeying a superior’s order to seize property.
5. Whether a federal circuit court may hear a trespass action for a tort committed outside U.S. territory when diversity jurisdiction exists.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Harmony.
- The circuit court did not err by commenting on facts to the jury where such practice was customary in the state.
- The seizure was not justified as “trading with the enemy” because the trade was sanctioned by political and military authority.
- Military necessity did not justify the taking absent immediate, impending danger or an urgent public-service necessity that could not await civil action.
- Superior orders did not excuse the executing officer from liability for trespass.
- The federal circuit court could adjudicate a foreign-location trespass claim where the defendant was found and diversity jurisdiction existed.

## Legal Principles

- Private property may be taken by military authority only to prevent it from falling into enemy hands or for public use when danger is immediate and impending, or necessity is urgent and does not admit delay.
- Anticipatory convenience for a future or distant expedition is insufficient to justify a military taking.
- A subordinate officer cannot justify a trespass solely by proving he acted under a superior’s unlawful order.
- Federally sanctioned trade in occupied enemy territory cannot be treated by subordinate officers as unlawful “trading with the enemy” for purposes of confiscation.
- A federal court may hear a tort claim arising abroad when jurisdiction is otherwise proper (including diversity) and the defendant is subject to process in the district.
- In jurisdictions where it is customary, a federal trial judge may express an opinion on the evidence while leaving factfinding to the jury.

## Conclusion

The Court held Mitchell liable in trespass because the seizure lacked the immediate necessity required for wartime takings, could not be justified by labeling sanctioned commerce as enemy trading, and was not excused by superior orders; it also confirmed federal jurisdiction over foreign torts when diversity requirements are met.


Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115 (1851)