Note 8 — THE REVENGE. (continued 2)

From this decree of Judge Auchmuty the owners of the Revenge appealed (see docs. no. 151-158), but in vain. Opinions might well differ, as did those of the civilians consulted in London, doc. no. 153. High authorities declared that when a prize had been taken into firm and secure possession, the title of the original proprietor was completely extinguished, and was not revived by a recapture (The Ceylon, 1 Dodson 105). But as to English practice, the civilians of Doctors' Commons certified in 1678 that the custom of the High Court of Admiralty was to restore the recaptured vessel to the first proprietor, with salvage of one-eighth to the recaptors (Marsden, Law and Custom of the Sea, II. 102, cf. also 168, 193), and the statute 13 Geo. II. ch. 4, sect. 18, so provides, with enlargement of salvage when the enemy's possession had lasted longer; see doc. no. 145, note 61. But this present case was, or purported to be, a case of a second recapture. A note in 4 Chr. Robinson 217 shows three cases in 1778, 1780, and 1781, of British prizes recaptured by the French, then captured again by the British; in one case the House of Lords awarded the vessel to the first captor, in the other two to the last. Justice Story, in one of his notes in 2 Wheaton, app., p. 46, says, "Where a hostile ship [e.g., Smith's brigantine when first encountered by Norton, in Spanish hands] is captured, and afterward is recaptured by the enemy, and is again recaptured from the enemy, the original captors [e.g., Norton] are not entitled to restitution on paying salvage, but the last captors [e.g., Smith] are entitled to all the rights of prize, for, by the first recapture, the whole right of the original captors is devested"; and he refers to the Astrea (1 Wheaton 125), where Marshall in 1816 so decided, with as much emphasis as Sir Leoline Jenkins laid on an opposite doctrine in 1672. In 1741 doctrine was in transition from the earlier to the later view.