Joseph Story

“ It is said that Canter should have made a claim to damages in the circuit court. The case was brought before the court by the appellees, on its former appearance here, and was sent back for further proceedings. It was in the power of the circuit court, when the case was again before them, to do all that the appellant could properly claim. Restitution, which the appellant was entitled to, was not to be made by restoring the thing itself; restitution could only be made by placing the appellant in the situation in which he was before the seizure. ”

“ Goods cannot be taken without the taker being responsible in damages. In a suit at common law, bail would have been given, and the owner would have been left in the use of his property. The proceeding was like replevin for goods, where security is given to respond in damages.
Had Canter a right to any thing beyond what he received? To ascertain his loss, the value of the property at the time it was taken out of his possession must be adverted to. The property was taken out of his possession by the libellants ”

“ In replevin the same result would have happened; and it is stated by the court to be no more than an indemnification. Rowley vs. Gibbs, 14 Johns. 385.
But this seizure has been decided to be illegal and groundless. It was made upon a claim of right which has been disaffirmed. It is essentially a seizure without probable cause. ”

“ In those cases certificates of probable cause are allowed, because it is the duty of the officer to act, and if he proceeds on reasonable grounds he is protected. Cases of prize rest on similar principles ”