This is an admiralty case coming out of Maryland.

Petitioner(s): Alexander S. Glass and the other owners of the cargo aboard a boat seized by the French, as well as the Swedish owners of the boat itself.

Respondent: A literal boat called the Betsey.

This case went to the Jay Court during the Washington Presidency. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Glass.

See the Court’s opinion here.

---

It’s like this.

In 1793, during the French Revolution, a French captain named Pierre Arcade Johannene seized a boat called the Betsey on the high seas.¹ The high seas refers to parts of the ocean that don’t belong to any nation.² Today, we call the high seas “international waters.”

The boat was technically a sloop, which is “a small sailing boat with one mast”.³

Hence, The Sloop Betsey.

So a French captain captured a little ship called the Betsey while out on international waters and parked the boat in Baltimore, Maryland.⁴ That might be fine, except the boat was a Swedish boat, and the cargo on it belonged to Swedes and Americans.⁵

Sweden was aghast because it was a neutral country. Why the hell was France capturing their boat?

So Alexander Glass, one of the owners of the cargo on the Betsey, along with his fellow cargo-owners, and the Swedish owners of the Betsey, filed a libel suit in Maryland’s district court.⁶

Wait, isn’t libel a thing for when someone writes a lie about someone else?

Yes, but in admiralty law, or ocean law, a “libel” is what we call the thing you file to initiate your lawsuit.⁷

So Glass and his equally peeved Swedish brethren filed a lawsuit to get compensation for the stuff the French took from them.⁸

Interestingly, the petitioners (or libellants, as they’re called in admiralty law), sued the Betsey itself. This is normal in admiralty law. You can sue the boat.

Why Can You Sue a Boat?

Most lawsuits we think of are in personam, meaning against the person. You sue a guy to get something from him.

But the law also allows people to sue in rem, meaning against the thing, where the lawsuit is about legal interests associated with specific property or a specific object.

This makes sense. When you’ve got some issue with a boat on the high seas, the boat’s owner could be somewhere far, far away. Or, the boat’s owner could live somewhere far, far away. Things get complicated when the person you’re trying to sue is in a different country, and potentially oceans away.

Informing someone in a different country of a lawsuit is hard enough. Trying to collect judgment from them if they lose is a different beast entirely.

The boat, on the other hand, is right there. There’s no question that the Betsey is the Betsey. So practically, if you have a problem with a boat, in rem jurisdiction provides a more certain avenue to relief: go after the boat.

And when the case is over, any judgment you get against the boat is “binding on every interested party.”⁹ Because the court already has control over the boat, it’s easier to enforce the judgment.

So Who Defends the Boat in Court?

One question I had while piecing this together — who defends the boat in court? Thomas the Tank Engine?

Apparently, anyone who has an interest in the boat can step up to defend the claim.¹⁰

In the case of Glass, it was the French captain who seized the Betsey who appeared in court to defend the case.¹¹

So in response to Glass’s libel action against the Betsey in Maryland’s District Court, the French captain, Johannene, argued Maryland’s District Court had no right to hear the case.¹² Instead, he argued, French courts should decide the case, because they had authority to hear cases about the ships France seized.

Maryland’s District Court bought Captain Johannene’s argument.

So did Maryland’s Circuit Court.

Glass, intent on being compensated for his stolen cargo, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The question before the Court was: does the United States have the right to decide a case about a ship captured by the French while the ship was parked in a U.S. port?

In other words, who gets to decide the case about the Betsey? The Americans, or the French?

The Arguments

Glass argued:

1. The Court has jurisdiction. The Court has the power to hear admiralty cases. It’s in the Constitution.¹³ This French guy parked the boat in Baltimore. By dropping anchor in an American port, he “has himself submitted to the American jurisdiction…”¹⁴ So of course the Supreme Court can decide about the Betsey.

Captain Johannene’s argument:

In response, Captain Johannene, perhaps ignorant of the American court system, filed his arguments with a notary-public in Baltimore.¹⁵ A notary-public is “a responsible person appointed by state government to witness the signing of important documents and administer oaths.”¹⁶

Giving something to a notary-public is not how you take up your case with the Supreme Court. But Glass agreed to let his opponent’s arguments be heard nonetheless, probably to speed up the process so the case could be decided.¹⁷

The French captain argued:

1. This isn’t admiralty. We understand the Constitution and the Judicial Act of 1789 say the federal government has jurisdiction over admiralty cases, but this is a prize case, which is different from a regular old admiralty case.¹⁸ A prize case arises when one party captures another’s vessel in wartime. This is a prize case, not an admiralty case, so the Court doesn’t have jurisdiction here.
2. The United States is a neutral nation. The United States is at peace.¹⁹ Prize courts are only in session during war. ²⁰ How can any American court have the authority to rule on a ship seized in wartime?²¹ This is for France to handle.²²
3. American federal courts aren’t equipped to hear prize cases. The U.S. doesn’t have specific laws about how the federal courts are supposed to determine prize cases, so the Court can’t hear this case.²³
4. This dispute is between France and Sweden.²⁴ “…the injury, so far, is an attack upon the sovereignty of Sweden, which Sweden alone can take cognisance of: a neutral nation has nothing to say to a capture, or any other injury perpetrated by a citizen of France.”²⁵
5. International law says the capturing nation is supposed to be the one determining prize cases. The “law of nations,” or international law, says that “the courts of the captor can alone determine the question of prize or no prize…”²⁶
6. The Treaty of Amity & Commerce between the U.S. and France says the nations aren’t supposed to question each other’s prizes.²⁷

Glass responded:

1. The US-France Treaty doesn’t apply to this situation. The Treaty says the U.S. and France can capture enemy ships and goods without interference from the other nation. But Sweden and the U.S. are not enemies of France, they’re neutral. So the Treaty doesn’t bar our case.²⁸
2. This is an admiralty case. Hey, knuckleheads. Prize cases are a species of admiralty case, not something totally separate. So the Court can hear this.²⁹
3. You parked the Betsey in Baltimore, an American city, so this case is within the Court’s jurisdiction. “The act of bringing the vessel into an American port, must be regarded as a voluntary election to give a jurisdiction, which they might otherwise have avoided…[S]hall [the French] keep the vessel and cargo here ad libitum [meaning, at their pleasure], and Americans, as well as neutrals, wait their motions?” In other words, are we supposed to just sit around while you adjudicate this in France?

Your Honor, Talk to the Hand

Before delivering its opinion, the Court asked the parties to address another issue the Court felt was important: does a foreign nation have the right to set up an admiralty/prize court within the United States?³⁰

Remarkably, in response to the Court’s question, Captain Johannene’s counsel said that “the parties to the appeal did not conceive themselves interested in the point.”³¹ In other words, Johannene’s lawyer declined to address the very issue the Court wanted clarity on.

His excuse? France hadn’t provided him with instructions as to how to argue that point.³²

It’s always a good idea to ignore the Court’s questions. I wonder how that’ll work out for him…

The Opinion

Chief Justice Jay delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

(This is Jay’s final written opinion. He will be Chief Justice for one more year, but this is the last opinion he authors as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.)

Chief Justice Jay

In his written opinion, Chief Justice Jay does the equivalent of taking a shot of bourbon and backhanding the French.

(Kentucky became a part of the U.S. two years earlier.)³³

Specifically, Jay writes, “The judges being decidedly of opinion, that every district court in the United States possesses all the powers of a court of admiralty, whether considered as an instance [which is another kind of admiralty case]³⁴ or as a prize court, and that the plea of the aforesaid appellee, Pierre Arcade Johannene, to the jurisdiction of the district court of Maryland, is insufficient.”³⁵

This is an emphatic declaration that the Constitution empowers the federal courts to hear admiralty cases.

This means the District Court of Maryland could decide what should happen to the Betsey.³⁶ The French were out of luck.

Jay didn’t stop there. Remember when the Court asked the parties to address that other issue about whether a foreign nation has the right to set up an admiralty/prize court within the United States? And the French outright ignored the Court’s request?

Well, the Court ruled on that issue too. The Court proclaimed that no foreign nation could establish a court within the United States, unless by treaty.³⁷

By doing so, Jay made it amply clear that France had no right to establish an admiralty court in the U.S.³⁸ And neither could any other nation.

And so, the fate of the Betsey fell to the U.S.

Final Reflections

I think Glass v. The Sloop Betsey matters for two reasons.

First, the case culminates in a decision where the Court asserts its authority on the world stage, telling a foreign power to step aside. That’s a big deal for a young United States.

Second, this is another case where we’ve seen the Court stare down a hurricane and rule according to the text of the Constitution, even where doing so might agitate others beyond the losing party. (I’m thinking of Chisholm v. Georgia.)

I think that’s good judging.

You Be The Judge

If you’ve read this entire post, you’ve officially learned more about admiralty law than the average law student.

I’m not sure that’s a great benefit to you, but at least you can tell your grandma. She’ll be proud of you!

What do you think of this case? Leave a comment!

Studying this case for class? I offer 1-on-1, virtual law school tutoring. Learn more here.

Here’s a Bluebook cite for ya – Johnathan J. Azar, Apparently You Can Sue a Boat: Glass v. The Sloop Betsey (1794) (May 12, 2026)

FOOTNOTES

1. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6, 6 (1794); Lucas Gibbes and Alexander S. Glass to Thomas Jefferson, 8 July 1793, Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-26-02-0398 (last visited May 12, 2026). ↩︎
2. Cambridge University Press, The High Seas, Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/high-seas (last visited May 12, 2026). ↩︎
3. Cambridge University Press, Sloop, Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sloop (last visited May 12, 2026). ↩︎
4. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6, 6 (1794) ↩︎
5. Id. ↩︎
6. Id. ↩︎
7. Libel (admiralty practice), The New International Encyclopædia (1905), https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_International_Encyclop%C3%A6dia/Libel_(admiralty_practice) ↩︎
8. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6, 6 (1794) ↩︎
9. Morris E. Cohn, Jurisdiction in Actions in Rem and in Personam, 14 St. Louis L. Rev. 170, 171 (1929), available at https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol14/iss2/5. ↩︎
10. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. C(6). ↩︎
11. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6, 6 (1794) ↩︎
12. Id. ↩︎
13. Id. ↩︎
14. Id. ↩︎
15. Id. at 7 n.a (1794) ↩︎
16. Nat’l Notary Ass’n, What Is a Notary Public?, National Notary Association PDF. ↩︎
17. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6, 7 n.a. (1794) ↩︎
18. Id. at 7; U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. ↩︎
19. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6, 7 (1794) ↩︎
20. Id. at 8 ↩︎
21. Id. at 7 ↩︎
22. Id. ↩︎
23. Id. at 8 ↩︎
24. Id. ↩︎
25. Id. ↩︎
26. Id. at 9 ↩︎
27. Id. at 11-12 ↩︎
28. Id. at 11; Treaty of Amity & Commerce, U.S.-Fr., art. 17, Feb. 6, 1778, 8 Stat. 12. ↩︎
29. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6, 12 (1794) ↩︎
30. Id. at 15 ↩︎
31. Id. ↩︎
32. Id. ↩︎
33. Kentucky Historical Society, Kentucky History at a Glance, https://history.ky.gov/kentucky-history-at-a-glance (last visited May 12, 2026). ↩︎
34. Roger Williams Univ. Sch. of Law, Editor’s Note, 50 J. Mar. L. & Com. 3 (2019), https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=law_ma_jmlc ↩︎
35. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 6, 16 (1794) ↩︎
36. Id. ↩︎
37. Id. ↩︎
38. Id. ↩︎

Disclaimer: All content on Lex Sans Latin is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. Nothing on this site creates an attorney–client relationship. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney.

This blog may include quotations or excerpts from judicial opinions, statutes, scholarly articles, books, and other primary or secondary sources. Such materials are used for purposes of commentary, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research in accordance with the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 107). All cited materials are attributed to their original sources to the extent reasonably possible.

Any tutoring or instructional services offered are educational in nature and are not a substitute for legal advice or legal representation.