RANSOM BILL - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

RANSOM BILLAuthored

The Law Mind • 1002 words

Definition

A ransom bill is a written contract executed between a captor and the commander of a captured vessel during wartime, by which the captor agrees to release the vessel and grant safe conduct along a specified course and within a specified time, in exchange for the captured party's promise to pay a set sum of money (the ransom). The bill typically designates a hostage—usually a crew member—who remains with the captor as security for payment.

The term carries two related but distinct meanings across historical sources:

1. (International/Maritime Law) The formal contract of ransom for a captured vessel at sea, including stipulations as to the vessel's permitted route, time of passage, and consequences for deviation. Departure from the prescribed course or failure to arrive within the stipulated time voids the safe conduct, leaving the vessel again exposed to capture.

2. (Old English Law) More broadly, a written instrument recording the sum paid to redeem a person from captivity or imprisonment, or property from seizure—sometimes used interchangeably with a general fine or redemption payment, though distinguished from an amercement (see COMMON CONFUSION below).

Common Confusion

Ransom bill vs. amercement: Bouvier notes a historical distinction between ransom and amercement in Old English practice. A ransom was the redemption of a corporal punishment—it bought release from physical penalty or captivity. An amercement was a financial penalty for an offense, assessed as punishment in its own right. The terms are not interchangeable: ransom presupposes a prior seizure or threatened physical consequence that the payment extinguishes; an amercement is imposed as a standalone sanction. Researchers working in early English legal records should not treat the two as equivalent simply because both result in a money payment.

Ransom bill vs. bill of lading: These are entirely distinct instruments. A ransom bill arises in the context of wartime capture; a bill of lading is a peacetime commercial document for the carriage of goods. The word "bill" in both cases means only a written instrument, not a category of commercial paper.

Why It Matters in Research

The ransom bill is a term of historical maritime and international law with very limited modern application. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in pre-20th-century sources—admiralty decisions, prize law treatises, and international law commentaries from the era of naval warfare under sail and early steam.

The most consequential research trap is the jurisdictional split between England and the United States on enforceability. English courts declined to enforce ransom bill contracts during wartime by action on the contract, treating them as contrary to public policy that encouraged prolonged resistance rather than surrender. American courts took the opposite view, treating the ransom bill as a valid war contract protected by good faith and the law of nations and enforceable in U.S. courts. This split is directly relevant when reading prize law cases or treatise commentary: a statement that ransom bills are "unenforceable" reflects English doctrine, not American law, and vice versa. Burrill's formulation—"a war contract, protected by good faith and the law of nations"—reflects the American position.

Researchers should also note that ransoms of captured vessels were largely abolished or fell out of use in state practice during the 19th century, as international conventions and prize court procedures displaced informal ransom arrangements. Sources after approximately 1860 treat the ransom bill as a historical curiosity rather than a living instrument.

The Old English Law meaning (Bouvier's first definition) will appear in medieval and early modern English legal records, particularly in connection with forest law, feudal incidents, and criminal procedure. In that context, "ransom" denotes a redemption payment to the Crown, often indistinguishable from a heavy fine in practical effect, though the formal distinction from amercement was maintained in pleading.

Historical Dictionary Support

The three source dictionaries are consistent on the core maritime definition: a ransom bill is a contract for release of a captured vessel, with safe-conduct conditioned on compliance with specified route and time. Black's and Burrill's align closely. Bouvier adds the most detail, including the enforceability split and the Old English Law meaning.

Burrill's note that "ransoms are little known in the commercial law of England" reinforces the jurisdictional divide and flags that English common law treatises will offer thin coverage—researchers must turn to admiralty and prize law sources, or American international law commentary (Kent's Commentaries being the primary American authority cited across all three dictionaries), for substantive doctrine.

None of the three dictionaries address the abolition of ransom practice in subsequent state practice or the treatment of ransom bills under the laws of war as they developed through the late 19th and 20th centuries. Researchers looking for the fate of the ransom bill in modern international humanitarian law must look beyond these historical dictionaries entirely.

Jurisdictional Note

Ransom bills were enforceable in contract in U.S. courts but not in English courts during wartime. This divergence, documented in Kent's Commentaries and the circuit court decisions cited in Bouvier, is the primary jurisdictional variable for historical research. Modern practitioners will not encounter ransom bills as operative instruments; the concept survives only in academic international law and legal history contexts.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

The Law Mind Military, Veterans & Admiralty Law Encyclopedia: Bills of Lading — Document of Title, Receipt, and Contract of Carriage (military_50) — for comparative context on maritime instruments generally, though bills of lading are distinct from ransom bills.

RANSOM BILLmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

A contract by which a captured vessel, in consideration of her re- lease and of safe-conduct for a stipulated course and time, agrees to pay a certain sum as ransom.

RANSOM BILLmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

In Old English Law. A sum of money paid for the pardoning of some great offence, or to redeem the person from captivity or imprisonment, or property from seizure; a fine, particularly an excessive or severe one. The distinction made between ransom and amerciament is said to be that a ransom is the redemption of a corporal punishment; while an amerciament is a fine by way of penalty for an offence committed. Abbott; Cowel. In International Law. The redemption, also the sum or other consideration, agreed to be paid for the redemption of captured property, or the liberty of a captive. A ransom, strictly speaking, is not a recapture of the captured property; it is rather a purchase of the right of the captors at the time, be it what it may; or, more properly, it is a relinquishment of all the interest and benefit which the captors might acquire or consummate in the property, by a regular adjudication of a prize tribunal, whether it. be an interest in rem, a lien, or a mere title to expenses. In this respect, there seems to be no difference between the case of a ransom of an enemy or a neutral. Id.; 2 Gall. 325.

RANSOM BILLmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

A contract for pay- ment of ransom of a captured vessel, with stipulations of safe conduct if she pursue a certain course and arrive at a certain time. If found out of time or course, the safe conduct is void; Wheaton, Int. Law 107. The payment cannot be enforced in England, during the war, by an action on the contract, but can in this country; 1 Kent 104, 105; 4 Wash. C. C. 141; 2 Gall. 325. By the general maritime law ransoms are allowed and the master of a ship may bind the whole cargo as well as the ship, by his contract for ransom; 3C. Rob. 240. They were formerly prohibited in England, but now the queen in council may make rules for prohibiting or allowing them, under the act of 1864. Ransoms have never been prohibited by the United States; 15 Johns. 6; nor by the other nations, except England; 1 Kent 112. A belligerent may deliver up neutral property on ransoms as well as enemy's property; per Story, J., in 2 Gall. 337, where the subject of ransom is discussed. A ransom strictly speaking is not a re- purchase of the captured property, it is rather a repurchase of the actual right of the captors at the time, be it what it may, or, more properly, it is a relinquishment of all the interest or benefit which the captors might acquire or consummate in the prop- erty by the regular adjudications of a prize tribunal. There seems to be no legal difference between the case of a ransom of the property of an enemy and of a neutral, for if the property be neutral and yet there be probable cause of capture, or if the de- linquency be such that the penalty of con- fiscation might be justly applied, there can be no intrinsic difficulty in supporting a contract by which the captors agree to waive their rights in consideration of a sum of money voluntarily paid or agreed to be paid by the captured; 3 Phil. Int. L. 645. In the absence of stipulation, if the ran- somel vessel be lost, the contract is still binding; but usually there is a clause ex- cepting loss on the high seas, but not by stranding; 2 Halleck, Int. L., Baker's ed. 331. RAPE (Lat. rapere. to snatch, to seize with violence). In Criminal Law. The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man forcibly and unlawfully against her will. Russ. Cr. L. 904. The statute of Westminster 2, c. 34, de- fines the crime to be where "a man do ravish a woman, married, maid, or other, where she did not consent neither before nor after." And this statute definition has been adopted in several very recent cases. Addenda to 1 Den. Cr. Cas.; 1 Bell, Cr. Cas. 63, 71. Much difficulty has arisen in defining the meaning of carnal knowledge, and different opinions have been entertained.-some judges having supposed that penetration alone is sufficient, while others deemed emission an essential ingredient in the crime; Hawk. Pl. Cr. b. 1, c. 41, s. 3; 12 Co. 37; 1 Hale, Pl. Cr. 638; 2 Chitty, Cr. Law 810. Penetration is the act of inserting the penis into the female organs of gener- ation. 9 C. & P. 118. See 5 C. & P. 321; 9 id. 31. It was once held that in order to commit the crime of rape it is requisite that the penetration should be such as to rupture the hymen; 5 C. & P. 321. But this case has since been expressly over- ruled; 2 Mood. Cr. Cas. 90; 9 C. & P. 752; Whart. Cr. L. 554. In the United States in modern times the better opinion seems to be that both penetration and emission are not necessary; 1 East, Pl. Cr. 439: Add. Pa. 143; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 410; 2 Bish. N. Cr. Law § 1131; 111 Ind. 279; 14 Neb. 205; 1 Houst. Cr. Cas. 363; 25 Fla. 702; contra, 14 Ohio 222; but later cases in that state intimated that if the question were new, the decision would be the other way; 22 Ohio St. 102, 541. See 65 N. С. 466. Slight penetration has been held to be sufficient; 76 Ga. 623. By statute in England carnal knowledge is completely proved by proof of penetration; 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, § 18. Statutes to the same effect have been passed in some of the United States; but these statutes have been thought to be merely declaratory of the common law: 3 Greenl. Ev. § 210. See, on this subject, 1 Hale, Pl. Cr. 628; 1 East, Pl. Cr. 437; 1 Chitty, Med. Jur. 886; 1 Russ. Cr. Law 860. It is to be remarked, also, that very slight evidence may be sufficient to induce a jury to believe there was emission; Add. Pa. 143; 2 Const. 351; 1 Beck, Med. Jur. 140; 4 Chitty, Bla. Com. 213, note 8. See [1891] 2 Q. B. 149. In Scotland, emission is not requisite: 1 Swint. 93. See EMISSION, By the term man in this definition is meant a male of the human species, of the age of fourteen years and upwards; foran infant under fourteen years is supposed by law incapable of committing this offence: Whart. Cr. L. 551; 1 Hale. Pl. Cr. 631; 8 C. & P. 738; Tayl. Ev. 127; 29 Fla. 565. But this presumption has been held by some authorities not to be conclusive, but capable of removal by proof: 5 Lea 352. But not only can an infant under fourteen years, if of sufficient mischievous discre- tion, but even a woman may be guilty as principal in

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In