et the recapture was succeeded without the owner?s consent. He stated that a recapture must always be done without an owner?s consent. The right to salvage was determined by a contract either expressed or implied. This definition of a contract by Marshall would become one of his most important achievements as Chief Justice. He determined that the service performed was an essential service and that Talbot was entitled to salvage. There was an implied contract and the terms were fulfilled by the Americans taking risks themselves and offered the benefits to the owner by returning the ship. Captain Talbot wanted salvage up to 50 percent of the ship?s value. Marshall would not accept the 1799 law because this law was directed to vessels taken from the enemy. The concept could not refer to ships that were the property of neutrals. The court awarded Talbot salvage equal to one-sixth of the ship?s value. Marshall allowed salvage not because of a congressional act but because of the implied contract that made it reasonable. The Justices took it upon themselves to interpret what Congress meant. The court interpreted that Congress did not mean to penalize equally the enemy owners and the neutral owners of a ship. (5)This second case handed down to Marshall strengthened the Supreme Court. This second case was Wilson v. Mason and entailed disputes over landholdings. This case really hit home for Marshall. There was confusion hanging over land titles. Marshall and his family were heavily into investing real estate. The identity and the legal rights of the original owners were unclear and land boundaries were uncertain. Often the land borders were determined by physical landmarks that only a couple men have seen. The western lands were commonly in land wars. Marshall took a very strict stance to the law. Anyone who owned land would understand that ownership no longer would be decided on a haphazard basis. The land title was eith...
