In Little v. Barreme (1804) 6 U.S. 170, the Supreme Court found that the American commander had violated the statute authorizing seizures, thus rendering any discussion of the constitutional question superfluous. The issue before the court was whether the obedience of a military officer to an order of a superior excused him from damages. An act of the Congress authorized the President of the United States to "stop and examine any ship or vessel of the United States on the high seasbound, or sailing to, any port or place within the territory of the French republic". The Secretary of the Navy ordered the captains of United States naval vessels to stop merchant ships "bound to or from French ports." Therefore, though Congress only authorized the seizure of vessels bound for France, the Secretary expanded the order to include vessels bound from France. Captain Little seized the Flying Fish, a vessel that later turned out to be a foreign vessel, apparently knowing that she was bound from a French port. The Supreme Court held that he was liable in damages, and that he was not immune because he followed an order from a superior. The issue of total immunity from suit was not raised, and the sole issue before the Court was whether the defendant was protected by an order illegally issued by his superior. Captain Little acted outside of the scope of his authority, in the parlance of the modern cases, and the Supreme Court did not allow him to hide behind the illegal order.