Mitchell v. Harmony (1851) 54 U.S. 115, involved an officer's requisition of privately owned property during the Mexican War. Harmony, who was a trader, during the Mexican War followed the army in its invasion of enemy territory. When Harmony decided to go no further, Colonel Mitchell, under orders, detained him and seized his wagons, mules and goods. The plaintiff was forced against his will to accompany the American troops with his wagons, mules, and goods in a hazardous expedition, and for the purpose of strengthening their military force. His wagons and mules were used in the public service in the battle of Sacramento, and on the march afterwards; when the place was evacuated they were left behind unavoidably, as nearly all of his mules had been lost in the march and the battle; and when the Mexican authorities regained possession of the place his goods were seized and confiscated and totally lost to him. Harmony brought action for trespass against Colonel Mitchell, claiming that the seizure was illegal. The Supreme Court upheld a verdict in Harmony's favor. The jury found from the evidence that there was an actual seizure of the plaintiff's property by the officer; and in speaking to that point the court sais (p. 136): "We do not see any evidence in the record from which the jury could have found otherwise. From the moment they were taken possession of at San Elisario, they were under the control of Colonel Doniphan, and held subject to his order. They were no longer in the possession or control of the plaintiff, and the loss which happened was the immediate and necessary consequence of the coercion which compelled him to accompany the troops. It is true the plaintiff remained with his goods, and took care of them so far as he could during the march, but whatever he did in that respect was by the orders or permission of the military authorities. He had no independent control over them." Mr. Chief Justice Taney, while denying the existence of the emergency then claimed, stated: "There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may lawfully be taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public enemy; and also where a military officer, charged with a particular duty, may impress private property into the public service or take it for public use. Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner; but the officer is not a trespasser. But we are clearly of opinion, that in all of these cases the danger must be immediate and impending; or the necessity urgent for the public service, such as will not admit of delay, and where the action of the civil authority would be too late in providing the means which the occasion calls for. It is impossible to define the particular circumstances of danger or necessity in which this power may be lawfully exercised. Every case must depend upon its own circumstances. It is the emergency that gives the right, and the emergency must be shown to exist before the taking can be justified."