Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The Nueva Anna and Liebre. The Spanish Consul, Claimant, 1821 — 19 U.S. 193 · caselaw · US
Admiralty
The Nueva Anna and Liebre. The Spanish Consul, Claimant
19 U.S. 1936 Wheat. 193·Supreme Court of the United States·1821
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
(Prize.)
The Nueva Anna and Liebre. The Spanish Consul, Claimant.
February 27th.
This Court does not recognise the existence of any lawful Court of Prize at Galveztown, nor of any Mexican republic or state, with power to authorize captures in war.
Appeal from the District Court of Louisiana.
These were the cases of the cargoes of two Spanish ships, captured and condemned by a pretended Court of Admiralty at Galveztown, constituted by Commodore Aury, under the alleged authority of the Mexican republic. The goods were, after this condemnation, brought into the port of New-Orleans, and there libelled by the original Spanish owners in the District Court. That Court decreed restitution to the original owners, and the captors appealed to this Court.
This cause was argued by Mr. Hopkinson for the respondents and libellants, no counsel appearing for the appellant and captors.
[MAJORITY]
. The Court stated, that it did not recognise the existence of any Court of Admiralty sitting at Gal-veztown, with authority to adjudicate on captures, nor had, the Government of the United States hitherto acknowledged the existence of any Mexican .republic or state at war with Spain ; so that the Court could not consider as legal, any acts done under the flag and commission of such republic or state. But, as the record, in this case, stated the capture to have been made under the flag of Buenos Ayres, it became necessary to send back the case, in order to ascertain under what authority it was in fact made.
Sentence reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.