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.
Moodie versus the Ship Alfred, 1796 — 3 U.S. 307 · caselaw · US
General
Moodie versus the Ship Alfred
3 U.S. 3073 Dall. 307·Supreme Court of the United States·1796
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
Moodie versus the Ship Alfred.
HE allegation in this cafe, as fupported by the evidence, ⅝ was, that the privateer, which took the Britijh prize in queftion, had been built in New Yotk, with theexprefs view of being employed as a privateer, in cafe the then exifting control verfy between Great Britain and the United States ihould terminate in war; that fome of her equipments were calculated for war, though they were alfo frequently ufed by .merchant Ihips; —that the privateer was fent to Charlejlon, where fhe was fold to a French citizenrthat ihe was carried by himi to a French ifland, where fhe was completely armed and equipped, and furnifhed-with a commiflion;-rrand that fhe afterwards failed on a cruize?" during which the prize was taken, and fent into Chdrleji'on.
Reed, for the Plaintiff in error,
^contended that this was an original conftrudtion of out-fit of a veffel for the púrpofe of war; and that if it was tolerated as legál, it would be eafy by collufion to fubvert the neutrality of the United States, and involve fhe country in a war.
[MAJORITY — The Cou(rt,]
The Cou(rt,
however, without hearing the oppofite Coun-fel, directed
Th$Deere?' to be affirmed.