Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 U.S. 193

In Re the Nueva Anna and Liebre

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 1821

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1821-02-27

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.

1 counsel of record

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Marshal”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · 6–0 · Decided 1821-02-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1948

4 district · 2 state decisions

301821183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

APPEAL from the District Court of Louisiana.

¶2

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.

¶3

This cause was argued by Mr. Hopkinson for the respondents and libellants, no counsel appearing for the appellant and captors.

¶4

The COURT stated, that it did not recognise the existence of any Court of Admiralty sitting at Galveztown, 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.

¶5

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.

¶6

Sentence reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.

/19/us/193 · .json · Public domain