Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Moodie Vs. the Alfred

Moodie vs The Alfred

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1796
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78147

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
3 U.S. 307
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Moodie

Respondent

The Alfred

Excerpt

moodie v. the alfred - 3 u.s. 307 (1796) u.s. supreme court moodie v. the alfred, 3 u.s. 3 dall. 307 307 (1796) moodie v. the alfred 3 u.s. (3 dall.) 307 syllabus where a vessel had been built in new york for the purposes of employing her in a war with england had war broken out, and was afterwards sold to a french citizen, who used her as a privateer, the court refused to hear counsel against the allegation that this was an original construction or outfit of a vessel for the purposes of war. the allegation in this case, as supported by the evidence, was that the privateer which took the british prize in question had been built in new york with the express view of being employed as a privateer in case the then existing controversy between great britain and the united states should terminate in war; that some of her equipments were calculated for war, though they were also frequently used by merchant ships; that the privateer was sent to charleston, where she was sold to a french citizen; that she was carried by him to a french island, where she was completely armed and equipped and furnished with a commission; and that she afterwards failed on a cruise, during which the prize was taken and sent into charleston. reed, for the plaintiff in error, contended that this was an original construction or outfit of a vessel for the purpose of war, and that if it was tolerated as legal, it would be easy by collusion to subvert the neutrality of the united states and involve the country in a war. the court, however, without hearing the opposite counsel, directed the decree to be affirmed.

Full Judgment

Moodie v. The Alfred - 3 U.S. 307 (1796)
U.S. Supreme Court Moodie v. The Alfred, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 307 307 (1796)

Moodie v. The Alfred

3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 307

SYLLABUS

Where a vessel had been built in New York for the purposes of employing her in a war with England had war broken out, and was afterwards sold to a French citizen, who used her as a privateer, the Court refused to hear counsel against the allegation that this was an original construction or outfit of a vessel for the purposes of war.

The allegation in this case, as supported by the evidence, was that the privateer which took the British prize in question had been built in New York with the express view of being employed as a privateer in case the then existing controversy between Great Britain and the United States should terminate in war; that some of her equipments were calculated for war, though they were also frequently used by merchant ships; that the privateer was sent to Charleston, where she was sold to a French citizen; that she was carried by him to a French island, where she was completely armed and equipped and furnished with a commission; and that she afterwards failed on a cruise, during which the prize was taken and sent into Charleston.

Reed, for the plaintiff in error, contended that this was an original construction or outfit of a vessel for the purpose of war, and that if it was tolerated as legal, it would be easy by collusion to subvert the neutrality of the United States and involve the country in a war.

The Court, however, without hearing the opposite Counsel, directed

The Decree to be affirmed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial