Case Name: Novion v. Hallett, 16 J. R. 327, 347
Court: New York Court for the Correction of Errors
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1799
Citations: 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 4
Docket Number: 
Parties: Novion v. Hallett, 16 J. R. 327, 347.
Judges: 
Reporter: Lockwood's Reversed Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 4–9

Head Matter:
Novion v. Hallett, 16 J. R. 327, 347.
In S. Ct. 14 J. R. 273, 294.
Admiralty Jurisdiction ; Marine Trespass; Prize,
This was an action of trover by Hallett, plaintiff below1, for a brig and' cargo. The plaintiff being owner of a brig called the Jane, sent her to trade in the West India seas, under Spanish colors. On the second of April, 1813, she set out on her voyage from Porto Cabello, loaded with a valuable cargo, protected from British capture by a Spanish owner and papers. On her voyage to New York, she was captured on the 26th of April, by a privateer called the San Francisco de Paula. This vessel was originally English, and being captured by a French privateer had become the property of Novion the defendant. She had been fitted out at Washington, North Carolina, by him, and when on her voyage to Carthagena, while inside Ocracock inlet, she had produced a commission stated to have been purchased at Carthagena, and hoisted Carthagena colors. The master of the Jane expressly informed the captain of the privateer that she was American and not Spanish property, hut merely covered as Spanish property to protect her from capture by the English. A lieutenant and five men were put on board the Jane, then Called La Hija, and she was brought to Beaufort,. North Carolina, where her former master, Rise, having discovered her, she was libelled at the suit of the plaintiff and the District Court of the United States decreed her to be restored with all her tackle and apparel and all the cargo that remained on board. Also damages against the commander of the Francisco for $1000 damages, &c. The court reserved its decision upon the claim for damages for the value of the cargo at the time of capture. No decision on it appeared to have been made.
On this evidence the defendant’s counsel moved for a non-suit on the grounds: 1. That a trover and conversion had not been proved. 2. That the cause of action had already been adjudicated upon by the District Court in North Carolina ; and that it was a question exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction. The motion was denied, and the judge charged the jury: 1. That if they believed the Francisco de Paula had a regular commission by a defacto government of New Chanada or Carthagena, and claimed to act under it in capturing the brig as Spanish property, then the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because the question of prize or no prize, belonged exclusively to admiralty jurisdiction. 2. That if the privateer had it and acted under it, yet if instead of treating the Jane as prize of war, she brought her disguised into the United States, and the defendant claimed to dispose of her, without condemnation, as his private property, then he was to be considered as a trespasser ah initio. 3. That if the captor had no commission, then it was legally an act of piracy, for which the captors were responsible criminaliter in the federal courts only, but the private injury was not merged in the felony. This charge was excepted to. Verdict for plantiff $29,687 80. On a motion for new trial, on the bill of exceptions,

Opinion:
The Supreme Court held that the charge of the judge was correct, and the plaintiff had judgment. Thompson, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of a majority of the court. " Several very important and difficult questions, have been raised and discussed on the argument which, according to the view I have taken of the case, it becomes unnecessary for me particularly to notice. The only question of doubt in the case was, whether this court has jurisdiction of the cause, or whether it is one of exclusive admiralty jurisdiction. That courts of common law have cognizance of marine trespasses, is a point nowhere questioned. It is not the plea, but the nature of the question that determines the jurisdiction of the court." He then goes on to argue that the privateer having been originally fitted out in the United States, in violation of an act of Congress, whether the commission was issued by competent authority, was altogether immaterial; for the very putting it on board within the jurisdiction of the United States, was illegal and itself a nullity. To inquire into this matter is not entertaining the question whether prize or not. " The illegal fitting out of this privateer in direct violation of the act of Congress, precludes the defendant from setting up the claim or pretence, that the taking was as prize; and it is upon this ground alone that I place my opinion that this court has jurisdiction of the cause." Judgment accordingly.