Definition
Of Capture refers to a historical federal court established by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation to exercise appellate jurisdiction over prize causes — that is, disputes arising from the capture of enemy vessels and their cargo at sea during wartime. The Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, as it was formally designated, was the first federal appellate tribunal in American history, predating the federal judiciary created under the Constitution of 1787.
The court's jurisdiction was confined to reviewing decisions of state admiralty courts that had adjudicated prize cases — proceedings to determine whether a vessel or goods seized by a privateer or naval vessel were lawfully taken as an enemy prize and thus subject to condemnation and distribution among the captors. The court did not possess general admiralty or contract jurisdiction; its reach was limited to prize causes arising from the laws of war at sea.
---
Common Confusion
The phrase "of capture" does not name a single doctrine but rather identifies a specific institutional body — the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture. Researchers encountering the phrase in historical sources may initially mistake it for a reference to the substantive rule of capture (the property doctrine governing ownership of wild animals, fugitive minerals, or oil and gas), which is an entirely distinct legal concept with no institutional connection to this court. The two share only a word. Context — particularly the presence of "court" or "congress" nearby — signals the institutional usage. See also the ENCYCLOPEDIA CROSS-REFERENCE below for the property doctrine.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This entry is a navigational trap for researchers unfamiliar with pre-constitutional federal institutions. The phrase appears in early American legal and congressional records almost exclusively as shorthand for the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture. A researcher scanning Black's or Rapalje & Lawrence for guidance on the substantive rule of capture will find instead a compressed institutional description that assumes familiarity with Articles of Confederation-era governance.
Several research dynamics are worth tracking:
The court's records are among the oldest surviving federal judicial records in the United States and are housed in the National Archives. Primary source research on prize law, privateering, or early federal jurisdiction will encounter these records directly.
The court's legitimacy was contested during its brief existence. State admiralty courts sometimes resisted its authority, and the enforceability of its judgments was uncertain — a problem that informed framers' thinking about the need for a permanent federal judiciary with clear supremacy over state courts in admiralty matters.
Because the court existed only from approximately 1780 to 1787, its precedential footprint is small. Do not expect to find a developed body of doctrine; its significance is institutional and constitutional, not doctrinal.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry appears fragmentary in surviving form — the source text breaks off mid-sentence — suggesting that researchers relying on that dictionary alone may have incomplete information. Cross-reference Black's for the fuller institutional description.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's Law Dictionary and Rapalje & Lawrence describe the court consistently: it was a creature of congressional authority under the Articles of Confederation, exercising appellate jurisdiction in prize causes. The two entries agree on the institutional origin and jurisdictional scope.
Black's is the more complete of the two surviving dictionary descriptions. Rapalje & Lawrence's entry is truncated, breaking off before fully articulating the court's jurisdictional limits — specifically, what the court could not hear (the fragment references "damages arising out of matters of contract" as apparently excluded, but the sentence does not complete). This gap is meaningful: the court's confinement to prize causes, and its exclusion of general admiralty and contract claims, was a deliberate and contested boundary.
Neither historical dictionary addresses the court's enforcement difficulties or its role as a constitutional precursor. For that analytical layer, researchers must move beyond the dictionary shelf to primary sources and constitutional history scholarship.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture was a federal institution with national jurisdiction over prize appeals from all state admiralty courts. It was not a state court and had no state-level equivalents. Its jurisdiction ceased with the ratification of the Constitution and the establishment of the federal judiciary under Article III.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Oil and Gas Law — Leasing, Royalties, Pooling, Unitization, and the Rule of Capture (The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia). Note: this encyclopedia entry addresses the substantive rule of capture as a property doctrine governing fugitive resources — a legally and historically distinct concept from the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture. Researchers should confirm which sense of "capture" is operative in their sources before proceeding.
---