further question of appellate jurisdiction may be found in the decision as to what constituted prize matters. In May, 1751, the qui tarn proceedings of Archibald Kennedy in the New York Vice-Admiralty Court against the lading of the Elizabeth encountered opposition in the prize claims of Captain Seth Place. The question involved was whether the ship was taken by Place and sent into New York harbor pursuant to a privateer commission or pursuant to an agreement reached with Fabre (captain of the Elizabeth and a French subject) to bring the ship into port in return for nonseizure of his share of the cargo. The court decreed that the pretended capture was not pursuant to the laws of war, but was essentially a bilateral agreement which could not invalidate the collector's seizure on arrival at New York. Therefore the lading was condemned to Kennedy. An appeal was granted Place, but then question arose whether this seizure made under the Navigation Acts was within 6 Anne, c. 37, the statute regulating appeals to the Lords Commissioners for Prize Appeals. 381 The court declared in July, 1751, that the only claim to the res advanced by appellant was by capture pursuant to a privateering commission. [But] the judgment given in this court was that she was no capture at all, from this judgment Seth Place appeals; for what end. The answer is plain, to get this judgment reversed; who is to reverse it; the answer is as plain, the commissioners appointed under the Great Seal of Great Britain for receiving, hearing and determining appeals in cases of prizes. And as this case is circumstanced no other persons can determine it. Suppose the appeal was to be to the King and Council, or to any other court, besides the commissioners for determining appeals in cases of prizes, there Captain Place would say Mr. Kennedy's seizure was not good because he had taken those goods as lawfull prize before the seizure, would not the King and Council or the other courts very justly say you brought your appeal wrong. It should have been to the Commissioners for Prizes, for they be appointed to determine whether she was prize or no prize, and they must have dismissed the appeal, had Seth Place claimed these goods by any other right than that of taking of them as prize from his Majesty's enemies. Something more might be said with regard to the method of appealing. But as Captain Place claims no right but by that capture, and this court has adjudged it was not a lawfull capture and to reverse that judgment or intitule Captain Place to those goods they must be adjudged a lawfull prize, and I conceive no persons in England can determine that point effectually but the persons legally appointed for that purpose therefore I am of oppinion that this case is not only within the meaning but the express words of the Act of Parliament. 382 381 2 MS Uins. Vice-Adm. Ct. Prov. N.Y., 1746-57, 181-83. se2 lbid., 183-84. Cf. the 1755 controversy in Holborne v. Read, and Holborne v. Axtell whether appeals in cases involving distribution of prize money should be to the High Court of Admiralty or to the Lords Commissioners for Prize Appeals. The court adjudged the latter the proper appellate body {ibid., 225).