abridgments of certain Admiralty cases: TJ began entry 901 of his legal commonplace book with an abstract of James Burrow’s report on Goss v. Withers, an insurance case argued in 1758 in which Lord Mansfield reviewed different opinions on the international law related to the recapture of ships and cargoes seized during war. Continuing in that entry and extending through the next two, TJ shifted attention to the cases of the Henrick and Maria, the Christopher, and the Flad Oyen, all from the admiralty reports of Christopher Robinson. The three cases related to the validity of condemnations of prizes in neutral or allied ports. In lengthy observations that he appended to his abstract of the Henrick and Maria report, TJ pointed out that Great Britain’s superiority on the sea allowed it to follow older maritime procedures under which condemnation could take place only in the court of a belligerent or ally. Judge William Scott stated a preference for this older understanding of prize law but ruled that current practices and several judicial precedents prevented him from so ruling in this case (James Burrow, Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of King’s Bench since the Time of Lord Mansfield’s Coming to Preside in It, 5 vols. [London, 1766-80], 2:683-98; Christopher Robinson, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the High Court of Admiralty, 6 vols. [London, 1799-1808], 1:135-46; 2:[209]-10; 4:43-63).