New Providence v. Halsey was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of replevin against a vessel that was owned by a foreign government. The case arose when the British government-owned vessel, the New Providence, was seized by the state of New Jersey in 1881. The vessel was seized in order to satisfy a debt owed by the British government to a New Jersey citizen. The British government then filed a writ of replevin in the state court, seeking to have the vessel released. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of replevin. The Court reasoned that the writ of replevin was a form of legal process, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ against a foreign government. The Court further held that the writ of replevin was a form of legal process that was only available to the federal government. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of replevin against the British government-owned vessel.

In the case of New Providence v. Halsey, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He reasoned that under English common law, when an individual purchased property from another person who had no legal title to it, they were not entitled to any compensation if their ownership rights were later challenged by someone with a superior claim. In this case, Halsey had bought land from individuals who did not have valid titles; therefore, according to Field's interpretation of English common law precedent, she was not entitled to receive any compensation for her losses due to the challenge brought against her by New Providence. Furthermore, Field asserted that even though there may have been some confusion regarding whether or not certain documents constituted valid titles at the time of purchase (which could potentially entitle Halsey to some form of recompense), such matters should be left up for determination in state courts rather than being decided upon by federal judges as part of a Supreme Court ruling.