United States v. Morris

CASES THE IN SUPREME COURT

Unitеd States v. Morris. of eading.] Forfeiture. Pl [Remission

The United Marshal of v. Morris, States of District

the Southern New-York. Secretary Treasury authority, the has of under the Remission 1797, March, of Act the 3d of c. to remit a forfeiture or [lvii.] laws, time, revenue at penalty accruing under or before afte r or judgment for the penalty, a final of condemnation sentence until over to actually Collector money paid for distribution. to the shares of the penalty

Such remission extends foifeiture or which, entitled, of well to the officers the customs are as in- terest of the United States. Marshal, levying an execution, for plea of not justification

In Treasury, a remission of of setting forth obtained, which was judgment it is penalty or not forfeiture necessary remis set forth the statement of facts which the

sion founded. for the Southern Court the Circuit

ERROR of New-York.

District against brought action

This was def below, as Marshal

endant, Court in a'misfea New-York, for of District

Southern ex- a venditioni proceed on neglecting to

sance Court District of out of

ponas issued requiring Maine,, the District States chattels, Andrew goods to sell

him C. Smedes, Thomas K. Abraham

Ogden, of cer upon by virtue

Butler, had levied which he favour against.them, issued

tain executions recovered judgment States, on a

the United Maine,

the said Court District in his hands for want

goods and chattels refnained STATES.

OF THE UNITED execu 1825.- buyérs, according on said to his return duty, neglect misconduct, al

tions. was, he did

leged against Marshal, property according

sell the so upon, levied the writ,

command of the but the same up delivered defendants, from the discharged the execution.

The stated to have judgment declaration the been September Court, in term of

recovered 1817, year 22,361

in the for cents, dollars 75 which, wit,

damages, part, in in the and sum

11,180 force; dollars in full cents, remained reversed, paid off, plain satisfied, to the

tiffs, and that execution td that amount remains

to be done. exponas, The as was al venditioni

leged, put into of the Marshal on hands day

the 13th of August, 1819.

The in the cause pleadings show, that Andrew

Ogden, of city New-York, in or about June, month year imported 1813,

into Portland, in the District of Maine, certain

goods brig Hollen, which merchandise in

vessel, goods, as well belonged as to him. with goods, together

These the brig, were there seized

upon as forfeited to the en ground goeds had imported if vessel, in violatien dl the non-intercourse existence; vessel, then

acts, goods

were libelled in the Court Maine, District 6th July, 1813, and on 19th of the same

month were up delivered Ogden, to Andrew after

having been appraised, his having regularly upon

executed, together with Smedes, Abráham K. Butler, Thomas C. a bond for appraised their IN THE SUPREME COURT CASES were, goods afterwards,

1825. value. The vessel and 1817, May,

the 27th condemned forfeit United States. And to the use of the such ejd

Morns. had, that, were proceedings thereupon fol September Court, a judgment term of the

lowing upon appraisement bond of

was entered

22,361 cents, with dollars 75 costs. defendant, Morris, pleaded general

issue, special plea justification, and a that. the

forfeitures been remitted had the. Treasury, setting verba, out in haec two remission,' duly

warrants were served day him return of the venditioni before the compliance

exponas,, averring a on the part all defendants, with and condi terms required by the warrants of remission. All

tions on the duly

which were set forth return before of

venditioni the commencement exponas, present’suit.

the filed, plea, replication was special

To time, at the

stating, substance, that of the for- seizure, condemnation, brig and of

feiture, the goods imported and, the and in her

Hollen, condemnation, the time of their and at the

also, judgment of on the bond

entering up for value, and the issuing of appraised

their execution, at of and the time of writs

several issuing said of

making and warrants remis- on the thereof defend- and of the service

sion, Jewett, C. Ilsleyi and were James

ant, &c. Isaac port of Port- and surveyor collector such; half . and, one said

land, entitled to

forfeiture; several executions 'that the said and

OF THE UNITED STATEfe.

were issued benefit, their solely and col

lect the said sum of 11,180 cents, dollars 87 that, their separate own use, and defendant Morns'

had thereof when the notice said writs Of several

execution were executed; delivered himto to be

setting out, also, two endorsements on the execu

tion, signed, by Attorney the District one notifying

Maine, defendant, execu was

tion for the said bénefit and Collector

Surveyor, and directing the collect the Marshal.to

same by their order. The other signed by

the Collector and Surveyor, requiring the Marshal forthwith,

to collect the deposit execution money,

the. agreeably to the command of the

writ, notifying him, property them,

execution was in directing him to re arid per them,

ceive orders from and from no other whatsoever, in

son related Whatever to the said averred, . it was then that the And

execution

present purpose enabling suit was for the Surveyor

Collector and their damages to recover injury they

for the sustained had reason of the

misfeasance, defendant, in the declaration

mentioned, benefit, for the use, or be- plaintiffs.

hoof, said replication

To this the defendant demurred stated, following

specially, causes of de replication departure

murrer For that the is a (1.) : this, the decla declaration,

f the that rom in in proceeds upon

ration action favour cause of replication the the

of United States whereas upon the

proceeds in favour of a cause of action Jewett, (2.) that Ilsley

said For &c.

Vox. X. COURT SUPREME CASES IN THE au sufficient no lawful discloses replication

. J., I. for said prosecute

thority '. in M., &c., and T. said action the said against

Moms, that For of the United States. name (3.)

the declaration ground, proceeds upon therein

the several execution respectively writs obtain

.mentioned, were issued a judgment States, there and, the use of the United

ed for made, &c.,

fore, in such case act according in other run and be executed lawfully any

might States, than the United

State territory Maine, in which said District

said judg obtained. Whereas

ment was replication fact, that the said was not

discloses judgment States, use of the said United for the but

Obtained and, J., use benefit of the said I. and

for

therefore, not run and in could be executed State, &c. That the suit

other (4.) prose .States, the United an at

cuted name of in than, other Attor

torney, District record States Southern Dis

ney of New-York.

trict filed, joinder demurrer having judg

A was for the

ment Court given defendant f

below, writ and. the cause o error brought by Cour t. error,

On the was con párt plaintiff

tended, reversed, to be judgment ought

1. Because had the Secretary Treasury to remit the share Of the

no forfeiture to the Custom-house officers. belonged

2. Because the action rightly brought

the name the United an attorney THF UNITED

OF STATES. below,

the Court authorized to 1825. specially prose- the suit an order of of one the.

cute Judges

that Court. Morrii‘ the Because is. not a 3. replication departure declaration,

from the a different proceeding upon

cause action that stated in the of from declara-

tion. Wheaton,

Mr. error, for in the stated plaintiffs whether, be, in the cause to principal question

after condemnation, definitive in a sentence of cause, the

revenue of has Treasury March, Act of the the Remission under of 3d

right, c. 361. to remit forfeiture

1797, so as [lxvii.]a “

a Which or per That wherever provides, any person, (s. 1.) fine, or dis

sons, penalty, forfeiture, who shall have any incurred vessel, any goods, wares, or shall have been

ability, interested any seizure, to for which merchandise, subject shall have

or. or of the or future law

feiture, present force of disability, any or duties any

United for the levying, collecting, or laying, force, or future re

taxes, act, concerning or any present vessels, and or act any concerning or recording ships

gistering coast and or vessels enrolling licensing ships employed his same, or shall fisheries, prefer trade

ing regulating forf such fine, to of the District which

petition Judge penalty, accrued,

eiture, or shall have set disability particularly truly of his first case; causing reasonable forth circumstances

ting to the or such given person persons fine,

notice claiming to the of the Attorney forfeiture, or States for

penalty, may opportunity of that each District, showing

such have cause thereof; remission or mitigation and shall cause

against inquiry, such to be shall stated and an appear

facts direct,their transmission the Secretary to the petition, nexed shall States,’who the United have thereupon Treasury forfeiture, or re penalty, such or fine, remit

power mitigate or. thereof, if in his part disability, opinion move such THE SUPREME COURT CASES IN customs, the officers affect 1799, Act c. [cxxviii.]

under Collection moiety and.91.,a fines, ss. 89. . v; penal

(cid:127) n Morris; any or wilful negligence, have shall without

same been incurred or, same;. the incurring in th person persons intention e fraud have if Wen any the shall prosecution, and to direfct instituted for discontinued, such to and. recovery cease be thereof,

the 3.) he andjqst.”(S. or conditions as deem reasonable terms may n the be to affect “. construed That herei shall nothing contained or to of any any person that, part fine, penalty, or claim of

vight aforesaid; by" the breach of of the laws

forfeiture, any incurred entitled virtue of person to, by such shall or be the may

whicih or in has been prosecution where a commenced, cases

said laws, act, has before the this or given passing any information the, to or remission such mitigation, act relative fines,

other or the "of forfeitures; right amount and which claim

penalties, and by. Judge be valued Court in a proper

shall assessed

summary way.” “ a Which That all provides, penalties (s. by. 89,) accruing breach'of this be act, shall sued

any for and with costs recovered,

of suit, in the name of the United of America, in any States Court to try and the

competent same; trial fact any bemay which in be

put issue, shall within the District judicial such which shall have

penalty and the accrued'; Collector-within Dis whose

trict the seizure shall have been made, incurred, or forfeiture is. e hereby enjoined caus suits for the same to be commenced without and delay, prosecuted effect; is, moreover, aut and Court, within which such to receive

horized from is had, trial or from to proper thereof; officer sum or sums recovered, so y deducting after be proper allowed charges, to the said Court; b and on receipt thereof the said Collector and pay shall distribute “ same, without delay according law,” That 91.) (s. &c. all fines, penalties and forfeitures, virtue of by act, this récovered and hot otherwise appropriated, shall, after deducting all proper costs and charges be disposed of as follows:one shall be moiety for the the Unitеd States, use of and be paid into Treasur

ythereof Collector receiving the the other shall same; moiety between, divided and paid equal proportions to, the Collector THE UNITED STATES.

OF

ties, forfeitures, under the act. recovered Collector, insisted, &c.

He the seizure, was consummated accruing Mo^*.s filial, condemnation, became sentenced vested which could absolutely right, such sentence. remission after

devested-by Cir

This had been determined expressly Circuit;a and

cuit First though Court Court,

case had not hitherto been presented were cases other which analogous

there

settled doctrine, that, between repre

sentatives of Collector, his suc deceased office,

cessor or as between a Collec removed successor,

tor and such forfeit share attaches, be is is con

ure entitled

summated the sentence of condemnation.b by went the

This it became an principle, vested relation back to the

absolutely by right, If seizure. it were an

time.of vestéd absolutely as it be vested the must against

right, government. vested, is not even

It as against government, time, of the

at the seizure. That only gives

inchoate never become absolute right, may condemnation, want of a

for be may intercepted a remission before condemnation. Thé Naval Officer of of Surveyor the port, District wherein shall incurred,

the same have been or to such said officers of.the as there, be in the District; said and in may districts where only one of

the aforesaid officers shall have been established, the-said moiety be given

shall to such &c. officer,” Hollen, 1 Rep. 1 Margaretta, Gallis. 515. 522. 1 .

Mason’s Rep. 43

b Jones v. Shore, Rep. Wheat. 1 462. v. Buel, Van Ness Rep.

Wheat. IN THE SUPREME COURT CASES forfeiture-has, back relation certain purposes, As commission of the offence. between and, as offender all claiming purchasers persons

aiomü. t he property, government, delictum.a

forfeiture attaches at moment strictness from

But necessary procéeds does all fiscal prevent regulations, The delictum

remission condemnation. before from

does, indeed, interest devest proprietary sub the claims oWner, so to overreach as therefore, not, but it does purchasers;

sequent the officers share to which

follow? them eo entitled, become vests

customs may

instanti. vest, never reason title may Their : There be no three contingencies may (1.) There remission after

seizure. may (2.) There offence, and before condemnation. (3.) If no there be seizure, no condemnation.

may title vests. If there be a remission no

of course condemnation, title no vested yet

before has it subsequent purchasers, purges against

except the delic relation back offence entirеly, condemnation, be no

tum. If there inchoate But into if there never maturity.

title ripened condemnation, after remission rights

bé a Absolute, and have become officers

the seizing the offence has any

.the remission (if purges is con so far as the at

effect government all) only

cerned.. from the

This would reading appear plain 1799, c. 128. [cxxviii.)

the Collection Act

a 8 Cranch’s Rep. 398. 417.

ÓI’ THE UNITED STATES.

ss. 89, 90, 91. prose which directs the Collector

cute for laws, breaches of the revenue receivethe pay recovered, and distri v.. and to sums Mortls*

bute the same among persons the different ent hands, It admitted,

itled. must be all period. at some absolutely must vest already rejected Court have the notion that

it does pay not vest until the actual receipt and

ment over of money.a could, There there

fore, be no other but that of the sentence epoch

of condemnation, unap which, definitive, if

pealed from, fixes and the rights, of all ascertain

parties. Admitting sake the argu

ment, that the government may remit, afterwards

so far as its own rights exclusively are concern concluded,

ed it certainly cannot from the.

terms of the Act, Remission government

intended to revoke bounty, conferred abso its

lutely its officers a solemn statute fox-

great purposes public policy. It is immate

rial what the Secretary of Treasury intended question is,

to do. what was he authorized

to do the law under which he acted.

All analogies of the the. common law would be

found to repel idea that the remission could rights

devest the which had become ascertained fixed sentence of condemnation. Par-

don and remission are synonymous terms, and

their legal effect upon the' rights of parties must “

be. the same. Pardon” defined to be “a is. mercy,

work of whereby the king forgiveth any Jones Shore. 1 Wheat. Rep. 47 CASES. IN THE SUPREME COURT

256 offence, &c. title, 1825. debt, or

. right, duty.a which'is

power. to the President given by the y. .. constitution, of. for offences granting pardons,

Morris' not, cases; may, but may extend revenue or

whether President, is the pardon granted, by

or ins minister, by immaterial. It is still the

act and it cán have government, no. effect in the one

greater case than the other.

It is laid down that a not does pardon discharge which the a has or thing in. subject property

interest; as if a suit be in the Court for Spiritual

tithes, contract, or &c.b or a legacy matrimony,

for So, if an incumbent dilapidation.c a accepts the interest

plurality, patron present

not аby A discharged general pardon.d penalty, a conviction for deer is not dis

upon stealing, n; a it is a for forfeiture to

charged pardo cannot, his

party grieved. king pardon, an commenced

discharge tarn a qui action upon statute, except king's moiety

penal- Nor to be-divided between the penalties

part.f and the a

informer So poor parish.g par a

don does or in discharge thing consequent in which the

cident has vested interest subject him; as taxed costs the Spiritual Court, does offence pardon discharge not. this,

cósts.h after though party appeals, And taxátiqn of costs, so is-sus

tiie sentence So, if the appeals

pended. appeal.a party 3 238. Inst. Inst. 3 2.33. f Co.

b 51. a. 5 g Str. Rep. 1272. 3 Mod. 51. b.

c h 5 Jac. Rep Co. 56. Cro. d Car. Cro. 358. Cro. Car. 199. 357. 159. Rep. 233, b. e 51. 1 Salk. Lit. Co. THE

OF UNITED STATES. comes; pardon taxed, costs and then

after is an former sentence appeal, appellant;

nulled, given costs Morr,s: pardon: the the costs are discharged by not original party suit, in thé

costs the being taxed was away a not taken right appeal,

had of right and, consequently; has a pardon; ‍‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍the to rem, in in the So, a proceeding

the costs.a only

Exchequer, a crown’s share of forfeiture the pardon, general pardoned, by an act but not of previously filed.b

the informer’s on an information in the

And condemnation prize proceedings, captors right

held the in the so absolute to. vest . cannot

ly, government the release Thus, Elsebe, of (one

in the case of famous W. convoys) determined,

Swedish Sir Scott. interpóse might

that the crown release the but

captured vessels before, after, final

adjudication.c questions

As to the technical which had been special upon demurrer by the the plead

raised in the question all

ings, were involved they If the was void merits. remission as to had officers, they right a. to sue

custom-house in s;or, rather, State the United name name, give suing

latter in their own are effect officers, bounty those granted

to their own beginning from the prosecutors,

who are in They only are not United States.

name by are sen- concluded

privies, parties, but Parker, 280. Cro. Car. b

c 5 Rob. 173. X.

Yol- '33 CASES THE SUPREME COURT IN acquittal as of as well condemnation.a tence assignees as the

they may also considered question the United States, and then the whether V.

,Moms. name, or in their own in. that of they are to sue depend upon States, will the forms of

the United analogous By cases. in civil

proceeding debt, assignor of a im

law, of the cession assignee all his rights ac

pliedly ceded The assignee to the cession.

tion as incidental procurator in rem suam, called

became what assignor. So, his name of

and sued country, it has long since

England, assignee of a chose ac settled, that assignor the name may sue in who

tion with" suit.b By interfere

has no king ássign law, the could a common

ancient subject though could not. But action,

chose in king high took it with all the the assignee of

the Thus, is laid down, remedies.

prerogative may sue an obligation, grantee king’s the

that name, his him, in' or may own granted &c. “ name; grant for the king’s in the

prosecute warrant to him prose is a statute, debt,

the Thus, name.”c king’s where process

cute person was, granted an outlawed

a debt due grantee might levy the held,

by king;, the king’s extent, the name, or,

it in own his “ name, not words in he hath his although 3 Hoyt Gelston, v. 319. Rep. Wheat. Johns. Cas. 121. 3 Johns. 411. 2

b 1 Johns. Cas. Rep. v. Brooke, 2 Bl. Bottomley Rep. Wheat. Rep. 1 1271.

425. 622. 621. Rep. 619. Term

c Cro. Jac. 82. UNITED

OF THE STATES. as is king, name it in of the

grant to sue such cases.”a

usual in which alleged departure, in pleading, As Morris. demurrer, one on as relied causes’. upa replication objection is, sets the, Officers, custom-house of action

cause of ác on a cause proceeds the declaration

whilst is, that for the United

tion States. answer brought in the name of the being suit here , Spates, duty and interest it is to whose

United officers, (who are fob the benefit

prosecute notwithstanding remission, grantees,)

their replication of action stated in

the cause in favour as much United States as

just How, then, inup set stand

thát .the declaration. setting pleadings (1.) up The declaration ? favour United States. of action

a causé by the United plea of remission States.

(2.) A fact, of admitting the replication, A remis

(3.)

sion, cause of in favour affirming action inup declaration, set the United as new, right, circumstance, third

with a viz. so far remission

persons, invalidates is ass new matter they

as concerned. are This

orted, officers, but if precisely the. themselves,

States who-sue conditions on

parties performed the had not and it had be granted,

which remission was necessary that totally

come void. It was not. been stated matter should have new (D.) tit. Com. 179, Dig. Assignment,

a Cro. Jac. 180.

,260 IN THE SUPREME CASES COURT

1825. declaration. it declaring, only necessary is In set enough out to maintain the In an action.

¿-Q¡^sto

v. . execution, of executing action a writ it for not judgment, execution,

sufficient to set out the

facts of neglect stating or misfeasance. Even judgment merely inducement. It is suffi concisely

cient to state which circumstances particular

give risé to defendant’s duty liab

ility.a The remission awas matter of defence incumbent on the to set it defendant pleadings

forth. are Successive designed for this The

very office the purpose. isto set declaration merely,

forth cause action plea replication

avoid plea. avoid the it and performance

Thus, bond for the debt plaintiff

covenants, the declared for the penalty. oyer, pleaded

The' defendant craved general plaintiff The replied, setting

performance. forth breaches, and it

particular good.b was held present pursues ease

declaration the most forms,

approved and with more circumstantiality Departure

than usual.c is where the plea con subsequent matter,

tains which does not maintain fortify matter in

ior But declaration.d and, it, maintain

here does at time, the same

avoids remission; the bar. bar is repli shows,

cation that it is no answer the declara- to. Plead. Chitty’s 369. b Post Cochran, 2 Johns. General Rep. Master

c See 2 Chitty’s Plead. 203 — 206.

d Co. Litt. a. UNITED

OF THE STATES. 2|S'Í d Winch v. Keeley,a In defen 1825.

tion. assumpsit, that, a bank

ant had become pleaded, plaintiff effects, the his under stat .v._ all

rupt, assigned

ute, ; his that replied, legal assigneеs plaintiff him use of

the suit was for the another brought

party, the whom he had transferred debt

before the was bankruptcy. replication

held and the not, good, objection departure at

even mentioned bar. defendant, insisted,

On it was part affirmed,

that the to be judgment ought reasons:

following

1. Because had Secretary Treasury not, to remit the

a forfeiture in question, of condemnation

withstanding, judgment prev ,as stated

iously pleadings. rendered Because, whole.case, on the part Portland,

Collector Surveyor proceeds remission grbundf

is binding upon discharges

their ; but not moiety jias forfeiture

effect on the other claimed them; thus moiety to the remission,

giving inconsist construction terms,

ent with its own and the act under which

it was act, to that granted. re According must be

mission valid to the whole extent it, exercised under or all; not at as it is.

admitted, therefore, to be it follows good part,

that it for the whole. good Because such remission like a par

don, nor is it to be the same rulés governed by Rep. 619.

a 1 Term THE SUPREME COURT IN CASES

,1825. equivalent but is decree of judgment

competent tribunal, that no should be forfeiture enforced, negli without wilful inasmuch as it was

Moms. person of in gence, any or intention the frauds the same. persons incurring

or Because,

4. least as far at as it relates vesting

act of in Congress,

Treasury remitting power, as therein men-

tioned, the custom-house officers have vested no

rights forfeiture, in any only until not condemna-

tion, receipt of money produced by but forfeiture,

sale or of collection of the bond it,

substituted for which time before the Secre-

tary remit; and, has full having exer- case,

ciséd the Collector Surveyor it this and in. equally bound

of Portland’are as the United

States. Because, if the

5. said Collector Surveyor and had rights Portland vested in the forfeit question, notwithstanding the remission,

ure they to have ought

then enforced them an ac name,

tion in their own and not in States.

United Because,

6. brig condemnation of the and

goods, being use States, of the United recovery being bond also in

and

the name of they United became Collector,

trustees for Surveyor and

Portland, for rights whatever or interest they therein;

had and these, they were, whatever

were discharged by the remission of the Secre

tary, inasmuch as is, the release of a trustee at STATES; THE UNITED

OF of his 1825. cestui rights

law, a bar or interest trust, in a where

que especially case fiaud charged pretended. W nor neither an action to recover bеing Because, misfeasance, if United

damages for States it, yet, it in its

themselves sustain could being, they assignment, c ould

nature, incapable Surveyor such

transfer to the said Collector prosecution action, authorize its prosecuted it be name much less can without

their authority. ny assignment such

a Because, if the States could them action, the said Collector such

selves sustain part entitled to no Surveyor would be recovered; damages such would

damages forfeiture, nor the proceeds

not be the it; for to a of substituted which was share

bond law Of by course; are only they entitled.

which present the cannot sustain action they

therefore, benefit, own private their damages for

to recover which, if re States, United náme of.

in the en they would be by

covered the of. to

titled no share Ogden, B.D. and Mr.

Mr. Emmett first point, stated, it was

defendant, useful for might interpreting

remarkable, and toas power of question law, that the sentence, remit, was never after

Secretary to subsequently judgment to of this

raised until Shore,a v. and more especially

Court Jones

a 1 Wheat. Rep. CASES IN COURT THE SUPREME Margaretta.a

1825. until ter af what fell J. Story, from

That no conceived such doubt

; v. exist the- bar of Jones before the case at. from, pears

Shore, of all arguments ap case,

counsel ii: that admit, that the by

was not vested as a so re defeated expression mission. An to Mr. there attributed ’ as

Pinkney power pardon President’s

ing, to an be examination the distinction leads power

tween pardon of remission and the power. power

ing pardoning a

prerogativegiven President the constitu analogous

tion, British, that exercised sovereigns. other It is an grace act of ^

mercy, guilt crime, founded on the fact of from

but exercised other considerations than which govern treasury.

those remission “ down,

It is laid king, by preroga his may grant

tive, his'pardon to all at offenders crime, or

tainted conviсted where he has hope their amendment."c The proceeds, remission ground moral innocence, to be

only consequence of it. The has

Treasury no whatever, where, except opinión,

in his judicial' from the statement of “ facts, the forfeiture shall have been incurred negligénce,

without wilful intention of in person the.

fraud or persons incurring pardon A being

same.” grace act of -and

lfiercy acknowledged to an criminal, just it is but a 2 Gallis. 516. b Rep. 1 Wheat. Rep.

c Comyn's Pardon, Dig. (A.) UNITED STATES. THE

OF others, rights not. disturb should their indus guilt, and

founded on the fact remission is it; where the

try detecting but justice innocence, the on

founded moral respect, In this is way.

case the other there a condemna

ought be no difference whether to. a sentence of although not; for,

tion was had or may

condemnation establish violation proceeds laws, the remission the revenue

letter of guilt, no and establishes that it ground,

on the all the must admit petition the remission which founded.

facts on conviction could be to be, is, fact, judi and intended

remissionis of the revenue policy It

cial decision. subject to forfeiture acts

laws to make certain course, adopts order penalties. It from the onus of proving, the government

relieve coupled with a in acts were

that those. criminal party suffering to oblige prove ; and to

tent mind, such of his evidence as innocence govern proper officer of the satisfy

would . jurisdiction analogy In itself.

ment of a cognisance judg to take

Court equity against it on principles law, relieve at

ment have law could not taken the' Courts of

which consideration, Treasury.

into equitable t,o relief, administer empowered could not the revenue Courts which

principles destruction of go entire but

apply go therefore, entire ought, guilt,

all preliminary all punishment.

remission by petition to judicial, all are

proceedings .the by examinations before him Judge,

District - 34

Vol. X-. . COURT THE IN CASES SUPREME parties all equity, suit in analogous and, an like assert the Court to brought before interested are

ni the justice applica of contest the rights, their ev.

Moins. notice, having customs, of the tion. The officers contesting parties matter, the are liberty the com the or and can no more application, suit than they deprived rights,

plain are vested

they equity could where a decreed Court

perpetual injunction law judgment on a at . having statute, provided thus making suit, uses the persons parties

all interested general possible to cover the en language

most

tire prayer remission of forfeiture. The of the petition the remission extends power given

whole, to the Secretary and the “ &c. fines,”

to remit such proviso

3d section shows extent in which it was protect interests,

tended to vested or to consider vested, prosecution

them as viz. where a had commenced, given, before information or passing Every information, act.

seizure, prosecution, subsequent to or pass

ing act, subject up, followed to the

provisions of that act. It formed a limitation

upon the extent vesting, interests of the

prosecutors, or, to use the expression of one of “ counsel, Shore,a v. it is a Jones condi

tion originally law,” attached attached, became,

whether the interest originally vested sеizure, the condemnation, recove

ry, receipt money. and.

a 1 Wheat. Rep. 467.

OF THE STATES. UNITED

To what extent is It is vesting ? decided 3825.

in Van v. acquires Buel,a Ness that the Collector , seizure, which, inchoate by the

subsequent condemnation, decree him gives vested absolute title to his share for

feiture; it determined, and is also Jones v.

Shore,b right that the to share in the forfeitures penalties

and is given to the who made Collector

the seizure, and not himto office the re

ceipt of money. adjudications These were

as between themselves, officers between But,

an officer thing and the owner of the seized.

they principle, establish the right, that the made that,

absolute by condemnation was and only

that, which had become inchoate seizure. was,

That statute, inchoate under the sub

ject destroyed by to be remission according to provisions,

its and therefore that made absolute subject to the provisions.

must be same

But vesting right, as laid down in

the case of the Margaretta,c does not place take sentence;

before a judgment or and the final epoch assigned

same Elsebe,d the case vesting prize cases interests in cap Now, prize

ture. Courts can take notice of all

equitable considerations, but a revenue Court Notwithstanding condemnation,

cannot. then,

it inquired, be any remains whether there was alleged, intent. If innocencé.

criminal proper proceedings founded on insti-

a 4 b Wheat. Rep. Rep. Wheat. 74. 467. c 2 Gallis. d ed. Rep. 5 Rob. 155. Am. Rep. CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT tuted, upon, until those proceedings are decided is no adjudication, spirit within the there.

FnítédOates and meaning of the act..

M°ms. Another remis considération shows that the operate

sion must extinguish the rights

officers of They the customs. maintain could

no action for the own. forfeiture as in their nothing do forfeiting party has

names.

with he only them: forfeits the United

and it only as between the States In officers, claim. latter have respect be there is difference a material By act

tween our and the British revenue laws. half, statute,

the British is forfeited to the one use crown, the other to the use of the in In the Exchequer,

former. the form proceed adjudge

ing a moiety forfeiture to itself, seizors, informer, or by the sentence a

and it becomes vested right them, in rela

tion back to the filing the information.a But in country, is, utmost that can said d

the Unite pro are, States tanto, trustees for

them; but as to the govern forfeiting party, the

ment is the only legal actor. There must be releasing some A where. release

officers of the customs prevent wbuld

United States from recovering penal the whole single-bond

ty. Thus, debt in. on. A., made to use B., him and pleaded, defendant

a release made to him .; B plain which the on

tiff demurred; and difficulty, was ad- without. v. Weddel Thurlow, Parker. 280.

OF THE UNTIED STATES. plaintiff: for the

judged party for B. is no deed, and therefore can neither sue nor rele a e UmtedStates s equitable

it. him, But it is an suable trust for v. Monu‘' will,not in if Chancery, A. part let him have money cited, : and the book of Edw. III.

he release in such might denied to be case,

law.a Since there must releasing be a officers,

somewhere, and the it, do could not

power must reside in

remission is such a release.b

Cases have been side, cited on the other hr .

which Courts of law have equita taken notice

ble interests, and permitted have them to be

pleaded replied, protect so as to them. All

these proceed cases ground of fraud and

collusion, which cannot be charged here. toAs

Bottomley Brook, v. Rudge v. Birch,c they by Mr. Maryatt,

are said Schooley Mears,d

have been overruled in the Exchequer, of Lane v. Chandler : and

case Wake v. Tin “

kler, Lord Ellenborough says, I much am more

inclined to restrain than to extend the doctrine cases,” Bailey,

of.these And J. says, “we have

nothing do in this any- casé with other than

legal rights.” in So Bakerman v. Radenius,e Mr.

Erskine (arguendo) states a before Lord case

Mansfield, brought where action was

name of a nominal by persons plaintiff benefi- Warde, Offly Lev.

a v. 1 S. 2 Keb. 235. C. 333.

b Bayley Lloyd, Mod. v. 250. Rep. 7 c in 1 Cited Term 621, 622. Rep. d East. Rep. 153. 7

e Term Rep. 662. THE CASES IN COURT SUPREME interested, cially

1825. he a At whom was trustee. trial, produced a release from defendant v. plaintiff, which Lord Mansfield held Monis-

v conclusive; of Chancery, but said the Court

upon application, pay would make the trustee debt, if

principal, founded, well and the costs Lawrence,

of suit. And J. a cites base from

Salkeld,a where said, Lord Holt if plain ejectment,

tiff in who is only considered aas

trustee for the action, released the lessor, he be committed for a

might “ contempt of the Court: he say

but de release would not did

feat the Rogers,b So, action.” in Paine v. where plaintiff, tenant, nominal having given a

release to the plaintiff, Court, application landlord, given up; clearly, it to be ordered

because if used it would defeat the action. And Legh Legh, obligor bond,

fin of á after no its being assigned,

tice of took a release from the

obligee,. pleaded it to brought by action ‍‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍assignee, in name of the obligee. The the-

Court, motion, bn plea aside, set the Eyre, C. J. “ saying, only question is, whether’the as

signee must Court, not seek relief of equity.” showing, as does, the whole

Clearly cabe

plea could not be replied, to at law. why

But. should .the custom-house officers to maintain action the name of

(cid:127)entitled notwithstanding, release, their

and having possible no ? interest result b Anony, Dougl. Salk.

OF THE STATES. UNITED

Why they being should have the benefit not They

liable to costs for a false are not action ?. assignees States, pro that would .if V. Morris. assignment

tect There can no of a test. them. injury by directly Marshal’s return is to

themselves, and the United States have barred r,hem injury

themselves from an regarding it as right the remission. name The. to sue the. only

of another existed where the action would actually lie the name interest party

not in. But, . in every

ed. case where the-unlawful act person another,

of one does an ac injury injury.

tion-on the lies Can case the Uni injured, sustain this States,

ted who are not ac they could,

tion? If is such a of action Here, however, ? actual

assignable assign is no . only it can considered as

ment analogous

to the assignment of chose in action. But plaintiffs,

how can the real entitle themselves to damages name of the United recovered

States, ? assignment The law only without.such

gives them half the proceeds. forfeiture or How,

then, they, can notwithstanding the release or re

mission recover, the United in their

name, damages legally are not they entitled o participate in ? and d so for the own ir , bendfit, when, if they have damages, sustained

they may sue in their own name ? brings us some spe

And consider of causes demurrer. replication

cial is a

departure from the declaration, only by not forward pursuant it, matter

bringing and forti it, fying but bringing forward showing. matter THE IN SUPREME COURT CASES no right plaintiffs, showing, action in per where, it exists exists third if

TTnit^d'states known, might sons; that this matter was IS‘ Departure available, made brought. before action “ be, plea defined to when the second

containeth pursuant former, matter not tó his which

and fortifieth same, and,therefore,

it is decessus, calle departeth he from d because plea.”a Thus,

his former where' the defendant

pleads in fifty bar a years by lease' for made a

corporation ; plaintiff’ replies, was that it made existence,

while a former lease was in and shows

the statute 21 VIII., Hen. that the lease and for yeais

fifty setting ; not proviso was void forth the good

making twenty-one leases years. for such

Defendant, rejoinder, in his pleads proviso which, VIII., the statute Hen. makes 21 such twenty-one years. good Held,

leases for proviso pleading departure, a

this was bec goes with,

ause it neither enforces the nor bar So, reddat, praecipe

before.b a tenant quyd

pleads, him, that the land devised and

plaintiff replies, infant; that the devisor was an says, that,

this the custom, defendant devise.; and, Curiam, per

infants may is a he, for

departure, ought pleaded spe to have So, per

cial matter first.c Doctr. Plac. 124. general pleaded,

Keble, nota, where matter have special might where the matter Co. Litt. 304. Doctr. Plac. tit. Departure, (119.) a.

b 102. b. Stuard, Dyer, 103. a. Fulmarston v.

c H. VI. 5. Doctr. Plac. 37 THE

OF UNITED STATES.

pleaded party, after- commencement, at the with general

wards, matter shall not maintain justi if special matters. And the defendant v._ replies, plaintiff distress for rent,

fies and the them,

that he the defend used sold rejoins, pursuant

ant that he sold the distress ; a departure & M., it will be statute W. at first.a allеged it should have been so De

fendant, in plea, justified taking cattle damage rejoined, they afterwards were

feamnt, common; be a surcharging held to de

taken

parture was, that one of the reasons first,

surcharge might pleaded have been because plaintiff’s right.b then knew the So,

the defendant plea, pleadeth man, in his an es

when former law, second

tate common plea, made good by make an act

regularly, shall not it of he when, plea, So, in his former

.parliament. he generally, by himself, the common law,

entitleth not enable he shall plea

in his second himself first,c it pleaded at custom, but should

bv have demurrer, cause the statute

toAs the third . aof issuing writ execution to only enables “ upon judgments District; obtained for

another present States.” United use name; but for their was obtained

judgment contended, that It is if parties. other

use United use of the was for

judgment privilege so. be But need not

the execution Pleader,

a Com. Dig. 8.) (s. Rowles, Wilkes,

b Ellis a. Litt. Co.

c X.

Vol.

2,74 IN THE SUPREME COURT CASES obviously execution, attaches to not to

1825.. judgment. go It was for the benefit of ' v; vernment, and was not intended to communic

Morns' able to citizens in cases where United States the. no construing

have All the rulés for interest.

statutes will bear out this interpretation.a Webster, the plaintiffs,

Mr. insist- reply,

ed, authority that the to sue in name of States the de- disputed could

fendant in this Court. The government General, represented by Attorney

here might suit,

if did not with lie interfere it well doctrine,

be maintained. It was novel by wrong attorney

appearance ground was a If

demurrer. it had to take intended ad- been

vantage of objection, summary application

should have below, been made to the Court the attorney

whom on the had ap- record prosecute suit, District

pointed Attor- having

ney prosecute refused to it. The discre-

tionary power exercised the Court below in

this instance, was essential to the administration justice, whenever Attorney refuses District act, interested, or is or in of his case death.

But, even if this Court be of opinion, should

that the order in the present made case was irre-

gular, not, would account, on that give judg- against

ment the sufficiency of plaintiff’s re-

plication merely as pleaded. It direct the would

pleadings to be amended inserting the name

a Bar. (J.) tit. Statute. Ploud. Abr.

OF THE UNITED STATE». Attorney the District in place pre of the attorney

sent on the plaintiff’s record. The is is good,

claration admitted to be and it unne

cessary to the replication, consider plea since the any)

contains the fault (if in the pleadings.. first pretended

It cannot be that it is a good plea, be plaintiff

cause has declared a wrong attor judgment If this

ney. affirmed, per it is a against as

petual bar United all interested. While the cause is

others allowed calendar, Of rights stand on the par

ties, in pleadings, as stated must alone be But the officers of the

regarded. customs have right use the name

a States. opening cases sufficiently

The cited show Wherever, subject

it. has an interest the king’s name is

prosecution which necessa party, subject as a formal has

ry legal information, cases of

to use it. ex not All officio, sort, such as of this those

are Master quo Office, warranto, Crown intrusion office, &c. prerogative of the supreme ostentation, held, is not purposes for

magistrate substantial benefit of sociéty, ut

b may necessity its be invoked as often aid it.

requires bad, Marshal, is plea because who officer, mere ministerial was not competent of the

judge validity or effect the remission. Court,

is He officer

treasury money, bring . He is to collect the Court. it is registry, into When received in the according of it made stribution

di THE SUPREME COURT L\ TASES

270 remitted, the been if has law or the forfeiture complied be are to conditions of the remission

^'YT^ If the of the Court. with directions under v.

Morns. the execu money upon had levied Marshall obtаined, he

tion, no been had remission a mo only be cojnpelled pay

could to over If the process. compel

tion to him to return de unconditional, could had

remission officers, the share he

vest custom-house nothing It carrying

had to do.with it into effect. only

is the Court rights parties that thé ascertained,

are claims respective and their to

to be satisfied. bad, plea is also because it does not with proper forth, averments,

set the facts and stated

circumstances Secre petition

tary of the Treasury, upon which the remission granted. was It forfeiture is an inflexible pleading,

rule of justification is whenever a

setup special under a authority, every or limited

thing be set to show the forth case to be should protection of the authority on.

within relied of facts on which the remission statement grounded, known, essential order, in. see whether the Treasury,

who acts merely also officer, has ministerial

pursued his has, indeed, It authority.; been ar

gued, that Secretary acts judicially in those

cases, and that his decision adjudication is an

binding all world, and .especially on the

officers of the customs, parties who are both

privies. But, how can judicial abe power,

which merely of executive discretion? The’

OF THE STATES. UNITED statute, remit under the whenever

Secretary may it is proved his satisfaction that the offence , United States t

was committed “without wilful negligence, or. Morn3‘ intention ;” bound fraud but he is not

remit even case of ever innocence so clearly under the constitu All

proyed. judicial power,

tion, Court, is and such one vested Supreme

inferior tribunals establish. shall Congress

How, then, can of that be vest power any portion

ed or in other treasury department, any

Executive ? department bad, because ft the remis

The. plea alleges

sion after final condemnation, senténce of iand

a summary judgment upon appraisement the.

bond.. The Remission of was Act Congress from the British of the

evidently statute copied 27.; III.

27th Geo. c. under statute the

Commissioners of have the Customs never exer

cised the of a forfeiture after power remitting This defect been

judgment.a authority having

found, inconvenient, some .respects, power after remitting judgment expressly given to the Custоms, Commissioners 'of the

(not but.

to a the Lords higher authority,) Treasury, Geo, III, the 54th of c. When said, 171. it is . officers,

.that rights are custom-house from time of

vested of sentence, judgment

it is not meant are vested they independent the,act act, but under Congress, If act. the law authdrizes a

according re

mission after idle to judgment, speak Chitty's Law, Crim. CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT rights being judgment. quesontrion vested s, what does the mean ? And it act is con i

'üiíítédStates tended, that it limits the to cases before . Every Motris. condemnation phrase clause and

act is applicable, applicable, and alone to such

cases. persons entitled to the beifefit of “ act, are shall those who have any incurred

fine, forfeiture, disability, or shall or have

interested in any vessel, goods, wares, mer

chandise, subject which shall have been to any or disability,” &c. This can

seizure,forfeiture, . things already forfeited Goods for refer subject condemned,

feited and are not to forfeit ; they So,

ure are actually words, forfeited.

“ incurred No man incurs a . forfeiture.” by a judgment

forfeiture against him. It is the by

offence which the is So, forfeiture incurred. o

also, summary inquiry the. t is be made

by Judge, the District into the facts and circum case,

stances of the shows, the supposes that law

that yet no trial had been had. It would anbe absurd

provision, upon any supposition. The other act the Secretary prosecu

authorizes to direct thé

tion, if instituted, shall for the have been re

covery cease, forfeiture, and be to discon súpposes prosecution pend

tinued. It a either

ing, yetbrought. prosecution or not The cannot sense, pending, general said to be in a after expression a

judgment. single There not But here are judgment. act to applicable

the goods,

two judgments, against one the successive tipon ap claimants, the against other

praisement dis- can the remission bond. How

OF THE UNITED STATES. 1825; was not this second ?

charge Why judgment

remission made shown when the application its en so as judgment, being prevent Morns* tered? There the act authorize nothing remission of The subjects judgment. “ fines, forfeitures, are,

be remitted penalties, Besides,

and disabilities.” the phraseology ap released, or va be,

plicable would judgments

cated or must There mitigated, remitted time,

some limit in the order of point to the exercise of this proceedings, power If

remission. of all are not rights parties

fixed and ascertained it will be judgment, consummated,

difficult to discover when are they receipt officers money by may but cannot possession, alter

change, That idea is

right. expressly rejected by in Jones v. Shore. Court side, the other argument there

must be a somewhere, power releasing

since the Custom House cannot do it, officers must in. the reside may,

“therefore, be exercised is founded an entire

Treasury, misappre-

hension of the distinct powers different

branches of the There is no government. au-. law to

thority given any department officer

of the .¡executive government release a debt

due by judgment. of the Trea- remit a

sury may forfeiture or before penalty or

judgment, the debtor as may to his discharge

a Rep. 1 Wheat. CASES THE COURT IN SUPREME but short person, legislative

. nothing exercised, can discharge Congress, specialty

^f^^^of of debt'. usual course has Treasury Morns‘ been, after to refuse to remit judgment, to the for the exercise

refer President the par doubted, be whether It well

doning power may . extends, constitution, under

that power laws. under But

cases the revenue arising the sense shows entertained

practice Whe its limitation to authority.

Treasury extends to President’s

ther the pardoning power be not, a close there cases analogy

such there is no a

tween remission pardon should affect one private reason rights

more why more vested than actually

and interests other. and some considera legal guilt,

Both suppose consistent, with the public

tion makes A it should pardon, forgiven.

good remission, in often moral aas supposes

well

nocence. out of the District running execution As “ was the for the Maine, not only judgment States,” but the execution was the United

use re could If forfeiture their use. debt is still whole

mitted after judgment, interest direct States United have

due, and the be re the forfeiture of it. If

in a moiety might States

mitted, the share so far as in enfor an interest have still

concerned, they to secure demand, it is intended since

cing compensa their

to their officers part legal arise the. cannot But

tion. question has he admits that The defendant

pleadings. .

OF THE UNITED STA7: 2&1 . remission did process,

executed so far as the it,

not prohibit estopped he is therefore and process. plea

his from a void insisting that it is ^v. Thompson opinion

Mr. Justice delivered 15th. March case, stating pro- Court,

of the after

ceeded as follows.: being placed upon judgment Quere, this Court of whether validity plea, upon of and the merits of the the execution it is setup, unnecessary, therein

defence y questions that have

cülarly to other notice an judment obtained guard, however, bar. To discussed at the

against inference, not the Court an intended in the District Court of Maine, could run into and be executed in the Southern District of New-York. execution, in admitted, this to be Court of from the issued District properly New-York, it proper Marshal of Maine to the depend must obsex-ve, that this the con Congréss act of given to be of

struction 1797, entitled, pro March, act to

the 3d of for the ac effectually more settlement of

vide States and the United

counts between re public money.” Independent

ceivers

act, certainly berpretend not, it has cannot

ed, District Court from the that an execution The sixth any

Maine run into other State. could writs of ex declares, all of that

section act use for the obtained any judgments

ecution of the Courts any United States, States, be ex State, run and may

United in one be issued State, shall

ecuted in other but where Court

from, to, the and made returnable judgment The pleadings

the. was obtained.

this, although conclusively, that cáse show ‘ SG-

.Voi.. X- COURT THE SUPREME CASES IN i s favour judgment nominally beneficially yet substantially ' Portland officers use. custom-house

Moms' issued the execution was solely And that for the use and not benefit, their

exclusively to de was If it necessary

of the maintain, be difficult it this might

cide point, and the came within true this case intent

that act; decision of the but as the the

meaning in its is more extensive put upon

cause point is this by without passed

practical application, it. it Nor is any opinion expression notice taken objections any necessary.to

deemed has been con The argument replication.

to.

fined being first plea, principally the record.

error on without taking plaintiff having replied, he

any cannot plea, avail éxcéptions now defect, not have been would that

himself on a demurrer.

fatal general be considered

The objections plea may

under the heads : following forth,

Í. That not with it does aver- set proper

ments, the facts and stated in the circumstances to the of the

petition -Secretary Treasury, forfeiture remission

upon which

granted. had no That Treasury to remit after condemnation. cáse to

The .first fall .supposes objection ‍‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍is set rule, that where justification

within under a every

up authority, speciál limited be case to show should set out

thing

OF THE UNITED STATES. 28$

within whose jurisdiction authority,

protection upon. is claimed and relied observed, It that this may preliminarily, MotnS- late, so and at.this coming

objection* stage

cause, to much If entitled indulgence. . founded, and it had been made at

well an earlier could amended, have been

day, plea

much expense litigation prevented. Every intendment, therefore,

reasonable favour of the how to be made. ought

plea, no means follows,

It in order to sus it is

tain to show that it plea, necessary

would have held good general demurrer. rule, founded in sense,

For good sup the settled doctrines of pleading,

ported are defects cured, waived and

many by pleading remission sufficiently over, have been fatal on demurrer. might far set it is from forthin But admitted that this being plea , have stood

would not the test of a de general the a justification for the Marshal. defendant was a murrer. ministerial officer, The. as situation, ain in which he

and was obli placed determine, to whether аnd to judge

ged obey command, execution, or

the that of the of from the

warrant remission Secretary The latter is set out in hoec verba in

Treasury. its and face refers to the

the law un upon plea, issued, which it was which was act;

der public

and in which warrant of the Trea Secretary forth, facts, sets that a statement of with the

sury of Andrew the for Ogden,

petition touching

feiture, had been transmitted to him the Dis Maine, trict the District of of to Judge pursuant, “ States, entitled, of statute COURT -CASES IN THE SUPREME; act for- remitting mitigating provide

feitures, disabilities, and penalties, accruing v, mentioned,” as certain cases therein said

Moms, facts, of and statement petitions remaining United States Treasury Department he and that

may fully appear; having maturely facts, statement of

considered said appeared it. satisfaction, his that the said forfeitures were

incurred, without or. inten- negligence toilful

tion remitted and all the thereupon fraud, right, demand, of the United States, claim and all óf whomsoever, certain conditions

others upon therein warrant, therefore, This

specified. its upon

face, contained the law, every thing required by

and which case bring necessary within cognisance Secretary Treasury; from to. more require any ministerial thing his

officer for would be justification, imposing him great hardship.

This out wаrrant at by setting plea, large, all the- facts therein forth, asserts set

adopts taken

and must that a alleging, statement by. facts had been made officer, proper

and transmitted Treasury, therefore, is, an averment of It fact. substantial, sure, formal, but is á averment; which is more than a nothing positive facts, in

statement of opposition of. argument

inference.

It useless, Would altogether sur mere to. set forth statement of

plusage, facts. such :in would not be traversable. It plea; they for tribunal, other competent any collaterally,

to call question the evi- competency

OF THE UNITED STATES. ^85i

dence, or its the remission. sufficiency, procure 182$. Secretary is, law, Treasury of the t . facts, exclusive judge of these and there

made M°ri,s- is no his de from. decision. The law appeal receiving

clares, statement, such he shall power mitigate, remit, or such fine,

have for

feiture, penalty, disability, or or remove such or

any thereof, if, in his part opinion, the same shall or,

have been without incurred negligence, wilful or, any intention the person persons fraud,

incurring the same. The facts are submitted to Secretary, for the. sole purpose of enabling opinion, to form an

him whether there was wilful

negligence, or intentional fraud, transac

tion and the correctness of his conclusion

therefrom question. no one can subject It is a. his

submitted to sound discretion. It would be a

singular, present issue to jury to a trial, whe

ther the facts contained in such statement were

sufficient or satisfy not to

Treasury, that there was no wilful negligence, or

intentional If plea, by setting out fraud. at large, contains,

warrant I have as endeavoured show, averment, that a statement of facts

had been transmitted to the Secretary by required officer, law,

proper by it. was all necessary. gave This the Secretary case,

cognisance which was sufficient jurisdiction. him But give what effect that would, ought

statement facts to have, upon opinion,

his whether forfeiture was incurred wilful negligence, or any intention of

without

fraud, is a matter thát could inquired not be into.

But doubt should on this point, it remain IN THE COURT CASES ^SUPREME by replication;

.1825» removed in the admissions w begins, by saying, although that true it is hich that

CalledStates t; Crawford, said H. William such Se Morns. Treasury of cretary States, of the the United

did make and of issue said warrants remis

sion, as the said the said plea defendant of. out

alleged, proceeding to set yet, &c. facts and legal

circumstances, show effect arid cannot take

operation away such remission officers, moiety of the custom-house but af validity moiety as to the its Uni

firming thereby admitting the authority

ted Secretary of the Trea jurisdiction placing operation the avoidance of

sury, and rights on the remission custom ground. totally distinct officer" a

house for which the statement facts

only purpose required acted, be could

upon which plea, show his out would set

to be replication this, admits it and if the

jurisdiction; certainly cure; a the de- or waiver of

must work by Chitty, (Chitty down fect. It is laid o n

A defective declaration may aided the Plead, 547.) adjud which he cites and for by g plea, ed defective him, support that, as a defecti cases which plea v e replica at law may be aided common declaration tion. plea aided, may be some a defective plea, so if, bond, in debt on replication.

cases, As pleads, A., the an éstate defendant make A., another to the he enfeoffed use (which sufficient, A. showing that Was without deed,) yet, reply if or had-the

party, plaintiff enfeoff, So, if

that he did not aids the bar.

defendant an award sufficient plead without

OF STATES. UNITED ?HE replication

certainty, plaintiff makes made, imports the award have uncertainty rule is aids the of the bar. And this Unite^®ti-es MorrÍ3, merely, ex

not confined to matters form but Thus, in

tends to an ac matters substance. trespass taking goods, stating

tion plaintiff;

them to be the property aided, defendant, by plea,

defect will if his be the So, plaintiff’s property.

admits the seve where performed by

ral plaintiff, are to be as acts the. precedent, he does not per

condition aver all, if it appear by

formance of plea, the that the was, be stated in fact,

act omitted to performed, defect, is (6 Binny, cured. 24. Chitty,

402.) then, may, conclude, We that plea present

not, stage cause, in. the to be on

deemed defective account of excep the first it. taken

ion Secretary of the The remaining,

And the important more inquiry Treasury

is, Sécretary whether the of the Treаsury had has power

authority the share to remit of the forfeiture

claimed the custom-house officers. And this to remit depend oh the a forfeiture at any time before or after condemnation, until the money is actually paid over to the Collector for distribution. construction given, must to be act under which authority of the Secretary to remit, at any time condemnation of the property before

is not denied the part plaintiff; and it be

cannot maintained, that Congress has not the

power to vest in this officer authority remit condemnation; and the only inquiry would

after

seem to be, this has whether done (2

act referred to. S. 585.) L U. pre not, considered, ought case perhaps,

sent- SUPREME COURT CASES IN THE as

1825* after condemnation. remission altogether, . For, remission; the warrant of appears, by

UnítedStkTes facts, statement District Judge, remission, founded, daté bears June, 1814,

on the 13th of and the condemnation ; and

did not take until although place May, until Jan

the remission was not actually granted 1819, facts on which it was

uary, yet, were three

founded ascertained judicially years condemnation,

before the there would some remission maintaining

plausibility to the time relate

should applica back when But, think, made to the we

tion was Secretary. that, taken, and

a broader au ground maybe is limited remit only by

thority payment to the for distribution. Collector

the money, affirmed, that the now

It question may safely be never received deci has any judicial

presented, Nor has been in this Court. cited any

sion case d i the Court bar, have Or recollecte

at the here, decided at containing any principle act wit the construction

variance h now

adopted. executors, Jones v. Shore's the case of

In no such Wheat. was involved. Rep. 462.) question

(1 Un there ited asserted no States Nor had the of the

claim. Secretary, Trriasury under the

exercised act arithority question. for.distribution, was in Court and the

The money was, this Court whether

sole before question the rictual in arid were Collector Surveyor

then in, of the office, or the

cumbents representatives their tes- Collector and right

late Surveyor,

OF THE UNITED STATES.

tator, intestate, were to the money, entitled it was decided in favour the latter. The principle governed

same the case of Van Ness Buel,

v. (4 Rep. 75.) Wheat. But these cases more,

decide. no than right that the of the cus forfeitures, officers in rem,

tom-house attaches seizure, personal

on penalties suits

brought; and in each ease this is ascertain-.

ed and consummated the judgment, as between

such officers party and' the has who thé incurred

forfeiture penalty. or they But nothing decide

with respect to right, or control of the penalties

United over such and forfeit rights and interests

ures. The of these officers necessarily be held

must subordinate to the au States

thority, ove r subject. light which they that such

And are view what fell

ed, from from is evident the Court in Hoyt, (3 Gelston Wheat.

the case of Rep. 319.) officerjs seizing sáid, the is there

It the agent of from the moment of the government seizure termination the suit. His

up to own will up government in the acts f

is bound in re By very’act suit. to the

erence seizure, party agrees become a to the suit

he under the for, manner, in no other,

government; can .he authority seizure, to make the

show an to en government If the

force the forféiture. refuse forfeiture, adopt acts, or waive thére his is proceed claim; he end to his cannot

an enforce repudiates. which government

that custom-house,

It is not but offi- denied the. upon seizure.

cers inchoate have interest X.

Vol. S7

m CASES THE SUPREME IN COURT it is and may that this be defeated admitted But,

remission at time before condemnation. this is if not the put upon limitation the autho v.-

Mcrrjs. is rity remit, it power, the act giving the discover, any

difficult to ground solid interest

such can limitation be assumed. If condemna officers, before custom-house

tion, conditional, is subject and to the

remission, can judgment condemnation no to fix determine othеr than and

.have effect officers, Those against the claimant. as

interest in inte

although they may parties be considered parties

rest, are not record cannot they be said right, have a vested propriety

with in which the law sense considers such still Their interest continues

rights. conditional, only condemnation ascertains arid deter

and the on which the the fact is consummated,

mines place. take remission This no is evi

should . policy

dently scope of the laws on forfeiture United

subject. is sued for must be name of States. L. (3 89.) U. S. 221. s.. 1L IS duty of the prosecute, thé Collector to made authorized to receive the money, and on re

he required thereof, to distribute the

ceipt same

according to In this, however, law. all he acts government, .agent and subject td authority of the

tire the Treasury, may prosecution

who direct the to cease. And act creating the right of the custom-house forfeiture, portion to a

officers does not STATES. UNITED TviE

OF 1825» money

vest, until In them right absolute any received, fines, all declares, 91.) It

is (s. by virtue forfeitures, and recovered

penalties, ^ costs deducting proper shall, all act, after moiety into the trea paid, one charges,

and moiety the other divided'-between

sury, and Surveyor. part No Officer,

Collector, Naval and conclusion, right that the warrants act by the con becomes absolute these officers contrary,- plain But, on the and

demnation. does, interpretation right is, not

obvious money .receipt fixed until the

become Unless, therefore, the act under

the Collector. 585.) is L. S. (2 allowed U.

which remission pf authority Secretary the Trea

limits condemnation, time of

sury to the the custom question officers have no the re

house not, terms, That the act does so

mission. very certain; power,

limit nor sucha con general warranted object

struction law,

policy provide is intended to

equitable where forfeiture has been in relief negligence

curred without wilful or. intentional

fraud. It presupposes, that the offence has been

committed, and the. forfeiture attached accord

ing to the letter of the law, and affords relief for

inadvertencies, and And error. unintentional

why should such relief be foreclosed the con ? The law the benefit made for

demnation

of those who had innocently penalty, incurred not for the benefit of offi the custom-house instituted,

cers. If prosecution has- been has cease. authority to it to direct CASES THE COURT IN SUPREME discontinued, or condi terms such pi just. This ay

ti ons as he deem reasonable justice him the custom ample to do enables reimbursing only by officers, all costs

house rewarding incurred, expenses but them

and them in encouraging the ac vigilance,

their and duty diligent discharge their in the

tivé But, to of the revenue laws. consider

execution moiety right to a the forfeiture abso

their law, beyond the reach of the after con

lute, and

demnation, subjecting would the innocent to be contrary inequitable losses, the to

great spirit and intention law.. manifest , prosecution to the

Secretary is direct authorized This, be discontinued. undoubted

to cease over the execution.

ly, gives him a control end with prosecution, judg

suit, does not or execution, and it

ment, but has embraces so present this Court at

been considered is the sense And that such which the

term. laws, is used in these prosecution evi

term section of the Act, from 89th Collection

dent required Collector to cause suits to

where prosecuted But commenced and to effect. effect, be to little very would unless

prosecution included the execution. The extended

it the act the third section of under

provision very allowed, affords a

which the remission is

strong rights inference, custom conditional, and subordinate Officersare

house nothing declares, that authority to remit. It

herein contained shall construed affect any

light part any person, or to that claim of UNITED

OF THE STATES. may be

fíne, forfeiture, which.he penalty, or com been has prosecution

entitled, when before given,

menced, has or information relative to act, act

passing other of. penal fines, such

the mitigation or remission showing, that thereby clearly

ties, or forfeitures right given, was

before such to remit attached, officers

of the custom-house and could prosecution,

commencement now devested; that such

not be but was provision

modified, and made conditionál. This passed the first law

is contained 103.) authority’to giving 1790, U. S.

year (2 L. penalties to remit Treasury .of temporary, but This act

and forfeitures. May, 8th until the time time from

continued expired, and was revived until

1795, when years, of two period 1797, when leaving

March, in Secre vested was not to remit power

the. period and to which Treasury,

tary of of the act of section in the third

provision refers.

probably Treasury of powers analogous to those supposed been

have England, in un the Customs

Commissioners of 32. s. But Geo. III. c. 15. the statute 27

der statute, to that reference very obvious, on

it is Commissioners, to re authority

that the These limited to the condemnation.

mit, was Geo. III. afterwards, by statute 51 were

powers extended, limited to remissions still but

c. 96. was probably It condemnation.

before powers tp enlarged more confer

deemed advisable THE COURT IN SUPREME CASES. Customs, but that Commissioners power judgment of somewhere to remit after and, necessary; condemnation was proper and t.

M#ms' III. c. accordingly, by statute 54 Geo.

power is to the Commissioners transferred

Treasury. recited, The two former are and acts “ proceeds

the recital then thus : Whereas it is

expedient, provisions the said that the acts extended,

should be further that the Com Majesty’s Treasury

missioners of his should be

empowered restore, any mitigate remit, or for penalty,

feiture, or any incurred under laws rela

ting revenue, excise, to the or customs, or or na

vigation, trade, either or or the same before after adjudged any

shall law, have Court of or

by or any before Excise; Commissioner of or Jus Peace;”

tice of the enacted, and it is then that the Treasury may

Commissioners of the order forfeited,

goods seized as restored, to be on the

terms and conditions order, mentioned

may mitigate any penalty or remit or forfeiture

which shall have been incurred under the reve laws, upon,

nue such terms conditions, costs, otherwise,

as to as under the circum of the case shall appear

stances reasonable. The.

enacting in this clause statute is general, like our not, It terms,

act. does give Treasury to remit after

Commissioners con yet

demnation, and can there no doubt- the be.

power cases; extends and, so, to such if this be

what rights of informers, becomes of the which have become, supposed judgment of con- STATES.

OF UNITED THE even be devested

demnation, vested, . as not so .-¿¡CasS!. by a pardon. powers given by to the Com statute analogous very Treasury, are

missioners Secretary given by.our act those con employed to

Treasury, phraseology and the

fer the same powers nearly is both. ‍‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍such terms, other, in tile extends

Neither one nor condemnation; power remission after why

there can no same construc reason given to both.' No vested

tion should not be informers, officers, are

rights of custom-house conditional, rights, These are

violated either~case. power of remission, to the d subordinate

an terms provided condi be"

and to remission is granted.

tions construction at the practical Trea given act, has department to our not been parti

sury understood, into. inquired It is

cularly however, years, a few within remissions until were before, condemnation, as well after

granted latterly this is not after

but that exercised granted

condemnation, nor will the remission be condemnation', petitioner unless will

before has been incurred. This the forfeiture

admit probably impression, on the founded'

practice equitable powers ought legal interposed,

not to. until guilt the. the rights But petitioner ascertained. seem to

the custom-house officers would be as practice, as to

much affected under remit such rights Those are

after condemnation. said to.be seizure, to be consummate^

inchoate CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT by condemnatiоn. The confession of the condemnation,

before on the remaining

v. record of the hot Treasury department, although IS‘ condemnation, well be said to judicial might

consummate offi- custom-house^ rights

cers,, if are to considered as ab- they becoming

solute when the forfeiture is The ascertained.

condemnation does no more than to determine far so as question, respects rights officers;

those for the condemnation is not

them, States; but to the United are no par- they

ties to the and their must de- judgment; rights and be controlled

pend and upon, governed by,

the acts of which create and Congress, regulate acts,

such these by those rights; rights, Court, óf the do not opinion become fixed condemnation,

and absolute but are sub- to the remission

ject power Secretary until Treasury, from the money arising received,

forfeiture is Collector for distri- remission, warrant of therefore,

bution. The case, when served the Marshal, opera- execution, to the

ted supersedeas justi-

fied restoration discharge property him from

levied exonerates all claim upon, the custom-house .damages by officers.

Mr. I concur Justice with Johnson. entirely ,the brethren in opinion,

my to remit extends as well to cases after

as before rendered. judgment question have had which I to consider

one repeatedly I circuit, and which so than decided more

my STATES.

OF THE UNITE©

twelve which I then reasons years ago.

founded, and still adhere to this opinion,

briefly these: Moms' I contrary consider the doctrine neithеr as. spirit the

consistent the of with words nor the consequence

act of of unavoidable it be, is. shut out grace

would the for of that suitor be

every difficult legal ; it would to defence a

assign be refused why justice reason should mercy. Many hand that

the tenders defences are the only with claim for remission, consistent

not ground in themselves furnish for

but the best ex

tending to the party the benefit act de his supposes who He case

fendant. to a law, the construction of or within

come expired, unconstitutional, or repealed, law moral offence, with visited either in be

cannot of it. Yet, or the defence charged how

the act decided, right ever be unless question to question try to before permitted

ishe Court adherence, pertinacious case, such ? In

law imputed him,' since cannot offence his hand, one while he sues on suit

resisting the other, amount to no more remission

for having law; violated the this, he

than denies otherwise, lie peti then thinks if Court

but unaffected, ground mis for grace, on

tions course, he which, of must satis point ón

take obtain a remis lie can Secretary, before

fy

sion. letter of by the tested question

If think, lead to same

law, found, Í bewill “ any áre, whenever words conclusion. The

Vo¿. X. CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT person, fine, any penalty, shall have who incurred

forfeiture, been disability, or or have inté shall any goods, vessel, wares, rested in merchan or any

dise, sei subject which shall have

zure, forfeiture, disability, by or force

present or future law of the United

laying collecting taxes, or or any duties or , any present concerning

force or act future vessels, registéring and recording ships or prefer

&c. shall petition Judge his fine, penalty, forfeiture, suсh

District which accrued,

disability, shall have truly particu forth,” &c.

larly setting then, &c. may Secretary,

of remission be exercised any, if ordered to be prosecution

and the staid. act, perusing

On it must be conceded, that sufficiently

the terms are general to extend the Secretary,

powers limit, without to the fine, forfeiture,

cases of or disability, occurring

under several laws specified. The limita

tion, therefore, m«st be sought for either in some construction,

principle or in principle some

aliunde, which is competent to impose such limi

tation.

But, with a to view construction,, there be will several

found calculated considerations extend power granted to cases judgments wherein

have obtained, been rather than restrain it to question

any pre-existing state of things. If the tested the technical signification of

terms, in strictness the would confined

to cases in judgment obtained, had been

rather-than to contrary description. those of a

OF THE STATES. UNITED

Fines, penalties, disabilities, are not- incur

red, and accrue, in the do. technical sense of

the terms, judgment. until regard With to disa

bilities particularly, (and there is no discrimina

tion made cases,) between the I would notice

that disqualification any to hold office under the imposed upon which is a smug

gler for years. seven question Who can that it

must be day counted from the judgment,

and not day from the of the offence or informa

tion ? suppose Or who can that it could be made plea to the authority public of a officer at

time before conviction ? also,

But, with regard to fines and forfeitures, provisions-

there are various of the United States

laws, positively which look to a trial as necessary determining whether such fines and forfeitures I

have incurred. would notice particularly section of the 29th 1799, Law of Collection which, incurring the penalty

under for the offence stated,

there made depend upon the mas being

ter’s not able satisfy Court, his oath,

own or other sufficient testimony, certain which, given

facts, case, incur prevent his fine.

ring the

So, also, law, same 67th section which a forfeiture is made to acсrue positively requires of facts which inter

state justice, which, of a Court of con

vention

sequence, be said been cannot to have incurred judgment.

or until accrued present

But considerations other themselves law, to the conclusion. which same lead this THE SUPREME CASES IN COURT

goo “ prefer petition

1825, are, to the words shall his penalty,

Judge fine, in which such District disability, That forfeiture, shall accrued.” or have

v,

Mems. than something more accrued word meant part incurred,

the term previous used in the consideration, section, is obviou from this s

that Dis might in one co omitted offence

trict, another; but prosecuted offender in tlje imagined, never was remission for suit going

could be on in the where District

penalty term, incurred, was one sense the. prosecution accrued, in another. The term

therefore, has universally be here held seizure, information,

used with relation to the penalty;

suit for the and so far from its being

held to have effect confining the time of

prosecuting this claim for remission inter

val between judgment, information and that, know,

practically, we in some most com Districts,

mercial adopted was, construction penalty did not until accrue conviction

and, suffering hence, a decree or judgment

pass, was considered as essential to making up

the case in which the suit for might remission

preferred. And there was some reason for

practice, since the necessary meaning

term, distinguished from the word incurred,

shows, that there could hardly ever oeeur a case the suit remission was not preceded

by the suit for the penalty. But, if the defend compelled

ant to confess that he had violated lаw, and so the act requires, what reason why

could judgment exist should hot forthwith

OF STATES. 3U1 THE UNITED such circum if, him ? under And

pass against remission, to the

stances, was a bar the judgment , v. all a held out boon to them was nay, fallacy; 1'0 him; more, a lure it was to for the law ensnare on the no obligation

imposes, Judge stay pror ; or not, and whether lie would rested

ceedings him,

with or with the until the District Attorney, should have to act time

Secretary ap remission. for

plication however,

The exhibits the true replication, on in real this suit is

ground plaintiff to rest his is, case: which that

compelled

virtue of the certain were vested rights judgment, him,

in over which the remitting power does not In extend. this making up to have felt

replication, party the real ought of his

difficulties case. It is true, generally

the rules furnish the best test pleading of a effect, in The action. this case, new

introduce a into the cause if personage

I were rid of the disposed get question,

technical I should find no ground, difficulty -the conclusion, that there is a

coming depar-

ture in this and he has plea, abated his writ.

How, fact, the name United States all

comes be at to. used in this cause, is to me a of the law

mystery; very policy , of its revenue is avoided

part it, system frustrated,

would if could practice That

countenanced.- name the United

States should be used its will, and an at- against United States

torney aby nominated act where the

Judge, attorney IN CASES SUPREME THE COURT act,

1825. States refuses to any. without

authority by statute, I acknowledge has excited iqy surprise.

Morns. principles áre, asserted that an absolute Collector; by

interest is vested law in the that

the United use; States are the trustees to their

that the act of the trustee shall not the in defeat

terests que use, cestui and that he shall

have the use of the trustee’s name to vindicate rights,

his that . too in an action for damages. this thing appears whole tome an

wrong. absolute, If was substantive, right, why brought

individual Was not the suit in If his of the nаme interest is Collector? interest,

only by what equitable known rules can he avail pleading himself of his mere

equitable interest suit lawat ? or father, appearance party

can his he make in the suit too, his

instituted trustee? and suit ? It all results in á damages strong attempt operation laws,

to modify the of our and regu rights powers

late the of our officers, and analogy

some fancied with the British laws of

trade, and revenue officers. British system; and system peculiar

Our nothing, is mind, many parti- that, my

is than clearer

culars, constructed with a view avoid

very is here set and those con- analogy up, might grow

sequences and embarrassments which

out In relief us, of it. instance before

to be provided for a case of misfortune and in- ab- been more nothing could have

nocence, . rights

surd, the vested informers than to suffer

OF THE UNITED STAÍES. seizing government officers embarras the its benevolent just views towards

objects only of this law. could Mercy justice V. Morris. have been if administered Collectors halves,

could have judgment, hurried causes to and then

clung forfeiture, to the one half of the in cont of,the

empt distress, cries of mandates of Secretary. according system, Hence, to our

all the suits to be instituted under the laws over extends, Secretary’s

which the are com

menced in-the name United States. No party is permitted they

other all to sue are made prosecutions; legal

national all the actors are

those who are in obedience to the govern bound prosecutes. Nothing

ment that more untena idea, than the that at one stage

ble government assumes

prosecution, the charac of a an idea so abhorrent prin

ter trustee to the the common

ciples law, that to make the king trustee, to him «lake absolute proprietor. prosecutor

Nor is it until character of for of- off, against itself is that the put

fences law raises things, in state which the relation trustee que actually

and cestui usé can arise. This is money paid

when into hands

Collector. To him law directs that it shall in paid¿ may that it be

be order distributed. right, any ask,

What I would would one of the dis Court,

tributees here that have to move the the. mo

ney paid him, be to and not to the Collector?

There are in persons cases Which other than a bp

Collector may capacity entitled of in

formers, necessary may then for the and

31)4 THE SUPREME COURT CASES IN no case, inBut Court to decide on individual rights. of, the col I under

that am aware arising law, the Court called pay can upon lection Collector, other than to the way

the money I distributed; con him and this distribution

to be by a mere boon

sider as from government, and do reserve sove practically, may justly,

they until their over, so under laws. control paid

reign them, is from of a

The gift thing perfected

them, withdraw and that modify they may ad libitum. When once accord away, paid

gift, will, end, their control is at an

ing legislative then, then,, and not till becomes them and absolute, between their

vested and as last, the law whom, as

officers, ab regards That such -is the view of donees.

solute and that in the exercise of that dis

Legislature,

cretion, to be still meant reasonable they post to exercise an еx and not power

just, facto case, all the third

such is. conclusively proved been, act, this as has insist very justly

section

ed, two on in years, During argument. remained had suspended, with accruing during regard rights declares, the modi

time, the Legislature, informer, to the grant

fication imposed officer, of that dispensing

or siezing virtue exist,, then their did proportions

power, it, to but be not afterwards subjected

should ain their summary assess proportions

Court may de be a explicit There cannot more

manner. this understanding than

claration legislative dis- it makes as no inasmuch

clause presents,

OF THE UNITED STATES. judgment and 1825. cases between the

crimination right accruing cases, to but considers

other as it is after. judgment the same before

them Morm ,which, in peculiarity case, in this is one There recovery, precludes possibility

my opinion, principle general which

independently against Marshal brought

is, that this action is issuing from process another executing

for not certainly dilemma from presents

State. It the party for impossible plaintiff I think it such right pro- to escape. issue “ section of the in the 6th act cess originates effectually for settlement of provide

more United States and between receivers

accounts money,” the words of which the

of public, case exe- explicitly confined judgments obtained for the use of the

cutions States.

United here, then, is plaintiff reduced to this real judgment Either was for his

alternative: If not for his use, not. then he it was

use or by the defendant in refusing damnified

cannot use, for his it But if it. cannot be execute the United and then the use

for and was wrongfully, issued rightfully

execution judgment, that the replied, If

disobeyed. use place, obtained first back brings us ‍‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍to what I States, it only trite, entirely observed, so

before any one on the soli vested no raise contingent interest. an eventual

tary ground of Judgment affirmed- Vol.'x

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Morris

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Mar 16, 1825

Citation: 23 U.S. 246

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS