United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 8 Cranch 398, 12 U.S. 398, 3 L. Ed. 602, 1814 U.S. LEXIS 442, SCDB 1814-039

Decision Date: 3/15/1814

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch 398, 12 U.S. 398, 3 L. Ed. 602, 1814 U.S. LEXIS 442, SCDB 1814-039 (U.S. 1814)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1814

United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee.

Judges

  • (Marshall, Ch. J., being absent.)

Attorneys

  • Pinhney, late Attorney-Gen eral,
  • *Boyd, contrá.
  • Harper, on the same side.
  • Pinkney, in reply.
majority Johnson, J.,

Delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: — This case has been ax-gued very elaborately, and has been a long time under consideration. But from the decision which the court has at length come to, its merits are brought within a vex-y limited compass.

We are of opinion, that the question rests altogether on the wox-ding of *, 05-i the act of congress : by which it is *expressly declared, that the ' J forfeiture shall take place, upon the commission of the offence. If the phraseology wex-e such as, in the opinion of the majox-ity of the court, to admit of doubt, it would then be proper to resort to analogy, and the doctrine of forfeiture at common law, to assist the mind in coming to a conclusion. But from the view in which the subject appears to a majority of the court, all assistance derivable from that quarter becomes unnecessary.

It is true, that cases of hardship and even absurdity may be supposed to grow out of this decision, but on the other hand, if, by a sale, it is put in the power of an offender to purge a forfeiture, a state of things not less absured will certainly result from it. When hardships shall arise, provision is made by law for affording relief, under authority much more competent to decide on such cases, than this court ever can be. In the eternal struggle that exists between the avarice, enterprise and combinations of individuals, on the one hand, and the power charged with the administration of the laws, on the other, severe laws are rendered necessary to enable the executive to carry into effect the measures of policy adopted by the legislature. To them belongs the right to decide on what event a divesture of right shall take place, whether on the commission of the offence, the seizure, or the condemnation. In this instance, we are of opinion, that the commission of the offence marks the point of time on which the statutory transfer of right takes place.

The decree of the circuit court of Maryland on the demurrer, is, therefore, reversed, and the cause remanded, that the issue in fact may be tried.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.