Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee

12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 398

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1814-03-15
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “The purpose of the doctrine is to protect state judgments from collateral federal 14 attack.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
69 opinions

Headnotes

  1. White Collar & Regulatory Defense — Statutory Construction Where a statute expressly declares that a forfeiture shall take place upon the commission of the offense, the statutory transfer of right takes effect at the moment the offense is committed, and the question of when forfeiture occurs rests altogether on the wording of the act rather than on the doctrine of forfeiture at common law.
  2. White Collar & Regulatory Defense — Time of Taking The legislature has the right to decide upon what event a divestiture of right shall take place — whether upon the commission of the offense, the seizure, or the condemnation.
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 *256 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.