Harford v. United States

Supreme Court

Harford v. United States

12 U.S. 109, 3 L. Ed. 504, 8 Cranch 109, 1814 U.S. LEXIS 392

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 18, 1814

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 12 U.S. 109 (Harford v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harford v. United States, 12 U.S. 109, 3 L. Ed. 504, 8 Cranch 109, 1814 U.S. LEXIS 392 (1814).

Pincite

Opinion

Story, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, as follows : — The principal question in this case is, whether goods and merchandise, the importation of which into the United States was prohibited by the act of 18th of April 1806 (2 U. S. Stat. SÍQ), were within the purview of the 50th section of the collection act of 2d of March l^O (1 Ibid. 665), so that the unlading of them without a permit, &c., was an offence subjecting them to forfeiture.

*71 It has been contended on behalf of the claimant, that they were not within the purview of the 50th section, because that section applies only to goods, wares and merchandise, the importation of which is lawful. To this construction, the court cannot yield assent. The language of the 50th section is, that “ no goods, wares or merchandise, &o., shall be unladen, &c., without a permitit is, therefore, broad enough to cover all goods, whether lawful or unlawful. The case, being then within the letter, can be extracted from forfeiture only by showing that it is not within the spirit of the section. To us, it seems clear, that the case is within the policy and mischief of the collection act, since the necessity of a permit is some check upon unlawful importations, and is one reason why it is required. The act of 1806 does not profess to repeal the 50th section of the collection act, as to the prohibited goods, and a repeal by implication ought not to be presumed, unless from the repugnance of the provisions, the inference be necessary and ^ n *unavoidable. • No such manifest repugnance appears to the court; x -> the provisions may well stand together and indeed serve as mutual aids. In fact, the very point now presented was decided by this court, in the case of Locke, claimant, v. United States, at February term 1813 (7 Cr. 339). The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Story, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, as follows : — The principal question in this case is, whether goods and merchandise, the importation of which into the United States was prohibited by the act of 18th of April 1806 (2 U. S. Stat. SÍQ), were within the purview of the 50th section of the collection act of 2d of March l^O (1 Ibid. 665), so that the unlading of them without a permit, &c., was an offence subjecting them to forfeiture.

*71 It has been contended on behalf of the claimant, that they were not within the purview of the 50th section, because that section applies only to goods, wares and merchandise, the importation of which is lawful. To this construction, the court cannot yield assent. The language of the 50th section is, that “ no goods, wares or merchandise, &o., shall be unladen, &c., without a permitit is, therefore, broad enough to cover all goods, whether lawful or unlawful. The case, being then within the letter, can be extracted from forfeiture only by showing that it is not within the spirit of the section. To us, it seems clear, that the case is within the policy and mischief of the collection act, since the necessity of a permit is some check upon unlawful importations, and is one reason why it is required. The act of 1806 does not profess to repeal the 50th section of the collection act, as to the prohibited goods, and a repeal by implication ought not to be presumed, unless from the repugnance of the provisions, the inference be necessary and ^ n *unavoidable. • No such manifest repugnance appears to the court; x -> the provisions may well stand together and indeed serve as mutual aids. In fact, the very point now presented was decided by this court, in the case of Locke, claimant, v. United States, at February term 1813 (7 Cr. 339). The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed.

United Bank Limited, Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant v. Cosmic International, Inc., Janata Bank and Amin Jute Mills, Ltd. v. Cosmic International, Inc. And Irving Trust Company, Sonali Bank and Nishat Jute Mills, Ltd. v. Irving Trust Company and Cosmic International, Inc., Nishat Jute Mills, Ltd. And National Bank of Pakistan, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants v. Cosmic International, Inc.

542 F.2d 868 (Second Circuit, 1976)

Bourquin v. United States

72 F. Supp. 76 (Court of Claims, 1947)

United States v. Domestic Fuel Corporation

71 F.2d 424 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1934)

Steinberg v. United States

14 F.2d 564 (Second Circuit, 1926)

12 East Eighty-Sixth Street Corp. v. Berstein

124 Misc. 125 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1924)

United States v. Sischo

262 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court, 1923)

Bookbinder v. United States

287 F. 790 (Third Circuit, 1923)

United States v. Santini

279 F. 534 (Fifth Circuit, 1922)

The Nyanza

276 F. 415 (E.D. New York, 1921)

Vanderbilt v. Travelers Insurance

112 Misc. 248 (New York Supreme Court, 1920)

Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Nield

92 N.W. 1069 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1902)

Ban v. Columbia Southern Ry. Co.

117 F. 21 (Ninth Circuit, 1902)

State v. Bowen

18 S.E. 375 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1893)

Chew Heong v. United States

112 U.S. 536 (Supreme Court, 1884)

Hogan v. Guigon

70 Va. 705 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 U.S. 109, 3 L. Ed. 504, 8 Cranch 109, 1814 U.S. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harford-v-united-states-scotus-1814.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack