The Washington

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

The Washington

29 F. Cas. 336, 4 Blatchf. 101, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 657

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedSeptember 25, 1857

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 F. Cas. 336 (The Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Washington, 29 F. Cas. 336, 4 Blatchf. 101, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 657 (circtsdny 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

The libel contains no averment whatever of the seizure of the vessel for a violation of the revenue laws, the proctor for the libellants relying altogether upon the seizure by the marshal upon the warrant.

In the case of The Ann, 9 Cranch [13 U. S.) 289, it was held, that if a seizure by a collect- or under the revenue laws be abandoned, and the property be restored before the libel or information is filed and allowed, the ^district court has no jurisdiction of the cause. The court say, that the jurisdiction is given to the court of the district, not where the offence was committed, but where the seizure vras made; and, further, that it follows from this, that before judicial cognizance can attach upon a forfeiture in rem under the statute, there must be a seizure, for, until the seizure, it is impossible to ascertain what is the competent forum to hear and determine the cause, and that it must be a good subsisting seizure at the time when the libel or information is filed. See, also, The Abby [Case No. 14); The Merino, 9 Wheat. [22 U. S.) 391; Ben. Adm. p. 171, § 303, and cases there cited; rule 22 in admiralty of supreme court.

'The seizure being a jurisdictional fact, necessary . to give to the court below cognizance of the cause, and no such fact having been averred, it is well settled that advantage may be taken of the defect at any stage of the proceedings. The district court was, therefore, right in dismissing the libel for this reason. , Decree affirmed.

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

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

The libel contains no averment whatever of the seizure of the vessel for a violation of the revenue laws, the proctor for the libellants relying altogether upon the seizure by the marshal upon the warrant.

In the case of The Ann, 9 Cranch [13 U. S.) 289, it was held, that if a seizure by a collect- or under the revenue laws be abandoned, and the property be restored before the libel or information is filed and allowed, the ^district court has no jurisdiction of the cause. The court say, that the jurisdiction is given to the court of the district, not where the offence was committed, but where the seizure vras made; and, further, that it follows from this, that before judicial cognizance can attach upon a forfeiture in rem under the statute, there must be a seizure, for, until the seizure, it is impossible to ascertain what is the competent forum to hear and determine the cause, and that it must be a good subsisting seizure at the time when the libel or information is filed. See, also, The Abby [Case No. 14); The Merino, 9 Wheat. [22 U. S.) 391; Ben. Adm. p. 171, § 303, and cases there cited; rule 22 in admiralty of supreme court.

'The seizure being a jurisdictional fact, necessary . to give to the court below cognizance of the cause, and no such fact having been averred, it is well settled that advantage may be taken of the defect at any stage of the proceedings. The district court was, therefore, right in dismissing the libel for this reason. , Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. Cas. 336, 4 Blatchf. 101, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-washington-circtsdny-1857.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack