Wheaton v. United States

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

Wheaton v. United States

29 F. Cas. 872, 8 Blatchf. 474, 1871 U.S. App. LEXIS 1862

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

DecidedJune 19, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 29 F. Cas. 872 (Wheaton v. United States) 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

Wheaton v. United States, 29 F. Cas. 872, 8 Blatchf. 474, 1871 U.S. App. LEXIS 1862 (circtsdny 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge.

The power And jurisdiction of this court to review a judgment or decree of distribution among various claimants of the informer’s share in a forfeiture, after condemnation and sale of the forfeited property, and that the claimants are, in such sense, parties to the proceeding, that they may invoke the exercise ■of that jurisdiction, seems to me established by the following cases: The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. [23 U. S.] 312; Westcot v. Bradford [Case No. 17,429]; McLane v. U. S., 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 404; In re Howard, 9 Wall. [76 U. S.] 175; Ex parte Zellner, Id. 244; Blossom v. Milwaukee R. Co., 1 Wall. [68 U. S.] 655; U. S. v. Twenty-five Thousand Gallons Distilled Spirits [Case No. 16,564], Nelson, J., June, 1868, affirming same case [Id. 14,282].

Whether the mode of review, in a case like the present, is by appeal or by writ of error, was not discussed on this motion. The distinction is not material to the principal question. On this subject, see U. S. v. Haynes [Id. 15,335] and U. S. v. Nourse. 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 470, 495. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied.

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

WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge.

The power And jurisdiction of this court to review a judgment or decree of distribution among various claimants of the informer’s share in a forfeiture, after condemnation and sale of the forfeited property, and that the claimants are, in such sense, parties to the proceeding, that they may invoke the exercise ■of that jurisdiction, seems to me established by the following cases: The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. [23 U. S.] 312; Westcot v. Bradford [Case No. 17,429]; McLane v. U. S., 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 404; In re Howard, 9 Wall. [76 U. S.] 175; Ex parte Zellner, Id. 244; Blossom v. Milwaukee R. Co., 1 Wall. [68 U. S.] 655; U. S. v. Twenty-five Thousand Gallons Distilled Spirits [Case No. 16,564], Nelson, J., June, 1868, affirming same case [Id. 14,282].

Whether the mode of review, in a case like the present, is by appeal or by writ of error, was not discussed on this motion. The distinction is not material to the principal question. On this subject, see U. S. v. Haynes [Id. 15,335] and U. S. v. Nourse. 6 Pet. [31 U. S.] 470, 495. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 F. Cas. 872, 8 Blatchf. 474, 1871 U.S. App. LEXIS 1862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheaton-v-united-states-circtsdny-1871.