Joseph Barlow v. United States

Decision Date01 January 1833
Citation32 U.S. 404,7 Pet. 404,8 L.Ed. 728
PartiesJOSEPH BARLOW, Claimant of eighty-five Hogsheads of Sugar, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. In the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, a libel was filed by the United States, for the forfeiture of eighty-five hogsheads of sugar, alleging them to have been entered for the benefit of drawback, under a false denomination; viz., as refined sugars, with intent to defraud the revenue. The answer of the claimant, Joseph Barlow, denied that the sugars were entered by a false denomination, or with intent to defraud the revenue; and insisted, they were refined sugars, within the meaning of the act of congress. Testimony was taken in the district court, by the parties to the proceedings, and that court decreed as follows:

'The sugar mentioned in the pleadings in this cause is not refined sugar, within the meaning of the act of congress of January 21st, 1829, and that entry was made of the said sugar in the office of the collector of the port of New York for exportation, by a false denomination, the same being entered by the owner for the benefit of drawback or bounty, under the denomination of refined sugar. But it is further considered and decreed, that it has been made to appear, to the satisfaction of this court, that such false denomination happened by the mistake of the claimant, the owner, in believing bastard sugar entitled to the drawback provided by the said act of congress. And is is further considered and decreed by this court, that the forfeiture of the said sugar, so entered, has not been incurred by the owner. It is further ordered and decreed by this court, that the said claimant pay the taxable costs of the libellants, and of the officers of this court in this cause; and that, therefore, the libel filed in this cause be dismissed, and that the said sugar be delivered up, on demand, at reasonable times, to the said claimant; and it is further orderd, that a certificate of probable cause of seizure be given to the collector or officer of the customs, by whom the seizure of the said sugar may have been made.'

From this decree, both parties appealed to the circuit court for the southern district of New York. On the 4th January 1831, the circuit court made the following decree:

'This cause having been brought to a hearing upon the pleadings and proofs therein, and counsel having been heard upon the appeal by the United States of America, as well as upon the appeal by Joseph Barlow, the claimant of the sugars mentioned in the pleadings in the cause, and the court having taken time to advise as to its decision, due deliberation being had, it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court, and his honor, Smith Thompson, judge of this court, doth order, adjudge and decree, that the appeal of the said Joseph Barlow, claimant as aforesaid, be dismissed, with costs. And it is further, in like manner, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the decree of the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, so far as the same acquits the said sugars from forfeiture, for the causes in the libel in this cause mentioned, be reversed, with costs. And it is further, in like manner, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the said sugars are not refined sugars, entitled to the benefit of drawback or bounty, within the meaning of the act of congress, of the 21st of January 1829, and that the same were entered in the office of the collector for the port of New York, for the benefit of drawback or bounty, under a false denomination, and with intent to defraud the revenue of the United States. And it is, accordingly, in like manner, further ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the said sugars be and the same are condemned, as forfeited to the use of the United States, and that the said United States do recover their costs of suit to be taxed against the said Joseph Barlow, claimant as aforesaid.' The claimant appealed to this court.

The case was argued by Morton and Ogden, for the appellant; and by Taney, Attorney-General, for the United States.

STORY, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a libel of seizure, instituted in the district court for the southern district of New York, which comes before this court upon an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of that district, condemning the property, viz., eighty-five hogsheads of sugar, as forfeited to the United States. The charge in the libel is, that the sugars were entered in the office of the collector of the customs for the district of New York, for the benefit of drawback or bounty upon the exportation thereof, by a false denomination, with an intent to defraud the revenue. The claimant in his claim admits that he made the entry for the benefit of the drawback on the exportation; but he denies, that the entry was made by a false denomination; and he asserts, that the sugars are truly refined sugars, as they are denominated in the entry.

The 84th section of the duty collection act of 1799, ch. 128, upon which the libel is founded, provides, that if any goods, wares or merchandise, of which entry shall have been made in the office of a collector, for the benefit of drawback or bounty upon exportation, shall be entered by a false denomination, or erroneously as to the time when, and the vessel in which, they were imported, or shall be found to disagree with the packages, quantities or qualities, as they were at the time of the original importation, &c., all such goods, wares and merchandise, &c., shall be forfeited; provided, that the said forfeiture shall not be incurred, if it shall be made appear to the satisfaction of the collector, &c., or of the court in which a prosecution for the forfeiture shall be had, that such false denomination, error or disagreement happened by mistake or accident, and not from any intention to defraud the revenue.

The language of this section is certainly sufficient to include the case at bar, if all the material facts are established. The sugars were entered for the benefit of drawback or bounty, in the office of the collector; and if the entry was by a false denomination, the forfeiture is incurred; unless the claimant can avail himself of the proviso, or some other matter in defence.

It has, however, been contended at the bar, that in the case of refined sugars, exported for the benefit of drawback and bounty, no entry is required by law to be made at the office of the collector; but that a system of regulations has been specially provided for such exportations, which supersedes or controls those of the 84th section. And in support of this argument, it has been urged, that the 84th section applies only to articles which have been previously imported and subjected to duties.

It appears to us, upon full consideration, that this argument is not well founded. Sugars have been made subject to duties upon their importation, from the first establishment of the government down to the present time, in every tariff law; and it is notorious, that until after the acquisition of Louisiana, in 1803, no sugars were grown in the United States; and consequently, all that were used or refined within the United States must have been of foreign...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 cases
  • United States v. Lindberg
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • August 4, 2020
    ... ... Accord United States v. Blagojevich , 794 F.3d 729, 739 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Barlow v. United States , 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) ); 476 F.Supp.3d 276 United States v. Wynn , 684 F.3d 473, 478 (4th Cir. 2012) ... ...
  • U.S. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 23, 1997
    ... ... L. Rep. 20,299, ... 48 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 384 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... James J. WILSON, ... 192, 199, 111 S.Ct. 604, 609, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991); Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 411, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) (Story, ... ...
  • United States v. Moreira-Bravo
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 27, 2022
    ... ... " United States v. Hutzell , 217 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Barlow v. United States , 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 411, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) ) (reaffirming that a statute imposing penalties on those who "knowingly violate" ... ...
  • U.S. v. D'Armond
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • August 13, 1999
    ... 65 F.Supp.2d 1189 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, ... Ray Lee D'ARMOND, Brian Keith Lindberg, ... See also Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 411, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) (Story, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT