Coffey v. United States

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation116 U.S. 436
Decision Date18 January 1886
PartiesCOFFEY v. UNITED STATES.

116 U.S. 436

COFFEY
v.
UNITED STATES.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued December 10, 1885.

Decided January 18, 1886.


116 U.S. 437

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

116 U.S. 438

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

116 U.S. 439

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

116 U.S. 440

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
116 U.S. 441

Mr. G.C. Wharton Mr. T.T. Alexander and Mr. Samuel McKee for plaintiff in error submitted on their brief.

Mr. Solicitor-General for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. After stating the facts in the language reported above, he continued:

The assignment of errors filed in this court asserts these propositions: (1) that the information is not sufficient in law; (2) that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, or of the property seized, or of the person of the claimant; (3) that there was no sufficient monition, attachment or seizure of the property, and no legal publication and notice of the seizure, and no valuation of the goods, as required by law; (4) that it was error to submit the case to the jury before the demurrer to the fourth paragraph of the answer was disposed of; (5) that it was error to overrule said demurrer.

In regard to the 1st, 3d and 4th assignments, the questions presented by them were not formally raised in the Circuit Court, and are not presented by a bill of exceptions, and cannot be considered here.

116 U.S. 442

As to the 1st assignment, that respecting the insufficiency of the information, it is supposed, by the claimant, that his motion for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, raises that question. But there is no exception to the order of the court denying that motion. There is an exception to the written opinion of the court overruling a motion for a new trial, and to an order made, after judgment, overruling a motion made, after judgment, for a new trial. But, there is no other exception in the record. Assuming, however, that the point as to the information can be raised here, it is urged that the first count, that founded on section 3257, is insufficient because the count does not set forth the facts from which the court can infer that Coffey defrauded or attempted to defraud the United States. It is a sufficient answer to this objection to say, that the claimant, in his answer, denies the allegations of the first count, specifically, as they are made. After that, he cannot, in a court of error, on such a record as this, be heard to say that he did not know the charge made, and could not defend against it, although, if he had excepted or demurred to the count, the objection might have been presented for consideration. After a general verdict for the United States, one good count in the information is sufficient to uphold the judgment. Coffey v. United States, ante, 427.

The objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is overruled, in accordance with the decision in Coffey v. United States, ante, 427.

The principal question is as to the effect of the indictment, trial, verdict and judgment of acquittal set up in the fourth paragraph of the answer. The information is founded on §§ 3257, 3450 and 3453; and there is no question, on the averments in the answer, that the fraudulent acts and attempts and intents to defraud, alleged in the prior criminal information, and covered by the verdict and judgment of acquittal, embraced all of the acts, attempts and intents averred in the information in this suit. The question, therefore, is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
207 practice notes
  • U.S. v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, Serial No. 11602012072193, No. Q55-103
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 25, 1980
    ...regarding the facts involved in the forfeiture proceedings, as would have been the case in the event of an acquittal. Cf. Coffey v. U. S., 116 U.S. 436, 442-43, 6 S.Ct. 437, 440, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886); U. S. v. One 1967 Cadillac, 453 F.2d 396 (C.A. 9, 5 This rule, now embodied in 19 U.S.C. 16......
  • United States v. Kramer, No. 97
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 2, 1961
    ...such cases for the Government's evidence as a whole although not necessarily as to every link in the chain. Coffey v. United States, 1886, 116 U.S. 436, 442-443, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 criminal judgment applied as collateral estoppel in civil case; United States v. Oppenheimer, 1916, 242......
  • McKeehan v. United States, No. 20328.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 19, 1971
    ...attempting to punish him for possession of the firearms although it has foreclosed itself from prosecuting him. Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437 (1886) sustains the defense of estoppel. There a defendant had been acquitted on criminal charges involving violations of the In......
  • U.S. v. Sanchez-Escareno, SANCHEZ-ESCAREN
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 19, 1991
    ...that the recovery of a civil penalty following a criminal action might be punishment under the clause. See e.g., Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 442, 6 S.Ct. 437, 440, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886) (following prior acquittal, Double Jeopardy Clause precluded government's attempt to seek forfei......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
207 cases
  • U.S. v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, Serial No. 11602012072193, No. Q55-103
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 25, 1980
    ...regarding the facts involved in the forfeiture proceedings, as would have been the case in the event of an acquittal. Cf. Coffey v. U. S., 116 U.S. 436, 442-43, 6 S.Ct. 437, 440, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886); U. S. v. One 1967 Cadillac, 453 F.2d 396 (C.A. 9, 5 This rule, now embodied in 19 U.S.C. 16......
  • United States v. Kramer, No. 97
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 2, 1961
    ...such cases for the Government's evidence as a whole although not necessarily as to every link in the chain. Coffey v. United States, 1886, 116 U.S. 436, 442-443, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 criminal judgment applied as collateral estoppel in civil case; United States v. Oppenheimer, 1916, 242......
  • McKeehan v. United States, No. 20328.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 19, 1971
    ...attempting to punish him for possession of the firearms although it has foreclosed itself from prosecuting him. Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437 (1886) sustains the defense of estoppel. There a defendant had been acquitted on criminal charges involving violations of the In......
  • U.S. v. Sanchez-Escareno, SANCHEZ-ESCAREN
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 19, 1991
    ...that the recovery of a civil penalty following a criminal action might be punishment under the clause. See e.g., Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 442, 6 S.Ct. 437, 440, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886) (following prior acquittal, Double Jeopardy Clause precluded government's attempt to seek forfei......
  • 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