Coffey v. United States
| Decision Date | 18 January 1886 |
| Citation | 116 U.S. 436 |
| Parties | COFFEY v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.
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.
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 distinctly presented, whether such judgment of acquittal is a bar to this suit. We are of opinion that it is.
It is true that § 3257, after denouncing the single act of a distiller defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him, declares the consequences of the commission of the act to be (1) that certain specific property shall be forfeited: and (2) that the offender shall be fined and imprisoned. It is also true that the proceeding to enforce the forfeiture against the res named must be a proceeding in rem and a civil action, while that to enforce the fine and imprisonment must be a criminal proceeding, as was held by this court in The Palmyra, 12 Wheat., 1, 14. Yet, where an issue raised as to the existence of the act or fact denounced has been tried in a criminal proceeding, instituted by the United States, and a judgment of acquittal has been rendered in favor of a particular person, that judgment is conclusive in favor of such person, on the subsequent trial of a suit in rem by the United States, where, as against him, the existence of the same act or fact is the matter in issue, as a cause for the forfeiture of the property prosecuted in such suit in rem. It is urged as a reason for not allowing such effect to the judgment, that the acquittal in the criminal case may have taken place because of the rule requiring guilt to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that, on the same evidence, on the question of preponderance of proof, there might be a verdict for the United States, in the suit in rem. Nevertheless, the fact or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telephone News System, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
...for the forfeiture has previously been tried and acquitted, no civil seizure of the property may be made. Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684 (1886) and Inman v. United States, 151 F.Supp. 784 (W.D.S.C.1957). As the decisions now stand, a forfeiture prior to cri......
-
Helvering v. Mitchell
...of res judicata; and hence it affirmed the assessment of the $728,709.84. But it held that our decisions in Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684, and United States v. La Franca, 282 U.S. 568, 51 S.Ct. 278, 75 L.Ed. 551, required it 'to treat the imposition of the......
-
U.S. v. Sanchez-Escareno, SANCHEZ-ESCAREN
...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 forfeiture), ov......
-
In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 55
...v. Gould, 39 N.J. 527, 189 A.2d 697 (1963); Hazard, Res Nova in Res Judicata, 44 So.Cal.L.Rev. 1036, 1044 (1971). But cf. Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436 (1886)." See also Stone v. United States, 167 U.S. 178, 17 S.Ct. 778, 42 L.Ed. 127 (1897); Murphy v. United States, 272 U.S. 630, 4......