Francis v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 December 1866 |
| Citation | 5 Wall. 338,72 U.S. 338,18 L.Ed. 603 |
| Parties | FRANCIS v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri.
The record showed a libel of information against certain bales of cotton marked C. S. A., as belonging to persons in insurrection against the United States, and the confiscation of which was demanded under the act of 6th August, 1861, entitled 'An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes.' [For the sake or distinction this case was numbered 939.] The act just referred to provides (by its third section, which indicates the persons who may institute proceedings)——
The order for the detention of the cotton was dated 18th October, 1862, and recited that it appeared, on the return of a warrant of arrest issued in case No. 934, that the marshal had previously arrested the said property. He was therefore ordered to detain it to answer the information now filed in No. 939. During the month of November and December some three or four claimants came forward and were permitted to file their several claims, take exceptions, plead and take issue as to ownership of the cotton.
On the 22d of January, 1863, the plaintiff in error, Franois, for the first time appeared and filed a petition, not as owner or claimant of any portion of the cotton, but 'that he may be admitted to appear in said case No. 939, as a party to the record as informer.'
His petition set forth, as a foundation of his claim, that he gave information to the Board of Trade at Memphis on the 2d October, 1862, and also sent a written statement to R. S. Howard, collector of the port of St. Louis, containing information on which the said cotton was seized by the said collector in the case No. 934, and on the 10th October filed an information in writing with the District Attorney, upon which information the said cotton was subsequently libelled in case No. 939.
The District Attorney moved to strike this petition from the files of the court. The motion was overruled, and the petitioner was allowed to make proof of his right to be admitted as informer. A hearing was then had by witnesses, ore tenus, before the court, by request of the proctor of Francis.
Mr. Howard, collector of the port, resisted the claim of the petitioner. After hearing witnesses the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner ordered to pay costs.
A jury was afterwards ordered to try the issues of facts as to the ownership of the several claimants, and their verdict was, 'That the allegations in the libel are true, and that we find for the United States.' After divers motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, a decree was entered for the government. In this trial of the issue by the jury, and the judgment of the court thereon, Francis, the plaintiff in error, was of course no party on the record; his petition to become such having been refused, and he having acquiesced in that decree of the court without appeal. However, the next entry in the record was, that on the 9th day of June, 1863, 'The claimants herein, and the petitioner Francis, filed in the clerk's office their bill of exceptions in the case.' Why exactly the court permitted Francis thus to place himself on the record, was not clearly explained. However, the record showed an exception to the charge sealed in his part of the case:
'Whereupon the court declared...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Marcus v. Hess
...the government filed a suit prior to that instituted by this petitioner, a different question would be presented. Cf. Francis v. United States, 5 Wall. 338, 18 L.Ed. 603. Under the circumstances here, we could not, without materially detracting from its clear scope, decline to recognize the......
-
United States v. Weekly Publications
...317 U.S. 537-541, 542, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443. Prior to its enactment, the United States had the right to sue. Francis v. United States, 5 Wall. 338, 18 L.Ed. 603; Pooler v. United States, 1 Cir., 127 F. 519. And if it did, it would be to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The action being......
-
United States v. Florida-Vanderbilt Develop. Corp.
...in enforcing statutes effectuating important public policies. The cases cited for this proposition were: Francis v. United States, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 338, 18 L.Ed. 603 (1866); Adams, qui tam v. Woods, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 336, 2 L.Ed. 297 (1805); Marvin v. Trout, 199 U.S. 212, 26 S.Ct. 31, 50 L......
-
United States v. Baker-Lockwood Mfg. Co., 12673-12675.
...United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess et al., quoted above, and from the decision of the court in the earlier case of Francis v. United States, 5 Wall. 338, 18 L.Ed. 603, supports the conclusion which we have reached. In the case last mentioned the right of an informer under a similar statut......