Hahn v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 April 1883 |
| Citation | Hahn v. United States, 107 U.S. 402, 2 S.Ct. 494, 27 L.Ed. 527 (1883) |
| Parties | HAHN v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
H. E. Paine, for appellant.
Sol.Gen. Phillips, for appellee.
This case comes before this court on an appeal by the claimant, Emanuel Hahn, from the judgment of the court of claims finding in favor of the United States, and dismissing the petition of the claimant.The following were the material facts found by that court:
On these factsthe claimant contends that under the provisions of section 1 of the act of March 2, 1867, c. 188, (14 St. at Large, 546,)he was entitled, for the period from June 13, 1872, to April 28, 1874, to share equally with the collector, the naval officer, and two other surveyors in the collection district of the city of New York in the one-fourth part of the said sum of $839,819.40, and thus to recover one-twentienth part of said sum, and for the period from April 28, 1874, to June 22, 1874, to share equally with the collector, the naval officer, and three other surveyors in said collection district, in one-fourth part of said sum of $14,604.11, and thus to recover one twenty-fourth part of said sum.
The statute in question was in these words:
'That from the proceeds of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred under the provisions of the laws relating to the customs, there shall be deducted such charges and expenses as are by law in each case authorized to be deducted; and in addition, in the case of the forfeiture of imported merchandise of a greater value than $500 on which duties have not been paid, or in case of a release thereof, upon payment of its appraised value, or of any fine or composition in money, there shall also be deducted an amount equivalent to the duties in coin upon such merchandise, (including the additional duties, if any,) which shall be credited in the accounts of the collector as duties received, and the residue of the proceeds aforesaid shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and distributed, under the direction of the secretary of the treasury, in the manner following, to-wit: one-half to the United States, one-fourth to the person giving the information which has led to such seizure, or to the recovery of the fine or penalty, and if there be no informer other than the collector, naval...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Henry v. State
... ... decline to act. Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall., 347 (19 ... L.Ed. 62); United States v. Seaman, 17 How., 225 (15 ... L.Ed. 226); United States v. Guthrie, 17 How., 284 ... 206 ... (6 L.Ed. 603); U. S. v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760 ... (24 L.Ed. 588); Hahn v. U. S., 107 U.S. 402 ... (2 S.Ct. 494; 27 L.Ed. 527); U. S. v ... Philbrick, 120 U.S ... ...
-
Frank Fairbank v. United States
...24 L. ed. 588, 589, Swift & C. & B. Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 691, 695, 26 L. L. ed. 1108, 1109; Hahn v. United States, 107 U. S. 402, 406, 27 L. ed. 527, 528, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 494; United States v. Graham, 110 U. S. 219, 221, 28 L. ed. 126, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 582; Burrow-Giles Lithograph......
-
United States v. Lennox Metal Manufacturing Co.
...473, 23 S.Ct. 638, 47 L.Ed. 907; United States v. Johnston, 124 U.S. 236, 253, 8 S.Ct. 446, 31 L.Ed. 389; Hahn v. United States, 107 U.S. 402, 405-406, 2 S.Ct. 494, 27 L.Ed. 527; United States v. Philbrick, 120 U.S. 52, 59, 7 S.Ct. 413, 30 L.Ed. 559; Copper Queen Consol. Mining Co. v. Arizo......
-
State v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
... ... Hines, as Director General of Railroads of the United States, Defendants No. 1915 Supreme Court of North Dakota April 1, 1919 ... ... Heath v. Wallace, 138 U.S. 573, 582; Pennoyer v ... McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1, 23; Hahn v. United ... States, 107 U.S. 402; United States v. Moore, 95 U.S ... ...
-
A Hail Mary for the Administrative State: An Originalist Defense of Chevron Deference
...This canon has been reflected in a long line of cases. See, e.g. , United States v. Pugh, 99 U.S. 265, 269 (1878); Hahn v. United States, 107 U.S. 402, 406 (1883); Merritt v. Cameron, 137 U.S. 542, 552 (1890). Edwards’ Lessee and Moore were also both cited by Chevron itself. See Chevron, U......