Hahn v. United States

Decision Date09 April 1883
Citation2 S.Ct. 494,107 U.S. 402,27 L.Ed. 527
PartiesHAHN v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

H. E. Paine, for appellant.

Sol. Gen. Phillips, for appellee.

BLATCHFORD, J.

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:

'(1) On the thirteenth of June, 1872, the claimant was appointed surveyor of customs at the port of Troy, New York, and continued to act as such officer until May 28, 1876. (2) During that period, from June 13, 1872, to June 22, 1874, Alonzo B. Cornell was surveyor of customs at the port of New York to March 31, 1873, and George H. Sharpe from March 31, 1873, to June 22, 1874; Isaac N. Keeler was surveyor of customs at the port of Albany; and from April 28, 1874, Frank P. Norton was surveyor of customs at the port of Port Jefferson; all in the collection district of the city of New York. (3) There was collected and paid into the treasury of the United States, from the proceeds of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred at the port of New York, between June 13, 1872, and April 28, 1874, the sum of $839,819.40, and more, and between April 28 and June 22, 1874, $14,604.11, and more, after making the deductions required by law; of which sums, in the distribution made by the secretary of the treasury, one-fourth part was paid to the collector, naval officer, and surveyor at the port of New York, as such officers, and not as informers or seizing officers, and none thereof was paid to the claimant, which distribution was made in accordance with the uniform practice of the treasury department, under the law of March 2, 1867, c. 188, (14 St. 546.) (4) During the same period, between June 13, 1872, and June 22, 1874, there was paid into the treasury, from fines incurred at the port of Troy, aforesaid, on persons for not surrendering licenses of canal-boats, as required by law, the sum of $1,000, of which, in the distribution thereof by the secretary of the treasury, one-fourth was paid to the claimant as informer or seizing officer, and no other share was allowed to him.'

On these facts the 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Henry v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1906
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 15, 1901
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 1, 1955
    ...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.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1919
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A Hail Mary for the Administrative State: An Originalist Defense of Chevron Deference
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 19-2, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...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......

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