John Taylor, Junior and William Blackburne Co Claimants of Cloths and Kerseymeres, Plaintiffs In Error v. the United States, Defendants In Error

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTORY
PartiesJOHN TAYLOR, JUNIOR, AND WILLIAM BLACKBURNE & CO., CLAIMANTS OF CLOTHS AND KERSEYMERES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
Decision Date01 January 1845

44 U.S. 197
3 How. 197
11 L.Ed. 559
JOHN TAYLOR, JUNIOR, AND WILLIAM BLACKBURNE & CO.,
CLAIMANTS OF CLOTHS AND KERSEYMERES, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THE UNITED STATES, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.
January Term, 1845

THIS case came up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.

Page 198

It was an information filed in the District Court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania against sundry cases and pieces of cloths and kerseymeres, seized on land, as forfeited. The information containd thirteen counts.

The first and second were founded on the 50th section of the act of 1799, chap. 128.

The third on the 68th section of same act.

The fourth and fifth on the 66th section of same act.

The sixth, seventh, and eighth on the 4th section of the act of 28th May, 1830, chap. 147.

The ninth on the 14th section of the act of 14th July, 1832, chap. 224.

The tenth on the same section as fourth and fifth.

The eleventh and twelfth on the same section as sixth, seventh, and eighth.

The thirteenth on the same section as ninth.

Upon the first and second counts the jury found a verdict for the claimants, and upon the remaining counts for the United States. The claimants were John Taylor, jun., and William Blackburne & Co.

The claims filed were as follows:

'John Taylor, jun., late of the city of New York, but now absent from the United States, by Edward Henry Bradbury, his attorney in fact, comes and claims the said goods, wares, and merchandise, in the said information and libel mentioned as his property; (subject to the repayment of a certain advance or loan of sixty thousand dollars and upwards, thereon made to him by William Blackburne & Co.;) and the said John Taylor, jun., by his said attorney, alleges, that at the time of the seizure aforesaid he was, and yet is the true and lawful owner of the said goods [wares] and merchandise, subject as aforesaid.

JOHN TAYLOR, Jun.,

'October 10th, 1839.

Pr. pro E. H. BRADBURY.

'Edward Henry Bradbury, being duly sworn, says, the facts above set forth are just and true, to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the duly authorized attorney in fact of the above named John Taylor, jun. He was absent from the United States at the time the seizure of the above mentioned goods, wares, and merchandise was made, and has ever since continued, and still is absent from the United States.

'E. H. BRADBURY.

'Sworn, October 11th, 1839, before me.

'PTR. CHRISTIAN, Alderman.

'William Blackburne & Co. claim the said goods, wares, and merchandise, in the said libel and information mentioned, as the sole property of them, the said William Blackburne & Co., for the purpose of securing and paying an advance or loan thereon made by them to John Taylor, jun., of sixty thousand dollars and upwards;

Page 199

for securing which said loan or advance the said goods [wares] and merchandise were delivered to them, long before the said seizure, by the said John Taylor, jun., in whose possession they were as his property, and remained in their possession as aforesaid at the time of said seizure, without any notice or knowledge on their part that there was any allegation whatever, that the same had not been duly imported, and the duties paid or secured; or, that the same were on any account liable to seizure, and under the full and entire belief, on their part, that the said goods [wares] and merchandise had been duly imported and entered, and the duties thereon paid or secured according to law.

'October 10th, 1839.

WM. BLACKBURNE & CO.

'Francis Blackburne, being duly sworn, says, I am a member of the firm of William Blackburne & Co., mentioned in the foregoing claim. The facts stated in the foregoing claim are just and true, to the best of my knowledge and belief. The said firm of William Blackburne & Co., at and before the time of the seizure of the goods and merchandise mentioned in the said information and libel, was composed of William Blackburne, Francis Blackburne, Christopher John Blackburne, and Charles F. Shaw; since that time the said Charles F. Shaw has retired from said firm and is no longer a member thereof.

FRS. BLACKBURNE.

'Sworn, October 11th, 1839, before me.

'PTR. CHRISTIAN, Alderman.

'And now, _____, comes John Taylor, jun., and, by leave of the court first had, withdraws so much only of his claim heretofore filed in this case as relates to forty-three pieces of cloths, part of the goods above mentioned, and on behalf of James Buckley, claims twenty-nine pieces of cloth, part of said forty-three pieces, as the property of the said James Buckley, and on behalf of John W. Bradbury, claims fourteen pieces of cloths, the residue of the said forty-three pieces, as the property of the said John W. Bradbury; and the said John Taylor, jun., says, that the said Buckley and Bradbury are respectively the true, sole, and lawful owners of the respective parcels of cloth herein above claimed for them respectively, and, so being the owners, respectively consigned the said several parcels to the said John Taylor, jun., who, as their consignee and factor, at the time of the seizure aforesaid, held, and is still entitled to hold the same, subject to the repayment of the advances made thereon by William Blackburne & Co., in whose actual possession they then were. And the said John Taylor, jun., further says, that the said Buckley and Bradbury are both resident in England, and were, at and before the time of said seizure, and now are, absent from the United States.

'JOHN TAYLOR, Jun.

Page 200

'John Taylor, jun., being duly sworn, says, that the facts above set forth are true to the best of his belief.

'JOHN TAYLOR, Jun.

'Sworn and subscribed before me, February 12th, 1840.

'WILLIAM MILNOR, Alderman.'

In March, 1840, the case came on for trial. Some of the points of law which were raised are thus stated in the record: And the counsel of the said plaintiffs, to support and prove the issue on their part, called as witnesses John J. Logue, George Gideon, and William Cairns, who, being respectively sworn on their voir dire, testified that they went to Blackburne's store, and there assisted in making the seizure of the goods mentioned in the said information; the said Logue and Gideon stating that they were, at the time of making said seizure, inspectors of the customs in the district of Philadelphia, and the said Cairns stating that he was, at the time of making said seizure, an inspector of the customs in the port of New York. Whereupon, the said defendants objected to the admission of said Logue, Gideon, and Cairns, severally, as witnesses for the plaintiffs, they being interested in the event of the case. But the judge overruled the said objections and admitted the said witnesses, to which admission the defendants then and there excepted; and the said Logue, Gideon, and Cairns, were thereupon severally sworn and examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, and proved the facts attending the seizure of the goods, and that certain original marks on packages containing the said goods had been erased, and among them the mark [B]F, which was originally upon one of said packages.

In teh course of the examination of the said witnesses, the following papers were produced and given in evidence, being the affidavit, warrant, and authority under which the seizure of the said goods was made, viz.: A list of the goods seized, affidavit of William Cairns, warrant of Alderman Milnor, authority from Georg Wolf, esq. collector of the port of Philadelphia. It was also proved that the greater part of said goods were seized in an apartment in the second story of the house No. 26 Church alley, adjoining the house No. 24 Church alley, which apartment was occupied by the house No. 24 Church alley, into which a doorway had been cut, the communication between said apartment and the remainder of the house No. 26 Church alley being closed.

The counsel of the United States, further to prove the issue on their part, offered in evidence the bill of lading, entry, and owner's oath, taken on the 16th of July, 1839, in the month preceding the seizure of the goods in question, of nineteen cases of goods, (not part of the goods seized,) marked [B]F 1 a 19. To all which the said defendants objected; but the judge overruled the objection, and admitted the same in evidence. Whereupon the said papers were read in evidence.

[The counsel of the United States, further to prove the issue on

Page 201

their parts, offered evidence to prove that William Blackburne & Co. had, in January, 1839, imported certain invoices (no part of the goods seized) into Philadelphia, and had entered them at the custom-house there; that the goods so imported had been appraised above the invoice prices; that the importers had acquiesced in such appraisement; and that Francis Blackburne thereupon stated that he had passed 140 cases at New York at similar prices, and would cease importing goods here; the counsel stating that this was to be followed by evidence to show that he never did import into New York in his own name. All which evidence was objected to by the defendants, but was admitted by the court, to which the defendants then and there excepted; and the said evidence was thereupon given. And the plaintiffs further proved the admission of the defendant Taylor, that the said mark [B]F was the mark of said defendant Francis Blackburne, and that said Taylor, as the agent of said Blackburne, had paid freight at New York for packages of goods imported there with that mark; and further proved that no importations had been made at that port in the name of said Francis Blackburne, or of said William Blackburne & Co., previously to the summer of 1839, but that large importations had been made there in the name of the claimant, John Taylor, jr. It was proved that the goods seized had been imported into New York, and entered and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 practice notes
  • State v. Nunez, No. 23
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 30, 1999
    ...nature, not punitive, in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Taylor v. United States, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 197, 210, 11 L.Ed. 559 (1845) (opinion of Story, J.) ("In one sense, every law imposing a penalty or forfeiture may be deemed a penal law; in another sense, such l......
  • 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
    ...goods seized on land, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Story in Taylor v. United States, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 197, 211, 11 L.Ed. 559 (1845), The main exception however to the charge is as to the ruling of the judge that there was probable cause of seizure, and that, therefore, th......
  • U.S. v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., VEN-FUE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • March 21, 1985
    ...R. 13, R. 19, R. 20;) and it is also abundantly supported by the authorities. Taylor v. United States, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 197, 210-11, 11 L.Ed. 559 (1845) Wood and Taylor by no means stand alone. The idea that revenue laws are a special breed, sui generis, demanding a more liberal interpretat......
  • U.S. v. Bajakajian, 961487
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1998
    ...v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 683-684, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2091-2092, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974); Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197, 210, 11 L.Ed. 559 (1845) (opinion of Story, J.) (laws providing for in rem forfeiture of goods imported in violation of customs laws, although in one se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
91 cases
  • State v. Nunez, No. 23
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 30, 1999
    ...nature, not punitive, in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Taylor v. United States, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 197, 210, 11 L.Ed. 559 (1845) (opinion of Story, J.) ("In one sense, every law imposing a penalty or forfeiture may be deemed a penal law; in another sense, such l......
  • 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
    ...goods seized on land, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Story in Taylor v. United States, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 197, 211, 11 L.Ed. 559 (1845), The main exception however to the charge is as to the ruling of the judge that there was probable cause of seizure, and that, therefore, th......
  • U.S. v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., VEN-FUE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • March 21, 1985
    ...R. 13, R. 19, R. 20;) and it is also abundantly supported by the authorities. Taylor v. United States, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 197, 210-11, 11 L.Ed. 559 (1845) Wood and Taylor by no means stand alone. The idea that revenue laws are a special breed, sui generis, demanding a more liberal interpretat......
  • U.S. v. Bajakajian, 961487
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1998
    ...v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 683-684, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2091-2092, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974); Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197, 210, 11 L.Ed. 559 (1845) (opinion of Story, J.) (laws providing for in rem forfeiture of goods imported in violation of customs laws, although in one se......
  • 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