McGuire v. Winslow
| Decision Date | 27 January 1886 |
| Parties | MCGUIRE v. WINSLOW and others. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Martin I. Townsend, for defendants.
Thomas H. Breen, for plaintiff.
This action was commenced in the supreme court of this state, and removed to this court upon the petition of the defendants. It is an action of trover, brought to recover the value of a horse alleged to have been wrongfully taken by the defendants from the possession of the plaintiff, and converted to their own use. The defense is that the horse was imported into the United States from the dominion of Canada, in violation of law, and was subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States; and that all the acts done in the premises by the defendants were done by them in the seizure and sale of the horse as officers of the government; the defendant Winslow as a special agent of the treasury department, and the defendant Warren as collector of the port of Cape Vincent.
Upon the trial it appeared that the horse was brought into the district of the defendant Warren, and was seized by him, with the cooperation of the defendant Winslow, upon the assumption that the plaintiff had entered the horse for importation by means of a false invoice, with intent to defraud the United States. The collector, being of opinion that the value of the property seized did not exceed $500, caused an appraisement to be made pursuant to section 3074, Rev. St. Upon the appraisal the property was found to be of less value than $500, and thereupon he caused publication of notice to be made in manner and form, and for the period of time prescribed by section 3075. No person filed any claim to the property seized, pursuant to section 3076. The collector thereupon after the proper time had expired, gave notice of the sale of the property seized, and sold the same at public auction according to the requirements of section 3077, and thereafter he deposited the proceeds of the sale in the treasury of the United States. All the proceedings of the defendants were regular, but evidence was given for the plaintiff tending to show that the horse was not entered by means of a false invoice, and that the purchase price paid for the horse in Canada was truly stated in the invoice. By consent of counsel for the defendants the question of fact was left to the jury whether the property had in fact been entered by means of a false invoice; and the question of law whether the plaintiff could recover if the jury found against the defendants upon the issue of fact was reserved for further consideration. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the question now is whether the defendants are liable.
No precedent has been cited for such an action, and there is no principle upon which it can be sustained. The question whether property which has been seized by the proper revenue officers of the government is liable to forfeiture under the customs laws of the United States can only be adjudicated in the mode and by the procedure prescribed by the laws of congress. By legislation which embraces the whole subject of seizure and forfeiture the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether property has become forfeited to the United States is vested in the federal courts, and is to be exercised by proceedings in rem; and, as was held in the early case of Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1, it depends upon the final decree of such courts whether the seizure is to be deemed rightful or tortious. In Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, it was decided that if a sentence of condemnation be definitely pronounced by the proper court of the United States, it is conclusive that a forfeiture is incurred; if a sentence of acquittal, it is equally conclusive against the forfeiture; that in either case the question cannot again be litigated in any common-law forum that where a seizure is made for a supposed forfeiture under a law of the United States, no action of trespass lies in any common-law tribunal until a final decree is pronounced upon the proceeding in rem to enforce such forfeiture; that if an action be brought against the seizing officer for the supposed trespass while the suit for the forfeiture is pending, the pendency of the suit may be pleaded in abatement; that if an action be brought after a decree of condemnation, or after an acquittal, with a certificate of a reasonable cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scarborough v. Newsome
...the public interest and measures for its protection. See Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 6, 32 L.Ed. 346. The case of McGuire v. Winslow, C.C., 26 F. 304, involved seizure and sale of a horse by an agent of the Treasury Department of the Federal Government when engaged in the enforceme......
-
De Bonis v. United States, Civ. No. 9167.
...to Section 3724 is, in legal effect and operation, equivalent to a sale under judicial decree of forfeiture. See McGuire v. Winslow, C.C.N. D.N.Y.1886, 26 F. 304, cited in The Motor Boat No. L-7869, supra, where it was said that the Collector's sale "had the force and effect of a sale under......
-
Colacicco v. United States
...$500, 17 Stat. 257. Thence it passed into the Revised Statutes, § 3460, and finally into the Code. Judge Wallace upheld it in McGuire v. Winslow, C.C., 26 F. 304, nearly sixty years ago; and so did the Fourth Circuit in 1937. Milkint et al. v. Morganthau, 92 F.2d 266. The district courts ha......
-
Fisburn v. Jackson, 604.
...214 U. S. 320, 29 S. Ct. 671, 53 L. Ed. 1013; Navigazione Libera Triestina v. United States (C. C. A.) 36 F.(2d) 631; McGuire v. Winslow (C. C.) 26 F. 304. The authority, privileges, and duties of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his assistants, etc., in respect to intoxicating liqu......