Origet v. United States
Decision Date | 19 March 1888 |
Citation | 125 U.S. 240,8 S.Ct. 846,31 L.Ed. 743 |
Parties | ORIGET v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Edwin B. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for defendant in error.
This is a suit in rem, brought by the United States in the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, against four cases of merchandise, seized for forfeiture for violations of the customs revenue laws. One of them was imported into the port of New York on the 6th of March, 1882, and the other three were imported on the 10th of March, 1882. The information proceeds against them for violations of sections 2839 and 2864 of the Revised Statutes, and of the twelfth section of the act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, (18 St. 188.) The latter section is in these words: As the material questions in the case arise in respect to section 12 of the act of 1874, it will not be necessary to refer particularly to the counts founded on the sections of the Revised Statutes.
One count in regard to three of the cases alleges that on or about the 10th of March, 1882, the owner, importer, consignee, or agents of the merchandise, or some other person or persons now unknown to the collector and to the attorney for the United States, with intent to defraud the revenue, made or attempted to make an entry of the merchandise, which was then and there subject to duties, and had been imported into the United States, within the district of the city of New York, from Paris, a foreign place, by way of Havre, in the vessel Amerique, by means of false and fraudulent invoices, affidavits, letters, and papers, and by means of false statements, written and verbal, by means whereof the United States were deprived of the lawful duties, or a portion thereof, accruing upon the merchandise, or a portion thereof, embraced and referred to in such invoices, affidavits, letters, and papers, and such false statements, the cases whose contents are proceeded against for forfeiture containing particular articles of merchandise to which said alleged frauds related, contrary to said twelfth section. Another count in regard to the three cases ale ges that on or about the 10th of March, 1882, the owner, importer, consignee, or agents of the merchandise, or some other person or persons now unknown to the dollector and to the said attorney, with intent to defraud the revenue, made or attempted to make an entry of the merchandise, which was then and there subject to duties, and had been imported into the United States within said district, from Paris, a foreign place, by way of Wavre, in the ship Amerique, and that the said owner, im- porter, consignee, or agents, and other person or persons unknown, was and were guilty of certain acts and omissions whereby the United States were deprived of the lawful duties, or a portion thereof, accruing upon the merchandise, or a portion thereof, affected by said acts and omissions, the cases whose contents are proceeded against for forfeiture containing particular articles of merchandise to which said alleged frauds and said acts and omissions related, contrary to said twelfth section. There were two similar counts in regard to the fourth case. The counts founded on section 2839 of the Revised Statutes allege a failure to invoice the goods according to their actual cost at the place of exportation, with design to avoid the duties thereon; and those founded on section 2864 allege an entry of, or attempt to enter, the goods by means of false invoices and papers. A claim was interposed by one Origet, as owner of the goods, and an answer denying that the goods became 'forfeited in manner and form as in said information is alleged.' The case was tried by a jury, and the minutes of the trial show that the jury rendered 'a verdict for the informants and against the claimant for the condemnation of the goods mentioned in the information, and that the goods were brought in with intent to defraud the United States.' Thereupon a decree was entered, which set forth that the jury having 'by their verdict found for the United States, condemning the said goods,' they were 'accordingly condemned as forfeited to the United States.' On a writ of error sued out by the claimant from the circuit court, that court affirmed the decree of the district court, and remanded the case to the latter court for the execution of its decree. The claimant has brought the case to this court by a writ of error.
The counsel for the claimant seeks to raise objections to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Bajakajian
...irrelevant; indeed, the owner of forfeited property could be entirely innocent of any crime. See, e.g., Origet v. United States, 125 U.S. 240, 246, 8 S.Ct. 846, 850, 31 L.Ed. 743 (1888) (" [T]he merchandise is to be forfeited irrespective of any criminal prosecution . . . The person punishe......
-
United States v. McDonald
... ... States, before a federal court can find the errors and ... reverse the judgment. Rev. St. Sec. 953; Clune v ... U.S., 159 U.S. 590, 16 Sup.Ct. 125; Blake v ... U.S., 18 C.C.A. 117, 71 F. 286; Mussina v ... Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355, 363; Origet v. U.S., ... 125 U.S. 240, 8 Sup.Ct. 846. We cannot reverse this ... judgment on the ground that these alleged errors in the ... charge of the court exist (1) because there may have been ... evidence which warranted them, and all the evidence is not ... presented to us, so that we can see ... ...
-
Director of Finance of Prince George's County v. Cole
...U.S. (3 Cranch) at 350-51. See also United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 244, 33 L.Ed. 555 (1890); Origet v. United States, 125 U.S. 240, 8 S.Ct. 846, 31 L.Ed. 743 (1888); Henderson's Distilled Spirits, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 44, 20 L.Ed. 815 (1872); United States v. 1960 Bags of Coff......
-
In re Forfeiture of $180,975
...against, convicted and punished. The forfeiture is no part of the punishment for the criminal offense. Origet v. United States, 125 U.S. 240, 245-247, 8 S.Ct. 846, 31 L.Ed. 743 (1888). In One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965), the United......
-
Chapter 11. Customs and Border Protection's Authority to Assess Monetary Penalties and to Seize an Importer's Merchandise
...is 19 U.S.C. § 1605. 51. See , e.g ., Various Items of Pers. Prop. v. United States, 282 U.S. 577, 581 (1931); Origet v. United States, 125 U.S. 240 (1888); One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972) (per curiam). 52. 19 U.S.C. § 1618; 19 C.F.R. pts. 0, 162, 171, and 1......
-
United States v. Ursery: the Long Arm of the Law Gets Reattached - Brian C. Max
...at 395-401. 49. 282 U.S. 577 (1931). 50. Id.at 581. 51. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938); see also Origet v. United States, 125 U.S. 240 (1888). 52. 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 881 (West Supp. 1996); Gurule, supra note 27, at 157-58. 53. 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 881(a); Gurule, supra note 27, at......