United States v. One Dark Bay Horse
| Decision Date | 25 April 1904 |
| Docket Number | 29. |
| Citation | 130 F. 240 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ONE DARK BAY HORSE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
James L. Martin, U.S. Atty.
G. F Ladd and S. R. Boright, for claimant.
This is an information for condemnation of the horse as forfeited by being brought into this country from Canada in avoidance of entry, or declaration for or payment of duties. A claimant has appeared, and pleaded that he purchased the horse on the 21st day of December, 1897, at Berkshire, in the county of Franklin, without knowing or having reason to suspect it had been imported, where he ever since kept it, and has never concealed it, and that he has not himself since been out of the United States, and that the forfeiture did not accrue within three years before seizure. To this plea the government has replied that the forfeiture accrued in 1897 and was unknown to any officer of the government until December, 1903, when known to any officer of the government until December, 1903, when the claimant was informed thereof by a deputy collector of customs, and requested to make entry of the horse and pay the duties thereon, which he refused to do; whereupon it was seized as set forth in the information. To this replication the claimant has demurred.
Acts of Congress brought into and forming section 1047 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 727) barred proceedings for forfeiture after five years, provided the person of the offender or the property should, within the same period, be found within the United States, so that the proper process might be brought against either. Section 22 of an act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. 190, c. 391), bars suits or actions to recover forfeitures 'accruing under the customs revenue laws' after three years, but provides that time of absence of the person from the United States, or 'of any concealment or absence of the property, shall not be reckoned.' 1 U.S.Comp.St. 1901,p. 727. The forfeiture was absolute and complete, without any alternative of value immediately upon the importation in avoidance of the customs office. Rev. St. Sec. 3099 (2 U.S.Comp.St. 1901,p. 2026); Caldwell v. United States, 8 How. 366, 12 L.Ed 1115; In re Henderson's Distilled Spirits, 14 Wall. 44, 20 L.Ed. 815. The allegations of the plea seem to bring the case within both of these sections, except that there is no direct allegation that the forfeiture did not accrue within five...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Worldwide Indus. Enters., Inc., 16–CV–2255 (JFB) (SIL)
...Fraser, 156 F.Supp. 144, 147 (D. Mont. 1957) ; United States v. Wilson, 133 F.Supp. 882, 883 (N.D. Cal. 1955) ; United States v. One Dark Bay Horse, 130 F. 240, 241 (D. Vt. 1904).3 For similar reasons, the Court disagrees with Worldwide's argument that Gabelli, 133 S.Ct. at 1221, supports t......
-
U.S. v. Meyer
...F. 532 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 191 F. 573 (3d Cir.1911), cert. denied, 225 U.S. 710, 32 S.Ct. 840, 56 L.Ed. 1268 (1912); United States v. One Dark Bay Horse, 130 F. 240 (D.Vt.1904).9 In any event, the Durning panel held the statute of limitations at issue to be inapplicable. 86 F.2d at ...
-
Fanchier v. Gammill
... ... support in the opinions of the supreme court of the United ... States whose equity courts have expounded in a learned way ... the ... ...
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Straub
...the early cases cited above at least suggest that the 1839 version of the statute did not toll. See also United States v. One Dark Bay Horse, 130 F. 240, 241-42 (D. Vt. 1904) (in case involving condemnation of property, analyzing both a Section 2462 predecessor and the 1874 customs limitati......