United States v. Allen
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
THIS was an action of debt, brought to the district court, alleging that the defendant was master of the schooner Amazon, was concerned in fitting her out, and l*iat by his procurement she escaped without any clear-anee or permit, and departed from the port of New-Haven, and proceeded to a foreign port, contrary to the provisions of the embargo acts, particularly the first supplementary act, approved January 9, 1808 ; and demand-ijig the penalty of 20,000 dollars.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt, brought to the district court, alleging that the defendant was master of the schooner Amazon, was concerned in fitting her out, and l*iat by his procurement she escaped without any clear-anee or permit, and departed from the port of New-Haven, and proceeded to a foreign port, contrary to the provisions of the embargo acts, particularly the first supplementary act, approved January 9, 1808 ; and demand-ijig the penalty of 20,000 dollars. The defendant pleaded nil debet; and the jury found, a general verdict that “ the defendant doth owe,” without assessing damages.…
1Opinion of the CourtLivingston, J.
This penalty may be recovered as under the collection law. The 89th section of that act(a) authorizes a civil action only to recover the penalty for a breach. The word “ suit” implies, ex vi termini, a civil action. No part of the collection law contemplates an indictment. The difficulties suggested are real; but the statute has prescribed this course. It has been held by the circuit court in Vermont and in Virginia, that the District-Attorney had no option, but was obliged to bring an action of debt, until the enforcing law passed. Till then he was obliged to proceed by suit; and there is no…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Stockwell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Stockwell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1871