Legal Opinion

United States v. One Bay Horse & One Bugg

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided February 8, 1904No. 9,573PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KOHESAAT, District Judge.

Lottie Chaney makes application to the court for the return to her of her horse and buggy seized and claimed as forfeited by the government as property found and used on the premises of her husband, Morris Chaney, and other parties, who *208have pleaded guilty to the violation of the statutes in. regard to the sale and manufacture of oleomargarine. The proceeding was instituted under section 17 of the act of August 2, 1886, c. 840, 24 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2234], which provides “that whenever any person engaged in carrying on the business of manufacturing…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. StowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. Dobbins's Distillery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Daviess v. FairbairnSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
  4. United States v. Two Bay MulesDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1888
  5. Pilcher v. FairclothSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Maresca v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
  2. States v. ManganoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924
  3. United States v. DworkinDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API