United States v. Mayo
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
[Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] Debt for a penalty under the embargo law of 1808. The defendant [Asa Mayo] pleaded, —1st, the general issue; 2d, the statute limiting prosecutions for any fine or forfeiture under any penal statute to two years from the time of committiijg the offence. [1 Stat. 112.] To this plea there was a demurrer and joinder.
1Opinion of the Court
STORY, Circuit Justice.
The question on this record is, whether the limitation of the 32d section of the act of 30th of April, 1790, c. 9, be applicable to an action of debt, brought to recover a pecuniary penalty, under the 3d section of the act of 9th of January, 1808, c. 8. Since the case of Adams v. Woods, 2 Crunch [6 U. S.] 336. which I confess, at first, struck my mind as going a great length in construction, it must be considered as settled law, that an action of debt for a penalty arising under a statute previously or subsequently enacted is within the purview of that section. It is…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Baines v. New Hampshire Senate PresidentSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
- United States v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Mikell v. Philadelphia School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Brown v. ElderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1904
- People's United States Bank v. GoodwinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1908
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.