Smith v. Brown
New York Supreme Court
Error from the New-York common pleas. This was a qui tarn action, for the recovery of a penalty of $100, given ¡by the tenth section of the act for the inspection of flour and meal.
Read the full summary
Error from the New-York common pleas. This was a qui tarn action, for the recovery of a penalty of $100, given ¡by the tenth section of the act for the inspection of flour and meal. (3 M. L. 328.) The declaration recites various parts of the act; amongst others, the sections requiring that the casks containing flour and meal intended for exportation, shall be branded with the initials of the name of the manufacturer, the net weight of each cask, and the quality of the flour or meal as superfine, fine, fine middling, &c. before the same shall be offered for inspection ; and that the inspector,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
Brown sued Smith in the
court below, for the penalty under the tenth section of the act for the inspection of flour and meal, and to establish the standard weight of grain, passed March 5th, 1813. The penal clause is as follows: “ and if any person shall alter or counterfeit any of the aforesaid brand-marks, whether state or private, such person shall forfeit for every such offence, the sum of one hundred dollars.” The plaintiff in the conrt below recovered. Upon writ of error, the points relied on are, that the declaration is insufficient; that no alteration was…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Morris v. PeopleCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- Schneider v. TurnerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1888
- Sanders v. BettsNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Commonwealth v. HaywardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Westcott v. KingNew York Supreme Court · 1852
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.