Sailly v. Smith
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass, de bonis asportatis. The defendant was collector of the customs for the district of Champlain, and the action was brought to recover damages for the seizure of certain dry goods specified in the declaration.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass, de bonis asportatis. The defendant was collector of the customs for the district of Champlain, and the action was brought to recover damages for the seizure of certain dry goods specified in the declaration. The defendant pleaded, 1. Not guilty. 2. That the defendant, as collector of the district of Chain-plain, seized the goods as forfeited; that they were, after the 2d of March, 1811, to wit, on the 1st of March, 1812, imported into the United States from Loner Canada, contrary to the statute of the United States, in such case made and provided» whereby they…
1Opinion of the CourtYates, J.
The powers delegated by law to the defendant, as collector of the customs for the district of Champlain, are sufficient to authorize the" seizure of the goods.
By the 8th section of “ the act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and! France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes,” “ the' collector, naval officer, surveyor, arid other officer" of the customs, shall have the like power, and authority to seize goods, wares, and merchandises, imported contrary to the intent and meaning of that act; to keep the same in custody, until it shall…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Jones v. GibsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1818
- Williams v. DelanoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Andrew Lennette, Individually and on behalf of C.L., O.L. and S.L., Minor Children v. State of Iowa, Melody Siver, Amy Howell, and Valerie LovagliaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2022