McGlinchy v. United States
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine
[In error to the district court of the United States for the district of Maine.] This was an action of debt by the United States, to recover penalties and duties for certain goods unlawfully imported into the United States, and bought by the defendant [James McGlinchy], knowing that the same were so imported.
Read the full summary
[In error to the district court of the United States for the district of Maine.] This was an action of debt by the United States, to recover penalties and duties for certain goods unlawfully imported into the United States, and bought by the defendant [James McGlinchy], knowing that the same were so imported. The case was tried in the district court, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiffs. [Case unreported.J Exceptions were taken, and a writ of error was sued out, and the cause removed to this court.
1Opinion of the Court
CLIFFORD, Circuit Justice.
Persons who receive, conceal, or buy goods, wares, or merchandise, knowing the same to have been illegally imported, if the goods are liable to seizure by virtue of any act in relation to the revenue, shall, on conviction thereof, forfeit and pay a sum double the amount or value of the goods so received, concealed, or purchased. 3 Stat. 7S1. Distilled spirits were, by section 14 of the act of March 2, 1867, made subject to a tax of $2 upon every proof gallon, to be paid by the distiller, owner, or any person having possession thereof, and the same section makes the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Moore Dry Goods Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1923
- United States v. National Sugar Refining Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1951
- United States v. 10,000 Copies New York NightsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- National Sugar Refining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.