Ex Parte Jesse Hoyt
Supreme Court of the United States
ON the 23d December, 1838; an information-was-filed by the district attorney, on behalf óf the United States, in the District Court of the United States, for the southern district of New York, alleging that the goods therein described had been seized by the collector as forfeited to the use of the United States, for violation of the revenue laws, Sec. See.;, and prayed the usual process and monition of the Court, and the condemnation of the said goods.
Read the full summary
ON the 23d December, 1838; an information-was-filed by the district attorney, on behalf óf the United States, in the District Court of the United States, for the southern district of New York, alleging that the goods therein described had been seized by the collector as forfeited to the use of the United States, for violation of the revenue laws, Sec. See.;, and prayed the usual process and monition of the Court, and the condemnation of the said goods. By a standing rule of the Court, adopted on the 19th of October, 1801, it was ordered, “ that whenever the attorney of the district shall, in…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Story
delivered the opinion of the Court.—
This is the case of a motion made by the collector of New York for a mandamus to be directed to the district judge of the southern district of New York, under -the following circumstances. The collector, on the 2 6 th of. December last, made a motion in a certain causé of . seizure then depending before the said judge, that the clause of the common monition,' issued in that cause, by which (according to the corrimon practice in such cases,) the marshal is- directed to detain the goods attached by virtue of the said monition in his custody, until the further…
2Cited by32 opinions
- Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. MorrisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- State v. CobbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1972
- People ex rel. Doughty v. Judges of Dutchess C. P.New York Supreme Court · 1839
- Detroit Tug & Wrecking Co. v. GartnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Smyth v. TitcombSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1850
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.