Imlay v. Sands
New York Supreme Court
THIS caufe came before the court on demurrer. It was an aétion of treflpafs againft the defendant, collector of the cuftoms at the port of New-York, for feizing, and taking in April 1799 the plaintiff’s brig and her cargo, under the a£fc of the 13th June 1798* fufpending the commercial intercourfe between the United States, and France, and the dependencies thereof.
Read the full summary
THIS caufe came before the court on demurrer. It was an aétion of treflpafs againft the defendant, collector of the cuftoms at the port of New-York, for feizing, and taking in April 1799 the plaintiff’s brig and her cargo, under the a£fc of the 13th June 1798* fufpending the commercial intercourfe between the United States, and France, and the dependencies thereof. The declaration .was in the common form, to which the defendant pleaded, firft the general ifíue, and fecondly actio non “ Becaufe that at the time when the treflpafs a- “ forefaid in the declaration aforefaid mentioned is above “…
1Opinion of the Court
Hoffman for the demurrant.
The only queftion is, whether the fadts fet forth on the record be a fuificient juftification of Sands, the colledtor, for the trefpafs with which he is charged. It has long been fettled that probable caufe of feizure cannot be urged by a cuftom-houfe/officer in ex-cufe, if the event prove that there was no legal and adtual reafon for the taking. In Leglife v. Champante,* the defendant had feized feveral hogiheads of French wines belonging to the plaintiff under pretence of their being lees ; on an information in the exchequer it was determined againft him, and in an…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Burke v. TrevittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1816
- Pierson v. Bank of WashingtonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1828