Legal Opinion
United States v. Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided March 20, 1911PublishedCited by 7 opinions
Libel by the United States against Two Barrels of Desiccated Eggs. On exceptions filed by Armour & Co., claimants.
1Opinion of the Court
WILLARD, District Judge.
This is a proceeding under section 10 of the food and drugs act of June 30, 1906 (Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 771 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1193]), Armour & Co. appeared as claimant of the property, and has filed exceptions to the libel.
1. The first exception is as follows:
“That it appears upon the face of said libel that at the time of the filing thereof no seizure of the property therein described had been made by the libelant, and that this court has, therefore, no jurisdiction over said property.”
The claimant- says that for the last 100 years it has…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Lottery CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Confiscation CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Hipolite Egg Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Gelston v. HoytSupreme Court of the United States · 1818
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. 935 CASES MORE OR LESS, ETC.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- United States v. 62 Packages, More or LessDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1943
- United States v. Eighteen Cases of Tuna FishDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1925
- United States v. One Hundred Barrels of VinegarDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1911
- United States v. 300 Cans of Frozen EggsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.