U. STATES mit and receiving the duties. The acts of officers are to be favored. 16 Vin. 114, tit. Officers. 17 Vin. 153 ซ. 1960 BAGS OF The permit to land the coffee, and the receipt for the COFFEE. duties are conclusive evidence to all the world, except the illegal importer, that the coffee was lawfully imported. If a Claimant encourage the vendee to buy, his claim shall be postponed to that of the purchaser. Sugden on Vendors, 480. Acceptance of rent is an admission of title. 18 Vin. 149. So here acceptance of the duties is an admission of a lawful importation. A purchaser is only bound to use reasonable diligence. He has only to ask whether there be a regular permit to land the goods, and whether the duties have been paid. If the officers were mistaken, and have given evidence of a good title, their mistake ought not to injure an innocent purchaser. 2 Br. C. C. 389-5 TR. 118-1 T. R, 260– & Cranch, 389, 390. The inconveniences of such a rule would be intolerable-the utmost prudence could not prevent a man from loss. In personal chattels, possession is the criterion of title, 13 Ves. jr. 121. HARPER, on the same side. This is a case of bona fide, purchase, for a valuable consideration without notice. It is presumed to be without notice, because the contrary does not appear. The only case supposed to be against us is that of Roberts v. Withered, 5 Mod. 191. 12 Mod. 92, Salk. 223. That was a case of detinue against the wrong-doer. There was no intervention of a purchaser without notice. The relation of the forfeiture to the time of the offence is never suffered to over-reach an innocent purchaser without notice. Relation is a fiction of law, which is never allowed to do injustice. Where a party not only conceals his claim, but gives out that the title is clear he shall be postponed. The permit was evidence on which the Claimant had a right to rely. No one can take advantage of his own act to injure another. As to the common law doctrine of forfeiture, the บ. OF cases of treason and felony furnish the general rule ; U. STATES PINKNEY, in reply, The letter of the act of congress is plain and express. The forfeiture is the necessary and immediate consequence of the offence. No other time is mentioned. He did not mean to say that the title of the United States is consummated until condemnation. But the forfeiture attaches by the commission of the offence, and overreaches all intermediate acts. This doctrine is necessary for the public good, otherwise the rights of the United States would be defeated by fictitious sales, the fraud of which it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to detect. The forfeiture of the thing, by which the offence is committed, is the punishment itself, not a mere consequence of a disability. It passes to the purchaser cum onere. Where legal rights have attached the rule caveat emptor always applies, but never to equitable liens without notice. As to real estate, the relation in treason and felony was to the offence committed-why did not the argument ab inconvenienti control the rule in that case? Plowden, 260, 290. In the case of deodand—a horse kicks a man: before the man dies the horse is sold-the man dies, the horse is forfeited as deodand. 1 U. STATES ช OF Where is the notoriety? The true reason is, that it is a forfeiture of the offending thing. In felony, nothing 1960 BAGS but sale in market overt can prevent the relation of the forfeiture to the time of the offence. If felo de se give COFFEE. himself a mortal wound, and before his death convey - his estate, and die, the conveyance is void. So in the case of flight after felony. The law looks principally to the thing for punishment. The general rule of the law of England is that a purchaser of personal goods is not safe unless he purchased in market overt. If the United States could be estopped by the acts of their officers, the plea is as good in behalf of the illegal importer as of the innocent purchaser. The purchaser was as much bound to know of the offence as to the collector. But the collector had no authority to waive the penaly, and therefore cannot be presumed to have waived it. If he had even given a release of the forfeiture it would have been void. The argument ab inconvenienti, is rather an argument ad misericordiam. If there be hardship in the case, application should be made to the secretary of the treasury who has power to relieve. In the St. Domingo cases, the law had expired, without any provision being made to enforce the penalty in existing cases. After the expiration of the law the Court had no authority to condemn; and the appeal annulled the sentence of the Court below. March 15th. (MARSHALL, Ch. J. being absent, ) JOHNSON, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows: This case has been argued very elaborately and has been a long time under consideration. But from the decision which the Court has at length come to, its merits are brought within a very limited compass. We are of opinion that the question rests altogether on the wording of the act of Congress: by which it is OF COFFEE. expressly declared that the forfeiture shall take place U. STATES upon the commission of the offence. If the phraseology were such as, in the opinion of the majority of the Court, to 1960 BAGS admit of doubt, it would then be proper to resort to analogy and the doctrine of forfeiture at common law, to assist the mind in coming to a conclusion. But from the view in which the subject appears to a majority of the Court all assistance derivable from that quarter becomes unnecessary. It is true that cases of hardship and even absurdity may be supposed to grow out of this decision, but on the other hand if by a sale it is put in the power of an offender to purge a forfeiture, a state of things not less absurd will certainly result from it. When hardships shall arise, prevision is made by law for affording relief under authority much more competent to decide on such cases, than this Court ever can be. In the eternal struggle that exists between the avarice, enterprize and combinations of individuals on the one hand, and the power charged with the administration of the laws on the other, severe laws are rendered necessary to enable the executive to carry into effect the measures of policy adopted by the legislature. To them belongs the right to decide on what event a divesture of right shall take place, whether on the commission of the offence, the seizure, or the condemnation. In this instance we are of opinion that the commission of the offence marks the point of time on which the statutary transfer of right takes place, The decree of the Circuit Court of Maryland on the demurrer, is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded that the issue in fact may be tried. STORY, J. The decree which has just been pronounced by a majority of the Court is decisive of the case of the Mars, which is now pending in this Court, and my decision therein must be reversed. The opinion which I there held and the reasons which support it, are disclosed on the record, and though the discussion in this Court has not increased my confidence in that opinion; nevertheless as I am not yet satisfied of its incorrectness, and two U. STATES of my brethren concur in it, I shall make no apology for บ. introducing it in this place. 1960 BAGS OF COFFEE. It is as follows: The present information proceeds for a forfeiture of the brig Mars upon the allegation that the brig departed from the United States bound to a permitted port without giving bond pursuant to the act of the 1st of March 1809, ch. 91, § 16. There are other counts in the information which I need not now consider, because it is admitted there was a forfeiture under the first ̧ count, and the answer of the present Claimant sets up, as a justification of his title, that he is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration and without notice of the offence; and it is admitted that this justification is true in point of fact; and that there have been no laches either as to the United States, or as to the purchaser. The question presented to the Court is, whether property, which has become forfeited to the United States, and afterwards, and before seizure, while remaining in the possession of the vendor, is sold to a bona fide purchaser for a valuble consideration without notice, is protected against the claim of the United States. This question is peculiarly delicate and interesting in whatever way it is considered. On the one hand it strikes at the root of almost all the forfeitures in rem which the legislature has provided to guard the revenue laws from abuse; and if the decision be against the United States, it may open a wide field for fraud and colorable transfers, to the encouragement of offenders, On the other hand, if the secret taint of forfeiture be indissolubly attached to the property, so that at any time and under any circumstances within the limitations of law, the United States may enforce their rights against innocent purchasers, it is easy to foresee that great embarrassments will arise to the commercial interests of the country; and no man, whatever may be his caution or diligence, can guard himself from injury and perhaps ruin. Considerations of this nature have pressed heavily upon my mind, and I have therefore been solicitous to avoid a discussion involving so much public as well as private importance, I could have wished to have reserv, |