Van Ness v. Buel/Opinion of the Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of Vermont. This was an action of assumpsit, in which the defendant in error, Buel, declared against the plaintiff in error, Van Ness, on the money counts, and gave evidence that the sums of money, for the recovery of which this suit was brought, were the proceeds of a moiety of a certain seizure of goods, as forfeited, which seizure was made in the district of Vermont, on the 6th day of July 1812, while the plaintiff below was collector of the customs for said district, &c., which goods were libelled, in September, 1812, in the district court, and condemned at the October term of the circuit court, 1813. That the plaintiff below was appointed collector on the 16th of March 1811, and remained in office until the 15th of February 1813, when he was removed from office by the president, and the defendant below appointed to the same office; and received the proceeds of the goods condemned. That various other parcels of goods were seized and libelled, while the plaintiff below was collector, but were condemned after his removal from office, and the proceeds received by the defendant below.

The court below charged the jury, that the defendant in error was entitled to recover a moiety of the seizures so made by him, during his continuance in office, and condemned after his removal. The jury found a verdict, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff below; and a bill of exceptions having been taken to the charge of the court below, the cause was brought by writ of error to this court. The cause was submitted, without argument.

STORY, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case differs from that of Jones v. Shore's Executors, in two circumstances; first, that this is the case of a seizure of goods for an asserted forfeiture; and secondly, that before the proceedings in rem were consummated by a sentence, the collector who made the seizure was removed from office. In our judgment, neither of these facts affords any ground to except this case from the principles which were established in Jones v. Shore's Executors. It was there expressly held, that the collector acquired an inchoate right by the seizure, which, by the subsequent decree of condemnation, gives him an absolute vested title to his share in the forfeiture. Without overturning the doctrine of that case, the present is not susceptible to argument; and we, therefore, unanimously affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Judgment affirmed.