Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.
| John Den, ex dem. James B. Murray et al. v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Decided February 19, 1856 | |
| Full case name | John Den, ex dem. James B. Murray et al. v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company |
| Citations | 59 U.S. 272 (more)
15 L. Ed. 372; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2205; 18 HOW 272
|
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Curtis, joined by unanimous court |
Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. 59 U.S. 272 (1856), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.
Three cases came up from the circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. The dispute arose from attempts to recover money embezzled by Customs agents at the Port of New York who purchased land with stolen money.
This case arose from an action of ejectment, in which both parties claimed title to certain property. Defendants claimed title under a sale by virtue of what was referred to as a distress warrant, issued by the solicitor of the treasury under an act of Congress.
The judges for the court below were in disagreement as to whether the sale was valid in that there was some question as to whether the statute that produced the distress warrant proceeding was constitutional.
This action arose from a certified question from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, in which the judges could not agree whether a distress warrant, issued pursuant to statute, was valid and constitutional.
The United States Supreme Court found that under the Constitution of the United States, an individual from whom a balance of account had been found due would not be deprived of his liberty, or property by having payment of that balance enforced, without the exercise of the judicial power of the United States. A distress warrant, issued by the solicitor of the treasury under the act of Congress passed on the 15th May, 1820, (3 Stats. at Large, 592,) is consistent with the Constitution.
The Court also found that after the levy of the distress warrant had begun, the individual could bring before a district court the question of whether he was actually indebted as recited in the warrant.
Thus, the Court answered the lower court's question by finding that there was no constitutional problem with the distress warrant and that the sale was valid.
...
Wikipedia