It is not the habit of this Court to consider points again open
for discussion, which have been once deliberately decided and have
furnished the groundwork of the judgment already rendered in the
same cause in a stage of the proceedings.
In suits
in rem and in the exchequer side of the
district courts of the United States, the claimant is in actor, and
is entitled to come before the court in that character only in
virtue, of his proprietary interest in the thing in controversy.
This alone gives him a
persona standi in judicio. It is
necessary that he should establish his right to that character as a
preliminary to his admission as a party
ad litem, capable
of, sustaining the litigation.
If the claim be made through an agent, the agent must make oath
as to his belief to the verity of the claim, and if necessary
produce proof of his authority before he can be admitted to put in
the claim.
Allegations and pleadings to the merits are a waiver of the
preliminary inquiry as to, proprietary interest, and admission that
the party is rightly in court and capable of contesting the
merits.
If after proceeding in a cause, the court find the claimant has
no property, or that it is in another not represented, the court
will retain the
res until the real owner shall appear,
claim and receive it from the court.
Upon a writ of error in the exchequer proceeding which has been
tried by a jury, the evidence given at the time of the trial is not
in a strict sense before this Court.
This case was before this Court at February Term, 1823, and is
reported in
21 U. S. 8 Wheat.
391 under the name of
The Sarah. The cause having been
sent back, the libel was changed into an information, charging the
seizure to have been made on land, according to the leave given by
the decree of the court in that case.
The information charges the wine to have been in reality Malaga
wine, falsely exported from New York under the name of Sherry for
the benefit of the drawback. To this information a claim and answer
was given and filed by Benjamin Story as agent for Hazard &
Williams, and on the oath of the said Story claiming the wine as
the property of the said Hazard & Williams, making no answer to
the specific fact charged by the information, that the wine was
Malaga wine, exported under the name of Sherry for the benefit of
drawback, but denying generally the allegations of the information
or that anything had been done to forfeit the wine under the
revenue laws of the United States, and claiming the restoration of
the wine to Hazard & Williams. The record set forth the
evidence on the
Page 26 U. S. 548
question whether the wines were Malaga or Sherry. The verdict of
the jury was for the claimants. The district attorney moved for a
new trial, which was overruled, on which he brought this writ of
error, and made the following assignment of errors.
1. That on 18 December, 1819, this case was tried by jury and
verdict and judgment rendered for the United States.
2. The proceedings under this libel were regular, as the
amendment related to matter of form merely, and not of substance,
and by the 17th section of the Act of Congress 24 September, 1789,
the courts of the United States may establish all necessary rules
for conducting the business of the court, and the 22d section of
the same act provides that "there shall be no reversal for error in
ruling any plea in abatement," &c. The proceedings in this case
were in conformity with the rules of the court in which they were
instituted.
No answer and claim was filed and sworn to by or in the name and
behalf of Charles Hall, the real owner of the said 422 casks of
wine, at the time of the seizure and forfeiture thereof to the
United States.
Page 26 U. S. 549
MR. JUSTICE STORY delivered the opinion of the Court.:
This is the same cause which came before this Court at February
term, 1823, and is reported in
21 U. S. 8 Wheat.
391. The cause having been remanded to the District Court of
Louisiana for further proceedings, the libel or information was
there amended so as to become, technically, an exchequer
information of seizure, and the parties being at issue upon the
question of forfeiture, the jury returned a verdict for the
claimants, upon which judgment was rendered in their favor. Upon
the writ of error now brought up on this last judgment, two grounds
for reversal have been asserted in the assignment of errors spread
upon the record, and the attorney general has now submitted them,
after a brief exposition, to the consideration of the Court.
The first is in substance the same question which was decided by
this Court upon the former appeal, and is presented in the shape of
a reargument by the district attorney. Upon this it is unnecessary
to say more than that we adhere to the opinion formerly expressed,
and can perceive no reason for changing it. It is not the habit of
this Court to consider points again open for discussion which have
been once deliberately decided and have furnished the groundwork of
the judgment already rendered in the same cause in a former stage
of its presentation here.
The second ground is that Messrs. Hazard & Williams, in
whose behalf the claim in this case was interposed, are not the
real owners of the wine under seizure, but the same was owned by
one Charles Hall, so that the claimants are not entitled to any
judgment of restitution.
This objection is founded upon a mistaken view of the time,
nature, and order of the proceedings proper in suits
in
rem, whether arising on the admiralty or exchequer side of the
court. In such suits, the claimant is an actor, and is entitled to
come before the court in that character only, in virtue of his
proprietary interest in the thing in controversy; this alone gives
him a
persona standi in judicio. It is necessary that he
should establish his right to that character as a preliminary to
his admission as a party
ad litem capable of sustaining
the litigation. He is therefore, in the regular and proper course
of practice, required in the first instance to put in his claim
upon oath averring in positive terms his proprietary interest. If
he refuses so to do, it is a sufficient reason for a rejection of
his claim. If the claim be made through the intervention of an
agent, the agent is in like manner required to make oath to his
belief of the verity of the claim, and if necessary, he may also be
required to produce and prove his authority before he
Page 26 U. S. 550
can be admitted to put in the claim. If this is not done, it
furnishes matter of exception, and may be insisted upon by the
adverse party for the dismissal of the claim. If the claim be
admitted upon this preliminary proof, it is still open to
contestation, and, by a suitable exceptive allegation in the
admiralty or by a correspondent plea in the nature of a plea in
abatement to the person of the claimant in the exchequer, the facts
of proprietary interest sufficient to support the claim may be put
in contestation and formally decided. It is in this stage of the
proceedings, and in this only, that the question of the claimant's
right is generally open for discussion. If the claim is admitted
without objection and allegations or pleadings to the merits are
subsequently put in, it is a waiver of the preliminary inquiry, and
an admission that the party is rightly in court and capable of
contesting the merits. If indeed it should afterwards appear upon
the trial, even after the merits have been disposed of in favor of
the claimants, that the claimant had in reality, no title to the
property, but that the same was the property of a third person who
was not represented by the claimant or had an adverse interest or
whose rights had been defrauded, it might still be the duty of the
court to retain the property in its own custody until the true
owner might have an opportunity to interpose a claim and receive it
from the court. But such cases can rarely occur, and are
applications to the discretion of the court for the furtherance of
justice, and in no shape matters which the original
promovent could have a right to require at its hands.
From this review of the practice as to claims in proceedings
in rem, it is obvious that the objection now relied on,
however apparent it might be from the evidence disclosed upon the
record, could not be insisted on as matter of error. In a strict
sense, however, this being a writ of error upon an exchequer
information tried by a jury, the evidence given at the trial is not
properly before us, and as a common law proceeding, the affidavit
of Mr. Henner constitutes no part of the record. But even if that
affidavit were admissible and the objection were now open, it is by
no means clear that it would be available. The property was by the
consent of Hall sold and conveyed to Messrs. Hazard & Williams
in trust for himself. If that conveyance was fraudulent as to
creditors, it was not absolutely void, and only voidable by them.
And at all events we cannot but see that they had full authority to
interpose this claim by the consent of the real owner, and the
irregularity, if any, prejudices no adverse right and interferes
with no rule of justice.
The judgment of the district court must therefore be
affirmed. But a certificate of probable cause of seizure will
be
Page 26 U. S. 551
granted, as such probable cause is not denied to exist, and
indeed is apparent from the verdict of the first jury.
This cause came on, &c., on consideration whereof, it is
considered and adjudged by this Court that there is no error in the
judgment of the said district court of Louisiana in the premises,
and that the same be and hereby is affirmed. And it is further
ordered and adjudged that there was a reasonable cause of seizure
of the wines, and promises set forth, in the information, and that
a certificate thereof be entered of record accordingly, and that
the cause be remanded with directions to the district court of
Louisiana to make restitution to the claimants and otherwise
proceed in the premises according to law.
