Conrad's Lots, 87 U.S. 115 (1873)
U.S. Supreme CourtConrad's Lots, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 115 115 (1873)
87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 115
When, under the Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862, an information has been filed in the district court and a decree of condemnation and sale of the land seized been made, and the money has been paid into the registry of the court, and on error to the circuit court, that court, reversing the decree, has dismissed the information but confirmed the sale, and ordered the proceeds to be paid to the owner of the land if on error by the United States to this Court, this Court reverse the decree of the circuit court, and affirm the decree of the district court, that reversal will leave nothing, on which a writ of error by the owner can act. The judgment having been reversed, the confirmation of the sale and order to pay the proceeds fall. The only judgment can be reversal again.
On an information very similar to that in Slidell's Case, filed in the District Court for Louisiana, by The United States v. Ten
Lots of Ground, the property of C. M. Conrad, the lots had been decreed by that court forfeited to the United States, and were sold accordingly, the money being paid into the registry of the court.
On error to the circuit court, that judgment was set aside and the information was ordered to be dismissed, but it was also ordered that the net proceeds of the property sold under the judgment be paid to Conrad, and that the sale stand confirmed.
Two writs of error were sued out, one by the United States and one by Conrad, that by the United States being to the action of the circuit court in setting aside the judgment of the district court and ordering the information to be dismissed, and that by Conrad to the action of the court confirming the sale made under the judgment of condemnation and forfeiture.
On the writ taken by the United States, this Court (just after reversing the judgment in Slidell's Case) reversed the judgment in Conrad's Case also, and for the same reasons that it had reversed the judgment in Slidell's Case, and remanded the cause, with instructions to affirm the judgment or decree of the district court.
The present case was on the writ of error taken by Conrad, and upon it he now sought here to obtain a reversal of so much of the judgment as confirmed the sale made under the judgment of condemnation and forfeiture.