UNITED STATES
v.
ABATOIR PLACE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In United States v. Abatoir Place, the Supreme Court held that a district court's refusal to grant a certificate of reasonable cause is not a final judgment subject to appellate review by writ of error. The Court reasoned that such a certificate is a collateral matter arising after final judgment, designed to protect officials from subsequent trespass actions, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for appeal to higher courts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Woods,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
We are of opinion that the refusal of the District Court to grant a certificate of reasonable cause is not a matter which can be reviewed in' the Circuit Court or in this court. It is only from final judgments that a writ of error lies from the District to the Circuit Court,.or from the latter court to the Supreme Court.
The granting or^ the refusal to grant the certificate is not a final judgment in the sense of the statute which allows writs of error. The certificate, when granted, is no part of the original case. It is a collateral matter which arises after final judgment.
It is granted to protect the person at whose instance the seizure was made, should an action of trespass be brought against him by the claimant for the wrongful seizure of the latter’s property. The granting of the certificate of reasonable cause is, therefore, only antecedent and ancillary to another suit, and is not a final judgment in the case in which it is given. It is not final or effectual for any purpose unless certain facts subsequent to the judgment are shown, namely, the immediate return to-the claimant or his agent of the property' seized in the original suit.
This court has decided that a refusal to enter an exoneretur on .a bail bond, that judgments awarding, or-refusing to award, or setting aside writs of restitution in actions of ejectment, that a judgment on a writ of error coram nobis, that a judgment refusing a writ of venditioni exponas, that a refusal to quash an execution or to quash a forthcoming bond, were not final judgments, to which a writ of error would lie. Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 635; Pickett's Heirs v. Legerwood, 7 id. 144; Smith v. Trabue, 9 id. 4; Evans v. Gee, 14 id. 1; Amis. v. Smith, 16 id. 303; Morsell v. Hall, 18 How. 212; McCargo v. Chapman, 20 id. 555; Gregg v. Forsyth, 2 Wall. 56; Barton v. Forsyth, 5 id. 190. See also Barker v. Hollier, 8 Mee. & W. 513.
These authorities lead to the opinion we have expressed in this case.
Judament affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowe v. Kansas, 163 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1896)…ase the certificate is granted or refused by the court upon a hearing of both parties subsequent to the trial of the main issue and upon motion of the United States for such certificate. Averill v. Smith, 17 Wall. 82; United States v. Abatoir Place, 106 U. S. 160; United States v. Frerichs, 16 Blatch. 547; The City of Mexico, 25 Fed. Eep. 924. A similar procedure is contemplated by section 975, mailing the informer or plaintiff in a’ penal statute liable for costs, unless he be an officer of the United Stat…
-
United States v. Frerichs, 124 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1888)…the order denying the motion for. a certificate of reasonable cause of seizure. The United States sued out a writ of error from this court to review the proceedings in the Circuit Court, and raised the question here, (United States v. Abatoir Place, 106 U. S. 160,) that there was error in refusing to grant a certificate of reasonable cause of seizure. Tins court held that the action of the District Court on the motion could not be reviewed either by the Circuit Court or by this court. In the suit brought by…
-
United States v. Tito Campanella Societa DI Navigazione, 217 F.2d 751 (4th Cir. 1954)…ut that was done in this case and counsel for both sides filed affidavits with regard thereto. It has been held that the action of the court in entering certificate, [*757] under the statute is not subject to review. United States v. Abatoir Place, 106 U.S. 160, 161, 1 S.Ct. 169, 27 L.Ed. 128; United States v. 83 Sacks of Wool and 5,974 Sheepskins, D.C., 147 F. 747, 749. However that may be, we find no basis here for disturbing the judge’s action in granting the certificate even if we had the power to do s…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 635 (U.S. 1832)
- Gregg v. Forsyth, 2 Wall. 56 (U.S. 1864)