MORRIS AND JOHNSON
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
The District Court improperly rendered a personal judgment against Morris and Johnson for the value of cotton, as the information procedure could not be sustained for unlawful conversion of property and the applicable statutes of 1861 and 1862 did not authorize in rem proceedings where no specific property or proceeds existed for seizure. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, directing restitution to the appellants of all sums paid under the erroneous decree.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. In procéeding to render a personal judgment against the defendants, for the value of the cotton, as found by it, the District Court erred. Without adverting to the principles settled in the cases of the Union Insurance Company v. United States, * and Armstrong’s Foundry,† we are glearly of opinion — first, that the information, at most, presents only a case of the unlawful conversion of property to the use of the appellants, and that for redress of such an inj ury this proceeding • by information cannot be sustained; and second, that neither the act of 1861 nor the act of 1862 contemplated any proceeding, as in admiralty, where there existed no specific property or proceeds capable of seizure and capture. ' The decree of the District Court must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the District Court to cause restitution to be made to the appellants of whatever sum of money they have been compelled to pay-under that decree. * 6 Wallace, 763. † Ib. 769.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cap. Transit Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Dist. of Columbia, 213 F.2d 176 (D.C. Cir. 1953)…restitution in a sum stated, cf. Cox v. Dixie Power Co., 81 Utah 94, 16 P. 2d 916 (1932), or by directing the trial court to award restitution of such amount as had [*196] erroneously been paid, cf. Morris and Johnson v. United States, 7 Wall. 578, 19 L.Ed. 281 (U.S.1867). The trial court itself has power to order restitution in an independent suit, Carroll v. Draughon, 173 Ala. 338, 56 So. 209 (1911), or upon a motion filed in the original proceeding, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781,…