CLAIMS OF MARCUARD ET AL.
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.
Marcuard and others sought to claim proceeds from the sale of property belonging to John Slidell that had been confiscated by the United States under the Confiscation Act. The Supreme Court affirmed that the claimants had no legal interest in confiscation proceedings and were properly barred from intervening, as only Slidell's rights could be condemned and sold, and the sale did not affect any liens the claimants might hold. The Court held that upon condemnation, the United States succeeded to Slidell's position in the property, and the sale served only to make the confiscated property available for uses designated by the Confiscation Act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. The parties now before us complain that they were not allowed to take the proceeds of the sales. But they ought' not to have been allowed to intervene. They had no interest, even if they were lien holders, in the confiscation proceedings. It was only the right of John Slidell, whatever that fight was, that could be condemned and sold, and the sale under the judgment of condemnation in no degree disturbed their liens. . By the decree of condemnation the United States succeeded to the position of Slidell, and the sale had no other purpose or effect than to make the thing confiscated available for the uses designated by the Confiscation Act. This was decided in Bigelow v. Forrest, * and more recently in Day v.. Micou † The District Court, therefore, acted correctly in rejecting the claims of the appellants and plaintiffs in error, even if. the reasons given for the rejection wore insufficient, and the Circuit Court was not in error in affirming what the District Court did. The action of the Circuit Court in the premises'is, therefore, Affirmed in each of the oases.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY did not sit during the argument, and took no part in the decision of any of the above causes. * 9 Wallace, 339. † 18 Id. 1S6.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cent. Union Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Garvan, 254 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1921)
-
Avegno & Others v. Schmidt & Others, 113 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1885)…judgment. We do not think that either of these grounds is well taken. The interest of Morgan as a mortgagee was not divested or affected by the judgment of condemnation rendered by the District Court. Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156; Claims of Marcuard, 20 Wall. 114. Notwithstanding the' judgment of condemnation, therefore, he had a valid subsisting mortgage superior to any estate in the mortgaged property acquired by the judgment of condemnation, or which could be acquired under a sale made by virtue thereof..…1 / 2
-
Evans v. D. Cefalu Mgmt., Inc., 42 La. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2018)…e. It continued to reside in him, without any' right of control, utendi, fruendi vel abutendi, notwithstanding the condemnation and confiscation, until his death, when it passed by inheritance to his heirs. Lang’s case, 18 Wall. 117; Marmard’s case, 20 Wall. 114; Bosworth’s case, 738 U. S., p. 92. While providing for the confiscation of the property, the law would not leave in the owner an interest susceptible of being sol'd, and with the proceeds of which he could continue in his resistance. See Borland’s…