Harford Vs. United States

Harford vs United States

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1814

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78620

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/78620
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1814
Case Number: 12 U.S. 109
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harford

Respondent

United States

Excerpt

.....which is lawful. to this construction the court cannot yield assent. the language of the 50th section is that "no goods, wares or merchandise, &c.;, shall be unladen, &c.;, without a permit;" it is therefore broad enough to cover all goods, whether lawful or unlawful. the case, being then within the letter, can be extracted from forfeiture only by showing that it is not within the spirit of the section. to us it seems clear that the case is within the policy and mischief of the collection act, since the necessity of a permit is some check upon unlawful importations, and is one reason why it is required. the act of 1806 does not profess to repeal the 50th section of the collection act as to the prohibited goods, and a repeal by implication ought not to be presumed unless from the repugnance of the provisions the inference be necessary and page 12 u. s. 110 unavoidable. no such manifest repugnance appears to the court. the provisions may well stand together and indeed serve as mutual aids. in fact, the very point now presented was decided by this court in the case of locke v. united states, 11 u. s. 339 (1813). the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed with costs.

Full Judgment

Harford v. United States - 12 U.S. 109 (1814)
U.S. Supreme Court Harford v. United States, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 109 109 (1814)

Harford v. United States

12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 109

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

SYLLABUS

The penalty of the fiftieth section of the Collection Law of 2 March, 1799, which requires a permit for the landing of goods imported applies to goods the importation of which was prohibited by law.

STORY, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

The principal question in this case is whether goods and merchandise, the importation of which into the United States was prohibited by the Act of 18 April, 1806, vol. 8, p. 80, were within the purview of the 50th section of the collection act of 2 March, 1799, vol. 4, p. 360, so that the unlading of them without a permit, &c.;, was an offense subjecting them to forfeiture.

It has been contended on behalf of the claimant that they were not within the purview of the 50th section, because that section applies only to goods, wares and merchandise the importation of which is lawful. To this construction the Court cannot yield assent. The language of the 50th section is that "no goods, wares or merchandise, &c.;, shall be unladen, &c.;, without a permit;" it is therefore broad enough to cover all goods, whether lawful or unlawful. The case, being then within the letter, can be extracted from forfeiture only by showing that it is not within the spirit of the section. To us it seems clear that the case is within the policy and mischief of the collection act, since the necessity of a permit is some check upon unlawful importations, and is one reason why it is required. The act of 1806 does not profess to repeal the 50th section of the collection act as to the prohibited goods, and a repeal by implication ought not to be presumed unless from the repugnance of the provisions the inference be necessary and

Page 12 U. S. 110

unavoidable. No such manifest repugnance appears to the court. The provisions may well stand together and indeed serve as mutual aids.

In fact, the very point now presented was decided by this Court in the case of Locke v. United States, 11 U. S. 339 (1813).

The judgment of the circuit court is

Affirmed with costs.

Same Parties Harford vs United States Same Subject Education