The Irresistible
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Green v. United States (9th Cir. 1933)
- United States v. United States Coin & Currency (Supreme Court of the United States 1971)
- Charrot v. Municipal Court (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 1936)
- Brown v. City of Amarillo (Tex. App. 1915)
- United States v. Powers (Supreme Court of the United States 1939)
- Hamilton v. Lawrence (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
- Commonwealth v. Kittell (Dauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions 1933)
- Jones v. Williams (Tex. 1931)
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Mazursky (Supreme Court of the United States 1910)
- Kenyon v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1892)
- Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co. (Pa. 1882)
- Assessors v. Osbornes (Supreme Court of the United States 1870)
- Engle v. Shurts (Mich. 1848)
- Thayer v. Seavey (Me. 1834)
- Peddle v. Hollinshead (Pa. 1823)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
*552 This is an appeal from a sentence of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, dismissing an information filed in that Court against the brig La Irresistible, as forfeited under the acts of Congress, made for the preservation of the neutrality of the United States. The offence charged in the information, was committed under the act of 1817, and the only question is, .whether the-informaron can be sustained after the time when that act wo.jr- d have expired by its own limitation.
The act was to continue in force two years after the 3d of March, 1817.
On the 20th of April, 1818, Congress passed an act making farther provision ofn the same subject, which repealed all former acts on,that subject, and among these the act of 1817, and annexed to the repealing clause the following proviso, “Provided, nevertheless, that persons having offended against any of the acts aforesaid may be prosecuted, convicted, and punished, as if the same were not repealed, and no forfeiture heretofore incurred by a violation.of any of the acts aforesaid shall be affected by such repeal.”
The obvious construction of this clause is, that the’ power to prosecute, convict, and- punish offenders against either of the repealed acts, remains as if the repealing act had never been passed. It does not create a power to punish, but preserves that which before existed. Now, it is well settled, that an of-fence against a temporary act cannot be punished after the expiration of the act, unless a particular provision be made by law for the purpose.
Sentence affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.