United States v. Abatoir Place
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup, CA License No. 2W03753, VIN 2FTJW36L6GCA99688 (9th Cir. 1995)
- United States v. One 1986 Ford Pickup (9th Cir. 1995)
- United States v. Parcels of Property, With Building Appurtenances & Improvements Located at 255 Broadway (1st Cir. 1993)
- United States v. Tito Campanella Società Di Navigazione (4th Cir. 1954)
- United States v. Tito Campanella Societa Di Navigazione (4th Cir. 1954)
- United States v. Frerichs, Etc (Supreme Court of the United States 1882)
- United States v. Eleven Vehicles (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1996)
- United States v. One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Dollars ($1,630.00) (11th Cir. 1991)
- United States v. One Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Dollars ($1,630.00), More or Less in United States Currency (11th Cir. 1991)
- United States v. Mattingly (D.C. Cir. 1922)
- Philadelphia, H. & P. R. v. Lederer (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1917)
- United States v. 83 Sacks of Wool & 5,974 Sheepskins (District Court, D. Maine 1906)
- Agnew v. Haymes (4th Cir. 1905)
- Anglo-American Land Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Cheshire Provident Institution (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire 1904)
- Lowe v. Kansas (Supreme Court of the United States 1896)
- United States v. One DLO Model A/C, 30.06 Machine Gun, Serial Number 86-70056 (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1995)
- United States v. Parcels of Real Property With the Building, Appurtenances, & Improvements Located at 255 Broadway, Hanover (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1992)
- Adams v. United States (Court of Claims 1891)
- United States v. Frerichs (Supreme Court of the United States 1888)
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
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 *162 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; M orsell 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.