Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta United States v. Six Lots, Hatch 154 U.S. 596

← Cases

United States v. Six Lots, Hatch

154 U.S. 596 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1874-05-04 Docket No. 255. No. 283 English

Judges Clirrord, Davis and Field, JJ., dissented.

Delivered by Strong J.

Contents

Majority — Strong J.

p. 596
UNITED STATES v. SIX LOTS, HATCH, Claimant. UNITED STATES v. TEN LOTS, CONRAD, Claimant.

Syllabus

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
No. 255.
Submitted April 8, 1874.
No. 283.
Argued April 8 and 9,1874.
Decided May 4, 1874.
.The-Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92 , followed.

delivered the opinion of the court.

These eases are in all essential particulars like the case of The United States v. Eight Hundred and Forty-four Lots and Ten Squares, of Ground, the property of John Slidell; The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92 . What we have said in reference to that ease is equally applicable to these,

p. 597
Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Thomas J. Durant for plaintiff in error.

Mr. O. M. Conrad and Mr. C. Cushing for defendants in error.

In each case the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to affirm the judgment or decree of the District Court. Reversed.

Clirrord, Davis and Field, JJ., dissented.

Cases cited