The United States v. Carr et al.

make oath that the goods were legally imported. All this being done, the collector is authorized to give him a permit of departure. But it must be evident from an inspection of the record, that the master has not complied with the law. The manifest only says 1,814 packages of merchandise. What was there to prevent the master from substituting other packages, exchanged at sea, for those which he had on board at the time of his departure from New York? The act requires a distinct specification of all the marks on all the boxes. But here it is not even stated whether they contain foreign merchandise or not. The collector at New York could also refer to the marks on the boxes, and ascertain, by the records of his office, whether or not such boxes had been regularly imported; but if the construction contended for on the other side be correct, smuggled goods could be transported coast wise just as easily as those which had paid duties.

2d. The certificate of the collector at New York does not heal this defect. He is only authorized to certify in case all the requisitions of law are complied with. If his certificate is conclusive, then he is invested with judicial power, and neither the collector of the port to which the vessel is going, nor the district judge, can properly interfere. The manifest is no longer subject to their supervision; although the authority of the first collector to certify is limited to the case of previous compliance with the law on the part of the master. The 16th section says, if he (the master) shall depart "without the several things herein required being complied with," &c.; showing that a compliance with a part would not be sufficient. The power of the collector of New York was therefore limited, and his certificate could not heal the defect in the manifest. 3d. Are the goods subject to forfeiture?

The last paragraph of the 17th section must be construed to refer to the 16th. It says that the "merchandise, not being certified as is herein required," shall be forfeited, and in certain. cases the vessel also. But if we show that the merchandise is not certified as the 16th section requires, the forfeiture attaches.

Mr. Wood made the following points:

1. The manifest in these cases is correct, and made out according to long-established usage.

2. It is sufficient, under the 16th and 17th sections of the act of 18th February, 1793, to insert in the manifest the marks and numbers of the casks, boxes, packages, &c., containing foreign merchandise, with the name and residence of every 'shipper and consignee thereof, and the quantity shipped by and

to each.

The United States v. Carr et al.

3. All this is done in the manifest in this cause.

4. This provision of the act necessarily and impliedly requires that the foreign merchandise from one shipper to a consignee shall be distinguished from every other consignment, when either the consignee or shipper, or both, are different, but it does not require that the foreign and domestic merchandise consigned by any one shipper to any one consignee shall be so differently numbered and marked as that the foreign merchandise can, by the numbers and marks, be distinguished from the domestic merchandise.

5. Such distinction in the manifest between the marking and numbering of foreign and domestic merchandise, consigned by one and the same shipper to one and the same consignee, has never been made in practice, and the long-established usage must be considered as settling the construction of the act.

6. The manifest in question is conformable to the most approved precedents. (See American Lex Mercatoria, Appendix.)

7. Assuming that the manifest ought to have been more specific, and so as to distinguish between the foreign and domestic merchandise consigned by one and the same shipper to one and the same consignee, yet the certificate of the collector thereon, and the oath of the master, being correct, and according to the provisions of the said 16th section, the goods are not forfeited under the 17th section of said act, but the master only is subjected to the forfeiture of one hundred dollars under the said 16th section.

8. The forfeiture of the goods under the 17th section is confined to the case where the goods are not certified as required.

9. Penal laws are to be strictly construed, and the interpretation of revenue laws is in favor of the subject, especially in the case of forfeiture of goods for acts not done by the owner thereof. Hubbard v. Johnstone, 3 Taunt. 177; Chests Tea v. U. States, 1 Paine, 499.

10. The legislature, in applying the pecuniary penalty upon the master to any defect in the manifest and certificate in the particulars enumerated in the 16th section, and in limiting the forfeiture of the goods to the prejudice of the owner thereof, in the 17th section, to a defect in the certificate, clearly meant to narrow the ground of forfeiture of the goods, and to confine it to a case of a defect in the certificate, per se.

11. If every defect in the manifest should be deemed to extend to the certificate, and to render that defective by relation, so as to cause a forfeiture of the goods to the owner, it would confound the distinction clearly drawn by the act between the

The United States v. Carr et al.

two cases, and would deprive the owner of the goods of those salutary rules of construction above referred to.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court. The first of these cases arises upon a libel filed in the Superior Court for the District of East Florida, against certain goods which were brought into the port of St. Augustine, in the schooner Hope W. Gaudy, and there seized by the collector as forfeited, for an alleged violation of the revenue laws. The appellants appeared as claimants; and at the trial in the Superior Court, the libel was dismissed, and the decree of dismissal afterwards affirmed in the Court of Appeals for the Territory of Florida. From this last-mentioned decree the United States appealed to this court.

The Hope W. Gaudy was regularly licensed to carry on the coasting trade; and the goods in question were part of a cargo shipped at New York for the port of St. Augustine. The master of the schooner, previous to his sailing from New York, delivered a manifest of his cargo to the collector, in which the goods seized were included, with the proper affidavit annexed; and the collector indorsed upon it the certificate and permit to proceed on the voyage, as required by the act of February 18, 1793. This manifest, so certified and indorsed, was in due time after the arrival of the vessel delivered to the collector of St. Augustine.

But

There is no imputation of bad faith in this transaction, upon the master or owners, or any of the parties concerned. the forfeiture was supposed to have been incurred by a breach of the provisions of the 16th and 17th sections of the act of Congress above mentioned. Part of the cargo consisted of foreign merchandise. And it was insisted, on the part of the United States, that this portion of it was not marked and described in the manifest, in the manner required by the 16th section, and was on that account liable to seizure and forfeiture at the port of destination.

We do not think it material to inquire whether the manifest did or did not describe with legal precision the foreign merchandise which the master had taken on board when he sailed from New York. For if the manifest be liable to that objection, the 16th section, which prescribes the manner in which foreign merchandise shall be specified in the manifest, punishes the omission by a small pecuniary penalty on the master: but does not forfeit the goods.

Neither does the clause of forfeiture in the 17th section apply to imperfections of that description. The manifest, which

The United States v. Carr et al.

the master is required by this section to deliver at the port of destination, is the one certified by the collector at the port of shipment, and this he did deliver. And the law forfeits the foreign merchandise, or distilled spirits, found on board or landed from the vessel, in those cases only in which it is not included in the manifest certified as aforesaid. This is evidently the meaning of the law. But the record in this case shows that the goods seized were included in the manifest; and whether they were there described with legal precision or not is immaterial to this inquiry. For a defect in that respect, where there is no fraud, does not subject the goods to forfeiture, either at the port of shipment or the port of delivery. Indeed, it can hardly be supposed that an offence, which in the 16th section is punished by a small pecuniary penalty on the master, was intended in the succeeding section of the same law to be visited on the owner, and subject him to the aggravated punishment of the forfeiture of his goods; and the more especially as the defect, if any, was the fault of the public officer, who was apprised by the oath of the master to the manifest that foreign merchandise was on board, and whose duty it was, when thus informed, to see that it was designated and described as the law requires before he granted the certificate and permit to proceed on the voyage.

The decree of the Court of Appeals for the Territory of Florida must therefore be affirmed.

The other case between the same parties, now before us, is similar in all respects to the one in which I have just stated the opinion of the Court. But the record shows that the value of the goods in controversy in this case is only seventy dollars.

The act of May 31, 1844, which gives appellate jurisdiction to this court in revenue cases, without regard to the sum in dispute, gives it only where the judgment is rendered in a Circuit Court of the United States. Consequently, it does not apply to a judgment rendered in the Court of Appeals for the Territory of Florida. The right to appeal from that court is regulated by the act of May 26, 1824. And that act limits the appellate power of this court to cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds one thousand dollars.

This case must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders.

THE UNITED STATES V. CARR AND PECK, CLAIMANTS OF SIXTEEN BOXES OF HAVANA SUGAR, &C.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the rec

Ladd v. Ladd et al.

ord from the Court of Appeals for the Territory of Florida, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said Court of Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

THE UNITED STATES V. CARR AND PECK, CLAIMANTS OF TEN Boxes, &C., OF RAISINS.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Court of Appeals for the Territory of Florida, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.

HARRIET V. LADD, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, MONTGOMERY D. CORSE, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH B. LADD, JOHN H. LADD, THE FARMERS' BANK OF ALEXANDRIA, JOHN HOOFF, BENONI WHEAT, AND JOHN J. WHEAT, THE TWO LAST TRADING UNDER THE FIRM OF BENONI WHEAT AND SON, DEFENDANTS.

Where a married woman has power, under a marriage settlement, to dispose of property settled upon her, by the execution of a power of appointment for that purpose, and alleges afterwards that she executed the power under undue marital influence and through fraud practised upon her, but alleges no specific mode or act by which this undue marital influence was exerted, and the facts disclosed in the testimony go very far to contradict the allegation, the charge cannot be sustained.

Every feme covert is presumed, under such a settlement, to be, to some extent, a free agent.

Where the marriage settlement recited that the woman was possessed of a considerable real and personal estate, which it was agreed should be settled to her sole and separate use with power to dispose of the same by appointment or devise, and then directed that the trustee should permit her to have, receive, take, and enjoy all the interest, rents, and profits of the property to her own use, or to that of such persons as she might from time to time appoint during the coverture, or to such persons as she, by her last will and testament, might devise or will the same to, and in default of such appointment or devise, then the estate and premises aforesaid to go to those who might be entitled thereto by legal distribution, this deed enabled her to convey the whole fee, under the power, and not merely the annual interest, rents, and profits.

Where the marriage settlement gave her the power of appointment to the use of such persons as she might from time to time appoint, during the coverture, by any writing or writings under her hand and seal, attested by three credible witnesses, and she executed a deed which recited that the parties had thereunto set their hands and seals, and which the witnesses attested as having been sealed and delivered, this was a sufficient execution of the power, although the witnesses did not attest the fact of her signing it.

The authorities upon this point examined.