Four Hundred & Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States

Citations

• 226 U.S. 172
• 33 S. Ct. 50
• 57 L. Ed. 174
• 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2143

Syllabus

<p>The provision in § 10 of thé Pure Food Act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 768, c. 3915, that proceedings for seizure of goods shall be by libel and conform, as near as may be, to proceedings in admiralty, does not include appellate proceedings; the action of the District Court on the libel can only be reviewed as at common law by writ of error and not' by appeal.</p> <p>When Congress enapted the Pure Food Act it was known that as to seizures on land the District Court proceeded as in' actions at common law.</p> <p>The provision for jury trial in § 10 of the Pure Food Act was probably inserted by Congress with a view to removing any question of constitutionality of the act.</p> <p>While proceedings for seizure and condemnation under § 10 of the Pure Food Act are intended to be summary, the owner, as this court construes the statute, has a right to a hearing in a court of record, with a right of review upon questions of law by writ of error in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and where more than $1,000 is involved finally in this court under § 6 of the Circuit Court’ of Appeals Act.</p> <p>As the Circuit Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review the action of the District Court on a libel filed under the Pure Food Act, neither its pwn action thereon nor the consent of the parties'could give such jurisdiction.</p> <p>Where the Circuit Court of Appeals proceeds without jurisdiction this court should, on acquiring jurisdiction of the cause, remand it to the Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.</p>