The Portland daily press., 1870-07-08

prosecuted for alleged errors CT mistakes, he
| shows most conelusively, that lie laws for the
| collection of the customs aud the internal rev
| enue, each constitute n system and provides
| suitable remedies for the benefit of those who
complain OF illegal assessment OF taxes or ille-
gal exactiOns of duties.
In the case of the People VS.. Albany,7 Wen
dell 4S5, a warrant had been issued directing
| the collection of military fine from one Ham
mond, a member of the society called Shakers
The warrant was executed by constable by
levyng upon property belonging to the society
who caused the property to he replecied. The
President of the COurt-Martial who issued the
warrant and the constable who served it being
made defendants in the replevln, moved the
court to set aside the plant, which they refus-
ed, on the ground that it was not shown tnat
the proceedings were regular before tue court
martial which issued the warrant.
Tue statute of New York provldea Iua' no
replevin shall lie for any properly taken ny
virtue of anv warrant for the collection OF any
tax, assessment or fine in pursuance OF any
statute of this State.
man Iamus to the Common Pleas, the court,
Sanaae G. j., say: "The common pleas suppos-
| cd they had right, upon the motion before
them, to inquire into the regularity of the pro-
ceedngs of the court-martial, which / appre-
bend is mistake. If it appears upon the face
of the warrant in the possession OF the officer
that he is authorized to collect any tax, assess
ment or fine, replevin is not the proper remedy
to correct his mistakes or trespasses. The war
rant upon the face of it authorized the officer
to take the property of Hammond. 1t refers
to and purports to be in pursuance of q statute
of this State The ocflier took property be-
longing to a society of which Hammond was a
member. Whether he had right to do SO or
not is not to be inquired into in this motion
nor in this action. The Legislature have
thought proper to say that replevin shall not
be brought in such a case. Any other appro-
pirate remedy may be resorted to-
This reasoning is applicable to the facts in
this case.
We are satisfied the Plaintiff is not entitled
to maintain the present action OF replevin.
The statute left him resort to any other ap-
prOpriate remedy. When the government for
revenue purposes takes possession of any
property of the citizens, it is he policy of the
government that its power to provide for its
expenditures should not be crippled by any Ii
ability to have that property taken by replevin
from the officers entrusted with the duty of
collecting revenue. The law provides fer the
citizen other and appropriate remedies. If the
remedy of replevin existed before in case of
property taken by authority or under color
of legal process it is taken away by the ex-
press provisions of the statute.
Judgment must therefore be entered for the
defendant. He is entitled to nominal damages
because his right has been infringed, and to
nothing more. There is no rule which re-
qures the court 10 award to the defendant
damages to the value of the properly or to or
der return of the property to him when he
shows no right to it. Sanborn vs.. Leavtt 43
n. H. 474.
Ingraham vs. Martin, Is Maine Il. 1913.