The New York herald., 1874-10-09
INTERNAL REVENUE DECISION.

Tracy, Jr., VS.. Corse.-This cause has just been
decided in the Court of Appeals. The question in
volved was as to the legality OF sale OF barge
made by one OF the Internal Revenue Collectors
before condemnation by the United States District
Court. Mr.. Mcmahon, for Corse the respondent
VINO succeeded below, took the point that under
the Internal Revenue acts the Collector in ques-
ton had no power to make the sale. This objec-
tion was sustained by the Court OF Appeals. who
rendered Judgment in favor OF Corse. the respon-
dent, whose title was derived under mortgage,
and was sustained.
The Court, in Its decision. pronounced by Judge
Andrews, says:-
The general principle is well established that
court proceeding IN rem, must have the custody
Of the res IN order 10 pronounce g valid Judgment.
The purpose OF q proceeding in rem Is TO dx the
status OF the property, . thing which Is the sub
and to ascertain the rights Of all possible claim.
ants, and possession OF the thing by the Court
which pronounGes % % upon IL Is In u general indis.
Taylor vs.. Carryl, 20 How, 500; Jennings VS.. Car
SON, Cr., 2; The Mary Q Id, l44) The defendant
did not claim the proceeds OF the sale OF the barge
Such claim was adverse to the title wncn he
asserted. He had neither actual nor construct
I've notice that the Court claimed any jurisdiction,
woud proceed to pronounce the forfeiture OF the
vessel, and, indeed, 1t did not do So The judg-
ment Of the District Court was conclusive upon
the question before it, viz.-tne ownership OF the
proceeds-and however essential II may have been
In the determination Of that question to pass upon
feiture, the barge itself was not the res and the
title to II was not affected BY the decree. That
the proceeding Is not In rem does not dispense
with the rule or universal justice, that party
shall not be condemned without an opportunity
TO be heard. 1t Is true that he is not entitled to
personal notice before court can adjudge the
forfeiture OF MS property but ne must have notice.
either actual or constructive OF the proceeding or
1t Will be void. The custody OF the res may be
constructive notice that the Court having posses
sion Will proceed to adjuticate upon it, and no
uce may be given in this way or by pub
ncation, according to the usual practice Of the
Court, and then ne i. bound TO defend his rights
II he has any. Notice IN this way may never in
fact reach him. In many cases the giving OF per.
sona notice is impracticable nor is 1t required;
but the rule requiring notice. either actual or con-
structlve, is fundamental, and ought never to pe
departed from. The question as to who was en-
titled to ne proceeds OF the barge was one with
which the defendant had no concern, IT, in fact, az
he claimed, the sale from which the proceeds
came was void. He was not called upon to defend
his title 70 the barge on proceeding to determine
the right to the proceeds. tBracstreet Neptune
Insurance Company. SUM-, 6o7; Lessee or Bos-
well vs. Dickinson, Mclean, 267; Woodruff vs..
Taylor, 20 Vt, 65) The judgment should be af-
nrmed All concur.
Mr.. Denis McManon for the defendant; Mr.. A. II.
Dana for the plaintiff.