The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-21
THE LAFAYETTE GRAFT SMUGGLING
CASE.

Lafayette Gran was charged with smuggling
several cases Of silk goods through HoboKen, ana
proceedings were commenced In the United
States Court to compel him 70 pay $ls,c0o duties
by attachment. Defendant had left for Canada to
avoid criminal prosecution, and his counsel
moved, on afndavit OF himself and MS brother to
vacate the attachment, on the ground that ne was
a nonresident OF this district. when motion was
granted. The United States District Attorney at
once applied to the Supreme Court OF the state, in
a suit Tor $4,000. gold, to get an attachment
against all GRAMS property, on the ground that he
was q nonresident, and Judge Lawrence granted
it. Defendants counsel moved to vacate the at
tachment IN the ground that the United States
have remedy through the State Courts, and
Can only use the United States Courts 10 enforce
the Revenue laws Judge Donohue decided that
II is case for an Attachment, and that 1t Is an
action on contract between the Importer and the
United States. The reasons Tor denying the ap.
plcation are set forth Ia the following opinion,
gwen yesterday
The plaintiffs claim that the DEFENDANT owes
them DEBT amounting 20 $4,000 the manner III
when the debt arose beng stated IN the affidavit
TO be that defendant had imported goods into the
United states. The duties on whicn were the
sums stated. which n had laicd 70 pay. The drst
poilt raised by defendant Is nat this IS not an
action on contract ior the recovery Of money only.
Without discussing the authorities 1t seems 70 ne
the principle IS well settled mat the party lmpOrt-
Ing goods INTO Tue Uniten states mcnrs contract
debt Tor the amount OF tue duties Immediately
the importation. mat sucn inability arises under
8 statute seems 10 me not To change It's nature.
Many debts are the creation OF statute wnicn makes
the contract. Liens are created oy statute as wei
SPECIAL personal liabilities aud BY SUCH statute
contracts the parties are responsible. Under the
State law the consgnce OF a vessel IS liable in an
action on contract Tor pilotage although the con-
tract was made before he saw or knew or the yes.
sci aaG o. such contract never uad actual notice.
Instances might be multiplied but II seems too
clear 10 dou0t that where by statute Tor some
privilege or service a liaDility Is created Ii Is
contract whicn may be enforced rs other con-
tracts are. Inc deenddnt is nonresident aud
clearly within tue law allowing attachments II
there is not something in the case TO de eat the
apparent right Inc defendant claims that
Inc right is defeated because there
States District Court. TO this there
are two answers. First, that the suit
referred TO is discontinued and, second, that the
Court there never OBTAINED jurisdiction. II the
Marshal mas heretofore seized the property here
Attached he II. IN tie absence OF jurisdiction IN
the court that ignored his process. tresspasser,
and that does not de eat the present attachment.
While th,nk tie United states nave tne rlght 10
sue III THIS court dO not deem 1t necessary 70
decide that question on this notion. That point,
IKE any otner gong to the right OF the party 70
sue or privilege from being sued. must 60 10 IN
issue aud DO decided IN the war snas sucn ISSUES