Case Name: UNITED STATES v. SIX LOTS, HATCH, Claimant; UNITED STATES v. TEN LOTS, CONRAD, Claimant
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1874-05-04
Citations: 154 U.S. 596
Docket Number: No. 255. No. 283
Parties: UNITED STATES v. SIX LOTS, HATCH, Claimant. UNITED STATES v. TEN LOTS, CONRAD, Claimant.
Judges: Clirrord, Davis and Field, JJ., dissented.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 596–597

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. SIX LOTS, HATCH, Claimant. UNITED STATES v. TEN LOTS, CONRAD, Claimant.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
No. 255.
Submitted April 8, 1874.
No. 283.
Argued April 8 and 9,1874.
Decided May 4, 1874.
.The-Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, followed.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Strong
delivered the opinion of the court.
These eases are in all essential particulars like the case of The United States v. Eight Hundred and Forty-four Lots and Ten Squares, of Ground, the property of John Slidell; The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92. What we have said in reference to that ease is equally applicable to these,
Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Thomas J. Durant for plaintiff in error.
Mr. O. M. Conrad and Mr. C. Cushing for defendants in error.
In each case the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to affirm the judgment or decree of the District Court. Reversed.
Clirrord, Davis and Field, JJ., dissented.