Case Name: United States v. J. C. May and M. Snyder
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1824-05
Citations: 2 Cranch 507
Docket Number: 
Parties: United States v. J. C. May and M. Snyder.
Judges: (Thruston, J., absent,)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
United States v. J. C. May and M. Snyder.
The United States are entitled to judgment at the return term, upon revenue-bonds, although, by the general rule and practice of the Court, the day after the last day of the term, is the appearance-day to all writs returnable to that term, and the Court will, upon motion, rule the marshal to return the writ on some day during the term.
Debt upon a revenue bond. The writ was returnable to this term.
Mr. Mason, for the defendants,
contended that the United States could not have judgment at this term, because the defendant, according to the rules and practice of this Court, is not bound to appear, nor the marshal to return the writ until the first day after the end of the Court. 3 Tucker’s Bl. 274, 275., The marshal continues to serve process returnable to the Court until the last day of the term.
Mr. Swami, District Attorney, contra,
insisted that the act of Congress of March 2d, 1799, $ 65, [1 Stat. at Large, 676,] was imperative upon the Court, and left them no discretion. The writ is, on its face, returnable on the first day of the term; and the Court may call upon the marshal to return it on any day. And such has been the practice of this Court ever since its first establishment.
The Act of Congress is peremptory. The words are, “ And where suit shall be instituted, on any bond, for the recovery of duties due to the United Slates, it shall be the duty of the Court where the same may be pending to grant judgment at the return term upon motion; ” unless the defendant shall make oath that an error has been committed in the liquidation of the duties; “ whereupon if the Court shall be satisfied that a continuance until the next sueeeeding term is necessary for the attainment of justice, and not otherwise, a continuance may be granted until the next succeeding term, and no longer.”

Opinion:
The Court
(Thruston, J., absent,)
said that this is the return term of the writ; and that the Act of Congress was peremptory.
The marshal was then called upon, at the motion of the District Attorney, to return the writ; which being done the defendants were called, and not appearing, judgment was entered up against the defendants.