Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1856 · Federal Courts

59 U.S. 272 (1856)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtspublic rights doctrinedue processpublic rightssummary processtreasury distress warrantcustoms collectorArticle III

Facts

Both sides claimed title to land through Samuel Swartwout. The plaintiffs claimed under a levy of execution dated April 10, 1839, while the defendants claimed under a June 1, 1839 marshal's sale conducted pursuant to a distress warrant issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury under the Act of 1820. Swartwout had been collector of customs for the port of New York, and on November 10, 1838, treasury accounting officers audited his account and certified a balance due of $1,374,119.71. The Act of 1820 gave the United States a lien from the time of levy and record, and because that levy predated the plaintiffs' judgment, the validity of the distress warrant determined whose title prevailed.

Issue

Whether Congress could constitutionally authorize treasury officers, without first obtaining a judicial judgment, to ascertain a balance due from a customs collector and enforce payment by distress warrant against his property. More specifically, the question was whether such proceedings violated Article III or the Fifth Amendment's requirement of due process of law.

Rule

A process authorized by Congress is "due process of law" only if it does not conflict with the Constitution and is consistent with settled usages and modes of proceeding recognized in English and early American law. Matters involving public rights, including the summary ascertainment and recovery of balances due the government from revenue officers, need not in every instance be committed to Article III courts; Congress may provide summary executive remedies unless some other constitutional provision forbids them. Congress cannot withdraw from judicial cognizance matters that by their nature are suits at common law, equity, or admiralty, nor can it place under the judicial power matters that by their nature are not fit for judicial determination.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts a statute allowing the Fiscal Comptroller to audit the accounts of federal harbor-revenue cashiers and, upon certifying a balance due, direct a marshal in Baltimore to levy immediately on the cashier's real and personal property. Daniel Moreno, a cashier, argues the statute violates the Fifth Amendment because no judge hears the matter before the levy begins.

How should a court rule on Daniel's due process challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress cannot make any procedure due process by mere declaration. Instead, the court asks first whether the procedure conflicts with the Constitution, and if not, whether it accords with settled English and early American usages. Summary executive collection of balances due from public revenue officers had longstanding historical support, so such a process may satisfy due process even without an initial judicial hearing.