140 FBDERaL EBPOBTEE. �Blancke filed another mechanic's lien daim in the same office for $264.35, for materials furnished for the same build- ing from September 7 to December 30, 1 872 ; that a sum- mons was issued thereon March 15, and final judgment entered June 18, 1873. �(8) That on the twenty-fourth of September, 1873, the premises in controversy were sold by the sheriff of the county of Union, under these lien judgments, to the plaintiflf in this suit for the consideration of $100, and a deed duly exe- cuted to him therefor. �It will be perceived that both parties claim title to the land in dispute through Charles L. Sicher, — the defendant, under and through a deed from the United States marshal, given upon a sale of the property, under a decree of forfeiture and condemnation to the use of the United States, in the dis- trict court for New Jersey; and the plaintiff, under a deed from the sheriff of the county of Union, given upon a sale by virtue of two judgments upon lien claims in the circuit court of the county of Union. These facts present for considera- tion questions of great importance, and involve the construc- tioja of the acts of congress in regard to the forfeiture of real estate on account of violations of the internai revenue laws of the United States. I have carefuUy examined the several sections alleged to have been violated, in the information filed for the forfeiture and condemnation of the land and premises in dispute, and also the mechanic's lien law of the state of New Jersey, under the provisions of which the plaintiff claims to have derived his title, and will briefly state the conclu- sions of law to which I have arrived. �I am of the opinion — �(1) That while, possibly, by the phraseology of section M of the act of July 20, 1868, (which has been re-enacted in the Eev. St. § 3281,) only the right and interest of the owner of inculpated distillery premises can be condemned and for- feited,— 'no such limitation on the right of forfeiture is found in either section 7 (section 3260, Eev. St.) or section 19 (sec- tions 3303-5, Eev. St.) of the same act, under both of which the property in controversy was condemned by default, — and ��� �
