Summary

Portrait of Salmon P. Chase Salmon P. Chase Bennett v. Hunter — Opinion of the Court

Without pausing to inquire whether, in any case, the title of a citizen to his land can be divested by forfeiture and vested absolutely in the United States, without any inquisition of record or some public transaction equivalent to office found, it is certainly proper to assume that an act of sovereignty so highly penal is not to be inferred from language capable of any milder construction.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Salmon P. Chase Salmon P. Chase Bennett v. Hunter — Opinion of the Court

On the contrary, the fact that the privilege of redemption after sale is limited to the owner or the loyal person having a lien or other interest, appearing in proper person and taking a prescribed oath, appears to us to afford an irresistible inference that the right of payment before sale is not so limited. It is a right which, under the act, belongs to the owner, and no oath is required in order to its exercise. It is a right to be exercised under the act as a law for raising revenue.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Salmon P. Chase Salmon P. Chase Bennett v. Hunter — Opinion of the Court

And so of other instances where the title of the sovereign was derived from forfeiture. And in the case of United States v. Repentigny, [3] where the forfeiture to the government of lands arose from omission to perform the conditions of the grant, this court held that before the forfeiture could be consummated by reunion of the land with the public domain, 'a judicial inquiry should be instituted, or, in the technical language of the common law, office found, or its legal equivalent,' should take place.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature