CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DUE PROCESS - NOTICE AND HEARING - VALIDITY OF STATUTE AUTHORIZING SEIZURE OF PROPERTY ILLEGALLY IN POSSESSION OF PAWNBROKER

Authors

Wilbur Jacobs, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Complainant, believing his property to be illegally in the possession of defendant pawnbroker, obtained a search warrant, authorized by statute to be issued, on complaint under oath, by any magistrate who is satisfied that there is reasonable cause for complainant's belief. Although the statute required the property to be seized and delivered to complainant on his posting a bond for double the value of the property, the property was not in fact seized. However, actual notice to appear and be heard on a certain date was given to the defendant, even though such notice was not expressly required by the statute. Defendant appeared specially to seek abatement of the warrant, but the court instead ordered possession to be delivered to complainant on his filing the required bond. On appeal, held, the statute is unconstitutional as a violation of the due process clauses of the Federal Constitution and the state constitution because defendant was deprived of the possession of property without a prior notice and hearing. Rassner v. Federal Collateral Society, 299 Mich. 206, 300 N. W. 45 (1941).

Recommended Citation

Wilbur Jacobs, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DUE PROCESS - NOTICE AND HEARING - VALIDITY OF STATUTE AUTHORIZING SEIZURE OF PROPERTY ILLEGALLY IN POSSESSION OF PAWNBROKER, 40 Mich. L. Rev. 1102 (1942).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol40/iss7/10