Port Gardner Inv. Co. v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Port Gardner Inv. Co. v. United States

17 F.2d 587, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2992

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F.2d 587 (Port Gardner Inv. Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Port Gardner Inv. Co. v. United States, 17 F.2d 587, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2992 (9th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition officers discovered one Neadeau in the act of transporting intoxicating liquor by automobile in violation of law. The officers thereupon seized the automobile and apprehended the driver of the ear. Later an information was filed in the court below against the driver, charging violatiqns of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138(4 et seq.) in two counts. The first count charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and the second the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor. A plea of guilty was interposed as to both counts, followed by a judgment and sentence. There was therefore a prosecution with effect, under section 26, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138(4nun), and such prosecution is a bar to a proceeding to declare a forfeiture under section 3450 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 6352). Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United States, 47 S. Ct. 165, 71 L. Ed. -, decided by the Supreme Court November 23, 1926.

The judgment is reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition officers discovered one Neadeau in the act of transporting intoxicating liquor by automobile in violation of law. The officers thereupon seized the automobile and apprehended the driver of the ear. Later an information was filed in the court below against the driver, charging violatiqns of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138(4 et seq.) in two counts. The first count charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and the second the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor. A plea of guilty was interposed as to both counts, followed by a judgment and sentence. There was therefore a prosecution with effect, under section 26, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138(4nun), and such prosecution is a bar to a proceeding to declare a forfeiture under section 3450 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 6352). Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United States, 47 S. Ct. 165, 71 L. Ed. -, decided by the Supreme Court November 23, 1926.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F.2d 587, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/port-gardner-inv-co-v-united-states-ca9-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack