R. L. (Bob) Martin and Hardy McCormick v. United States

Fifth Circuit

R. L. (Bob) Martin and Hardy McCormick v. United States

277 F.2d 785

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 1960

Docket18201

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 277 F.2d 785 (R. L. (Bob) Martin and Hardy McCormick v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R. L. (Bob) Martin and Hardy McCormick v. United States, 277 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a libel of information under 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 7301(b) & (e), 7302, for forfeiture of a diesel tractor, trailer and 310 sacks of sugar on the ground that the equipment (tractor and trailer) was being used to transport sugar intended for use in violating internal revenue laws regarding moonshine whiskey. Hardy McCormick filed a claim to the sugar. R. L. (Bob) Martin (allegedly a handyman and agent for McCormick) filed a claim to the rolling equipment. Each filed an answer to the libel. The District Court entered a judgment of forfeiture.

On appeal, two main objections are raised. First, the equipment and contents were illegally searched and seized. Second, the evidence of intended use in violation of the internal revenue laws was insufficient.

As this is not a criminal prosecution but merely an effort to effectuate a forfeiture arising from illegal use of the property involved, the legality of the search and seizure cannot be raised. Grogan v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 86; United States v. Carey, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 492.

The evidence is sufficient to support the inference that the acquisition of the sugar was for illegal purposes. In contrast to the criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, in a proceeding of this kind the burden is but the lesser civil one of “preponderance of the evidence.” Lilienthal’s Tobacco v. United States, 1878, 97 U.S. 237, 24 L.Ed. 901; Stagner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 992; United States v. One 1955 Mercury Sedan, 4 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 429; United States v. One 1954 Mercury 2-Door Sedan, D.C.E.D.Va.1955, 128 F. Supp. 891. This record — with its evidence that deliberate false information was given in purchasing the sugar, that McCormick was in fact the true owner of the equipment and that McCormick was linked with an illegal still in South Caroline — amply supports the judgment of forfeiture.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a libel of information under 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 7301(b) & (e), 7302, for forfeiture of a diesel tractor, trailer and 310 sacks of sugar on the ground that the equipment (tractor and trailer) was being used to transport sugar intended for use in violating internal revenue laws regarding moonshine whiskey. Hardy McCormick filed a claim to the sugar. R. L. (Bob) Martin (allegedly a handyman and agent for McCormick) filed a claim to the rolling equipment. Each filed an answer to the libel. The District Court entered a judgment of forfeiture.

On appeal, two main objections are raised. First, the equipment and contents were illegally searched and seized. Second, the evidence of intended use in violation of the internal revenue laws was insufficient.

As this is not a criminal prosecution but merely an effort to effectuate a forfeiture arising from illegal use of the property involved, the legality of the search and seizure cannot be raised. Grogan v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 86; United States v. Carey, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 492.

The evidence is sufficient to support the inference that the acquisition of the sugar was for illegal purposes. In contrast to the criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, in a proceeding of this kind the burden is but the lesser civil one of “preponderance of the evidence.” Lilienthal’s Tobacco v. United States, 1878, 97 U.S. 237, 24 L.Ed. 901; Stagner v. United States, 5 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 992; United States v. One 1955 Mercury Sedan, 4 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 429; United States v. One 1954 Mercury 2-Door Sedan, D.C.E.D.Va.1955, 128 F. Supp. 891. This record — with its evidence that deliberate false information was given in purchasing the sugar, that McCormick was in fact the true owner of the equipment and that McCormick was linked with an illegal still in South Caroline — amply supports the judgment of forfeiture.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 F.2d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-l-bob-martin-and-hardy-mccormick-v-united-states-ca5-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack