United States v. David Barish, and Lou Yollin

Third Circuit

United States v. David Barish, and Lou Yollin

256 F.2d 571, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4378

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 1958

Docket12395_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 F.2d 571 (United States v. David Barish, and Lou Yollin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. David Barish, and Lou Yollin, 256 F.2d 571, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4378 (3d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by one of the defendants from a judgment against them in a suit brought by the Government under section 26(b) (1) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 as amended. 1 The complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a fraudulent scheme for the purpose of obtaining for defendant Barish, the appellant, certain motor vehicles from the War Assets Administration. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Government for $2,000, the sum provided for in section 26(b) (1) of the Act. Motions for a new trial and judgment n. o. v. were denied.

The appellant’s principal contention on appeal is that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict as a matter of law. We have accordingly examined the evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to recite it here in *572 detail. It is sufficient to say that it furnishes adequate support for the verdict.

The appellant’s remaining contention is that the recovery provided for by section 26(b) (1) of the Surplus Property Act is in the nature of a civil fine or penalty and was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2462 since the suit was not brought within five years after the claim first accrued, as section 2462 requires. This precise question has been decided against the contention of the appellant here by the recent decision of this court in United States v. Doman, 3 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 865, to which we adhere.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. Now 40 U.S.C.A. § 489.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by one of the defendants from a judgment against them in a suit brought by the Government under section 26(b) (1) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 as amended. 1 The complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a fraudulent scheme for the purpose of obtaining for defendant Barish, the appellant, certain motor vehicles from the War Assets Administration. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Government for $2,000, the sum provided for in section 26(b) (1) of the Act. Motions for a new trial and judgment n. o. v. were denied.

The appellant’s principal contention on appeal is that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict as a matter of law. We have accordingly examined the evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to recite it here in *572 detail. It is sufficient to say that it furnishes adequate support for the verdict.

The appellant’s remaining contention is that the recovery provided for by section 26(b) (1) of the Surplus Property Act is in the nature of a civil fine or penalty and was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2462 since the suit was not brought within five years after the claim first accrued, as section 2462 requires. This precise question has been decided against the contention of the appellant here by the recent decision of this court in United States v. Doman, 3 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 865, to which we adhere.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. Now 40 U.S.C.A. § 489.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 F.2d 571, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-barish-and-lou-yollin-ca3-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack