United States v. One Ford Sedan

Fifth Circuit

United States v. One Ford Sedan

297 F. 830, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 1924

DocketNo. 4272

StatusPublished

This text of 297 F. 830 (United States v. One Ford Sedan) 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

United States v. One Ford Sedan, 297 F. 830, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902 (5th Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition by the United States, under R. S. §■ 3450 (Comp. St. § 6352), to forfeit an automobile used in the concealment of intoxicating liquor upon which internal revenue taxes had not been paid. A claim of lien held by an innocent vendor was interposed, in reliance upon-section 26, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138%mm), and upheld by the judgment of the District Court.

The proceeding was at law, with the accompanying right of trial by jury, because the seizure was made on land. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391, 5 L. Ed. 644; Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States, 226 U. S. 172, 33 Sup. Ct. 50, 57 L. Ed. 174; United States v. Spraul & Co., 185 Fed. 405, 107 C. C. A. 569. A jury was waived, but whether or not the waiver was in writing does not appear. An agreed statement of facts was entered into, but it provides that either party may offer additional evidence. The transcript does not contain any bill of exceptions, nor disclose any motion or request for judgment for either party. The government assigns error, and contends simply that the judgment should have been in its favor.

In this state of the record, no question is presented for our consideration as an appellate court (Ford v. Grimmett [C. C. A.] 278 Fed. 140), and for that reason the judgment is affirmed.

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

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition by the United States, under R. S. §■ 3450 (Comp. St. § 6352), to forfeit an automobile used in the concealment of intoxicating liquor upon which internal revenue taxes had not been paid. A claim of lien held by an innocent vendor was interposed, in reliance upon-section 26, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138%mm), and upheld by the judgment of the District Court.

The proceeding was at law, with the accompanying right of trial by jury, because the seizure was made on land. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391, 5 L. Ed. 644; Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States, 226 U. S. 172, 33 Sup. Ct. 50, 57 L. Ed. 174; United States v. Spraul & Co., 185 Fed. 405, 107 C. C. A. 569. A jury was waived, but whether or not the waiver was in writing does not appear. An agreed statement of facts was entered into, but it provides that either party may offer additional evidence. The transcript does not contain any bill of exceptions, nor disclose any motion or request for judgment for either party. The government assigns error, and contends simply that the judgment should have been in its favor.

In this state of the record, no question is presented for our consideration as an appellate court (Ford v. Grimmett [C. C. A.] 278 Fed. 140), and for that reason the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 F. 830, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-one-ford-sedan-ca5-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack