254 U.S. 505 (1921), 214, J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Company v. United States
| Docket Nº | No. 214 |
| Citation | 254 U.S. 505, 41 S.Ct. 189, 65 L.Ed. 376 |
| Party Name | J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Company v. United States |
| Case Date | January 17, 1921 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Page 505
Argued December 8, 1920
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Syllabus
1. Under § 3450, Rev.Stats., which declares, inter alia, that every carriage, or other conveyance whatsoever, used in the removal or for the deposit and concealment of goods removed, deposited or concealed with intent to defraud the United States of any tax thereon shall be forfeited, an automobile, so used by a person who had it on credit from an owner who retained the title, is subject to libel and forfeiture, although the owner was without notice of the forbidden use. The statute treats the thing as the offender. P. 509.
2. So construed and applied, the statute does not deprive the owner of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Id.
3. Section 3450, in this respect, is not modified or affected by §§ 3460 and 3461. P. 512.
Affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Page 508
MCKENNA, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
By an act of Congress passed July 13, 1866 (now § 3450, Revised Statutes, and we shall so refer to it), it was enacted that:
Whenever any goods or commodities for or in respect whereof any tax is or shall be imposed, . . . are removed, or are deposited or concealed in any place, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax, or any part thereof, all such goods or commodities, . . . shall be forfeited, and in every such case all the casks, vessels, cases, or other packages whatsoever, containing, or which shall have contained, such goods or commodities, respectively, and every vessel, boat, cart, carriage, or other conveyance whatsoever, and all horses or other animals, and all things used in the removal or for the deposit or concealment thereof, respectively, shall be forfeited.
In pursuance of this enactment, a libel was filed against a Hudson automobile of the appraised value of $800, and it charged that the automobile before its seizure was used by three persons who were named, in the removal and for the deposit and concealment of 58 gallons of distilled spirits upon which a tax was imposed by the United States, and had not been paid.
Plaintiff in error, herein referred to as the Grant Company, was, on its petition, permitted to intervene and to give bond and replevy the automobile.
The company subsequently answered, alleging the facts hereinafter mentioned, and in addition, pleaded against a condemnation and forfeiture of the car, the Constitution of the United States, especially Article V of Amendments, which prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The case was to a jury upon an agreed statement of facts, which recited that the Grant Company was a
Page 509
seller of automobiles and was the owner in fee simple of the automobile used in this case, and sold it, retaining the title for unpaid purchase money, to J. G. Thompson (he was named in the libel), who was a taxicab operator, and W. M. Lamb, who was in the newspaper business; that the car was used by Thompson in violation of § 3450, Rev.Stats., but that such use was without the knowledge of the company or of any of its officers, nor did it or they have any notice or reason to suspect that it would be illegally used.
The court charged the jury to render a verdict finding the car guilty overruling a motion of the Grant Company to direct a verdict for it on the grounds: (1) that § 3450, Rev.Stats., was in violation of Article V of Amendments of the Constitution of the United States in that it deprived the Grant Company of its property without due process of law; (2) that the section was not to be construed to forfeit the title of a third party entirely innocent of wrongdoing, and that the proper construction of the section was that it contemplated forfeiting only the interest or title of the wrongdoer; (3) that the title reserved by the company for the balance of the purchase money had never been divested, and therefore could not be condemned, and that only the interest of Thompson and Lamb could be condemned.
The jury found the car guilty, and, in pursuance of the verdict, a judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered, but, as a bond with security...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clearing the smoke from the battlefield: understanding congressional intent regarding the innocent owner provision of 21 U.S.C. 881(a) (7).
...official use by the Attorney General. Id. See also 21 U.S.C. [sections] 881 (e) (1988 & Supp. V 1992). In Goldsmith v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 510 (192 1), Justice McKenna also recognized the influence of the deodand. He noted that Congress ascribed a degree of complicity and guilt......
-
Time-bars: RICO-criminal and civil-federal and state.
...against Southerners during the Civil War). Following the Civil War, the Court, in J.W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 510 (1921) (discussing forfeiture in light of prohibition), aff'd by Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442, 453 (1996) (discussing forfeiture for gross ......
-
Reflections on Reves v. Ernst & Young: its meaning and impact on substantive, accessory, aiding abetting and conspiracy liability under RICO.
...whether "truly innocent owner's" rights could be forfeited in rem) (citing J.W. Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 512 (1921), and Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 689-90 (1974)). (57.) See, e.g., Ocean Energy II, Inc. v. Alexander & A......
-
Remarks of Marvin E. Wolfgang at the Guns and Violence Symposium at Northwestern University School of Law, February 3, 1996.
...States, 282 U.S. 577, 581 (1931) (distinguishing between in rem and in personam actions); J.W. Goldsmith Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 510 (1921) (stating that it is the object that is the offender); The Palmyra, 25 U.S. 1, 14 (12 Wheat.) (1827) (attributing the guilty prope......
-
Reflections on Reves v. Ernst & Young: its meaning and impact on substantive, accessory, aiding abetting and conspiracy liability under RICO.
...whether "truly innocent owner's" rights could be forfeited in rem) (citing J.W. Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 512 (1921), and Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 689-90 (1974)). (57.) See, e.g., Ocean Energy II, Inc. v. Alexander & A......
-
Remarks of Marvin E. Wolfgang at the Guns and Violence Symposium at Northwestern University School of Law, February 3, 1996.
...States, 282 U.S. 577, 581 (1931) (distinguishing between in rem and in personam actions); J.W. Goldsmith Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 510 (1921) (stating that it is the object that is the offender); The Palmyra, 25 U.S. 1, 14 (12 Wheat.) (1827) (attributing the guilty prope......
-
Clearing the smoke from the battlefield: understanding congressional intent regarding the innocent owner provision of 21 U.S.C. 881(a) (7).
...official use by the Attorney General. Id. See also 21 U.S.C. [sections] 881 (e) (1988 & Supp. V 1992). In Goldsmith v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 510 (192 1), Justice McKenna also recognized the influence of the deodand. He noted that Congress ascribed a degree of complicity and guilt......
-
Recovering the original Fourth Amendment.
...procedures applicable to ships to automobiles that had been used to transport illegal liquor. See Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505 (1921). In the decades since Prohibition, legislation has greatly expanded the grounds for forfeiture. Under a 1984 statute, all real property......