Dean & Co. v. United States

Decision Date14 December 1948
Docket NumberNo. 12405.,12405.
PartiesW. E. DEAN & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

James McCollum Burnett and Eugene C. Williams, both of San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.

Henry W. Moursund, U. S. Atty., and Joel W. Westbrook, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, SIBLEY, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

The libel was for the forfeiture1 of an automobile seized for the transportation of contraband, to-wit: heroin. W. E. Dean and Company, an automobile financing company, denying that the automobile was forfeit and contesting the forfeiture, filed claim to the car as a good faith lienor. The evidence was brief and uncontested.

The United States had one witness, Johnson, the narcotic agent who had found the heroin in the car. On direct examination he testified that, having reliable information that contraband, to-wit, heroin, would be transported in the car, he and another officer followed and stopped it. When they did, he saw on the floorboards of the car, between the two men sitting in the front seat, a package consisting of a paper sack containing a piece of cloth in which was wrapped five unstamped waxed paper packages containing 59 grains of heroin, whereupon the automobile was seized as forfeit. On cross-examination by claimant, he testified that he never saw anybody in the car in possession of the package, that the owner of the car was not there at the time, and that he does not know how the heroin came to be there. The claimant offered only its chattel mortgage.

The district judge, finding the facts as above, that there was probable cause for the seizure and the libel, and that claimants had not sustained the burden imposed by Sec. 1615, Title 19 U.S.C.A., found the automobile forfeit and gave judgment accordingly.

Claimant is here insisting that the proof was insufficient to show that the heroin was contraband, and that it was transported, and the judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

As to the failure of proof that it was contraband, he argues: that the burden was on the government to prove that it was; that Sec. 2550(a) of Title 26 U.S. C.A. imposes the tax only when the narcotic is (1) sold, (2) removed for consumption, or (3) removed for sale; and there is no direct evidence that any person had either sold, or removed, for consumption or sale, the heroin found in this case.

As to the failure of proof that it was transported, he argues that the burden was on the government to make proof that the heroin was being transported by some person in the car, and there was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • United States v. One 1948 Cadillac Convertible Coupe
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 28, 1953
    ...United States v. One 1949 Pontiac Sedan, 7 Cir., 194 F.2d 756; United States v. Andrade, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 42; W. E. Dean & Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 171 F.2d 468; United States v. One 1949 Lincoln Coupe Auto, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 666; United States v. One 1941 Chrysler Brougham Sedan, D.C.,......
  • United States v. One 1949 Pontiac Sedan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • February 21, 1952
    ...49 that 19 U.S.C.A. § 1615 is applicable to the instant proceeding. United States v. Andrade, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 42; W. E. Dean & Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 171 F.2d 468. While questions concerning the admissibility of evidence and the effect of the prima facie proof provisions of 26 U.S.C......
  • Ted's Motors v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 29, 1954
    ...vehicle from culpability was on the appellant, and the burden was not sustained. Section 1615, Title 19 U.S.C.A.; W. E. Dean & Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 171 F.2d 468; United States v. One 1949 Pontiac Sedan, 7 Cir., 194 F.2d 756, 758-759, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 966, 72 S.Ct. 1061, 9......
  • United States v. One 1961 Cadillac Hardtop Automobile
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • August 9, 1962
    ...the institution of such suit or action, to be judged of by the court * * *." U. S. v. Andreade, 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 42; W. E. Dean & Company v. U. S., 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 468. Thus upon a showing by the United States that probable cause existed for the seizure of the automobile and institution of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT