Danovitz v. United States

• Decision Date: 05 May 1930
• Docket Number: No. 424,424
• Parties: DANOVITZ v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

281 U.S. 389

50 S.Ct. 344

74 L.Ed. 923

DANOVITZ

v UNITED STATES.

No. 424.

Argued April 23, 1930.

Decided May 5, 1930.

Messrs. Ward Bonsall and John W. Dunkle, both of Pettsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 389-391 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. Charles P. Sisson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 392-394 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a libel of the forfeiture of alleged contraband liquors, property and material designed for the manufacture of contraband liquors, specifically described, and alleged to have been unlawfully held in violation of section 23, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 39). The District Court found that the allegations of fact contained in the libel were sustained and ordered a decree of forfeiture. The decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 34 F.(2d) 30. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court but confined to the single question whether the property seized is forfeitable under section 25, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 39). 280 U. S. 548, 50 S. Ct. 69, 74 L. Ed. —.

The property in question was containers, barrels, bottles, corks, labels, cartons, etc. By the statute it is 'unlawful to have or possess any liquor or property designed for the manufacture of liquor intended for use in violating this chapter or which has been so used, and no property rights shall exist in any such liquor or property.' A search warrant may issue 'and such liquor, the containers thereof, and such property so seized shall be subject to such disposition as the court may make thereof. If it is found that such liquor or property was so unlawfully held or possessed, or had been so unlawfully used, the liquor, and all property designed for the unlawful manufacture of liquor, shall be destroyed, unless the court shall otherwise order.' Act of October 28, 1919, c. 85, tit. 2, § 25, 41 Stat. 305, 315, U. S. Code, tit. 27, § 39 (27 USCA § 39). The argument for the petitioner, so far as it does not go beyond the limits set in granting the writ of certiorari, is that empty containers, bottles and the other apparatus described, cannot be used in or designed for the manufacture of liquor, because the manufacture is completed before that apparatus comes into play. There is a further argument that the containers were not designed in fact for the manufacture of liquor even if they could be, but the objection to this is that if the terms in which the writ was granted do not exclude it, the case having been tried without written waiver of jury, the sufficiency and effect of evidence are not open. Commissioner of Road...