General Finance Co. of Louisiana v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 5873.,5873. |
| Citation | 45 F.2d 380 |
| Parties | GENERAL FINANCE CO. OF LOUISIANA, Inc., v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. T. Prowell, of New Orleans, La. (Nathan B. Williams, of Washington, D. C., and Prowell, McBride & Ray, of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellant.
Edmond E. Talbot, U. S. Atty., and William H. Norman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
The United States filed a libel to condemn and forfeit a Ford truck seized under the provisions of section 3453, Rev. St. (26 USCA § 1185). The libel substantially alleged that one Joe Hudley and others were illegally carrying on the business of distiller and defrauding the United States of the tax on the distilled spirits manufactured by them; that the truck was found on the premises and within the inclosure where the illegal still was being operated, together with certain raw materials such as mash, etc., and a quantity of alcohol, in the custody of the said Joe Hudley and another named person.
Appellant filed an answer, coupled with an intervention, and asserted a lien on the truck for the unpaid portion of the purchase price amounting to $600.73, alleging its innocence and want of knowledge in connection with any illegal act of the purchaser, Joe Hudley. The intervention also alleged that appellant had petitioned the Secretary of the Treasury for relief from the seizure of the automobile and its impending forfeiture under the provisions of section 709, Revenue Act of 1928 (26 USCA § 2709) and T. D. 35, dated July 12, 1928, but was denied relief by the Secretary. The prayer was for a reversal of the ruling of the Secretary and for recognition of appellant's lien on the truck in preference to the United States.
The United States moved to dismiss the intervention on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to review the action of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the motion was granted. The case was then tried to a jury, and a verdict in favor of the United States was directed.
By section 618 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA § 532), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to remit or mitigate any penalty sought to be enforced against any vessel, vehicle, merchandise, or baggage seized under the provisions of the act, if he finds the penalty or forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or intention to defraud the revenue or violate the law on the part of the person interested in the seized article or finds the existence of such mitigating circumstances as to justify the remission or mitigation of the fine, penalty, or forfeiture. The provisions of said section 618 are extended to forfeitures incurred under the internal revenue laws by section 709 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (26 USCA § 2709). However, nowhere in the law does it appear that a District Court of the United States has jurisdiction to review the action of the Secretary or to say that he has been guilty of an abuse of discretion in passing on the application for remission. There was therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. A PARCEL OF LAND IN CITY OF LUCEDALE
...(1972) ("the Attorney General has unreviewable discretion over petitions under 19 U.S.C.A. § 1618"); General Finance Co. of Louisiana v. United States, 45 F.2d 380, 381 (5th Cir. 1930) (holding that, under the previous arrangement wherein the Secretary of the Treasury had the authority to g......
-
United States v. One 1961 Cadillac
...U.S. 246, 6 L.Ed. 314 (1825); Cotonificio Bustese, S. A. v. Morgenthau, 74 App.D.C. 13, 121 F.2d 884 (1941); General Finance Co. v. United States, 45 F.2d 380, 381 (C.A.5, 1930); United States ex rel. Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Mellon, 59 App.D.C. 296, 40 F.2d 808 (1930); Macheca v. United S......
-
Cotonificio Bustese, SA v. Morgenthau, 7682.
...Mellon, 1930, 59 App.D.C. 296, 40 F. 2d 808, certiorari denied, 1930, 281 U.S. 766, 50 S.Ct. 465, 74 L.Ed. 1174; General Finance Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1930, 45 F.2d 380. 4 Holding that a provision prescribing a period of two years for action by the Commission was jurisdictional, not......
-
United States v. ONE 1970 BUICK RIVIERA, SER. 494870H910774, 71-2545.
...(5th Cir. 1950); United States v. One 1957 Buick Roadmaster, 167 F.Supp. 597 (E.D.Mich.1958). See also General Finance Co. of Louisiana v. United States, 45 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1930) (denying review of an official adverse decision of a mitigation petition under the Tariff Act of 1922, 42 Sta......
-
Administrative Blackmail: the Remission of Penalties
...States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246, 285 (1825); Dorsheimer v. United States, 7 Wall. 166, 175 (1868); General Finance Co. v. United States, 45 F. 2d 380, 381 (5th Cir. 1930); United States Gramling, 180 F. 2d 298, 501 (5th Cir. 1950). The courts have held the administrative decision reviewable......