Goldsmith, Jr Grant Co v. United States, 214

Decision Date17 January 1921
Docket NumberNo. 214,214
Citation65 L.Ed. 376,254 U.S. 505,41 S.Ct. 189
PartiesJ. W. GOLDSMITH, JR.-GRANT CO. v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. L. C. Hopkins and C. T. Hopkins, both of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs in error.

Assistant Attorney General Adams, for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 506-507 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

By an act of Congress passed July 13, 1866 (now section 3450, Revised Statutes [Comp. St. § 6352], 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 5 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 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 section 3450, R. S., 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 section 3450, U. S. R. S., was in violation of article 5 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 had been given for the car, it was adjudged that the United States recover from the Grant Company as principal and J. W. Goldsmith, Jr., as security, the principal sum of $800 and costs. Execution was awarded accordingly.

Motion for a new trial was denied, and this writ of error was then prosecuted.

This statement indicates the questions in the case and, as we have seen, involves the construction of section 3450 and its unconstitutionality if it be not construed as contended by the Grant Company.

If the case were the first of its kind, it and its apparent paradoxes might compel a lengthy discussion to harmonize the section with the accepted tests of human conduct. Its words taken literally forfeit property illicitly used though the owner of it did not participate in or have knowledge of the illicit use. There is strength, therefore, in the contention that if such be the inevitable meaning of the section, it seems to violate that justice which should be the foundation of the due process of law required by the Constitution. It is, hence, plausibly urged that such could not have been the intention of Congress; that Congress necessarily had in mind the facts and practices of the world and that in the conveniences of business and of life, property is often and sometimes necessarily put into the possession of another than its owner. And it follows, is the contention, that Congress only intended to condemn the interest the possessor of the property might have to punish his guilt, and not to forfeit the title of the owner who was without guilt.

Regarded in this abstraction the argument is formidable, but there are other and militating considerations. Congress must have taken into account the necessities of the government, its revenues and policies, and was faced with the necessity of making provision against their violation or evasion and the ways and means of violation or evasion. In breaches of revenue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
306 cases
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1925
    ... ... Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746, 6 ... S.Ct. 524. As ... 727-737. In ... Goldsmith Grant Co. v. U. S. [138 Miss. 133] (1921), ... 254 U.S ... 337; State v ... Chuchola (Del. 1922), 120 A. 214; People v. Kamhout ... (Mich. 1924), 198 N.W. 836 ... ...
  • Com. v. United Food Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1978
    ... ... United States, 335 U.S. 469, 482, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948)), but we have not ... Sportsmen's Country Club, 214 Minn. 151, 7 N.W.2d 495 (1943); Black v. Circuit Court of Eighth Judicial ... Court of Appeals concluded, however, that the State Constitution's grant of an inviolate right to a jury trial was not offended by a statutory ... United States, 282 U.S. 577, 51 S.Ct. 282, 75 L.Ed. 558 (1931); Goldsmith-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 41 S.Ct. 189, 65 L.Ed. 376 ... ...
  • U.S. v. Bajakajian
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1998
    ...it was the actual means by which an offense was committed. See infra, at __; see, e.g., J.W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 508-510, 41 S.Ct. 189, 190-191, 65 L.Ed. 376 (1921). "Instrumentality'' forfeitures have historically been limited to the property actually u......
  • U.S. v. Huber
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 20, 1979
    ... Page 387 ... 603 F.2d 387 ... UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, ... Karl R. HUBER, ... See Goldsmith-Grant ... Page 397 ... Co. v. United States, 254 U.S ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles

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