Logan v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 October 1919 |
| Docket Number | 3381.,3379 |
| Parties | LOGAN v. UNITED STATES. WISDOM & STRICKLAND v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Sam P Maddox, of Dalton, Ga. (J. G. B. Erwin, of Calhoun, Ga., and Maddox, McCamy & Shumate, of Dalton, Ga., on the brief), for plaintiff in error Logan.
L. C Hopkins and Clarence Bell, both of Atlanta, Ga. (C.T., L. C & J. L. Hopkins, Dorsey, Shelton & Dorsey, and Bell & Ellis all of Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error Wisdom & Strickland.
Hooper Alexander, U.S. Atty., and J. W. Henley, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga.
Before WALKER, Circuit Judge, and FOSTER and GRUBB, District Judges.
These two cases are substantially alike in their nature and the legal principle controlling them, and may be considered together. In each, the appeal is from a judgment of the District Court condemning and forfeiting to the United States, in the former an automobile and in the latter a mule, as having been used in the removal of goods or commodities (viz., whisky) for or in respect whereof a tax was imposed, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax. Section 3450 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. Sec. 6352) directs that such articles shall be forfeited. It is conceded that the automobile and the mule were used for the removal of nontax paid spirits, and would have been subject to forfeiture, if they had belonged to the user. It is conceded that the automobile was sold to the user by the plaintiffs in error in the first case; they retaining title to secure the balance of unpaid purchase money. It is conceded that the claimant in the second case sold the forfeited mule to the user in whose possession it was seized, taking a mortgage back to secure the balance of unpaid purchase money. It is conceded that neither claimant had knowledge of the illegal use to which their property was put.
The case of United States v. Mincey, 254 F. 287, 165 C.C.A. 575, decided by this court, would seem to be controlling of both cases. The plaintiffs in error ask us to reconsider the Mincey Case, and also to distinguish each of the present cases from that case.
In deference to the earnest argument of plaintiffs in error, we have again considered the question involved in these appeals, but without being convinced that there is any good legal reason for departing from our previous decision. The cases of Dobbins Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 24 L.Ed. 637, and United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 10 Sup.Ct. 244, 33 L.Ed. 555, so far as they relate to personal property, are not distinguishable from the cases now under consideration, and control their decision. In the Dobbins Distillery Case, mention is made, in the court's opinion, that the lessor committed his property to the custody of the lessee for a business necessarily under strict regulations, viz., a government distillery. However, this was a lawful disposition of his property, and we cannot see how it could be said to charge him with knowledge of his lessee's subsequent infractions of the internal revenue laws. The statute forfeiting realty provides for proof of knowledge of the violation in the owner, but no such requirement rests upon the government as to personalty. In the Stowell Case, personal property of a third person, in custody of the offender, was forfeited, though the owner was ignorant of the fact that a distillery was being operated on the premises where the property was seized, and in connection with which it had been used, without the owner's knowledge or consent. Reference is made to sections 3460 and 3461 of the Revised Statutes (Comp.
St. Secs. 6362, 6363), as being inconsistent with the construction given section 3450 in the Mincey Case, both because of a supposed lack of good reason for protecting an absent claimant, since it is contended that, if present, he is permitted to say nothing to prevent the forfeiture, and because of a supposed discrimination against a present claimant, because he could not prevent a forfeiture by showing an absence on his part of willful negligence and an intention to defraud, though the absent claimant is relieved from the forfeiture by making such a showing to the Secretary of the Treasury.
The first contention loses sight of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. $20,771.00
...of the use to which the property is put even though the owner did not know that it was to be put to such use."); Logan v. United States , 260 F. 746, 748-49 (5th Cir. 1919) ("The long history of forfeitures in this country ... repels the idea that such forfeitures conflict with the owner's ......
-
Van Oster v. State of Kansas
...133 U. S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 244, 33 L. Ed. 555; United States v. Mincey, 254 F. 287, 165 C. C. A. 575, 5 A. L. R. 211; Logan v. United States, 260 F. 746, 171 C. C. A. 484; United States v. One Saxon Automobile, 257 F. 251, 168 C. C. A. 335; United States v 246 1/2 Pounds of Tobacco (D. C.) 103 ......
-
Commercial Credit Co. v. State, Case Number: 20711
...in U.S. v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 244, 33 L. Ed. 555, U.S. v. Mincey, 254 F. 287, 165 C. C. A. 575, 5 A. L. R. 211, Logan v. U. S., 260 F. 746, 171 C.C.A. 484, U.S. v. One Saxon Automobile, 257 F. 251, 168 C.C.A. 335, and similar cases, are not germane, as prosecutions in those case......
-
Richardson v. Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-One & 00/100 Dollars ($20,771.00)
... ... Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United ... States Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the South ... Carolina Constitution ... was to be put to such use."); Logan v. United ... States , 260 F. 746, 748-49 (5th Cir. 1919) ("The ... long history of ... ...