Smith v. United States, 10523.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Citation | 143 F.2d 228 |
| Docket Number | No. 10523.,10523. |
| Parties | SMITH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1944 |
143 F.2d 228 (1944)
SMITH
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 10523.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 29, 1944.
Charles P. Moriarty, Stanley J. Padden, Melvin T. Swanson, and Padden & Moriarty, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and G. D. Hile and G. A. B. Dovell, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS and HEALY, Circuit Judges, and FEE, District Judge.
HEALY, Circuit Judge.
On April 22, 1924, appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California upon an indictment charging conspiracy to violate and the violation of § 593 of the Tariff Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 982. He was thereupon sentenced to be imprisoned for the term of two years and to pay a fine to the United States in the sum of $10,000. The judgment directed that he stand committed until such fine be paid. He served the term of imprisonment imposed. Being without funds with which to pay
No further sum was paid, no other execution issued, and no further proceedings were had until April 1, 1941, on which date this suit was commenced by the United States in the court below to recover the balance unpaid on the judgment. In response to the complaint appellant pleaded the statutes of limitations of the states of California and Washington. He defended on the further ground that the suit was barred by the provisions of a federal statute, namely, 28 U.S.C.A. § 791, which reads: "No suit or prosecution for any penalty or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, accruing under the laws of the United States, shall be maintained, except in cases where it is otherwise specifically provided, unless the same is commenced within five years from the time when the penalty or forfeiture accrued." The defenses were overruled and judgment given in favor of the United States.
In the absence of a specific act of Congress to the contrary, state statutes of limitation do not bind the sovereign. United States v. Nashville, Etc., R. Co., 118 U.S. 120, 6 S.Ct. 1006, 30 L.Ed. 81; Schodde v. United States, 9 Cir., 69 F.2d 866. A judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Worldwide Indus. Enters., Inc., 16–CV–2255 (JFB) (SIL)
...Inc., 516 F.2d 198, 200 n.5 (2d Cir. 1975) ; United States v. Witherspoon, 211 F.2d 858, 861 (6th Cir. 1954) ; Smith v. United States, 143 F.2d 228, 229 (9th Cir. 1944) ; Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Durning, 98 F.2d 751, 753 (2d Cir. 1938) ; Durning v. McDonnell, 86 F.2d 91, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1......
-
Castle v. United States, 24068.
...convict may avoid further imprisonment under a judgment committing him until the fine is paid. See Smith v. United States, 9th Cir. 1944, 143 F.2d 228; United States v. Jenkins, S.D.Ga.1956, 141 F.Supp. 499, aff'd per curiam, 238 F.2d 83. Indeed, after release from prison, the convict's pro......
-
3M Co. (Minnesota Min. and Mfg.) v. Browner, 92-1126
...is measured from the date of the violation. United States v. Core Lab., 759 F.2d 480, 482 (5th Cir.1985); see also Smith v. United States, 143 F.2d 228, 229 (9th Cir.1944); United States v. Appling, 239 F.Supp. 185, 194-95 (S.D.Tex.1965). 16 As the Fifth Circuit put it in Core, a "review of......
-
U.S. v. Meyer, 86-1731
...v. SS President Grant, 730 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Witherspoon, 211 F.2d 858 (6th Cir.1954); Smith v. United States, 143 F.2d 228 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 729, 65 S.Ct. 65, 89 L.Ed. 585 (1944); United States v. Springer & Lotz, 69 F.2d 819 (2d Cir.1934); The Ng ......
-
United States v. Worldwide Indus. Enters., Inc., 16–CV–2255 (JFB) (SIL)
...Inc., 516 F.2d 198, 200 n.5 (2d Cir. 1975) ; United States v. Witherspoon, 211 F.2d 858, 861 (6th Cir. 1954) ; Smith v. United States, 143 F.2d 228, 229 (9th Cir. 1944) ; Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Durning, 98 F.2d 751, 753 (2d Cir. 1938) ; Durning v. McDonnell, 86 F.2d 91, 92–93 (2d Cir. 1......
-
Castle v. United States, 24068.
...convict may avoid further imprisonment under a judgment committing him until the fine is paid. See Smith v. United States, 9th Cir. 1944, 143 F.2d 228; United States v. Jenkins, S.D.Ga.1956, 141 F.Supp. 499, aff'd per curiam, 238 F.2d 83. Indeed, after release from prison, the convict's pro......
-
3M Co. (Minnesota Min. and Mfg.) v. Browner, 92-1126
...is measured from the date of the violation. United States v. Core Lab., 759 F.2d 480, 482 (5th Cir.1985); see also Smith v. United States, 143 F.2d 228, 229 (9th Cir.1944); United States v. Appling, 239 F.Supp. 185, 194-95 (S.D.Tex.1965). 16 As the Fifth Circuit put it in Core, a "review of......
-
U.S. v. Meyer, 86-1731
...v. SS President Grant, 730 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Witherspoon, 211 F.2d 858 (6th Cir.1954); Smith v. United States, 143 F.2d 228 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 729, 65 S.Ct. 65, 89 L.Ed. 585 (1944); United States v. Springer & Lotz, 69 F.2d 819 (2d Cir.1934); The Ng ......