United States v. 1938 BUICK SEDAN, ETC.
| Decision Date | 14 September 1938 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. 1938 BUICK SEDAN, 1937 MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. B 651-607. Petition of MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION OF MILWAUKEE, WIS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Clarence O. Holten and Mark Woolley, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.
William J. Quinn, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Paul, Minn.
This is a petition under Section 40a, Title 27 U.S.C.A., for the remission or mitigation of forfeiture of a certain Buick automobile, which was seized by the Agents of the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Treasury Department of the United States and forfeited to the United States by order of this Court for its use in connection with violations of the Internal Revenue laws relating to liquor.
From the evidence, it appears that the automobile was purchased in the name of Evelyn Clemmer, the wife of one Harold Clemmer, from the Park Motor Company of Austin, Minnesota. Messrs. Drummond and Christensen, representing the Company, went to the Clemmer home to negotiate the sale. Harold Clemmer, the husband, was present at the time. Mr. Drummond testified, "She (Mrs. Clemmer) decided on the car"; that up and until that time he did not know her personally; that he knew of her; that he knew her husband, and had known him since the fall of 1936. The deal was closed on December 3, 1937, the date of the visit to the Clemmer home. The down payment on the car in question was made by turning in to the Park Motor Company a 1937 Buick automobile owned by Harold Clemmer, which at the time was being financed by the Motors Acceptance Corporation, the petitioner herein. The balance of the purchase price is evidenced by an installment note and conditional sales contract. Two payments of about $40 each were made, subsequent to the date of the contract to the Park Motor Company by Mrs. Clemmer, in cash. A payment of $15 was made by her to the petitioner subsequent to the seizure of the automobile. A financial statement was given by Evelyn Clemmer on the date of the contract and the closing of the deal, in which she states that she had no property or earnings, and that her occupation was that of housewife.
On the hearing of this petition there was some loose testimony to the effect that Evelyn Clemmer had recently sold all of her interest in a night club, and that the purchase price therefor was being paid in installments.
The petitioner herein purchased the conditional sales contract and installment note several days after the sale of the automobile to Evelyn Clemmer. Its representative testified that he relied solely as to the credit responsibility of Evelyn Clemmer upon information which he received from the Park Motor Company; that he made no other or further inquiry. The Park Motor Company, in receiving the installment note and contract on the automobile, made no inquiries or investigation as to the financial responsibility or integrity of Evelyn Clemmer. Had such an investigation been made by the Park Motor Company, it would have disclosed nothing in addition to that which the Company already knew concerning Mrs. Clemmer and her husband. Representatives of the Park Motor Company testified that they knew Harold Clemmer had been convicted of a violation of some liquor law in 1931 or 1932, and that the General Motors Acceptance Corporation had refused to accept a contract on an automobile purchased by Harold Clemmer some time previously, because of the fact that he had been convicted on a liquor law violation.
The automobile in this case was seized on February 24, 1938, and judgment of forfeiture was entered in this case on August 11, 1938. There was testimony on the part of the Government, given by one of the references which Mrs. Clemmer gave on her statement to the Park Motor Company that Harold Clemmer had a reputation as a "bootlegger". An Agent of the Alcohol Tax Unit testified that Harold Clemmer was under surveillance by that Unit during the months of December, 1937, and January and February, 1938; that he saw and observed Harold Clemmer driving the car in question approximately five or six times during each of said months. The testimony shows that from the time the Buick automobile in question was purchased, down to the time of its seizure, there was only one Buick automobile owned by the Clemmers, and that was the one in question; that Mrs. Clemmer has apparently borne a good reputation — in any event, there is no evidence to show that she ever violated the law; that she was living with her husband before and at the time the automobile in question was purchased.
Jurisdiction of this Court to remit or mitigate the forfeiture of automobiles seized for violations of the Internal Revenue laws is given under 27 U.S.C.A. § 40a (49 Stat. 878). This power is conditioned upon the claimant's proving (1) that he has acquired an interest in the car in good faith, (2) that he had no knowledge or reason to believe that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Federal Credit Co.
...1936 Model Lafayette Coupe Automobile, D.C., 14 F. Supp. 1003; United States v. C. I. T. Corp., 2 Cir., 93 F.2d 469; United States v. 1938 Buick Sedan, D.C., 24 F.Supp. 739. 3 United States v. National Discount Corp., 7 Cir., 104 F.2d 611; United States v. One 1938 Model Chevrolet Coach, 5 ......
-
United States v. ONE 1956 MODEL 4-DOOR PONTIAC CAT. A.
...See in this connection, United States v. One Chrysler Sedan, Motor No. C77048, D.C.M.D.Pa., 18 F.Supp. 684; United States v. 1938 Buick Sedan, etc., D.C.Minn., 24 F.Supp. 739; United States v. Automobile Financing, Inc., 5 Cir., 99 F.2d 498, affirmed 307 U.S. 219, 59 S.Ct. 861, 83 L.Ed. 124......
-
United States v. One 1955 Model Buick Coupe Automobile
...was thence imputed to the General Motors Acceptance Corporation who financed the forfeited vehicle. The case of United States v. 1938 Buick Sedan, D.C.N.Y., 24 F.Supp. 739, "Where finance company financing conditional sale of automobile relied entirely on the seller of an automobile as to c......