United States v. One 1952 Lincoln Sedan, 14897.
Decision Date | 04 June 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 14897.,14897. |
Citation | 213 F.2d 786 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. ONE 1952 LINCOLN SEDAN, MOTOR NO. 52LP22535H (MERCHANTS NAT. BANK OF MOBILE, Intervenor). |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jesse W. Shanks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for appellant.
James L. May, Jr., Mobile, Ala., McCorvey, Turner, Rogers, Johnstone & Adams, Mobile, Ala., of counsel, for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES, and BORAH, Circuit Judges.
The United States has appealed from the dismissal by the court below of the libel filed against a 1952 Lincoln Sedan for forfeiture, because of its use in violating the provisions of Section 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3116. The district court, after a hearing, filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered its judgment dismissing the libel and directing that the seized automobile be restored to the possession of the claimant Merchants National Bank of Mobile, Mobile, Alabama, and to purchaser Kenneth A. Fernandez jointly. The district court found that on December 8, 1952, the Lincoln Sedan was being used as a convoy or decoy car for one 1950 Ford Pick Up Truck, which was transporting 150 gallons of non-tax paid whiskey in one gallon jugs on which no stamps were affixed denoting the quantity and evidencing the payment of revenue taxes; that in addition to being used as a convoy or decoy car the Lincoln Sedan was used to block the federal officers' pursuit of the offending truck with the intent and purpose to aid the truck driver to escape with the non-tax paid whiskey.
The trial court found among other things the following:
The conclusions of law of the district court were thus stated:
In our opinion, the district court committed reversible error in dismissing the libel. Its view of the applicable law was based upon the erroneous belief that the case of United States v. Lane Motor Co., 344 U.S. 630, 73 S.Ct. 459, 97 L.Ed. 622, and our opinion in United States v. Jones, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 283, were controlling and compelled the conclusions that the automobile was not forfeitable under the provisions of Section 3116 of Title 26 U.S.C.A. This section in pertinent part, authorizes the seizure and forfeiture of "property intended for use in violating * * * the internal-revenue laws, or regulations prescribed under such * * * laws, or which has been so used, and no property rights shall exist in any such liquor or property. * * *"
In United States v. Lane Motor Co., supra, the district judge found that the truck and automobile there involved had each been used by the operator of an illegal distillery to drive a number of miles from his home to a point one-half mile or more from the distillery, the operator walking from that point to the distillery. The district judge also found that the Government had not shown, as it had alleged, that the vehicles had been used for transporting raw materials, utensils, and vessels for use at the distillery, and ruled that the facts shown did not justify a forfeiture. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment. In a short Per Curiam opinion the Supreme Court stated the facts as we have set them out and said: "We think it clear that a vehicle used solely for commuting to an illegal distillery is not used in violating the revenue laws." But this decision is not dispositive of the issue here for the reasons which the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit carefully pointed out in its opinion.1 We quote approvingly from that decision the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. ONE 1972 DATSUN, VEHICLE ID. NO. LB1100355950
...Use as a look-out or decoy vehicle in a convoy will also render the vehicle subject to forfeiture. United States v. One 1952 Lincoln Sedan, 213 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1954); United States v. One Dodge Sedan, 28 F.2d 44 (D.Cal. Courts have been reluctant to expand the notion of "facilitation" be......
-
Henry v. Castagnaro
...Coupe Auto, (D.C.) 67 F.Supp. 686); or (b) that the vehicle was used as a lookout or decoy vehicle in a convoy (United States v. One 1952 Lincoln Sedan, (5 Cir.) 213 F.2d 786; United States v. One Dodge Sedan, (D.C.) 28 F.2d 44); or (c) that the vehicle was used as a place for conducting ne......
-
United States v. One 1956 Ford Tudor Sedan, 7564.
...less closely and immediately related to the successful accomplishment of the unlawful activity than the other. United States v. One 1952 Lincoln Sedan, 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 786; United States v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 5 Cir., 239 F.2d 102; United States v. One Dodge Sedan, 3 Cir......
-
D'AGOSTINO v. United States
...here, is the holding in United States v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 5 Cir. 1956, 239 F.2d 102, citing United States v. One 1952 Lincoln Sedan, 5 Cir. 1954, 213 F.2d 786; Jarrett v. United States, 4 Cir. 1950, 184 F.2d 532; United States v. Ganey, 5 Cir. 1950, 183 F.2d 273; One Ford Tu......
-
State and Federal Forfeiture of Property Used in Criminal Activity
...231 F.2d 219 (3rd Cir. 1956); U.S. v. One 1950 Chevrolet 4-Door Sedan, 215 F.2d 482 (10th Cir. 1954); U.S. v. One 1952 Lincoln Sedan, 213 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1954); U.S. v. One Dodge Sedan, 28 F.2d 44 (D. Cal. 1928). 39. U.S. v. One 1972 Datsun, Vehicle I.D. No. LB1100355950, 378 F.Supp. 120......