United States v. ONE 1938 MODEL CHEVROLET COACH, ETC., 9266.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 9266.,9266. |
| Citation | 106 F.2d 985 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ONE 1938 MODEL CHEVROLET COACH, MOTOR NO. 1427089, WEST CHEVROLET CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Jim C. Smith, U. S. Atty., and Jack H. McGuire, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
Clarence H. Mullins, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
This suit was brought for the remission of a forfeiture under the provisions of the Liquor Law Repeal and Enforcement Act, 27 U.S.C.A. § 40a.
The West Chevrolet Company is an automobile sales concern doing business in Piedmont, Alabama. On April 26, 1938, Lawrence O'Kelley, a resident of Anniston, Alabama, purchased a 1938 Model Chevrolet Coach from this concern. O'Kelley traded in a used car as down payment and represented to West that the car was his property. As a matter of fact the used car belonged to one Marshall Gee who had a reputation for violating the liquor laws. O'Kelley had no record or reputation for liquor law violations.
Marshall Gee was with O'Kelley when the used car was traded in and he made no statement or claim that he had an interest in the automobile. West had no reason to believe that Gee had an interest in it. The dealer investigated the purchaser, O'Kelley, and the credit reporting agency in Anniston reported that he "was a little slow as to credit", and that he had no record or reputation as a liquor law violator.
West knew that the automobile was to be used in the taxi business. For this reason and the fact that the purchaser was rated as being slow pay, he stated to O'Kelley that the company would like to have additional security for its conditional sales agreement. Mr. West asked O'Kelley's companion, Gee whom he did not know, if he would sign the papers as surety or endorser. Gee agreed and thereupon signed the papers on their face.
Later the car was seized and forfeited for the transportation of non-tax paid liquor in violation of Section 3450 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 26 U. S.C.A. §§ 1156, 1441. The District Court allowed the claim of West Chevrolet Company for remission of the forfeiture. The government opposed the remission and here contends that the claimant had no right to remission under the statute, 27 U. S.C.A. § 40a (b) (3), for the reason that Gee was a well known liquor law violator and had not been investigated as required by law.
The case was tried by the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Federal Credit Co.
...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 Cir., 106 F.2d 985; United States v. One Hudson Coupe, 4 Cir., 110 F.2d 300; Universal Credit Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 111 F.2......
-
Interstate Securities Co. v. United States, 3145.
...Credit Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 111 F. 2d 764; United States v. One Hudson Coupe, 4 Cir., 110 F.2d 300; United States v. One 1938 Model Chevrolet Coach, 5 Cir., 106 F.2d 985. This rule was prompted by a purpose to provide a rule of thumb for the guidance of prospective purchasers of co......
-
United States v. One 1951 Chevrolet Tudor Auto., 850.
...5 Cir., 99 F.2d 498, affirmed United States v. One 1936 Model Ford, 307 U.S. 219, 59 S.Ct. 861, 83 L.Ed. 1249; United States v. One 1938 Model Chevrolet, 5 Cir., 106 F.2d 985; Beaudry v. United States, 5 Cir., 106 F.2d 987. Claimant here addressed his inquiry concerning the reputation or re......
-
Beaudry v. United States
...99 F.2d 498, affirmed United States v. One 1936 Model Ford, 307 U.S. 219, 59 S.Ct. 861, 83 L.Ed. 1249, and in United States v. One 1938 Chevrolet Model, 5 Cir., 106 F.2d 985, we have made it clear that while the District Judge may, he is not compelled to, exercise his discretion in remittin......