United States v. ONE DE SOTO SEDAN, 1946 MODEL, ETC., Civ. No. 261.
Decision Date | 09 August 1949 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 261. |
Citation | 85 F. Supp. 245 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. ONE DE SOTO SEDAN, 1946 MODEL, ETC. |
John H. Manning, U. S. Atty., Raleigh, N. C., Howard H. Hubbard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Clinton, N. C., for libelant
Henry P. Whitehurst, New Bern, N. C., for respondent.
This libel of information was filed under Sec. 3321, Title 26 U.S.C.A., alleging that the accused automobile was used in the removal, deposit and concealment of two gallons of distilled spirits upon which the tax due the United States had not been paid, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax. This section of the Code provides: (a) that every offender of its provisions shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment, or both, and that (b) every conveyance used in the "removal or for the deposit or concealment thereof" shall be forfeited. Prior to a hearing on the libel the owner and claimant of the accused "conveyance" was tried under Sec. 2803, Title 26 U.S.C.A., on an indictment alleging that he was in possession on the same date set forth in the libel of the identical two gallons of distilled spirits referred to in the libel. He was acquitted by a jury and discharged.
The facts here are similar to the facts in Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 440, 29 L.Ed. 684, where the holding was that a former acquittal of the claimant in a criminal action constituted a bar to the prosecution of a forfeiture action, as "the fraudulent acts and attempts and intents to defraud, alleged in the prior criminal information, and covered by the verdict and judgment of acquittal, embraced all of the acts, attempts, and intents averred in the information in this suit." In that case, 116 U.S. at page 443, 6 S.Ct. at page 440, the Court said:
So far as I know, the Coffey case has not been overruled. It is true that the holding has been criticized in subsequent cases as pointed out by Judge Clark in the case of United States v. One Dodge Sedan, 3 Cir., 113 F.2d 552, 553; in these words:
Conceding some reluctance on the Court's part, in view of cases since decided, to hold that the decision in the Coffey case controls a disposition of this case, it has not found the "necessary loophole" to avoid such holding. In United States v. One Dodge Sedan, above cited, the claimant was the wife of the acquitted driver and was not a party to the criminal proceeding and the decision of the Court to the effect that the Coffey case was not controlling was based upon the fact that the parties in the two actions were not the same. On page 554 of 113 F.2d the Court said:
The holding in United States v. One 1935 Model Pontiac Sedan, 6 Cir., 105 F.2d 149, is likewise based on the fact that the parties to the libel proceedings were not the same parties as those in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Burch
...of its current force. Other courts have shown a similar reluctance to apply literally the holding of Coffey. United States v. One DeSoto Sedan, D.C.E.D.N.C.1949, 85 F.Supp. 245; United States v. Gramer, 9 Cir., 191 F.2d 741, 27 A.L.R.2d 1132; United States v. One 1951 Cadillac Coupe DeVille......
-
Younge v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
...punishment, divided into parts) was the same. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746; United States v. One De Soto Sedan (D.C.N.C.), 85 F.Supp. 245, aff., 4 Cir., 180 F.2d In this case the parties are not the same; in the criminal case the State of Missouri was the p......
-
United States v. One 1953 Oldsmobile 98 4 Door Sedan, 6965.
...684, but despite this criticism it appears that the Coffey case has still been followed by this Circuit. See United States v. One DeSoto Sedan, 1946 Model D.C., 85 F.Supp. 245, affirmed in a per curiam opinion; United States v. One DeSoto Sedan, 1946 Model 4 Cir., 180 F.2d A lot of water ha......
-
Doles v. State, S-07-0002.
...to pay taxes on certain liquor barred subsequent forfeiture action, Coffey never having been overruled); United States v. One De Soto Sedan, 85 F.Supp. 245, 245-48 (D.N.C. 1949), aff'd, 180 F.2d 583 (4th Cir.N.C.1950) (acquittal on charge of possession of distilled spirits upon which taxes ......