United States v. One 1935 Model Pontiac S. Automobile, 7808.
| Citation | 105 F.2d 149 |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 7808.,7808. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ONE 1935 MODEL PONTIAC SEDAN AUTOMOBILE. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Eli H. Brown, III, of Louisville, Ky., , for the United States.
No brief was filed for appellees.
Before HICKS, ALLEN, and ARANT, Circuit Judges.
The United States of America, pursuant to R.S. § 3450, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1441, instituted a libel proceeding against an automobile alleged to have been used by one Irvin Hobgood in the removal and concealment of whiskey, with intent to defraud the government of taxes. In due time, one Ammanell Martin, claiming to be the owner of the car, filed an intervening petition opposing its forfeiture. In an amendment to her petition, she denied that the automobile had been used by Hobgood as charged by the government; alleged that, subsequent to the filing of the libel, Hobgood had been acquitted in a criminal prosecution for the offense charged; and alleged that such judgment is a bar in the libel proceeding.
A jury trial was waived and the case submitted to the District Court on the pleadings and a stipulation as to certain facts not essential to a disposition of this appeal.
The District Court, relying upon the case of Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684, held that Hobgood's acquittal was a bar to forfeiture of the automobile, and ordered that it be delivered to claimant upon payment of all expenses incurred by the United States incident to its seizure and forfeiture, in accordance with 49 Stat. 878, 27 U.S.C. A. § 40a(c). See 15 F.Supp. 604.
The only question that it is necessary to decide to dispose of this appeal is whether the decision in Coffey v. United States, supra, requires the decision of the District Court.
In the Coffey case, the claimant alleged a prior judgment of acquittal upon a criminal information against him based on the same facts as were charged in the libel proceeding. Under these circumstances, it was held that the judgment of acquittal was a bar to the government's subsequent libel against the property alleged to have been used in violation of statute. From the opinion, however, it is clear that the principle therein recognized is deemed applicable only when the parties to the forfeiture proceeding are the same as those in the criminal proceeding.
The Court, 116 U.S. at page 443, 6 S.Ct. at page 440, 29 L.Ed. 684, said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKeehan v. United States
...134 F. 61 (6th Cir. 1905). See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), United States v. One 1935 Pontiac, 105 F.2d 149 (6th Cir. 1939) (dictum). Contra, United States v. One Dodge Sedan, 113 F.2d 552 (3rd Cir. 1940). But see limiting construction given to C......
-
United States v. Plymouth Coupe
...the claimant of the automobile in the libel proceedings was not a party to the criminal prosecution. United States v. One 1935 Pontiac Model Sedan Automobile, 6 Cir., 105 F.2d 149; United States v. One Dodge Sedan, 3 Cir., 113 F. 2d If the motor vehicle had been owned by Rocco DeBonis, ther......
-
United States v. One 1953 Oldsmobile 98 4 Door Sedan, 6965.
...chattels she now wishes to rescue from the clutches of the allegedly offended government.\' "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 ......
-
Mathis v. State
...Stones & Jewelry, 6 Cir., 134 F. 61; U. S. v. Certain Bottles of Lee's 'Save the Baby', D.C., 37 F.2d 137; U. S. v. One 1935 Model Pontiac Sedan Automobile, 6 Cir., 105 F.2d 149; U. S. v. One Dodge Sedan, 3 Cir., 113 F.2d 552; Duncan v. State, 149 Ga. 195, 99 S.E. 612, at page 614; Approxim......