United States v. ONE 1937 MODEL FORD COACH, ETC.

CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtOscar H. Doyle, U. S. Atty., of Greenville, S. C., for the United States
CitationUnited States v. ONE 1937 MODEL FORD COACH, ETC., 57 F.Supp. 977 (D. S.C. 1944)
Decision Date15 December 1944
PartiesUNITED STATES v. ONE 1937 MODEL FORD COACH, MOTOR NO. 3972861.

Oscar H. Doyle, U. S. Atty., of Greenville, S. C., for the United States.

Wilson & Wilson, of Rock Hill, S.C., for claimant Robert Burette Morris.

WYCHE, District Judge.

This is a proceeding under 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, 3321, R.S. § 3450, to forfeit an automobile owned by one Robert Burette Morris on the ground that it was being used with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on distilled spirits found therein by depositing and concealing the liquor.

The facts are as follows: On June 3, 1944, just before night, in consequence of certain information, policemen of the City of Rock Hill, South Carolina, were looking for this automobile and its owner. The officers were driving a car belonging to the City, and as they passed Lancaster Avenue they saw Robert Burette Morris driving his car and in the seat with him another man, later found to be Randolph Frisbee. When Morris saw the officers he drove away at a rapid rate on the road toward McConnellsville and the officers gave chase. A few miles out of Rock Hill, Frisbee held up in full view of the officers a one-half gallon fruit jar which he, at Morris' direction, threw upon the pavement of the road, causing it to break. The liquid in the jar made such a splash when it broke that a quantity of it was thrown back onto the windshield of the police car, from which emanated the unmistakable odor of white corn liquor. After proceeding further along the road Morris stopped his car and both he and Frisbee were arrested. Officers then came back to the place where the jar was broken on the pavement, and examined the broken pieces of glass, and the fluid which was on the pavement, and in and on the broken pieces of glass, and found that the jar contained "white corn whiskey," and there were no revenue stamps on the container. Frisbee gave a statement to the officers in which he stated that the owner of the automobile left him in the car and went somewhere and returned with the fruit jar, and that he did not know what was in it. Both Morris and Frisbee admitted a prior conviction for removing and concealing non-taxpaid liquors. The distilled spirits deposited and concealed in the said automobile were subject to a basic production tax. It was admitted that no tax had been paid thereon. The seizure of the automobile was adopted by officers of the Alcohol Tax Unit, of the Treasury Department of the United States.

The pertinent parts of Section 3321, Title 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, read as follows: "Removal or concealment with intent to defraud the revenue. (a) Penalty. Every person who removes, deposits, or conceals, or is concerned in removing, depositing, or concealing any goods or commodities for or in respect whereof any tax is or shall be imposed, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax or any part thereof, shall be liable to a fine etc. (b) Forfeiture. (1) Goods. Whenever any goods or commodities for or in respect whereof any tax is or shall be imposed, or any materials, utensils, or vessels proper or intended to be made use of for or in the making of such goods or commodities are removed, or are deposited or concealed in any place, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax, or any part thereof, all such goods and commodities, and all such materials, utensils, and vessels, respectively, shall be forfeited. (2) Packages. In every such case all the casks, vessels, cases, or other packages whatsoever, containing, or which shall have contained, such goods or commodities, respectively, shall be forfeited. (3) Conveyances. Every vessel, boat, cart, carriage, or other conveyance whatsoever, and all horses or other animals, and all things used in the removal or for the deposit or concealment thereof, respectively, shall be forfeited." (Emphasis added)

In the case of United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile, 272 U.S. 321, 47 S.Ct. 154, 71 L.Ed. 279, 47 A.L.R. 1025, proceedings to forfeit an automobile under this section were brought. Motion to quash the libel was granted. The Circuit Court affirmed (United States v. Garth Motor Co., 5 Cir., 4 F.2d 528), but the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • United States v. One 1942 Studebaker, 1573.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 12 Abril 1945
    ...fact that the bottle was not the bottle of the manufacturer whose label it bore. The government seeks aid from United States v. One 1937 Model Ford Coach, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 977. That case does not meet the point that must be decided here, for there the liquor was contained in fruit jars whic......
  • Anderson v. United States, 13214.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 8 Noviembre 1950
    ...in the result. 1 See The Czecho-Slovakia, 5 Cir., 58 F.2d 746; Busic v. United States, 4 Cir., 149 F.2d 794; United States v. One 1937 Model Ford Coach, etc., D.C., 57 F.Supp. 977. ...
  • United States v. One 1949 Lincoln Coupe Auto, 1544.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 25 Octubre 1950
    ...bar the present forfeiture proceeding against his automobile. United States v. Physic, 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 338; United States v. One 1937 Model Ford Coach, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 977. As acquittal does not bar forfeiture proceedings, it necessarily follows that prior conviction is not a prerequisite......
  • United States v. One 1951 Chevrolet 3/4-Ton Pickup Truck, Civ. A. No. 2798.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • 6 Mayo 1955
    ...of penalties imposed in other sections of the Code." See also U. S. v. One Dodge Sedan, 3 Cir., 164 F.2d 950; U. S. v. One 1937 Model Ford Coach, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 977; United States v. One 1942 Plymouth Sedan Automobile, D.C., 89 F.Supp. 884; United States v. One 1935 Model Pontiac Sedan Au......