United States v. ONE CHRYSLER SEDAN, MOTOR NO. C77048, 3979.

Decision Date02 April 1937
Docket NumberNo. 3979.,3979.
Citation18 F. Supp. 684
PartiesUNITED STATES v. ONE CHRYSLER SEDAN, MOTOR NO. C77048.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

Frederick V. Follmer, U. S. Atty., and Joseph P. Brennan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Scranton, Pa., for the United States.

David T. Davis, Jr., and R. Lawrence Coughlin, both of Wilkes Barre, Pa., for petitioner.

WATSON, District Judge.

This is a petition by the Commercial Credit Company for the remission or mitigation of the forfeiture of a certain Chrysler touring sedan automobile, which was seized by members of the Pennsylvania State Constabulary and forfeited to the United States by order of the court for violation of the Internal Revenue Laws relating to liquor. At the time of the seizure, the automobile was in the possession of and being operated by one Michael Tramantan.

Hearing was had, and from the evidence it appears that the automobile in question was purchased in the name of Ann Tramantan in December, 1935, from the Capitol Motors, Inc., of Trenton, N. J., of which one Samuel Himmelstein was president. Capitol Motors, Inc., was successor to Himmelstein Motors. The purchaser, Ann Tramantan, was at the time the automobile was purchased, and is now, the wife of one Michael "Daylight" Tramantan. The latter had a reputation in and about Trenton, N. J., for at least seven years of being a racketeer, bootlegger, numbers man, and gunman, and, at the time of the purchase, had a police record. This reputation and record was known to Samuel Himmelstein at the time of the sale of the automobile in question.

In the year 1934 Ann Tramantan and Michael Tramantan, her husband, negotiated with Himmelstein Motors, predecessor to Capitol Motors, Inc., for the purchase of a Plymouth automobile. At that time Samuel Himmelstein caused an investigation to be made regarding the credit and reputation of the prospective purchasers. The report of the investigation bureau revealed the bad reputation and police record of Michael Tramantan. A copy of this report was sent to the office of the Commercial Credit Company at Asbury Park, N. J., and another copy was kept in the files of Himmelstein Motors, and subsequently transferred to the files of the Capitol Motors, Inc. The negotiations at that time did not result in a sale.

Ann Tramantan has always borne a good reputation, and has never been known to violate the law. She has supported herself throughout her married life by working as a beauty operator. However, she lived with her husband before and at the time the automobile in question was purchased. Unquestionably, she knew about her husband's unlawful activities. The automobile was purchased for the use of herself and her husband, and she had reason to believe that her husband would use it in violation of the laws of the states and of the United States relating to liquor.

At the time of the purchase of the automobile, sales of automobiles by Capitol Motors, Inc., were financed by the Commercial Credit Company through its Philadelphia office. Capitol Motors, Inc., acting as agent for the Commercial Credit Company, through its president, Samuel Himmelstein, caused the Atlantic Credit and Adjustment Bureau of Trenton to make an investigation of the credit and reputation of Ann Tramantan. Himmelstein did not reveal to the credit bureau the fact that. Ann Tramantan was the wife of Michael Tramantan. The credit bureau sent its report direct to the Philadelphia office of the Commercial Credit Company. This report showed that Ann Tramantan was married, but did not reveal the name, reputation, or record of her husband. The purchaser received the automobile and signed a conditional sale agreement. This agreement was assigned by Capitol Motors, Inc., to the Commercial Credit Company. Accompanying the assignment was a statement by Capitol Motors, Inc., by Samuel Himmelstein, president, that it had no reason to believe the purchaser violated any laws concerning liquor. On the basis of this report of the credit bureau and the statement by Capitol Motors, Inc., the Commercial Credit Company accepted the assignment of the conditional sale agreement, and accepted the draft drawn on it by Capitol Motors, Inc., in the sum of $368. In payment for the automobile the purchaser traded in a Plymouth automobile, paid $136 in cash, and executed a note payable in twelve equal monthly installments of $36 each. There is now due and owing to the Commercial Credit Company on this note the sum of $180, which is in default. Therefore, at the time of the seizure of the automobile, title and right to possession...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Duckworth v. Bernstein
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 11 Ottobre 1983
    ...to principal even though agent claimed 10 percent commission from borrowers for obtaining loan). And see U.S. v. One Chrysler Sedan, 18 F.Supp. 684 (D.C.Pa.1937) (imputing of agent's knowledge to principal especially applicable where agent is employed to obtain the knowledge sought to be ch......
  • United States v. One Terraplane Sedan, 3388.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 15 Marzo 1938
    ...Coupe, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 986; United States v. 1935 Ford Coupe Engine No. 18-1654854, D.C., 17 F.Supp. 331; United States v. One Chrysler Sedan, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 684; United States v. One Chevrolet Sedan, D.C., 18 Fed.Supp. 799; Federal Motor Finance v. United States, 8 Cir., 88 F.2d 90, and......
  • United States v. ONE 1956 MODEL 4-DOOR PONTIAC CAT. A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia
    • 4 Ottobre 1957
    ...said that the dealer had no reason to believe that it would be used illegally. See in this connection, United States v. One Chrysler Sedan, Motor No. C77048, D.C.M.D.Pa., 18 F.Supp. 684; United States v. 1938 Buick Sedan, etc., D.C.Minn., 24 F.Supp. 739; United States v. Automobile Financin......
  • United States v. One 1955 Model Buick Coupe Automobile
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • 20 Settembre 1956
    ...of good faith and the knowledge of the dealer should be imputed to the claimant finance company, the Court in United States v. One Chrysler Sedan, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 684, 687, in a case identical to this, "* * * the claimant must be held to knowledge of facts known to the dealer, whether disc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT