United States v. Two Bay Mules
| Decision Date | 01 January 1888 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. TWO BAY MULES, ETC. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
At Law. Information to enforce forfeiture.
INTERNAL REVENUE-- VIOLATION OF LAWS-- FORFEITURE.
Rev St. U.S. Sec. 3450, providing that animals and conveyances used in removing spirituous liquors to evade payment of the tax shall be forfeited to the United States, subjects them to forfeiture when used in such removal; though they were so employed by a person who had hired them from the owner representing that they were to be used for another purpose.
H. C Jones, U.S. Atty., and Geo. F. Bason, Asst. U.S. Atty., for the United States.
Gidney & Webb, for claimant.
From the facts set forth in the 'agreed case,' it appears that the mules and wagon mentioned in the information were at the time of seizure, in the possession of Nick York, and were then actually employed by him in the removal of a package of spirituous liquors in violation of law. The statute upon which this information if founded (Rev. St. U.S Sec. 3450) expressly provides that such property so employed shall be seized and be forfeited to the United States; and that the proceedings to enforce such forfeiture shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem. It also appears that W. H. York, the owner and claimant of the mules and wagon, hired the same to Nick York at the sum of $2.50 per day, for the purpose of hauling a load of produce to market; and said claimant had no knowledge or information that his property should not be forfeited for a fraud in which he in no respect participated. There is no exception in the statute under which such defense can be made available in the courts, which cannot give relief in contravention of the provisions of a positive statute. The principles of law announced in Peisch v. Ware, 4 Cranch, 347, are not applicable in this case, as the offending property, under a contract with the owner, was in the rightful possession of Nick York at the time the offense was committed.
The opportunities, facilities, and inducements for persons to evade the internal revenue laws, and the frequent violations that escaped without detection and punishment, induced congress to enact very comprehensive, specific, and stringent measures for the prevention and punishment of frauds in regard to the tax on whisky and tobacco, so extensively manufactured and sold. To make this purpose still more effectual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finance Sec. Co., Inc. v. Conway
... ... and consent of the owner. See United States v. One Black ... Horse (D. C.) 129 F. 167; United States v. Two Bay ... Mules (D. C.) 36 ... ...
-
H. R. Weissberg Corp. v. New York Underwriters Ins. Co.
...or Ocean Liner is a vehicle. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 41 S.Ct. 189, 65 L.Ed. 376; United States v. Two Bay Mules, 36 F. 84 (W.D.N.C.1888); United States v. One Bay Horse, 270 F. 590 (N.D.Ga.1921).' Id. at 237 of 307 U.S., at 870 of 59 S.Ct. Interestingly enou......
-
Skinner v. Thomas
...the liveryman who owned them had no knowledge of the purpose for which the team and vehicle was to be used. This case cites United States v. two Bay Mules, supra, "In this case, as in that, the redress of the innocent claimant must be from the wrongdoer himself, or by application to the off......
-
United States v. ONE CHEVROLET 1935 SEDAN, ETC.
...did not know of or had not consented to the illegal use, the vehicle is forfeitable under the provisions of the statute. United States v. Two Bay Mules (D.C.) 36 F. 84; Van Oster v. State of Kansas, 272 U.S. 465, 47 S.Ct. 133, 71 L.Ed. 354, 47 A.L.R. 1044; Dobbins' Distillery v. United Stat......