United States v. Windle, 13388.
Decision Date | 04 December 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 13388.,13388. |
Citation | 158 F.2d 196 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. WINDLE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Keokuk, Iowa (Maurice F. Donegan, U. S. Atty., of Davenport, Iowa, on the brief), for appellant.
Carl H. Lambach, of Davenport, Iowa, for appellee.
Before GARDNER, SANBORN, and WOODROUGH, Circuit Judges.
The United States filed libel for forfeiture of a 1940 Dodge coupe automobile and its contents, consisting of approximately 48 gallons of whiskey, because of the intended use of the automobile and its contents in violation of internal revenue laws relating to selling distilled spirits at wholesale without paying the special tax applicable to a wholesale liquor dealer and without keeping required records. James C. Windle intervened and filed an answer claiming ownership of the seized property. The answer was treated as a motion to dismiss or a demurrer and the case was submitted on the pleadings. The District Court entered an order dismissing the automobile from the libel and ordering its return to intervener, and the United States has appealed.
The libel presents that at the time the automobile and liquor were seized by an agent of the Alcohol Tax Unit they were owned and possessed by Windle, and that he held the liquor in the car with intention to use it in violation of internal revenue laws, contrary to 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3116, and further states that for a long period of time prior to the seizure Windle had been unlawfully carrying on the business of a wholesale liquor dealer and had sold and offered for sale distilled spirits in quantities of five wine gallons or more to the same person at the same time, without paying the special wholesale liquor dealer's tax required by law, and without rendering under oath to the District Supervisor of the Alcohol Tax Unit, correct transcripts and summaries of records required under internal revenue laws and regulations promulgated thereunder.
While the libel states that the distilled spirits were at the time of seizure being offered for sale in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3253, it further states that the liquor and automobile became forfeited to the United States under 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3116, and the allegations of the libel are sufficient to invoke the forfeiture provisions of § 3116 if they are applicable to the facts presented. 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3253 provides.
26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3116 provides:
The District Court in dismissing the automobile from the libel and ordering its return to intervener held that 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3253 was a special statute applicable to a particular violation and that since it did not specifically provide for forfeiture of a vehicle used in connection with carrying on the business of wholesale liquor dealer without payment of the special occupational tax required by law, no forfeiture of a vehicle could be based thereon, and that 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3116, was a general statute and was inoperative in connection with a violation contemplated by Sec. 3253.
As the libel was drawn under Section 3116, the sole question is whether the District Court erred in holding that the general provisions of Section 3116 were inapplicable to the facts of the case.
We have recognized the applicability of 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3116 in the case of a forfeiture of liquor found in possession of one engaged as a wholesale liquor dealer without having paid the special tax. In Seib v. United States, 8 Cir., 150 F.2d 673, 675, one count was based on 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 3253 and one count was drawn under Sec. 3116. Intervener therein contended that Sec. 3253 did not authorize forfeiture of liquor found in possession of one unlawfully engaged as a wholesale liquor dealer without having paid the applicable special tax. In disposing of this contention we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ASSOCIATED GEN. CONTR., CAL. v. SECRETARY OF COM., US
...F.2d 1194, 1196 (5th Cir. 1976). 26 Shelton v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 35, 165 F.2d 241, 244 (1947). 27 United States v. Windle, 158 F.2d 196, 199 (8th Cir. 1946). 28 Full text at footnote 20, 29 Full text at footnote 21, supra. 30 1964 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2391-2394,......
-
U.S. v. One 1975 Pontiac Lemans, Vehicle I.D. No. 2F37M56101227
...others involving forfeitures." United States v. Ryan, 284 U.S. 167, 172, 52 S.Ct. 65, 67, 76 L.Ed. 224 (1931); see United States v. Windle, 158 F.2d 196, 199 (8th Cir. 1946). Literally, the statute merely permits the use of a search warrant to effectuate a seizure, and we find nothing in ei......
-
Green v. City of Mt. Pleasant
...statute. This is especially true in this case because chapter 247 was enacted after the adoption of section 76.6. United States v. Windle, 158 F.2d 196 (C.C.A. 8th Cir., 1946); State v. County of Lancaster, 113 N.W.2d 63 (Neb.) at page 'Ruling on ground 26 of plaintiff's petition will be se......
-
United States v. 673 Cases of Distilled Spirits and Wines
...property. * * *" It might be well to first note the recent decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of United States v. Windle, 8 Cir., 158 F.2d 196, wherein a libel was filed by the United States of America for forfeiture of a 1940 Dodge coupe and its contents consisting......