TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. One Hudson Sedan, Serial No. 960,905, Motor No. 44850

United States v. One Hudson Sedan, Serial No. 960,905, Motor No. 44850, 16 F. Supp. 895 (M.D. Penn. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
November 10, 1936
Docket
No. 3988
Judges
Watson
Citations
16 F. Supp. 8951936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1903

Opinion of the Court — Watson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WATSON, District Judge.

This is a petition by the General Finance Company for an order upon the United States Attorney of this District directing him to file a libel of information seeking the forfeiture of a certain Hudson sedan automobile, which was seized by the agents of the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and for an order on the United States Attorney directing him to turn over the automobile to the petitioner upon the payment of all expenses incident to the seizure and forfeiture.' A rule to show cause was granted upon the United States Attorney. The United States Attorney appeared on the return of the rule to show cause, but filed no answer to the petition.

It is alleged in the petition that the automobile was duly appraised to be of the value of $200. It is not alleged in the petition that the automobile is in the custody of the United States Attorney, nor is it alleged in the petition that the petitioner furnished a bond under the provisions of R.S. § 3460 (26 U.S.C.A. (Revised) § 1624 (a-e).

Counsel for the petitioner has called the attention of the court to the provisions of section 204(a) of the Act of August 27, 1935 (27 U.S.C.A. § 40a(a). This section gives the court jurisdiction to remit or mitigate the forfeiture after the forfeiture is decreed. Here there is no decree of forfeiture, nor have forfeiture proceedings been started. There is no forfeiture to remit or mitigate. It is plain that this court was without jurisdiction to entertain the petition. U. S. of America v. One Chrysler Touring Sedan (D.C.) 16 F.Supp. 629 , opinion filed October 9, 1936.

Statutory proceedings have been provided for the condemnation of seized property under the Internal Revenue Laws when, as in this case, the property is of the appraised value of $500 or less. R.S. 8 3460 (26 U.S.C.A. (Revised) § 1624 (a-e). That section provides that, if the goods subject to forfeiture are,- in the opinion of the collector, worth less than $500, he must cause a list of the merchandise to be made and must have an appraisal thereof made by three disinterested appraisers. If the appraisers find the goods to be of a value less than $500, the collector must proceed to advertise and sell the goods unless the claimant shall file a bond for $250 conditioned that, in case of the condemnation of the article so seized, the ob *896 ligors shall pay all the costs and expenses to obtain condemnation. Upon the filing of the bond with the collector, he shall report the matter to the United States Attorney for condemnation. No bond has been filed by the petitioner. This procedure has been deemed to be exclusive and should be followed.

Now, November 10, 1936, the rule to show cause is discharged, and the petition is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1937: 21944: 11965: 119372026peak 1937 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Milkint v. Morgenthau92 F.2d 266 (4th Cir. 1937)
  2. Colacicco v. United States143 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1944)
  3. Chesapeake Vending Co. v. DeCarlo237 F. Supp. 554 (D. Maryland 1965)
  4. United States v. Farrington17 F. Supp. 702 (M.D. Penn. 1937)

Most recent

  1. Chesapeake Vending Co. v. DeCarlo237 F. Supp. 554 (D. Maryland 1965)
  2. Colacicco v. United States143 F.2d 410 (2d Cir. 1944)
  3. Milkint v. Morgenthau92 F.2d 266 (4th Cir. 1937)
  4. United States v. Farrington17 F. Supp. 702 (M.D. Penn. 1937)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. One Chrysler Touring Sedan, 16 F. Supp. 629 (M.D. Penn. 1936) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list