Legal Opinion

United States v. One Whippet Sedan Automobile

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided June 4, 1930No. 4286PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.

The question is whether the government was justified in proceeding for the for-foiture of the ear under section 3450, Rev. St. (26 USCA §§ 1181, 1182), whereunder lienors are not protected, or whether it should have proceeded under section 26, title 2, of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 40), which does protect the rights of innocent lienors. The District Court found against the government’s contention of right to proceed under section 3450.

To avert the application of Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 564, 47 S. Ct. 165, 71 L. Ed. 412, and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Richbourg Motor Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Commercial Credit Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  4. Davies Motors, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
  5. Richbourg Motor Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. One Buick CoupeDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1931
  2. United States v. One Hudson CoachDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API