Legal Opinion

Goldman v. American Dealers Service, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 2, 1943No. 215PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK, Circuit Judge.

There is no statutory provision for the institution of forfeiture proceedings with respect to documents seized under 39 U.S. C.A. § 498. Accordingly, we construe the order of the district court as requiring the return of the seized check unless proceedings were promptly brought for violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 304.

Were it not for 39 U.S.C.A. § 499 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 747,2 appellee could have brought a replevin action against appellants in which appellants would have been defeated unless they had justified by showing that the articles had been lawfully taken. But 39 U.S.C.A.…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. Burdeau v. McDowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. United States v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  4. United States Ex Rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
  5. Panama Railroad v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. New Hampshire Fire Insurance v. ScanlonSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Truth Seeker Co. v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  3. United States Ex Rel. De Lucia v. O'donovan, MarshalCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
  4. Ivers v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1975
  5. Precise Imports Corp. v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API