Legal Opinion
United States v. One 1950 Ford Sedan Automobile
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided January 30, 1951No. Civ. A. No. 1531PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.
The problem presented here is one of statutory interpretation. The described automobile was forfeited under 26 U.S.C.A. § 3321, because of its use in violation of the internal revenue laws. The claimant, Manufacturers Acceptance Corporation, purchaser of the conditional sales contract from the dealer concededly met all of the conditions precedent to a remission of the forfeiture with the exception of proper inquiry. At the place where timely inquiry was made, claimant was informed that the then owner of the automobile had no “record” as a violator of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Commercial Credit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Universal Credit Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
- United States v. One 1937 La Salle Sedan Automobile, Motor No. 2,234,769Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
- Weber v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- United States v. One Ford CoupeDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. One 1951 Chevrolet Delivery SedanDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1953
- United States v. One 1969 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, Identification No. CE149A318676District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1971
- United States of America, Libelant-Appellant v. One 1957 Ford, Fairlane 500, Motor-Serial No. C7ft-132190Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1962