United States v. Two Bay Mules
District Court, W.D. North Carolina
At Law. Information to enforce forfeiture.
1Opinion of the CourtDick, J.
From the facts set forth in the “agreed case,” it appears that the mules and wagon mentioned in the information were, at the time of seizure, in the possession of Nick York, and were then actually employed by him in the removal of a package of spirituous liquors in violation of law. The statute upon which this information is founded (Rev. St. U. S. § 3450) expressly provides that such property so employed shall be seized and be forfeited to the United States; and that the proceedings to enforce such forfeiture-shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem. It also appears that W. H. York, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dobbins's Distillery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Peisch and Others v. WARE AND OTHERS &C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1808
3Cited by24 opinions
- United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Commercial Credit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- United States v. One Saxon AutomobileCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1919
- United States v. One Black HorseDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1904
- Skinner v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- One Hudson Super-Six Automobile v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.