Legal Opinion

United States v. Pierson

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided November 18, 1930No. 41108PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

NETERER, District Judge.

By expressed provision of section 26, tit. 2, National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 40), the transporting vehicle must be seized by officers making the arrest. Separate proceeding to forfeit is not required. Every office of a separate forfeiture proceeding is provided by section 26, supra, and the vehicle being in custodia legis, the court shall, unless good cause be shown, sell the same. The statute gives a new power, a power to divest title of the offending thing from the owner, and the statute provides the means of enforcing such power. Franklin Glass Co. v. White, 14…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. StowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. Richbourg Motor Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  3. Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Commercial Credit Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  5. United States v. HydesDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1920

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. SpalloDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API