United States v. Pierson
District Court, W.D. Washington
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
- United States v. StowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Richbourg Motor Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Commercial Credit Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- United States v. HydesDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. SpalloDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1931