Legal Opinion

United States v. One Dodge Coupé

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 29, 1927PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THACHER, District Judge.

The power of the court to grant the motion is questioned. It may, I think, be conceded, as the government contends, that power is not expressly’given by any statute. The automobile was seized on land, and the proceeding is at common law. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391, 5 L. Ed. 644. The admiralty rules, therefore, have no application. Nor is the case touched by section 941 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 1567), which relates only to proceedings in admiralty, nor by section 938, R. S. (Comp. St. § 1564), which applies only to proceedings for forfeiture under laws…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. One Ford Coupe AutomobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. The Three FriendsSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. The SarahSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
  4. HoganU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
  5. The Lynx IIDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1926

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. HeckingerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
  2. United States v. One 1946 Plymouth Sedan, Motor No. P-15-116329, Serial No. 11569665District Court, E.D. New York · 1946
  3. United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a RoosterDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API