United States v. One Dodge Coupé
District Court, S.D. New York
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
- United States v. One Ford Coupe AutomobileSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- The Three FriendsSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- The SarahSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- HoganU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
- The Lynx IIDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. HeckingerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- United States v. One 1946 Plymouth Sedan, Motor No. P-15-116329, Serial No. 11569665District Court, E.D. New York · 1946
- United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a RoosterDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1960