Legal Opinion

Federal Motor Finance v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided February 17, 1937No. 10635PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is taken from an order entered in a libel proceeding in which one Studebaker Commander 8 coupé, seized while being used by one Harold Tayson to conceal tax-unpaid illicit spirits in fraud of the revenue laws, has been decreed forfeited under Rev.St. § 3450 (26 U.S.C.A. §§ 1156, 1441). The appellant, Federal Motors Finance, a copartnership, intervened in the proceeding to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to remit the forfeiture as contemplated by section 204 (a) of the Act of 1935 (27 U. S.C.A. § 40a (a). It alleged that the automobile had been sold about…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. StowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. United States v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. United States v. One 1935 Chevrolet CoupeDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1936

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Commercial Credit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
  2. United States v. One 1939 Model De Soto Coupe, Motor No. S6-27,687Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1941
  3. United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe CoachCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
  4. United States v. Automobile Financing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1938
  5. United States v. One Terraplane SedanDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1938

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

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

Powered by the Exa API