Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

192 F.2d 216

Docket No. 6311.

Wright v. United States

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 11, 1951.

Decided Nov. 1, 1951.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1951-11-01

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1961

5 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In any such proceeding the court shall not allow the claim of any claimant for remission or mitigation unless and until he proves * * * (3) if it appears that the interest asserted by the claimant arises out of or is in any way subject to any contract or agreement under which any person having a record or reputation for violating laws of the United States or of any State relating to liquor has a right with respect to such vehicle or aircraft, that, before such claimant acquired his interest, or such other person acquired his right under such contract or agreement, whichever occurred later, the claimant, his officer or agent, was informed in answer to his inquiry, at the headquarters of the sheriff, chief of police, principal Federal internal-revenue officer engaged in the enforcement of the liquor laws, or other principal local or Federal law-enforcement officer of the locality in which such other person acquired his right under such contract or agreement, of the locality in which such other person then resided, and of each locality in which the claimant has made any other inquiry as to the character or financial standing of such other person, that such other person had no such record or reputation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. One 1952 Model Buick Sedan Motor No. 66926467

Relies on Universal Credit Co. v. United States · United States v. Federal Credit Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1951-11-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*217W. S. Houck, Florence, S. C. (Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, Florence, S. C., on brief), for appellants.

¶2Claud N. Sapp, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C. (Ben Scott Whaley, U. S. Atty., Charleston, S. C., and C. H. Whetstone, Atlanta, Ga., on brief), for appellee.

¶3Before PARKER, Chief Judge, SOPER, Circuit Judge, and WYCHE, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal by the owner of air automobile and a finance company holding a chattel mortgage on it from an order refusing to remit a forfeiture incurred under 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 3116 and 3321. The forfeiture was incurred because the automobile had been seized by officers of the law while transporting a condenser and pump which had been used in connection with a distillery in the manufacture of contraband whiskey. The automobile was being operated at the time by a person to whom it had been loaned by the owner; and the owner’s petition for remission of forfeiture was properly denied because the person to whom it had been loaned had a bad reputation for violating the liquor laws and there was no sufficient showing that the owner had no knowledge or reason to believe that it would be used in violation of these laws. The finance company’s petition was properly denied because it was shown that the owner had a reputation for violating the liquor laws and the company did not show inquiry of the law enforcement officer of the locality in which the owner resided. All that was shown was inquiry of the chief of police of a town five or six miles from the owner’s residence, who had no jurisdiction over the territory in which the owner resided, with no inquiry of the sheriff of the county, who did have jurisdiction, although the chief of police had expressly referred the company to the sheriff. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3617; Universal Credit Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 111 F.2d 764; United States v. Federal Credit Co., 5 Cir., 117 F.2d 341.

¶6Affirmed.

/192/f2d/216 · .json · Public domain