Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES and Metropolitan Warehouse Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Frank SIMMS, Defendant in Error
6 F.2d 484·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1925
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES and Metropolitan Warehouse Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Frank SIMMS, Defendant in Error.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 7, 1925.
Decided March 2, 1925.)
No. 4198.
Peyton Gordon and J. H. Burnett^ both . of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.
R. E. Lynch, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
This ease differs from the preceding appeal, No. 4197, 55 App. D. C. 356, 6 F.(2d) 481, only in the fact'that the automobile used in the illegal transportation had been stolen. Everything we have said in the preceding ease, just decided, is applicable here. Moreover, the contention that responsibility for any of the wrongful acts of the thief may be charged to his innocent victim, who neither directly nor indirectly- has contributed thereto, involves a novel and startling conception of due process of law. See Goldsmith Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 505, 512, 41 S. Ct. 189, 65 L. Ed. 376.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.