Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES v. THREE QUARTS OF WHISKY (SPAWN, Claimant), 1925 — 9 F.2d 208 · caselaw · US
Tax
UNITED STATES v. THREE QUARTS OF WHISKY (SPAWN, Claimant)
9 F.2d 208·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·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 v. THREE QUARTS OF WHISKY (SPAWN, Claimant).
(District Court, S. D. New York.
November 19, 1925.)
Internal revenue <@==>2 — National Prohibition Apt held to supersede statute Voyiding for forfeiture of automobile used to defraud government of taxes.
National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 26 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 16138%mm), providing for forfeiture of automobile used in transportation of intoxicating liquor, supersedes Rev. St. § 3450 (Comp. St. § 6352), relating to forfeiture of automobile used with intent to defraud government of internal revenue taxes.
Forfeiture Libel. Proceeding by the.United States against Three Quarts of Whisky and Fay E. Spawn, claimant of an automobile sought to be forfeited.
Libel dismissed.
Emory R. Buckner, U. S. Atty., and Francis A. McGurk, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New York City, for the United States.
John A. Bolles, of New York City, for claimant.
[MAJORITY — WINSLOW, District Judge.]
WINSLOW, District Judge.
Libel by the United States for forfeiture of automobile, etc., submitted on agreed statement of facts. Jury trial waived.
The facts in this ease are very similar to U. S. v. Garth Motor Co. (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 528, approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in U. S. v. One Reo Truck Automobile, The William L. Mantha Co., Inc., Claimant, 9 F.(2d) 529, decided November 16, 1925.
I think that section 26, title 2, of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138%mm), operates to supersede the provisions of R. S. § 3450 (Comp. Stat. 6352). Both of the cases cited so held. Upon the submission of this -ease, I expressed my views as to the drastic penalty of section 3450. It is quite possible that Congress, in considering section-3450, which fails to protect an innocent interest in the thing forfeited, found -that this section was too severe and had that thought in mind at the time of the enactment of the National Prohibition Act. This conclusion accords with the expression of opinion in the ease of U. S. v. Garth Motor Co., supra.
Libel dismissed. Decree to be settled on notice.