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. STUART, 1933 — 67 F.2d 902 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. STUART
67 F.2d 902·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1933
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. STUART.
No. 6985.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 5, 1933.
M. S. MeCorquodale, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Houston, Tex.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BRYAN, Circuit Judge.]
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
This is a libel to forfeit an automobile seized by customs officers while there was concealed in it, in the course of transportation, intoxicating liquor which had “lately theretofore been unlawfully imported into the United States.” Section 498, title 19 USCA, was indorsed on the back of the libel. The District Court on final hearing, although it held that under the evidence a ease of forfeiture had been made out, dismissed the libel on the sole ground that the section of the law indorsed on it had been repealed.
It is true that 19 USCA § 498 was repealed by the Tariff Act of June 17, 1980, 46 Stat. 762, § 651 (a) (1). But its provisions were at the same time re-enacted almost in haee verba. 19 USCA § 1594. The same provision of law was therefore kept in force without interruption. The indorsement on the libel of the repealed statute was no part of the libel. The only material question before the court was whether the facts alleged made out a ease of forfeiture under any law of the United States. Williams v. United States, 168 U. S. 382, 389, 18 S. Ct. 92, 42 L. Ed. 509; Wessels v. United States (C. C. A.) 262 P. 389.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.