Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. Lane Motor Co.

73 S. Ct. 459

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1953-02-09
Topic
general

Per Curiam. In this proceeding, the Government sought the forfeiture of an automobile and of a truck under the provisions of § 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code in the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. That Section allows the seizure and forfeiture of property “intended for use in violating” the alcohol tax laws, as well as property “which has been so used.” The respondent, alleging an interest in the two vehicles, contested the forfeitures. The district judge found the facts to be that the truck and automobile had each been used by the operator of an illegal distillery to drive a number of miles from his home and then parked at a point one-half mile or more from the distillery, the operator walking the rest of the way. The district judge found that the Government had not shown, as it had alleged, that the vehicles had been used for transporting materials or utensils for use at the distillery, and ruled that the facts shown did not justify a forfeiture.

Citator

Cited by
32 opinions
UNITED STATESv. LANE MOTOR CO.,344 U.S. 630(1953)
73 S.Ct. 459
UNITED STATESv. LANE MOTOR CO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 499.
Decided February 9, 1953.
A vehicle used solely for commuting to an illegal distillery is not usedinviolating the revenue laws within the meaning of § 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code and is not forfeitable thereunder. Pp. 630-631.199 F.2d 495, affirmed.
Solicitor General Cummingsfor the United States.B. E. Harkeyfor respondent.
PER CURIAM.
In this proceeding, the Government sought the forfeiture of an automobile and of a truck under the provisions of § 3116 of the Internal Revenue Code in the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. That Section allows the seizure and forfeiture of property "intended for use in violating" the alcohol tax laws, as well as property "which has been so used." The respondent, alleging an interest in the two vehicles, contested the forfeitures.

The district judge found the facts to be that the truck and automobile had each been used by the operator of an illegal distillery to drive a number of miles from his home and then parked at a point one-half mile or more from the distillery, the operator walking the rest of the way. The district judge found that the Government had not shown, as it had alleged, that the vehicles had been used for transporting materials or utensils for use at the distillery, and ruled that the facts shown did not justify a forfeiture. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed,199 F.2d 495.Page 631

The Government has petitioned for a writ of certiorari showing that, while the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit inUnited Statesv.One 1948 Plymouth Sedan,198 F.2d 399(1952), held in accord with the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has taken a contrary view,United Statesv.One 1950 Ford Half-TonPickup Automobile Truck,195 F.2d 857(1952). Certiorari is granted in order to resolve this conflict.

We think it clear that a vehicle used solely for commuting to an illegal distillery is not usedinviolating the revenue laws.

Certiorari granted, and the judgment affirmed.Page 816