MURDOCK ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the claimant failed to meet the statutory conditions precedent for remission or mitigation of forfeiture because the Alcohol Tax Unit's answer disclaimed knowledge of the purchaser's record.
The purchaser had a reputation for violating Mississippi liquor laws. A statutory condition precedent to forfeiture mitigation required authorities to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Condition Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
RIVES, Circuit Judge.
After careful consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with the excellent opinion of the district court reported in 121 F.Supp. 265 et seq.
Admittedly the purchaser did have both a record and a reputation for violating laws of the State of Mississippi relating to liquor. That being true, a statutory condition precedent to remission or mitigation of forfeiture was that one or more of the designated authorities, in answering the claimant’s inquiry, should have informed claimant that the purchaser had no such record or reputation, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3617(b). The answer from the Alcohol Tax Unit cannot fairly be so construed. Read as a whole, it disclaims knowledge of the purchaser’s record or reputation for violating state liquor laws. The claimant then bore the burden of making further inquiry.
It is appellant’s misfortune that the sufficiency of such an answer from the Alcohol Tax Unit is tested for the first time on its claim, but the granting of relief under this statute is not a matter of equity or discretion until the applicable conditions precedent to such relief have been met. United States v. Dodd, 5 Cir., 205 F. 2d 260, 262. The judgment is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 350 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1956)
-
United States v. ONE 1955 Model Ford 2-Door Coach, 261 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1958)
-
United States v. Bond Fin. Co., 219 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Dodd, 205 F.2d 260 (5th Cir. 1953)