From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. One De Soto Sedan, 1946 Model

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Mar 10, 1950
180 F.2d 583 (4th Cir. 1950)

Opinion

No. 6028.

Argued March 7, 1950.

Decided March 10, 1950.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern; Don Gilliam, Judge.

Logan D. Howell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Raleigh (John H. Manning, U.S. Attorney, Raleigh, N.C., and Howard H. Hubbard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Clinton, N.C., on brief), for appellant.

H.P. Whitehurst, New Bern, N.C., for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.


This case cannot be distinguished from Coffey v. United States, 116 U.S. 436, 6 S.Ct. 437, 29 L.Ed. 684; and the judgment below will be affirmed on the authority of that decision. 85 F. Supp. 245. It is argued that subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have weakened the authority of the Coffey case; but that case has never been overruled. On the contrary, in one of the cases chiefly relied upon by the United States, the Supreme Court was at pains to distinguish it. See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 58 S.Ct. 630, 82 L. Ed. 917.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. One De Soto Sedan, 1946 Model

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Mar 10, 1950
180 F.2d 583 (4th Cir. 1950)
Case details for

United States v. One De Soto Sedan, 1946 Model

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. ONE DE SOTO SEDAN, 1946 MODEL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Mar 10, 1950

Citations

180 F.2d 583 (4th Cir. 1950)

Citing Cases

Younge v. State Bd. of Registration

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746; United States v. One De Soto Sedan…

U.S. v. One 1956 Ford Fairlane Tudor Sedan

However, in that case the Supreme Court did not overrule the Coffey decision but instead expressly…