Document: 350 U.S. 488 76 S.Ct. 536 100 L.Ed. 580 MURDOCK ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 56. Argued Feb. 27, 1956. Decided March 26, Elizabeth Hulen Grayson, Jackson, Miss., for petitioner. Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The United States filed a libel in the District Court Eastern Louisiana, under §§ 3116 and 3321 Internal Revenue Code 1939, 53 Stat. 362, 401, 26 U.S.C.A., forfeiture an automobile which had been used to transport nontax-paid whiskey. Petitioner, finance company accepted assignment conditional sales contract when was purchased, sought remission extent its interest 18 U.S.C. § 3617, U.S.C.A. 3617. That section provides that proceeding 'shall have exclusive jurisdiction remit' forfeiture, but court not allow' unless (1) acquired good faith; (2) no reason believe would be violation liquor laws; (3), 2 'was informed answer (its) inquiry, at headquarters sheriff, chief police, principal Federal internal-revenue officer engaged enforcement laws, or other local law-enforcement locality * (the purchaser) record reputation (for violating laws any State relating liquor).' 3 It is conceded petitioner satisfied first two requirements. As third, made timely inquiry regarding purchaser state office Alcohol Tobacco Unit, from it received following reply: 4 'No as law violator date inquiry). This does keep complete file arrests prosecutions, has knowledge subject's among officers.' 5 appropriate that, if substance reply statute, further inquiries were required by statute. issue whether adequate. 6 form designed Service expressly purpose satisfying this statutory requirement. years compliance with statute administrative remissions proceedings district courts. Nevertheless, denied on ground did satisfy disclaimed purchaser's violations. 121 F.Supp. 265. Appeals Fifth Circuit affirmed, 218 F.2d 702, one judge dissenting upon rehearing, 220 279. We think courts below misconstrued reply. sentence affirmatively stated 'liquor violator,' statement limited federal second qualify negative character merely clear office's unlimited. 7 also based decision alternative even requirements technically met, discretion court. sole basis holding 'put notice' might well authorities, failure investigate disclosed 'an indifference part commend equitable conscience court.' need decide Court's discretionary power deny remissions, since event we there occasion exercise here. very prescribing detail type avoid uncertainty over investigation necessary protect companies against forfeitures. frustrated duty could grounded solely alleged inadequacy clearly In limiting several offices, Congress must necessarily contemplated records only checked. considered 8 judgment reversed cause remanded inconsistent opinion. 9 Reversed remanded. 10 Justice FRANKFURTHER dissents.

Category: 11