Court Opinion

ID: 8639515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:50:51.333073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:03.164913
License: Public Domain

CLIFFORD, Circuit Justice.
Viewed asan innocent purchaser for value without notice that the spirits had been fraudulently removed from the bonded warehouse, or that the tax imposed thereon had not been paid. *1121as the claimant must be in this investigation, the single question presented for examination and decision is, whether the spirits under the circumstances disclosed in the bill of exceptions were liable to forfeiture at the time the same were seized by the internal-revenue collector for the third collection district. Whatever title to the spirits in controversy the claimant had at the time the same were seized, he acquired by purchase, and if the property in the spirits claimed by his vendor was absolutely forfeited to the United States before he purchased the same, then he acquired nothing by his bargain; but if the title of his vendor was valid at the time of the sale, then the spirits were not liable to forfeiture at the time of the seizure, as the verdict of the jury establishes the fact that the claimant is an innocent purchaser for value, without notice that the spirits had been fraudulently removed from the bonded warehouse, or that the tax imposed thereon had not been paid, as alleged in the information.
Examined in that point of view, as the case must be, it is apparent that the liability of the spirits to forfeiture in this ease must be deduced, if at all, from the acts of the former owner and not from the acts of the claimant, as every charge against him is negatived by the verdict of the jury. “Distilled spirits found elsewhere than in a bonded warehouse not having been removed from such warehouse according to law, and the tax imposed by law on the same not having been paid, shall be forfeited.” 14 Stat. 163. Had the provision stopped there, it is quite eleai' that the forfeiture would have been absolute, and that the spirits might be subsequently seized for that purpose, as well after the same had passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser as while the spirits remained in the hands of the perpetrator of the fraud. Forfeitures made absolute by statute relate back to the time of the commission of the wrongful acts which the statute prohibits. Where the forfeiture is absolute the title to the thing forfeited vests immediately in the government, but where more than one remedy is given, and the government has an election to proceed for the forfeiture or in some other way not involving a forfeiture, the title of the property does not vest in the United States prior to the seizure or the performance of some other equivalent act which amounts to such an election. U. S. v. Grundy, 3 Cranch [7 U. S.] 338; Roberts v. Wetherall, 1 Salk. 223; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. [16 U. S.] 246. Differences of opinion existed at one time among the justices of the supreme court, whether a forfeiture for the violation of the revenue laws ever gave such a title to the United States as to overreach a bona fide sale to an innocent purchaser when made before seizure and suit for condemnation, but the majority of the court adopted the affirmative of that proposition. U. S. v. Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch [12 U. S.) 404; The Mars, Id. 417; Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. [74 U. S.] 460. Congress possesses the power to decide in what event a divestiture of title in such a case shall take place, whether on the commission of the offence, the seizure, or- the condemnation; and where the act of congress declares in terms without any qualification or election of remedies that that forfeiture shall take place upon the commission of the offence, it becomes the duty of the court to carry the provision into effect even as against innocent purchasers, in cases where the title is consummated by seizure, suit, and judgment, or decree of condemnation. Such is the settled rule of law where the forfeiture is made absolute upon the commission of the offence; but in all cases where the language employed by congress is doubtful, it is manifestly proper to resort to the ordinary rules of construction and to the rules of the common law applicable to the subject of forfeiture to assist the mind in coming to a conclusion. Forfeiture, it is said, in the former case, is absolute; but the remark should be received with some qualification, as the title only vests in the United States by relation back to the criminal offence in case where it is consummated by seizure, suit, and judgment or decree. Unless the matter is prosecuted and the title consummated, the act of congress becomes imperative, as the title of the wrong-doer remains unaffected by his wrongful acts until seizure, suit, and judgment or decree, but the effect of the judgment or decree is to divest his title from the date of the wrongful acts. U. S. v. Fifty-Six Barrels Whiskey [Case No. 15,095]; The Florenzo [Id. 4,886],
Grant all that as applied to the clause ol the section declaring the forfeiture if it stood alone and without any qualification, but the same section contains an alternative clause, as appears by the next sentence, which provides as follows: “Or (such distilled spirits) may immediately upon discovery be seized, and after the assessment of the tax thereon may be sold by the collector for the tax and expenses of seizure and sale.” Read together, as the two clauses must be, their true construction is as obvious as any enactment well can be which is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. Such spirits when found elsewhere than in a bonded warehouse, if the same have been illegally removed from such a public depository without the payment of the tax imposed by law on the same, may be seized as forfeited to the United States, or the proper officer of the revenue may seize the same under the immediately succeeding clause of the section, and in that event it becomes the duty of the assessor to assess the tax on the same imposed by law, and of the collector to sell the spirits for the tax and expenses of seizure and sale, as expressly provided by the closing paragraph of the sentence. Where the forfeiture is absolute, the entire title of the *1122wrong-doer, when the judgment or decree is rendered, vests in the United States from the date of the wrongful act; but if the forfeiture is made conditional, as, for example, if the United States may elect to proceed by information for a forfeiture or for some other redress not amounting to an absolute forfeiture of the spirits, then the judgment or decree only relates back to the date of the seizure, and does not overreach the title of an innocent purchaser acquired subsequent to the wrongful act of the seller and before the seizure of the spirits, if the purchase was bona fide for value and without notice of the wrongful acts of his vendor. Caldwell v. U. S., S How. [49 U. S.] 366; Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. [74 U. S.] 460; U. S. v. Grundy, 3 Cranch [7 U. S.] 352; U. S. v. Morris, 10 Wheat. [23 U. S.) 290. Extended remarks to show that the United States in cases arising under the section on which the information in this case is founded, are quite unnecessary, as the express words of the second clause referred to are, that as an alternative remedy the spirits may immediately upon discovery be seized, and after assessment of the tax thereon may be sold, by the collector for the tax and the expenses of the seizure and sale.
Proceedings under that clause are instituted and prosecuted to enforce a lien created by an act of congress, and the very nature of the proceeding concedes that the title to the spirits seized is still in the wrong-doer, and it is as clear as anything well can be that he is entitled to what remains of the proceeds of the sale after deducting the tat, interest, and expenses, as there is no authority to sell the property for any other purpose. Evidently these considerations dispose of all the exceptions exhibited in the record except the one in the instruction given, which is applicable to the other counts, and in respect to that no further remarks are required, as it is conceded that the point is not open under the finding of the jury.
Judgment affirmed.