UNITED STATES AND METROPOLITAN WAREHOUSE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
FRANK SIMMS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
UNITED STATES AND METROPOLITAN WAREHOUSE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
FRANK SIMMS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
6 F.2d 484
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1925)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
This ease differs from the preceding appeal, No. 4197, 55 App. D. C. 356, 6 F.(2d) 481, only in the fact'that the automobile used in the illegal transportation had been stolen. Everything we have said in the preceding ease, just decided, is applicable here. Moreover, the contention that responsibility for any of the wrongful acts of the thief may be charged to his innocent victim, who neither directly nor indirectly- has contributed thereto, involves a novel and startling conception of due process of law. See Goldsmith Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 505, 512, 41 S. Ct. 189, 65 L. Ed. 376.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States ex rel. NEW River Co. v. Morgenthau, 105 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1939)
-
Sancho v. Serralles, 106 F.2d 125 (1st Cir. 1939)
-
United States Ex rel. Girard Tr. Co. v. Helvering, 85 F.2d 230 (D.C. Cir. 1936)
Authorities Cited
- Goldsmith v. United States, 254 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1921)
- United States v. Milstone, 6 F.2d 481 (D.C. Cir. 1925)