“[p]arties may by stipulation establish evidentiary facts to obviate the necessity of offering proof, but based thereon the court must itself find the ultimate facts upon which the conclusions of law and the judgment are based”
How later courts described this case
- “[p]arties may by stipulation establish evidentiary facts to obviate the necessity of offering proof, but based thereon the court must itself find the ultimate facts upon which the conclusions of law and the judgment are based”
- vehicle not forfei-table under statute making unlawful use of vehicle to facilitate purchase of contraband article where drug addict drove it to buy morphine
- in forfeiture proceeding invited-error standard not applied when position at trial did not mislead court or "cause it to fall into error"
- forfeiture under 49 U.S.C. § 782 not allowed where automobile used to drive to drugstore to obtain illegal drug and owner knew of use
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. A 1971 Datsun, 139 N.J. Super. 186 (1976)
Platt and Howard were factually distinguishable from this case.
The opinion
BRATTON, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting).
My view is that the statute, 49 U.S.C.A. § 781 (a) (3), is valid. And my further view is that the automobile was used to facilitate the purchase of narcotics. But I think it was error to admit certain testimony given by an agent of the Bureau of Narcotics. Accordingly, I would reverse on that ground, but not on the ground that the automobile was not used to facilitate the purchase of narcotics.