U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1930

Imrie v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided February 8, 1930

38 F.2d 634; 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2374 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John T. Harley, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant., William E. Wiles, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Hood v. United States (10th Cir. 1930)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment forfeiting an automobile, under the provisions of section 26, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act, section 40, tit. 27, U. S. C. (27 USCA § 40). Errors assigned are all predicated upon trial proceedings, which can be brought into the record only by proper bill of exceptions, duly approved and signed by the trial court. No such bill of exceptions appears in this record. On the contrary, there is a literal transcript of the evidence and other trial proceedings. Tingley v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 34 F.(2d) 1; Caldwell v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 36 F.(2d) 738; Davis v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 38 F.(2d) 631. In the absence of a proper bill of exceptions, we cannot consider the errors assigned. Davis v. United States, supra.

The judgment is affirmed, and the mandate will issue forthwith.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.