In the 1938 case United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Commercial Credit Company, Claimant, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving property forfeiture laws. The case arose when a vehicle was seized by federal authorities because it had been used to transport contraband alcohol during Prohibition. The owner of the car had borrowed money from Commercial Credit Company (CCC) to purchase it and defaulted on his loan after the seizure. CCC sought to recover their interest in the vehicle arguing that they were an innocent party unaware of its illegal use. The court held that under forfeiture statutes, anyone with an interest in seized property could be considered as owners and thus liable for its misuse even if they weren't aware of such misuse or involved in any way with it. Therefore, despite being ignorant about how their collateral was being used illegally by another party -the borrower-, CCC's claim over ownership made them legally responsible too; hence they couldn't reclaim their financial stake in this particular asset.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Commercial Credit Company, Claimant (1938), Justice Black argued that forfeiture laws should not apply when an innocent party is involved. The majority ruled in favor of the government's right to seize property used in illegal activities regardless of ownership. However, Justice Black disagreed with this interpretation and believed it was unjust to punish a third-party who had no knowledge or involvement in such illicit actions. He contended that these types of forfeitures were originally intended as punitive measures against guilty parties rather than innocent bystanders like lienholders or financers who may have unknowingly facilitated criminal activity through their business transactions.