Bank Line v. United States, 260.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit |
| Citation | 96 F.2d 52 |
| Parties | BANK LINE, Limited, v. UNITED STATES. |
| Docket Number | No. 260.,260. |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1938 |
96 F.2d 52 (1938)
BANK LINE, Limited,
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 260.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 4, 1938.
Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Charles J. Nager, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City (Delbert M. Tibbetts, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
L. HAND, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action brought under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(20), to recover a fine unlawfully imposed for allowing the escape of an alien seaman. The facts are as follows. While the steamer "Trentbank", of which the plaintiff was the owner, was in Philadelphia on December 16, 1929, the immigration officer in charge at that port served notice upon the master to detain a Chinese seaman during her stay at all United States ports where she might thereafter touch. At Baltimore, the vessel's next port of call, the seaman deserted; and on December 30th, when the ship was about to clear from Newport News, her clearance papers were refused. To secure her release the master, as principal, and a surety company, as surety, posted a bond on the same day with the collector, conditioned on the payment of all fines which the Secretary of Labor should find to be due, the principal to have the privilege of making payment under protest without prejudice to his right of recovery. The immigration authorities never gave to the master the notice required by Immigration rule 23, subd. B, of their intention to impose a fine upon him; but on December 20th — presumably before the bond was posted — the district director served notice upon the owner's agents at Norfolk, requiring them within sixty days to submit any defence they might have against the imposition, under section 20(a) of the Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C.A. § 167(a), of a fine of $1000. On February third the attorneys for the owner wrote to the Commissioner of Immigration requesting a remission of the fine, and giving their reasons for this relief; this letter was accompanied by an affidavit of the master giving his own excuses for the escape. The Secretary imposed the fine on February 28th, and gave notice of its imposition, and demanded payment, on March 28th in a letter to the master, copies of which were sent to the surety and the owner's agents. On May 8th the owner's attorneys...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Budd Company v. United States, Civ. A. No. 15476.
...180, 80 L.Ed. 160;12 United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi, 3 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 1014, 1016; Bank Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 52, 54;13 Kowalski v. Chandler, 6 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 413, 414, affirmed 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64; cf. Sunbeam Corp. v. Wentling,......
-
Deppe v. Lufkin, 3605.
...raised any and all defences to the imposition of the fines, including the defect of notice. Bank Line, Ltd. v. United States, 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 52. The plaintiff did not rely on its defences to an action on the bond. On the demand of the defendant it paid the fines with no protest of an......
-
National Surety Corporation v. United States, 10684.
...States v. Columbus Marine Corp., 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 795; Durning v. McDonnell, 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 91; Bank Line, Ltd. v. United States, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 52; Rio Cape Lines v. United States, 89 Ct. Cl. 307; Compagnie Generale Transatlantique v. Elting, 298 U.S. 217, 56 S.Ct. 770, 80 L.Ed. 1151, it ......
-
United States v. Sloan, 7913.
...a holding of the Supreme Court merely because a particular point has not been raised before it, Bank Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 52, and until the Supreme Court itself reverses its opinion this court is governed by it. Valli v. United States, 1 Cir., 94 F.2d 687; Forrest v. South......
-
Budd Company v. United States, Civ. A. No. 15476.
...180, 80 L.Ed. 160;12 United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi, 3 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 1014, 1016; Bank Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 52, 54;13 Kowalski v. Chandler, 6 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 413, 414, affirmed 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64; cf. Sunbeam Corp. v. Wentling,......
-
Deppe v. Lufkin, 3605.
...raised any and all defences to the imposition of the fines, including the defect of notice. Bank Line, Ltd. v. United States, 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 52. The plaintiff did not rely on its defences to an action on the bond. On the demand of the defendant it paid the fines with no protest of an......
-
National Surety Corporation v. United States, 10684.
...States v. Columbus Marine Corp., 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 795; Durning v. McDonnell, 2 Cir., 86 F.2d 91; Bank Line, Ltd. v. United States, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 52; Rio Cape Lines v. United States, 89 Ct. Cl. 307; Compagnie Generale Transatlantique v. Elting, 298 U.S. 217, 56 S.Ct. 770, 80 L.Ed. 1151, it ......
-
United States v. Sloan, 7913.
...a holding of the Supreme Court merely because a particular point has not been raised before it, Bank Line v. United States, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 52, and until the Supreme Court itself reverses its opinion this court is governed by it. Valli v. United States, 1 Cir., 94 F.2d 687; Forrest v. South......