Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Elting
| Decision Date | 30 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 397.,397. |
| Parties | LANCASHIRE SHIPPING CO., Limited, v. ELTING, Collector of Customs. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Hunt, Hill & Betts, of New York City (John W. Crandall, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Martin Conboy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (George B. Schoonmaker, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
In January, 1931, the vessel Raby Castle arrived at New York with a Chinese crew. After investigation by the immigration inspector, a notice was served on the master of the vessel to detain on board the twenty-eight Chinese members of the crew and to deport them on the ground that they had not established that they had no intention to abandon their calling as seamen. On March 11, 1931, while the vessel was in port in Brooklyn, representatives of the immigration authorities summoned members of the municipal police force and ordered the arrest of certain members of the crew. These Chinese were later indicted on the charge that they had arranged with four shore Chinese to board the vessel and impersonate four members of the crew and that by this means a landing of members of the crew was effected. They were convicted and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment.
On April 4, 1931, the Labor Department served upon the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., the ship's agent, a notice of liability for fine under the United States immigration laws, stating as a basis for the proposed fines an alleged failure to detain on board and deport the Chinese persons. The notice was addressed to "Barber Line, Agents of the Vessel Raby Castle, March 12, 1931, 17 Battery Pl., N. Y. C." It stated that the fines should be imposed, under sections 19 and 20 of the Act of May 26, 1924 (8 USCA §§ 166, 167).
On May 21, 1931, the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., through their attorneys, filed a protest against the imposition of the proposed fines. The case came before the Board of Review on August 15, 1931, and fines were imposed as to five aliens. The Commissioner General of Immigration wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Immigration at Ellis Island stating that the Department of Labor had directed that the fines be imposed. On September 15, 1931, the vessel was at the port of New York and about to sail. Clearance was refused her unless the fines were paid. The Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., deposited the moneys and paid the fines under protest to secure the release of the vessel. This sum was advanced by the agent for the account of the appellant.
The detention order was served only on the master of the vessel, not on the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc. The notice of liability for fine was served on the ship's agent only and was directed to the ship's agent alone. On March 18, 1932, formal application was made to the Secretary of Labor by the attorneys for the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., requesting that the proceedings be reopened and that it be allowed to resubmit the testimony of the master and others. This was refused. The supplemental complaint served pleads that the Secretary's refusal was an arbitrary and capricious action. In the protest it was erroneously stated that the notice of detention had been served upon the agent, the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc.
The court below held that the agent's subsequent conduct was a ratification of the authority to accept the notice of detention on behalf of the agent, and therefore the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., was estopped to deny its own allegations and the fines imposed were therefore valid. In the proceedings before the Board it was not clearly indicated against whom the fines were assessed, but it is clear that the protest was treated as a protest by the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., and not the owner. The notice, however, clearly shows that it was directed to the Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., as agent of the vessel Raby Castle. The notice states:
"If you desire a hearing as to whether a fine should be imposed in this instance, you will be allowed 60 days from the date of this notice for that purpose, and the vessel on which the said alien arrived will be granted clearance papers when she is ready to sail and allowed to proceed upon her outward-bound voyage upon condition that you deposit with the collector of customs at this port, prior thereto, the sum indicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Durning
...Shipping Company, Limited. However, that fine was held to be void, and that money was returned to the depositor, see Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Elting, C.C.A., 70 F.2d 699, for the reason that, although the owner and its agent had been served with notice of liability, neither had been serve......
-
United States v. American President Lines
...West Indian Co. v. Root, 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 493; United States v. Columbus Marine Corporation, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 795; Lancashire Shipping Co., v. Elting, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 699; United States v. Arnold Bernstein S. S. Line, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 19. In all but the last, it appeared that no notice to de......
- Walsh v. Segale, 399.
-
Bank Line v. United States
...v. J. H. Winchester & Co., 2 Cir., 40 F.2d 472; United States v. Columbus Marine Corporation, 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 795; Lancashire Shipping Co. v. Elting, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 699. Again, no fine could have been levied upon the master, because he was not given the notice required by rule 23, subd. B,......