Lloyd Royal Belge Societe Anonyme v. Elting

• Decision Date: 29 October 1931
• Citation: 55 F.2d 340
• Parties: LLOYD ROYAL BELGE SOCIETE ANONYME v. ELTING, Collector of Customs.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

55 F.2d 340 (1931)

LLOYD ROYAL BELGE SOCIETE ANONYME v. ELTING, Collector of Customs.

District Court, S. D. New York.

October 29, 1931.

Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City (Delbert M. Tibbetts, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (George B. Schoonmaker, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, District Judge.

Suit is brought to recover a fine of $1,000 imposed by the Secretary of Labor for failure to detain an alien seaman on board the steamship Caucasier. The fine was imposed under section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA § 167).

On arrival of the Caucasier at New York on March 13, 1929, the master was directed by an immigration inspector to detain on board six of her crew because he was not satisfied that they were bona fide seamen. The order was in writing, and was served upon the master. Several days later, one of the men ordered detained managed to escape. A fine of $1,000 was imposed upon the plaintiff as owner of the ship by the Secretary of Labor, despite a showing by the master that reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent the detained men from landing. The fine was paid by the plaintiff under threat that otherwise clearance papers would not be issued. In this action, proof was received tending to show that the order for detention of the six men was unreasonable, and also that care was taken to prevent the escape of any of them. This evidence was received subject to the defendant's motion to strike it out. By stipulation, the case was tried with a jury of one.

Section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA, § 167) provides as follows: "The owner, charterer, agent, consignee, or master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any place outside thereof who fails to detain on board any alien seaman employed on such vessel until the immigration officer in charge at the port of arrival has inspected such seaman (which inspection in all cases shall include a personal physical examination by the medical examiners), or who fails to detain such seaman on board after such inspection or to deport such seaman if required by such immigration officer or the Secretary of Labor to do so, shall pay to the collector of customs of the customs district in which the port of arrival is located the sum of $1,000 for each alien seaman in respect of whom such failure occurs. No vessel shall be granted clearance pending the determination of the liability to the payment of such fine, or while the fine remains unpaid, except that clearance may be granted prior to the determination of such question upon the deposit of a sum sufficient to cover such fine, or of a bond with sufficient surety to secure the payment thereof approved by the collector of customs."

The meaning of this statute has been passed upon by the courts in several cases. There are two conditions precedent to the imposition of the fine in cases of escape after inspection: The first is an order or...