United States v. 600 Units Containing" Nue-Ovo", 2148.

Citation60 F. Supp. 144
Decision Date23 March 1945
Docket NumberNo. 2148.,2148.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
PartiesUNITED STATES v. 600 UNITS CONTAINING "NUE-OVO," etc.

Maurice M. Milligan, U. S. Dist. Atty., and David A. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Harry G. Hoy, of Portland, Or., and Frank H. Terrell, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

On the first day of March 1945 this court entered an order removing and transferring the above-entitled cause to the district court of the United States sitting at Portland, Oregon, for trial. This is the place where the intervenor's business is located. The order was made upon motion filed by the intervenor for removal and transfer of the libel proceeding pursuant to provisions of 21 U.S.C.A. § 334 (a). The language of the motion conforms to the statutory requirements, as follows: "In any case where the number of libel for condemnation proceedings is limited * * * the proceeding pending or instituted shall, on application of the claimant, seasonably made, be removed for trial to any district agreed upon by stipulation between the parties, or, in case of failure to so stipulate within a reasonable time, the claimant may apply to the court of the district in which the seizure has been made, and such court (after giving the United States Attorney for such district reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard) shall by order, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, specify a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant's principal place of business, to which the case shall be removed for trial."

At the time the order was made the United States Attorney appeared with counsel for the intervenor or claimant and then insisted that the only order that could be properly made was one transferring and removing the case to the Western District of Washington, being a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant's principal place of business. The court was then of the opinion that the statute contemplated a place for holding court as near to the principal place of business of the claimant as practicable. Such a place of holding court was at Portland, Oregon. A hurried interpretation of the statute seemed to warrant the court in removing the case for trial to that point. The District Attorney did not agree to the order, and, as indicated, has subsequently filed a motion to vacate the order of removal. The parties have favored the court with briefs and suggestions in support of their respective contentions.

Congressional records showing the history of the legislation indicate that the Senate attempted to provide that a case of this kind might be removed and transferred to the district court in which claimant's principal place of business was located, while, on the other hand, the House of Representatives attempted to provide that the removal could be made only to a district court of a state contiguous to the state of claimant's principal place of business. Both the Senate and House receded from their several extreme positions. The Senate no longer contended that the transfer should be made to a state contiguous to that of the claimant's domicile. The compromise involved the use of the words "a district of reasonable proximity to the claimant's principal place of business." In order to give a proper meaning to the statute, in view of the concessions made by the two legislative bodies, a district of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. 353 CASES, ETC., 565.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • December 11, 1953
    ...been interpreted to exclude the district or division in which claimant's principal place of business is found. U. S. v. 600 Units Containing `Nue-Ovo', etc., D.C., 60 F.Supp. 144; U. S. v. Six Dozen Bottles More or Less of `Dr. Peter's Kuriko', D.C., 55 F.Supp. 458; U. S. v. 26 Dozen Bottle......
  • United States v. 91 PACKAGES, ETC., Civ. No. C 11705
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • October 30, 1950
    ...44 F.Supp. 317; United States v. Six Dozen Bottles, More or Less of Dr. Peter's Kuriko, D.C., 55 F.Supp. 458; United States v. 600 Units Containing Neu-Ovo, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 144; United States v. 26 Dozen Bottles, etc., of Wheatamin Brand Cevigards, D.C., 60 F.Supp. I conclude that under th......
  • United States v. 23 GROSS JARS, ETC., Civ. No. 26659.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • October 25, 1949
    ...been interpreted to exclude the district or division in which claimant's principal place of business is found. U. S. v. 600 Units Containing "Nue-Ovo", etc., D.C., 60 F. Supp. 144; U. S. v. Six Dozen Bottles More or Less of "Dr. Peter's Kuriko", D. C., 55 F.Supp. 458; U. S. v. 26 Dozen Bott......
  • New England Foundation Co. v. Rugo Const. Co., 1037.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • April 23, 1945
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT