• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/286/70.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    GENERAL IMPORT & EXPORT CO. v. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 70 (1932)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    GENERAL IMPORT & EXPORT CO. v. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 70 (1932)

    286 U.S. 70

    GENERAL IMPORT & EXPORT CO., Inc.,
    v.
    UNITED STATES.

    THE SEBASTOPOL.
    No. 811.

    Argued April 15, 1932.
    Decided May 2, 1932.

    Messrs. Milton R. Kroopf and Louis Halle, both of New York City, for petitioner. [286 U.S. 70, 71]   The Attorney General and Mr. G. A.Young-quist, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

    [286 U.S. 70, 72]  

    Mr. Justice CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.

    The steamship Sebastopol was seized by Coast Guard officers in the harbor of New York while carrying an unmanifested cargo of intoxicating liquors. The master of the vessel did not produce a manifest for the cargo when a manifest was demanded by the boarding officer. Thereafter a libel of information was filed by the government under sections 584 and 594 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (Act of Sept. 21, 1922, c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 980, 982, 19 U. S. C., 486, 498 (19 USCA 486, 498)) for the enforcement of two liens, one of $500 for failing to produce a manifest and another for an amount equal to the value of the cargo for having on board merchandise not described in the manifest.

    The District Court dismissed the libel on the ground that section 26 of title 2 of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA 40) had established a system of forfeiture exclusive of any other. 47 F.(2d) 336. The Circuit Court of Appeals advanced the view [286 U.S. 70, 73]   that the suit was not strictly one for the forfeiture of the vessel, but one for the enforcement of money penalties charged upon the vessel by reason of the misconduct of the master. 56 F.(2d) 590. On this ground it distinguished its own decision in the case of the Ruth Mildred, announced at the same time, and gave judgment for the government.

    For that reason, as well as for the broader reasons stated in General Motors Acceptance Corporation et al. v. United States, 286 U.S. 49 , 52 S. Ct. 468, 76 L. Ed. -, and United States v. The Ruth Mildred, 286 U.S. 67 , 52 S. Ct. 473, 76 L. Ed. -, decided herewith, the decree will be affirmed.

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw