REDERIAKTIEBOLAGET AMIE, PETITIONER,

v.

UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (INC.)

Citator

Cited By

• Jacobs v. United States, 8 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1925)
  …on an interven [*983] ing matter, and is not a final decision. In United States v. Maresca (D. C.) 266 F. 713, such a distinction is recognized; the court citing Veeder v. United States, 252 F. 417, 164 C. C. A. 338 (C. C. A. 7), certiorari denied 246 U. S. 675, 38 S. Ct. 428, 62 L. Ed. 933, as in agreement with Coast-wise, etc., Co. v. United States, 259 F. 847, 170 C. C. A. 647 (C. C. A. 2). There an order was made by the District Court, denying petition of the Coastwise Company for a return of its b…
• United States ex rel. Finch v. Elliott (W.D. Wash. 1924)
  …rch warrant and then directing the return of what was seized thereunder is a District Court proceeding is confirmed by study of the nature and history o£ the ease reported as Veeder v. United States, 252 F. 414, 164 C. C. A. 338” (certiorari refused 246 U. S. 675, 38 S. Ct. 428, 62 L. Ed. 933), and that a writ of error would lie to the Circuit Court of Appeals from the commissioner’s act, and denied the motion to return property taken because the proceeding “ * * * was in the District Court by a judicial off…