GENERAL IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Government seized the steamship Sebastopol for carrying unmanifested intoxicating liquor during Prohibition and sought to enforce monetary liens under the Tariff Act of 1922 for failing to produce a manifest and for undeclared cargo. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the Government, holding that the Tariff Act's monetary penalties constitute enforcement of liens on the vessel rather than a forfeiture action, and thus are not barred by the National Prohibition Act's exclusive forfeiture provisions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Caedozo 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 §§ 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) 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 oh board merchandise not described in the manifest.
The District Court dismissed the libel on the ground that § 26 of the National Prohibition Act had established a system of forfeiture exclusive of any other. 47 F. (2d) 336. The Circuit Court of Appeals advanced the view 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. 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 Corp. v. United States, ante, p. 49, and United States v. The Ruth Mildred, ante, p. 67, the decree will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sebastopol. the Ruth Mildred, 56 F.2d 590 (2d Cir. 1932)
-
United States v. 3190 Bags, 70 F.2d 246 (2d Cir. 1934)…n abrogation of the treaty we need not decide. The seizure was lawful when made, and under it the vessel and her cargo might be libeled for a violation of either the customs laws or the prohibition laws. General Import & Export Co. v. United States, 286 U. S. 70, 52 S. Ct. 474, 76 L. Ed. 983; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 286 U. S. 49, 52 S. Ct. 468, 76 L. Ed. 971, 82 A. L. R. 600; The Ada M., 67 F.(2d) 333 (C. C. A. 2). The United States elected to proceed under the former, and that s…
-
United States v. Hamilton, 62 F.2d 29 (4th Cir. 1932)…es, 286 U. S. 49, 52 S. Ct. 468, 470, 76 L. Ed. 971; United States v. Commercial Credit Co., Inc., 286 U. S. 63, 52 S. Ct. 467, 76 L. Ed. 978; The Ruth Mildred, 286 U. S. 67, 52 S. Ct. 473, 76 L. Ed. 981; The Sebastopol, 286 U. S. 70, 52 S. Ct. 474, 76 L. Ed. 983. In an opinion by Mr. Justice Cardozo, in General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, supra, in which opinion all the various decisions on this point are arrayed, the court said: “The appellants would have us hold that prosecution of the offe…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Sebastopol. the Ruth Mildred. United States v. Soderberg (S.D.N.Y. 1931)