The Ella

S.D. Florida

The Ella

9 F.2d 411, 1926 A.M.C. 496, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1344

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida

DecidedNovember 21, 1925

DocketNo. 1817

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 F.2d 411 (The Ella) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Ella, 9 F.2d 411, 1926 A.M.C. 496, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1344 (S.D. Fla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

CALL, District Judge.

The libel in this ease is brought for forfeiture of the boat under section 3450 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 6352). The claimant answered the libel, setting up the fact that the boat was tied up to a dock other than the one at which she lay when she was seized, and that he had given no one authority to uso [412]*412the boat in any manner. The proofs establish that the boat, when seized, had a quantity of foreign liquor aboard on which no tax had been paid, as required by the statutes. This is, sufficient to sustain the charge that the boat was being used to defraud the revenue, and as such was forfeited under the terms of section 3450 of the Revised Statutes, and even though the claimant had sustained his answer by proofs (which he did not), it would not have availed as a defense to this action.

A decree forfeiting the vessel will be entered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CALL, District Judge.

The libel in this ease is brought for forfeiture of the boat under section 3450 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 6352). The claimant answered the libel, setting up the fact that the boat was tied up to a dock other than the one at which she lay when she was seized, and that he had given no one authority to uso [412]*412the boat in any manner. The proofs establish that the boat, when seized, had a quantity of foreign liquor aboard on which no tax had been paid, as required by the statutes. This is, sufficient to sustain the charge that the boat was being used to defraud the revenue, and as such was forfeited under the terms of section 3450 of the Revised Statutes, and even though the claimant had sustained his answer by proofs (which he did not), it would not have availed as a defense to this action.

A decree forfeiting the vessel will be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F.2d 411, 1926 A.M.C. 496, 1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-ella-flsd-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack