United States ex rel. Perelman v. International Mercantile Marine Co.

194 F. 408, 114 C.C.A. 370, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1180
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 1912
DocketNo. 1,544
StatusPublished

This text of 194 F. 408 (United States ex rel. Perelman v. International Mercantile Marine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Perelman v. International Mercantile Marine Co., 194 F. 408, 114 C.C.A. 370, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1180 (3d Cir. 1912).

Opinion

YOUNG, District Judge.

We are all of the opinion that this case is covered by the decision in the case of United States v. Rodgers, 191 Fed. 970, decided by this court. The Board! of Inquiry had all the persons, brothers and sisters of Henry Perelman, and his father, before them. They were refused admission by the Board of Inquiry. We, on an examination of the evidence, might arrive at a different conclusion; but it cannot be said that there was no evidence from which it might be concluded that the petitioner had become indebted in England, had readily fallen in with a plan by which Klein got ahead. of the other creditors, and left, owing at least $1,000, so that there was evidence both of debt and of willingness to cheat. The Board, therefore, having had the persons before them, the evidence of their failure abroad, and! of Henry’s willingness to cheat, had the means of judging whether or not they were likely to become a charge. As was said in the case of United States v. Rodgers, supra:

“We are not at liberty to set aside such determination, because on tile record, we think we might or would have reached a different conclusion. We have only to find that the inspectors acted within the scope of their authority and that the integrity of their proceedings is not impeached. We have no jurisdiction to correct their mistakes, if any, in finding as a fact that all the re-lators belonged to classes which, by section 2 of the Immigration Act of 1907 [Act Feb. 20. 1007, c. 1134, 34 Stat. 898 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 447], are excluded from admission into the United States.”

The judgment of the United States District Court must therefore be affirmed.

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

Related

United States ex rel. Bardin v. Rodgers
191 F. 970 (Third Circuit, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 F. 408, 114 C.C.A. 370, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-perelman-v-international-mercantile-marine-co-ca3-1912.