United States v. 20 Cases

S.D. New York

United States v. 20 Cases

77 F. Supp. 231, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3034

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedAugust 12, 1947

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 77 F. Supp. 231 (United States v. 20 Cases) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. 20 Cases, 77 F. Supp. 231, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3034 (S.D.N.Y. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

BRIGHT, District Judge.

Libellant’s motion to vacate, as improper, claimant’s notice to take the deposition of the Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration etc., dated December 9, 1946, is denied. Section 304(b), 21 U.S. C.A. § 334, of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, applies to the seizure of property by process in rem; thereafter proceeding in the action, which is civil in its nature, is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Three and Forty-Four Hundred Cans of Frozen Egg Products v. United States, 226 U.S. 172, 179, 33 S.Ct. 50, 57 L.Ed. 174; Eureka Productions, Inc. v. Mulligan, 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 760, 761. The motion is to vacate the notice in toto, not to limit it. If upon the examination improper matters are inquired into, libellant has its remedy under Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Settle order on notice.

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

BRIGHT, District Judge.

Libellant’s motion to vacate, as improper, claimant’s notice to take the deposition of the Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration etc., dated December 9, 1946, is denied. Section 304(b), 21 U.S. C.A. § 334, of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, applies to the seizure of property by process in rem; thereafter proceeding in the action, which is civil in its nature, is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Three and Forty-Four Hundred Cans of Frozen Egg Products v. United States, 226 U.S. 172, 179, 33 S.Ct. 50, 57 L.Ed. 174; Eureka Productions, Inc. v. Mulligan, 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 760, 761. The motion is to vacate the notice in toto, not to limit it. If upon the examination improper matters are inquired into, libellant has its remedy under Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F. Supp. 231, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-20-cases-nysd-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack