United States v. Eugene C. Drew

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Eugene C. Drew

276 F.2d 830, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152, 1960 A.M.C. 1139

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1960

Docket16085_1

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F.2d 830 (United States v. Eugene C. Drew) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Eugene C. Drew, 276 F.2d 830, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152, 1960 A.M.C. 1139 (9th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On petition of Eugene C. Drew, a seaman, the district court granted an order setting aside the forfeiture of his wages, clothing and effects, for desertion. The government has appealed from said order. One of the contentions of appellant was that the district court had failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Subsequent to the submission of the case, this court directed the district court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Admiralty Rule 46%, 28 U.S.C.A. and that when so made the record be supplemented by said findings and conclusions. This has been done. Appellant now complains that the evidence does not support the findings. We think it does, and the order of the district court setting aside the forfeiture, being supported by said findings, is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On petition of Eugene C. Drew, a seaman, the district court granted an order setting aside the forfeiture of his wages, clothing and effects, for desertion. The government has appealed from said order. One of the contentions of appellant was that the district court had failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Subsequent to the submission of the case, this court directed the district court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Admiralty Rule 46%, 28 U.S.C.A. and that when so made the record be supplemented by said findings and conclusions. This has been done. Appellant now complains that the evidence does not support the findings. We think it does, and the order of the district court setting aside the forfeiture, being supported by said findings, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F.2d 830, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5152, 1960 A.M.C. 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eugene-c-drew-ca9-1960.