The Seal

Good Law
45 F.2d 243·1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1134
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 15, 1929No. 3488—JCalifornia684 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

James, J.

Heretofore the United States seized the power boat Seal. It then brought a libel. Forfeiture of the boat was claimed under provisions of certain sections of the Revised Statutes covering cases of false oaths made to procure the licensing of vessels, and of the Tariff Act § 594 (19 USCA § 498). Under the facts as alleged in the libel, the offending boat is made the subject of absolute forfeiture.

Alfred La Verne, appearing as owner and claimant, has asked for an, order requiring the government to release the boat from custody upon his furnishing a bond in the form and to the effect provided by section 938, Revised Statutes (28 USCA § 751). The United States attorney resists the application and offers the contention that section 938, Rev. St. (28 USCA § 751), is not applicable to the case, and that under no other provision, either of the admiralty law or general statutes, is a boat seized for forfeiture by the United States subject to be released pending decree.

At the outset, the question is at once suggested: If a bond is accepted and the boat released, and a decree of forfeiture rendered, what is it that the United States then has to subject to the penalty of the law?

Where a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.