Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
SVENSKA AMERIKA LINIEN v. ELTING, Collector of Customs, 1929 — 46 F.2d 178 · caselaw · US
General
SVENSKA AMERIKA LINIEN v. ELTING, Collector of Customs
46 F.2d 178·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
SVENSKA AMERIKA LINIEN v. ELTING, Collector of Customs.
District Court, S. D. New York.
May 23, 1929.
Verdict directed in favor of plaintiff.
Wood, Molloy & France, of New York City, for plaintiff.
United States Attorney, for defendant,
[MAJORITY — THACHER, District Judge.]
THACHER, District Judge.
Defendant justifies retention of plaintiff’s money under section 16 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA § 216), but under this section the Secretary was required to find erlher knowledge of or failure to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain a fact, U. S. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique (C. C. A.) 26 F.(2d) 195, which was unknown and not discoverable until after the alien had been transported to this country, Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Elting (C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 773. From this it follows that his finding was arbitrary, and plaintiff is entitled to-recover.
Verdict is accordingly directed in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $3,461.22.