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.
NAVIGAZIONE GENERALE ITALIANA v. ELTING, Collector of Customs, 1934 — 74 F.2d 241 · caselaw · US
General
NAVIGAZIONE GENERALE ITALIANA v. ELTING, Collector of Customs
74 F.2d 241·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1934
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
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
NAVIGAZIONE GENERALE ITALIANA v. ELTING, Collector of Customs.
No. 78.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 10, 1934.
Martin Conboy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (George B. Schoonmaker, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hiekox, Keating & Mc-Grann and Gaspare M. Cusumano, all of New York City (Delbert M. Tibbetts, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — MANTON, Circuit Judge.]
MANTON, Circuit Judge.
Appellee sued to recover fines imposed and paid for violations of the Immigration Act 1924, § 26 (8 USCA § 145), in the transportation of three aliens from Italy to the United States on its steamship; the aliens having been excluded because they were afflicted with loathsome and dangerous contagious diseases which were not easily curable. They were excluded and a fine of $1,000 imposed for the transportation of each alien. But pursuant to section 22 of the 1917 Act (8 U. S. C. § 159 [8 USCA § 159]) two were admitted by the Commissioner because they were children of citizens of the United States and the third was admitted under the seventh proviso of section 3 of the 1917 aet (8 U. S. C. § 136 (p), 8 USCA § 136 (p) as an alien returning to an unrelinquished domicile in the United States. The Secretary of Labor admitted them, having found them to be easily curable. The Secretary had authority to act under these circumstances. He did not act unlawfully in such admissions. Under the circumstances, the fine could not be imposed. See Lamport & Holt v. Elting (C. C. A.) 74 F.(2d) 238, and Consulich Societa v. Elting (C. C. A.) 74 F.(2d) 240, both decided this day.
Judgment affirmed.