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.
General
COSULICH SOCIETA TRIESTINA DI NAVIGAZIONE v. ELTING, Collector of Customs
74 F.2d 240·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
COSULICH SOCIETA TRIESTINA DI NAVIGAZIONE v. ELTING, Collector of Customs.
No. 62.
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.
John M. Lyons, of New York City (J. Alfred Anderson, of New York City, of coun sel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — MANTON, Circuit Judge.]
MANTON, Circuit Judge.
The appellee’s steamship Vulcania, sailing from Italy to New York, arrived July 9,1929, carrying a 6 year old alien who, upon arrival was found to be suffering from a ringworm of the sealp> a loathsome and dangerous contagious disease.
This case differs from the ease of Lamport & Holt, Ltd., v. Elting (C. C. A. 2) 74 F.(2d) 238, decided this day, in that, while the child was ordered excluded, she was permitted to come in because her father was an American citizen, who requested that the alien be given hospital treatment. This was granted, and she was subsequently cured. There was a lawful admission. Immigration Act 1917, § 22, 8 U. S. C. § 159 (8 USCA § 159). Admission was lawful under the rule of Lloyd Sabaudo Societa v. Elting, 55 F.(2d) 1048 (C. C. A. 2). For the reasons announced in our decision in the ease of Lamport & Holt, Ltd., v. Elting, this judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.