C.F.R. » Title 31 » CHAPTER II—FISCAL SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › SUBCHAPTER A—BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE › PART 306—GENERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING U.S. SECURITIES › Subpart N—Relief for Loss, Theft, Destruction, Mutilation, or Defacement of Securities

31 C.F.R. § 306.110

Statutory authority and requirements

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Relief is authorized, under certain conditions, for the loss, theft, destruction, mutilation or defacement of U.S. securities, whether before, at, or after maturity. A bond of indemnity, in such form and with such surety, sureties or security as may be required to protect the interests of the United States, is required as a condition of relief on account of any bearer security or any registered security assigned in blank or so assigned as to become in effect payable to bearer, and is ordinarily required in the case of unassigned registered securities.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1980–1989 · leading case: Boyd v. United States, 482 F. Supp. 1126 (W.D. Pa. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Boyd v. United States, 482 F. Supp. 1126 (W.D. Pa. 1980). · cites it 2× “§ 738a and the accompanying regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 306.110 , the Secretary may grant relief according to such regulations as he may provide.”
Kennedy v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 69 (Ct. Cl. 1989). · cites it 2× “In the eyes of the plaintiff, however, the Government would not be liable to the true owner of the bond she found because of the provisions contained in 31 C.F.R. §§ 306.110 -.112 (1988). These provisions outline the requirements and procedures that must be followed by *74 the…”
Lins v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 579 (Ct. Cl. 1982). “§ 738a(b) (1976); 31 C.F.R. §§306.110 , 309.12(a) (1981). The plaintiff, appearing pro se, is a Swiss banker who acquired possession of the bill in November or December 1973 in Switzerland.”
Lins v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 772 (Ct. Cl. 1984). “§ 738a(b) (1976); 31 C.F.R. §§ 306.110 , 309.12(a) (1981). The plaintiff, appearing pro se in the previous case as now, is or was a Swiss banker who acquired possession of the bill in November or December 1973 in Switzerland.”
Boyd v. United States, 493 F. Supp. 529 (W.D. Pa. 1980). · cites it 2× “31 C.F.R. § 306.110 . The fact that relief is provided for specifically defined circumstances does not contradict Footnote 11 which only indicates that owners of bearer securities will not be pro *533 tected by the suspension of transactions after notice, or stop payment orders.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.