19 U.S.C. § 525
Repealed. June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 651(a)(1), 46 Stat. 762, eff. June 18, 1930
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1927–1931 · leading case: United States v. Davidson, 50 F.2d 517 (1st Cir. 1931).
United States v. Davidson, 50 F.2d 517 (1st Cir. 1931). “(2d) 842, 843 , it was held that libels prosecuted under section 4377, by virtue of the provisions of section 4380, were entitled to “be heard upon and under the same rules of evidence and procedural advantages as are ordained by section 615 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA §…”
United States v. 416 Cases G. T. Whisky, 27 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1928). “987 [19 USCA § 525]). This section we applied in The Squanto, 13 F.”
United States v. Blackwood, 47 F.2d 849 (1st Cir. 1931). “nly question remaining for consideration is whether, under the circumstances of this case, no evidence having been introduced by the defendant, there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of probable cause for the institution of the libel based on the third count,…”
The Marion Phillis, 36 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1929). “Section 615 (19 USCA § 525); The Squanto (C. C. A.) 13 F.”
The Evelyn Ruth, 42 F.2d 458 (D. Mass. 1930). “Under the Tariff Act of September 21, 1922, § 615 (19 USCA § 525) the burden of proof is upon the claimant where the government has first shown probable cause for the institution of the suit.”
The Resolution, 30 F.2d 534 (E.D. La. 1929). “987 ; 19 USCA § 525) supplies the deficiency by placing the burden of proving innocence upon the claimant.”
United States v. Sedan, 23 F.2d 865 (S.D. Fla. 1928). “It is the contention of the government that these facts show “probable cause” for the institution of the suit, and that under section 615 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA § 525 [Comp. St. §' 5841h35] ) the burden of proof, in these circumstances, is placed upon the claimants,…”
The Chiquita, 41 F.2d 842 (S.D. Cal. 1930). “” It seems to me that here there is a clear legislative intent that libels prosecuted under this aet of Congress shall be heard upon and under the same rules of evidence and procedural advantages as aro ordained by section 615 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA § 525). See,…”
The Gander, 54 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1931). “The District Court made no findings of fact and wrote no opinion; but, from remarks made orally in granting the motion to dismiss, it appears that the judge thought a prima facie ease had not been proved and that for some reason not clearly reported section 615 of the Tariff Act…”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 22 F.2d 109 (1st Cir. 1927). “Section 615 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (19 USCA § 525) provides: “In all suits or actions brought for the forfeiture of any * * * vehicle, * *' * seized under the provisions of any law'relating to the‘collection of duties on imports or tonnage, where the property is claimed, by…”
United States v. 394 Cases of Lawson Scotch Whisky, 21 F.2d 989 (D. Mass. 1927). “The government invokes the provisions of section 615 of the said Tariff Act (19 USCA § 525) relating to the burden of proof.”
The George & Earl, 30 F.2d 441 (E.D.N.Y 1928). “The issue came on for trial, and certain testimony was taken, which included the deposition of the master of the seized schooner.”
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.