50 U.S.C. § 193
Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 21, 62 Stat. 862
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1941–1948 · leading case: United States v. Martini, 42 F. Supp. 502 (S.D. Ala. 1941).
United States v. Martini, 42 F. Supp. 502 (S.D. Ala. 1941). “Counsel for the government insist that if it be assumed that the evidence did not sustain the charge under Section 502, an assumption with which they do not agree, this motion should be denied because the *506 defendants are guilty of the offense set out in Section 3 of Title II…”
United States v. the Antoinetta, 153 F.2d 138 (3rd Cir. 1945). “8714, involve suits in admiralty brought on behalf of the United States against ships to declare them forfeited to the United States for violation of Section 3 of the Act of June 15, 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. § 193 . 1 The appeal at No. 8714 involves a proctor’s fee and is considered…”
United States v. Saglietto, 41 F. Supp. 21 (E.D. Va. 1941). “Under Title II, dealing with “Vessels In Ports Of The United States”, it is provided in Section 3 thereof, 50 U.S. C.A. § 193: “It shall be unlawful for the owner or master or any other person in charge or command of any private vessel, foreign or domestic * * * within the…”
United States v. Pietro Campanella, 44 F. Supp. 348 (D. Maryland 1942). “On July 19, 1941 the United States filed in this court libels for forfeiture of the vessels under section 3 of Title II of the same Act of June 15, 1917 above referred to, 50 U.S.C.A. § 193 . A comparison of section 1, Title III and section 3, Title II of this Act of 1917, can…”
Marchese v. United States, 126 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1942). “2 50 U.S.C.A. § 193 . 3 Except as the proclamation oí limited emergency of September 8, 1939, 54 Stats.”
Hamburg-Am. Line v. United States, 168 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1948). “§ 502 , and libels filed for forfeiture of the ships to the United States under 50 U.S.C.A. § 193 . The story of the Odenwald, however, is unique; it was described by the District Judge as “one of the great drámas of American peacetime seamanship.”
The Pietro Campanella, 47 F. Supp. 374 (D. Maryland 1942). “On September 9, 1941 the United States Maritime Commission requisitioned the use (not the full ownership) of said vessels under the authority of the Act of Congress of June 6, 1941, Pub.”
Giugni v. United States, 127 F.2d 786 (1st Cir. 1942). “But, the defendants argue, Congress dealt with the above situation when it enacted § 3 of Title II of the above chapter 30, 50 U.S.C.A. § 193 , which in part provides that “It shall be unlawful for the owner or master or any other person in charge or command of any private…”
The Mongioia, 73 F. Supp. 17 (S.D. Tex. 1947). “” On April 14, 1942, the Government filed Amended Libel, seeking forfeiture under the Act of June 15, 1917, Title II, Section 3, 50 U.S.C.A. § 193 , the Act of June 15, 1917, Title III, Section 1, 18 U.”
The Aussa, 52 F. Supp. 927 (D.N.J. 1943). “79 , 50 U.S. C.A. § 193, in which it prayed that the said vessel be condemned and forfeited.”
The Leme, 77 F. Supp. 773 (D. Or. 1948). “220 , 50 U.S.C.A. § 193 . The United States Attorney was instructed to draft a form of findings and decree.”
Villarperosa, 43 F. Supp. 140 (E.D.N.Y 1942). “In this suit the libellant seeks to forfeit the steamship Villarperosa, an Italian vessel, for alleged violation of Section 3 of the Act of June 15, 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. § 193 , as amended. The allegation upon which the forfeiture is sought is paragraph 2 of the libel which is as…”
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.