In all cases wherein any vessel, or other property, is condemned in any proceeding by virtue of any laws relating to insurrection or rebellion, the court rendering judgment of condemnation shall, notwithstanding such condemnation, and before awarding such vessel, or other property, or the proceeds thereof, to the United States, or to any informer, first provide for the payment, out of the proceeds of such vessel, or other property, of any bona fide claims which shall be filed by any loyal citizen of the United States, or of any foreign state or power at peace and amity with the United States, intervening in such proceeding, and which shall be duly established by evidence, as a valid claim against such vessel, or other property, under the laws of the United States or of any State thereof not declared to be in insurrection. No such claim shall be allowed in any case where the claimant has knowingly participated in the illegal use of such ship, vessel, or other property. This section shall extend to such claims only as might have been enforced specifically against such vessel, or other property, in any State not declared to be in insurrection, wherein such claim arose.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Rubinstein, 166 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1948).
· cites it 2× “76 , 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note. [5] This section as amended, provided that "* * * every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of eighteen and forty-five at the time fixed for his registration, shall be…”
United States Ex Rel. Bergdoll v. Drum, 107 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1939).
“76 , 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note. On August 11, 1917, a post card was mailed to his home by Local Board 32, notifying him to appear for a physical examination on August 14.”
Seele v. United States, 133 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir. 1943).
“Substantially this same charge of unconstitutionality was leveled against the Selective Draft Law of 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note. In the Selective Draft Law Cases (Arver v.”
Davis v. Woodring, 111 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1940).
“76 , 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note. 2 Petitioner contends that the camp commander did not “approve” the recommendation but in fact “disapproved” it, but the trial court found against this contention, and we think the evidence abundantly sustains this finding.”
United States Ex Rel. Filomio v. Powell, 38 F. Supp. 183 (D.N.J. 1941).
“A number of cases arose following the enactment of the Selective Service Act of 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note, in which use was sought to be made of the writ of habeas corpus for release from the army.”
In Re Martinez, 73 F. Supp. 101 (W.D. Pa. 1947).
· cites it 2× “76 , as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 201 et seq.”
United States v. Lambert, 123 F.2d 395 (3rd Cir. 1941).
“Conceding, as he must, the authority of the decision, appellant urges that the constitutional prob-' lem here is different because at the time of the passage of the 1940 statute the Congress had not exercised its constitutional power under Article I, Section 8 to declare war.”
United States Ex Rel. Errichetti v. Baird, 39 F. Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y 1941).
“183, 188 , which states at page 188: “A number of cases arose following the enactment of the Selective Service Act of 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note, in which use was sought to be made of the writs of habeas corpus for release from the army.”
Petition of Moser, 182 F.2d 734 (2d Cir. 1950).
“The forerunner of the Act of 1940 was the Selective Draft Law of 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note. Ultimately that subjected to military service neutral aliens who had declared their intention to become citizens, but only upon their consent, and provided that they could dissent only…”
MacIntosh v. United States, 42 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1930).
“78 [50 USCA § 226 note]), provides that a person whose religious convictions are against war or participation therein shall not be required or compelled to serve in any of the forces, but will be subject to render services of a noncombatant nature.”
In re Samowich, 70 F. Supp. 273 (W.D. Wash. 1947).
· cites it 2× “77 , 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note. November 2, 1918, the petitioner executed a withdrawal of his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, in which he stated that he understood such withdrawal would operate and be held to cancel his declaration of intention to…”
State Ex Rel. Charlton v. French, 99 P.2d 715 (N.M. 1940).
“1 , not to delegate the power vested in Congress to raise-an army, but to merely commit to him execution of its scheme.”
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.