6 U.S.C. § 6
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1934–2021 · leading case: Concord Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States, 69 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1934).
Concord Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States, 69 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1934). “6 USCA § 6. The rule cannot grant jurisdiction, for a rule cannot abrogate or modify the substantive law.”
Am. Druggists Ins. Co., Inc., & John H. Brown v. Joseph I. Bogart, Clerk of the Court, S. Dist. of Florida, 707 F.2d 1229 (11th Cir. 1983). “6 USCA § 6,9. It has not been granted to the courts.”
In Re the Complaint of Compania Naviera Marasia S. A., 466 F. Supp. 900 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “Rule 31(a) states generally, and with exceptions not here pertinent, that the execution of a bond, undertaking or stipulation by a surety or sureties only is sufficient; the Rule is comparable to the statutory provision found in 6 U.S.C. § 6 . Rule 31(b) goes on to provide:…”
Am. Fid. Fire Ins. v. Construcciones Werl, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 164 (D.V.I. 1975). “5 (b) (issued pursuant to 6 U.S.C. § 6 et seq.) provides that a surety need not be admitted to do business in the jurisdiction in which the contract is to be performed if it is admitted to do business in the jurisdiction in which the bond was executed, and insofar as AFFIC was…”
Yoke, Collector of Internal Revenue v. Mazzello, 202 F.2d 508 (4th Cir. 1953). “The provisions of Section 273(f) of the Statute, in respect to bonds to stay the collection of jeopardy assessments, must be read in connection with the general statute, 6 U.S.C.A. § 6 , which provides in its concluding sentence that no officer or person having the approval of…”
United States v. Conti, 119 F.2d 652 (1st Cir. 1941). “279 [ 6 U.S.C.A. § 6 et seq.]. Their formal execution, as we have seen, was not essential to the consummation of the contract.”
United States v. Melville, 309 F. Supp. 824 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). “, and the “judicial act of approval of a bond is not mandatory under section 6 [ 6 U.S.C. § 6 ], but the statute calls for the exercise of a wise judicial discretion”, id.”
United States v. Ferguson, 409 F. Supp. 393 (S.D. Ga. 1975). “Counsel contends that federal law does not permit it to execute such an undertaking as surety, the authority to bind a principal not being a bond itself under the Act of Congress ( 6 U.S.C. §§ 6 — 13). That statute provides that any recognizance bond or undertaking for the…”
Coy Burnett & Mel Dar Corp. v. Graves, 230 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1956). “, Dallas attorney, long-time professor University of Texas, author, writer, acknowledged authority in the field of oil and gas, and a principal attorney for Mar-Tex in the case; James P.”
Rees-Evans v. AMP Global Clearing, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2021). “6 U.S.C. § 6 b(e)(3). Defendants move to dismiss this count on the basis that it fails to meet Rule 8’s requirement that a claim be sufficiently intelligible.”
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.