Mack Engineering & Supply Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
LEARNED HAND, District Judge.
The exception seems to me well taken. The language of section 2 is not “provided that such vessel was at the time when the lien or obligation arose employed as a merchant vessel,” but “provided that such vessel is employed,” etc.
Section 9 of the act of 1916 (39 Stat. 730, c. 451; Comp. St. § 8146e) was certainly drawn with that intent; there the language was, “such vessels, while employed solely as merchant vessels shall be subject,” etc. One can see .why this should have been the case under that act, because it might well have been the purpose of Congress not to…
2Cited by8 opinions
- James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Rosenberg Bros.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
- Eastern S. S. Lines, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1951
- W. R. Grace & Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1923
- Zeller Marine Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.