Legal Opinion

The Winnie

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 15, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

This cause well illustrates a type of litigation of late years ever present with us. *654An existing cause of action in fact and in truth; an action brought which has no relation in legal logic to the real fact situation. No one could have a five minutes’ acquaintance with the Winnie and escape the conviction with or without evidence that she was rumrunner, designed, built, rigged, and fully manned and equipped to engage in the trade, if it may be called such, of violating the National Prohibition Law. With legitimate trade or commerce she had absolutely nothing to do.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1931
  2. The Alex ClarkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1923
  3. The RosemaryDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1927

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jones v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Pierce v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API