UNITED STATES V. FRY.
imother judgment creditor, that the- debt of the'latter was tainted with usury, and there is nothing in a Georgia mortgage putting the mortgagee in a better position than a judgment creditor. It is true he has a lien on the land, but so has the creditor by judgment. It is true, also, that our courts have said of the mortgagee that, if he obtains his mortgage without notice of a secret lien, he is for his protection to be treated asa purchaser; not that he is a purchaser, but that heis to be treated as such for his protection. But he has yet no title, nor was it the intent of these decisions so to hold, because the statute, in express terms, says that in Georgia the mortgagee has no title, but only a lien. I am therefore of the opinion that a decree ought to be entered for the defendants, the children of P. M. NightiJ:lgale, denying th,e prayer of plaintiff's , .
(D!8trflJt Gourt, E. D. Louisiana. January 14,1899.)
VIOLATIOl'f OP CUSTOMS LAW-LANDING" MERCHANDISE."
Tbecompass of a steam-ship, being part of its apparel and 'tackle, is not" mer· chandise." within the meaning of Rev. St. U. S. § 2873, impoSlPg a punishmel/.,t upon the master of a vessel for being concerned in landing any merchandise lVitliout the permit required by the preceding section. U. S. "I. Chain Cable, 2 Story, 002, followed.
Information against F. G. Fry, master of the steam-ship for a violation of the tariff laws. Judgment for defendant. ',' lfm. Grant, U. S., Dist. Atty. .T. Florance, for defendant.
;BIL,LINGS, J. This is an ,information whereby the United States seeklJ to reqoyer$400 from the defendant, who was master of the British steam,. ship as a penalty for a violation of section 50 of the act of 1799., (sections 2872-2874, Rev. St. 1) The case shows that the defimdant was of the Rhine; that a compass, which was a part of the apparel and tackle of the vessel, being by law a necessary adjunct of the life-boat" was" without the knowledge of the master, stolen by one of the mar:iners, .and taken on shore without any permit, and not in open day. The question submitted by the defendant's attorney is whether the com.1Section 2872 provides: "Except as authorized by the preceding section, no merchandise brought in any vessel from any foreign port shall be unladen or delivered from such vessel within the United States but in open daY,-that is to say, between the rising and the setting of the sun,-except by special license from the collector of the port and naval officer of the same, where there is one, for that purpose, nor at any time without a permit from the collector and naval officer. if any, for such unlading or, delivery," section 2873 provides that, "if any merchandise shall be unladen or delivered from any vessel contrary to the preceding section, the master of such vessel,' and every other person who shall knowingly be concerned" therein, shall be liable to a penalty, etc. t3ection 2874 provides that all merchandise so unladen 01' deliveredt" contrar,yto the preceding sections, shall be forfeited, ete.
FE])E:RAL REPORTER, vol. 48. was merchandise, within, the meaning of sectiol) 2873 of the Revised Statutes. This question was decided by Justice STORY in U. S. v. Chain Cable, 2 Story, 362, against the United States. He held that appurtenances or equipments of a ship are not merchandise. I find no authoritytothe contrary. On the other. hand. the defendant's counsel has cited several authorities tending to establish that merchandise includes only,cal'go. Myco.ue.Lusion is that the judgmentu:lust he in favor of the defendant.
(O(rcuit Court, E. D. North. OaroUna. January 11, 18112.)
IftBRIUL RBVBNU_TAXON SPIRITS-DISTILLBRY WAREHOUSES.
Rev. 8t. 5 8298. as amended by Act Congo March 28, 1880, requires distillers to f!ve a bond conditioned to., pay tbetax pn spi,rits, in distillery warehouses before removal" tberefrbm, 'or"witbiil three years from tbe date of tbe bond. Held. that the destruction of such spirits by fire. wbile in lhe warehouse, does not COthnBtitute 80 aa to make tile tax before expiration of the
At Law.. Action against James C. Peace and others upon a distillery ,boIid. , " , ' ! Ckarles'E; Cook, U.;S.Atty. T/uYmaa Strayhorn, for defendants·
··'J. 'The actiohis'hrought on a ilistiller'swarebousebond . to recclV'eHhe tax on certain spirits destroyed byfire ill the warehouse. The fact of the destruction of the not release the, aistiller or his surety from liability for the tax. Farrell v. U. R, 99 U. S. 22l. The onlyquesti?n is whether the taxis payabl y immediately upon the or not until the expiration of three years from date of entry in the bonded warehouse. The present actiou, was the three years, and the question arisesnpon a specil;tl " " ,The boncJ Buit. ,like all others "If the same character, follows the phraseology,()f the statute" and is' conditioned for the. payment of 'the the spirits described in it Hbefore such spirits shall be refr6Iil,tHe, ",arehouse, I1ndwithinthreeyears, from the date of entry." The'contention is as to the construction of the words; "removed from suchw!1rehouse." The verb, "to remove,"bears usage ,two To cause a thing to change place, or to 'cause it to cease in the second meaning given,would include destruction :qy The doubt in the matter BUb lite does not, however, depend upon the'fibstract definition of th'eterm, but upon the question ofwhether by statute ,must not bea removal by the digtilierF'., 'The' :provisions,of the, tes relating to the bonding of disti1led'spHits 'iteemedmaterialt9.'the question ol <;onstr.1;1ction: underc9n.-