The Miss C.B

3 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Quemener

    789 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1986)   Cited 7 times

    Similar conclusions have been reached by a number of American courts. See Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 601, 47 S.Ct. 531, 533, 71 L.Ed. 793 (1927); The Miss C.B., 63 F.2d 639, 639 (5th Cir. 1933); The Golmaccam, 8 F.Supp. 338, 339 (D.Me. 1934); The Mazel Tov, 51 F.2d 292, 294 (D.R.I. 1931), rev'd on other grounds, 56 F.2d 921 (1st Cir. 1932), rev'd sub nom. Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102, 53 S.Ct. 305, 77 L.Ed. 641 (1933); United States v. Henning, 7 F.2d 488, 489 (S.D.Ala. 1925), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Hennings v. United States, 13 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1926). Of particular significance is the fact that each of these cases was decided against the backdrop of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain similar to the Agreement at issue here.

  2. United States v. Williams

    617 F.2d 1063 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that United States jurisdiction "embraces offenses having an effect within its sovereign territory, even though the acts constituting the offense occur outside the territory."

    The source of authority over a foreign flag vessel in United States territorial waters is the federal law concerning vessels in territorial waters, as such authority might be modified by international law and treaties.See, e. g., Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102, 53 S.Ct. 305, 77 L.Ed. 641 (1933); Macridis v. United States (The Miss C. B.), 63 F.2d 639 (5th Cir. 1933); Olson v. United States (The Atlantic), 68 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1933); United States v. 5,870 Bags and 100 Kegs (The Ada M.), 67 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1933). The authority to search and seize vessels of United States registry, wherever they are, and foreign vessels within United States territorial waters, is subject to Fourth Amendment restraints.

  3. The Thorndyke

    67 F.2d 198 (3d Cir. 1933)

    Ten knots an hour was the schooner's speed at the date of her registry in October 1925. That such was her speed when, sailing under the same certificate of registry, she was seized in October 1930, the claimant did not deny. On this prima facie showing of speed, and of motive power to produce it, which ordinarily is the best evidence that can in such cases be obtained, we hold the government supported its averments of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Distinguished by the facts from The Miss C.B. (C.C.A.) 63 F.2d 639. The decree below, or so much of it as may remain after the execution of our order of July 7, 1933 in respect to a new bond for the release of the vessel, is affirmed.