PENNYWIT
v.
EATON. [ON MERITS.]
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In Pennywit v. Eaton, the Supreme Court addressed whether a Louisiana court proceeding against defendants by attachment constituted admiralty jurisdiction and whether a judge appointed by a military governor during the Civil War held valid authority to preside. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, holding that the attachment proceeding was not an admiralty action and that military appointments were within the governor's power, and found the writ of error was filed merely for delay.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
Two questions are. presented, both of which have been adjudicated. The first relates to the proceeding of the court of Louisiana, by which the original judgment was rendered. It is claimed that this was a proceeding in admiralty. It was, in fact, a proceeding against the persons of the defendants, instituted by attachment. Such a suit, we have held, is not a proceeding in admiralty.*
The second question relates to the validity of the appointment of the judge who presided in the court of the Fourth District of New Orleans. His commission came from the military governor, who was appointed by the President during the late war. We have already decided that such appointments were within the power of such a governor.†
There can have been no good ground for the writ of error under the former adjudications of this court, and there is no attempt to question these adjudications. We are obliged, therefore, to regard this writ of error as prosecuted for delay.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas must be
Affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.
*
The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 Howard, 443; Jackson v. Steamboat Magnolia, 20 Id. 296; Taylor v. Carryl, Ib. 583; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wallace, 555; The Belfast, 7 Id. 624; Leon v. Galceran, 11 Id. 185.
†
Handlin v. Wickliffe, 12 Id. 173; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 Howard, 177; The Grapeshot, 9 Wallace, 133.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Chicago & Pac. Elevator Co., 119 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1886)…o give a remedy in ab cases where tbe suit is m personam against tbe owner of tbe property;, and that these views were not inconsistent with any expressed in The Moses Taylor, in The Hine v. Trevor, or in The Belfast. Tbe case of Pennywit v. Eaton, 15 Wall. 382, is a similar, one. There being no ben on the tug, by tbe maritime law, for tbe injury on land inflicted in this case, the State could create such a ben therefor as it deemed expedient, and could enact reasonable rules for its enforcement, not amou…
-
Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. McKEE, 121 F.2d 583 (10th Cir. 1941)…. 540, 63 L.Ed. 1092; Central Vermont Railway Co. v. White, 238 U.S. 507, 35 S.Ct. 865, 59 L.Ed. 1433, Ann.Cas.1916B, 252; Southern Pac. Co. v. Pool, 160 U.S. 438, 16 S.Ct. 338, 40 L.Ed. 485; Washington & Georgetown Railway v. Gladmon, 15 Wall. 401, 21 L.Ed. 114; Chambers v. Skelly Oil Co., 10 Cir., 87 F. 2d 853; Stanolind Oil & Gas Company v. Kimmel, 10 Cir., 68 F. 2d 520; F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Davis, 10 Cir., 41 F. 2d 342; People of State of Colorado, for Use of Little, v. Hutchinson et al., 8 Cir., 9 F.…
-
Pollak v. Brush Elec. Ass'n of ST. Louis, 128 U.S. 446 (U.S. 1888)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence