Citation network
C. J. Hendry Co. Vs. Moore
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 08, 1943
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 133 (1943) U.S. Supreme Court C. J. Hendry Co. v. MooreSearch
-
U.S. 133 (1943) C. J. Hendry Co. v. MooreSearch
-
the federal courts by the Judiciary Act, and hence was properly tried in the state court. Cf. Knapp, Stout & Co. Co. v. McCaffreySearch
-
Red Cross Line v. AtlanticSearch
-
suit. It is not questioned that the state has authority to regulate fishing in its navigable waters, Manchester v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Lee v. NewSearch
-
a remedy which the common law is competent to give, a ruling which has since been consistently followed. The Hine v. TrevorSearch
-
Rounds v. CloverportSearch
-
Machine Co., 237 U. S. 303 , 237 U. S. 307 -308. Eleven years earlier this Court, in Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
reports give us little light on the procedure followed or the precise from of judgment entered. In one case, Roberts v. WitheredSearch
-
Ames, Lectures on Legal History, pp. 64, 71. Cf. Wilkins v. DespardSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Judicature contain numerous instances of forfeiture proceedings during the eighteenth century. One is Hammond qui tam v. SloopSearch
-
a record of a similar exercise of jurisdiction in 1787 by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in Phile qui tam v. TheSearch
-
courts of fish nets and vessels illegally used in fishing there. Such a statute was considered in 1823 in Corfield v. CoryellSearch
-
Fed.Cas.No.3,230, 4 Wash.C.C. 371 (cited in Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
without intimation from this or any other court that the Judiciary Act prohibited it. See Boggs v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Dize v. LloydSearch
-
Johnson v. LoperSearch
-
Doolan v. TheSearch
-
Ely v. BugbeeSearch
-
State v. UmakiSearch
-
State v. MavrikasSearch
-
Osborn v. CharlevoixSearch
-
United States v. TheSearch
-
Whelan v. UnitedSearch
-
Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. UnitedSearch
-
rem on the Exchequer side of the court. And see Chief Justice Marshall's reference, in The Schooner Hoppet v. UnitedSearch
-
where the articles are seized upon navigable waters of the state for violation of state law. It follows that Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
it from harbors, estuaries, and other arms of the sea. See Justice Story's elaborate discussion in De Lovio v. BoitSearch
-
ch. 8. For some 18th century cases in the Exchequer involving the condemnation of ships, see Idle qui tam v. VanheckSearch
-
Attorney General v. JacksonSearch
-
Scott qui tam v. A'ChezSearch
-
Mitchell qui tam v. TorupSearch
-
Attorney General v. LeMerchantSearch
-
Attorney General v. ApplebySearch
-
Cole v. ThreeSearch
-
in the Provincial Court, 1694, 20 Archives 134, 180-81, 383-85. See also the full report of Blackiston qui tam v. CarrollSearch
-
Argument of counsel in Insurance Co. v. DunhamSearch
-
Goodman qui tam v. DounhamSearch
-
and Goodman qui tam v. PowelSearch
-
See Larkin qui tam v. SloopSearch
-
Ludgar qui tam v. SloopSearch
-
Meine qui tam v. SloopSearch
-
Santen qui tam v. TheSearch
-
Two Sisters, August 2, 1686, acquitted by the jury ( id., fol. 95). See also Ludgar qui tam v. PinkeSearch
-
Brooke v. BarquenteenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial