Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. L. Clark Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, John D. Lane and Harvey M. Spear, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. Sidney S. Sachs and John P. Burke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for appellant. Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Judges
  • Bennett Champ Clark
  • James McPherson Proctor
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. L. Clark Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, John D. Lane and Harvey M. Spear, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant. Messrs. Sidney S. Sachs and John P. Burke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for appellant. Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Judges
  • Bennett Champ Clark
  • James McPherson Proctor
See more information ...
Smart Summary

MATTHEWS, United States Marshal, v. WALTON RICE MILL, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the question whether an action at law may be maintained in the United States District Court by a citizen of the United States against a foreign government without its consent. The same question was presented upon a similar state of facts in the case of United States ex rel. Cardashian v. Snyder, et al., 1930, 59 App.D.C. 387, 44 F.2d 895, certiorari denied, 283 U.S. 827, 51 S.Ct. 351, 75 L.Ed. 1440. There the court held that such a suit could not be maintained. We adhere to that decision.

Therefore, this action is remanded with directions to set aside the judgment for the plaintiff (appellee) and dismiss the action with prejudice.

Reversed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

MATTHEWS v. WALTON RICE MILL
(Jul 5, 1949)