Matthews v. Walton Rice Mill, Inc.

D.C. Circuit

Matthews v. Walton Rice Mill, Inc.

176 F.2d 69, 85 U.S. App. D.C. 197, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3006

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 5, 1949

DocketNo. 9903

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 176 F.2d 69 (Matthews v. Walton Rice Mill, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthews v. Walton Rice Mill, Inc., 176 F.2d 69, 85 U.S. App. D.C. 197, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3006 (D.C. Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F.2d 69, 85 U.S. App. D.C. 197, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-walton-rice-mill-inc-cadc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack