Mattson v. District Court for Western District of Washington

Ninth Circuit

Mattson v. District Court for Western District of Washington

56 F.2d 839, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2867, 1932 A.M.C. 555

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1932

DocketNo. 6778

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.2d 839 (Mattson v. District Court for Western District of Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mattson v. District Court for Western District of Washington, 56 F.2d 839, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2867, 1932 A.M.C. 555 (9th Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appears from the allegations of the petition that the District Court has not yet entered a decree in the matter now pending; that the ease has been submitted and opinion rendered, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were directed to be prepared, but, before the same were prepared or signed, the court reopened the proceedings for further testimony. That the District Court had jurisdiction of the common-law action for damages for negligence and also jurisdiction of a. proceeding for limitation of liability in admiralty is not questioned. The contention is that the court erred in hearing the matter as a proceeding in admiralty, thus in effect denying the plaintiff the right to trial by jury. Plaintiff’s remedy is by an appeal, if and when a decree is entered in the trial court. In re New York & Porto Rieo S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523, 15 S. Ct. 183, 39 L. Ed. 246; 50 C. J. 676, § 43, and cases eited in note 71.

Petition denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appears from the allegations of the petition that the District Court has not yet entered a decree in the matter now pending; that the ease has been submitted and opinion rendered, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were directed to be prepared, but, before the same were prepared or signed, the court reopened the proceedings for further testimony. That the District Court had jurisdiction of the common-law action for damages for negligence and also jurisdiction of a. proceeding for limitation of liability in admiralty is not questioned. The contention is that the court erred in hearing the matter as a proceeding in admiralty, thus in effect denying the plaintiff the right to trial by jury. Plaintiff’s remedy is by an appeal, if and when a decree is entered in the trial court. In re New York & Porto Rieo S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523, 15 S. Ct. 183, 39 L. Ed. 246; 50 C. J. 676, § 43, and cases eited in note 71.

Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 839, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2867, 1932 A.M.C. 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattson-v-district-court-for-western-district-of-washington-ca9-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack