Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Matthews v. Walton Rice Mill, Inc.

176 F.2d 69

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1949-07-05
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Matthews v. Walton Rice Mill, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
MATTHEWS v. WALTON RICE MILL,176 F.2d 69(D.C. Cir. 1949)
MATTHEWS, United States Marshal, v. WALTON RICE MILL, Inc.
No. 9903.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 13, 1949.
Decided July 5, 1949.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia (now United States District Court for the District of Columbia).

Action between W. Bruce Matthews, United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, and Walton Rice Mill, Inc. From an adverse judgment W. Bruce Matthews, United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, appeals.

Judgment reversed with directions to dismiss the action with prejudice.
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.
Before CLARK and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges, and ARTHUR F. LEDERLE, District Judge, sitting by designation.
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.Page 70