Bremena v. Card
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina
In Admiralty. Question reserved.
1Opinion of the Court
• SimoNtoN, J.
In this case a monition with warrant of arrest was issued, with this qualification: “In conformity with rule 2 of the supreme court in admiralty.” Afterwards, it appearing that the respondent was within this jurisdiction, and had been served with the monition, and was actually present in court ready to answer, so much of the order as directed his arrest was rescinded, and the question wras reserved as follows: “Whether in a case like this, in which the defendant, being within the jurisdiction, and served with process, and under the state law of force in this court, cannot be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. MERCHANTS'BANK.Supreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Atkins v. Disintegrating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Manro v. AlmeidaSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
3Cited by4 opinions
- Criscuolo v. Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Bolden v. JensenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · 1895
- Rosasco v. ThompsonDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 1917
- Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1949