Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. The appellee, a corporation of the State of California, began this action against the present plaintiffs in error, citizens of the State of South Carolina; averring the alleged wrongful seizure by the defendants Bahr and Scott, at a railroad depot in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, of packages of wines and brandies, the property of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. The appellee, a corporation of the State of California, began this action against the present plaintiffs in error, citizens of the State of South Carolina; averring the alleged wrongful seizure by the defendants Bahr and Scott, at a railroad depot in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, of packages of wines and brandies, the property of the plaintiff. It^was averred that at the time of the seizure the liquors were in the custody of a common carrier, under a shipment from San Francisco to the agent of the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice White
Counsel for plaintiffs in error discuss in their brief the contentions that the Circuit Court erred in holding that it had jurisdiction of the action and that there was not a misjoinder of causes of action, and also assert that the court erred in refusing to hold that the dispensary law of South Carolina was a valid enactment.
We shall dispose of the case upon the jurisdictional question, as it is manifest that the amount of recovery to which the plaintiff was entitled, upon the construction put upon the complaint by its counsel and acted upon by the trial court, could not equal’the sum of two…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Barry v. EdmundsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Bauserman v. BluntSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Watson v. SutherlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Wilson v. DanielSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
- Conard v. Pacific Ins. Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
3Cited by87 opinions
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Healy v. RattaSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. KaratzSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Wiley v. SinklerSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.