Benson v. Crowell
District Court, S.D. Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
ERVIN, District Judge.
After much deliberation I have concluded to amplify the opinion formerly rendered in this ease, 33 F.(2d) 137. I then contented myself with citing the two cases hereafter cited and now feel they should have been commented on.-
In London, etc., Co. v. Industrial Commission of California, 2791 U. S. 109; 49 S. Ct. 296, 300, 73 L. Ed. 632, the court speaking of the jurisdiction of the admiralty court says: “Its jurisdiction is not limited to transr *307portation of goods and passengers from one state to another, or from the United States to a foreign country, but depends upon…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Ex Parte Bakelite Corp'n.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Benson v. CrowellDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 1929
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kobilkin v. PillsburyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
- Pueblo De Taos v. ArchuletaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
- Pittsburgh S. S. Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1948
- Pittsburgh S. S. Co. v. BrownDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1947
- Houston Ship Channel Stevedoring Co. v. SheppeardDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.