Legal Opinion
Bruce v. Murray
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 4, 1903No. 857PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge
It is assigned as error that several causes of action were improperly united, that there was a defect of parties defendant in said third amended complaint, and that the court erred in entering a decree and judgment against the defendant Miner Bruce in the second, third, and fourth causes of action, and directing the marshal to sell *92the steamer Fortune Hunter for the payment of said judgment.
The act of Congress entitled “An act making further provision for a civil government for Alaska, and for other purposes” (Act June 6, 1901, c. 786, 31 Stat. 321), provides in section 4, tit. 1, 31 Stat.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- American Insurance v. 356 Bales of CottonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- The Steamboat Orleans v. PhœbusSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- The" City of Panama"Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- In Re CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Yokohama Specie Bank v. Chengting T. WangCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- Johnston v. Corson Gold Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
- Villa Del Mar Properties, Ltd., LP v. MV Christina MichelleDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2021