Northwestern Car Co. v. Hopkins
U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois
[In review of the action of the district court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois.] In admiralty. This was a petition for review, charging actual fraud, and setting up that the libellant was without fault, and would be without remedy unless his petition were allowed.
Read the full summary
[In review of the action of the district court of the United States for the Northern district of Illinois.] In admiralty. This was a petition for review, charging actual fraud, and setting up that the libellant was without fault, and would be without remedy unless his petition were allowed. Respondents [John W. Hopkins and others] demurred on the ground that the petition was not filed until after the term at which the decree complained of was rendered, and that the decree had been already executed.
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, Circuit Justice.
This petition presents this question; Has a court of admiralty a right to entertain a petition for review after the term has passed, and after the decree has been executed? The right is denied, and chiefly on the ground of a want of precedent. The authority of precedent is very strong, but not always conclusive. I can perceive no good reason why a court of admiralty, in a proper case, should not exercise the power of reviewing its own proceedings. It may be necessary for the proper administration of justice, and especially in cases where important rights are adjudicated…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Thompson v. McIntoshDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1900
- Hall v. ChisholmCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1902
- Munks v. JacksonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1895
- Jackson v. MunksU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · 1893
- The Frederick Der GrosseDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1929