Legal Opinion · Dissent

C. J. Hendry Co. v. Moore

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided April 5, 1943No. 60Published

1DissentJustice Black

If this case involved only a fishnet, I should be inclined to acquiesce in the holding of the Court. Indeed, we have held that a state may seize and condemn a fishnet of trifling value without following the formal procedure of court action at all. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133. But the principle laid down here involves far more than a fishnet, for under it state courts are authorized through in rem proceedings to seize and condemn, for violation of local law, any equipment or vessel employed in maritime activity. Today’s in rem action is against a fishnet used in patently illegal fashion;…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. United States v. WiltbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
  3. Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  4. The Propeller Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
  5. New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. MERCHANTS'BANK.Supreme Court of the United States · 1848

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API