Kneedler v. Lane
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
At Nisi Prius. In Equity. These three bills in equity were filed in tbe Supreme Court for tbe Eastern District by tbe plaintiffs above named, against the Officers of the Enrolling Boards of the First and Fourth Congressional Districts, praying for injunctions to restrain the defendants from further proceeding with or under the enrolment requisition and draft, under the act of March 3d, 1863, and particularly from all proceedings against the said plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
At Nisi Prius. In Equity. These three bills in equity were filed in tbe Supreme Court for tbe Eastern District by tbe plaintiffs above named, against the Officers of the Enrolling Boards of the First and Fourth Congressional Districts, praying for injunctions to restrain the defendants from further proceeding with or under the enrolment requisition and draft, under the act of March 3d, 1863, and particularly from all proceedings against the said plaintiffs. The ground alleged for these applications was the unconstitutionality of this act of Congress. A motion for a special injunction was made…
1Dissent
Justices Strong and Bead dissented from the foregoing opinions, and the ruling of the majority of the court — holding the Conscription law of March 3d, 1863, to be constitutional, and delivered the following dissenting opinions:—
Strong, J.
The complainants having been enrolled and drafted, under the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3d, 1863, entitled “An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes,” have presented their bills in this court against the persons who constitute the board of enrolment, and against the enrolling officers; praying that they…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Martin v. MottSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- J. H. Brown & Co. v. GrinnanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884
- Antrim's CaseDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1863