Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Torts · MBE-tested
MATTSON v. DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, NORTHERN DIVISION, et al.
56 F.2d 839·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MATTSON v. DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, NORTHERN DIVISION, et al.
No. 6778.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 11, 1932.
Rehearing Denied April 4, 1932.
Lord & Moulton, of Portland, Or., for petitioner.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
It appears from the allegations of the petition that the District Court has not yet entered a decree in the matter now pending; that the ease has been submitted and opinion rendered, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were directed to be prepared, but, before the same were prepared or signed, the court reopened the proceedings for further testimony. That the District Court had jurisdiction of the common-law action for damages for negligence and also jurisdiction of a. proceeding for limitation of liability in admiralty is not questioned. The contention is that the court erred in hearing the matter as a proceeding in admiralty, thus in effect denying the plaintiff the right to trial by jury. Plaintiff’s remedy is by an appeal, if and when a decree is entered in the trial court. In re New York & Porto Rieo S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523, 15 S. Ct. 183, 39 L. Ed. 246; 50 C. J. 676, § 43, and cases eited in note 71.
Petition denied.