Riddell v. Fuhrman

6 Citing cases

  1. Knapp v. Graham

    320 Mass. 50 (Mass. 1946)   Cited 11 times

    " Both the foregoing cases were, it is true, in admiralty, but the pertinent principles are applicable to the case at bar. The case of Riddell v. Fuhrman, 233 Mass. 69, contains nothing contrary to what we herein hold, and the ample grounds distinguishing it from the two cases last cited and from the case at bar are fully set forth in the opinion of the court (page 73). See also City National Bank v. Dresdner Bank, 255 Fed. 225 (D.C.S.D. Ala.); Kintner v. Hoch-Frequenz-Maschinen AktienGesellschaft fur Drahtlose Telegraphie, 256 Fed. 849 (D.C.N.J.); J.D. A.B. Spreckels Co. v. The Takaoka Maru, 44 F. Supp. 939 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.); Murray Oil Products Co. Inc. v. Mitsui Co. Ltd. 178 Misc (N.Y.) 82, affirmed 263 App. Div. (N.Y.) 979.

  2. Janusis v. Long

    284 Mass. 403 (Mass. 1933)   Cited 20 times

    Presence within the jurisdiction is not essential to the exercise of such privilege, but it is extended to a foreigner not within our borders. Peabody v. Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217, 220. Even alien enemies may in some circumstances be parties to litigation in our courts. Parkinson v. Wentworth, 11 Mass. 26. Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119. Riddell v. Fuhrman, 233 Mass. 69. Schaffenius v. Goldberg, 1 K.B. 284. Recognized limitations upon the rights of alien enemies to prosecute proceedings in the courts, especially as plaintiffs, rest upon the principle that aid and comfort ought not to be afforded to a country with which the nation is at war.

  3. United States v. the San Leonardo

    51 F. Supp. 107 (E.D.N.Y. 1942)   Cited 7 times

    The statutory permission to defend "any suit in equity or action at law" includes Admiralty suits in rem. Ex parte Colonna, 314 U.S. 510, 62 S.Ct. 373, 86 L.Ed. 379; Wisconsin River Imp. Co. v. Pier, 137 Wis. 325, 118 N.W. 857, 21 L.R.A., N.S., 538; Riddell v. Fuhrman, 233 Mass. 69, 71, 123 N.E. 237. There is also at least implied in a number of cases arising under the Trading with the Enemy Act that the alien enemy is a proper, if not a necessary party, even though the property has been taken over by the Alien Property Custodian. Birge-Forbes Co. v. Heye, supra; City Nat. Bank of Selma v. Dresdner Bank of Bremen, supra; Milwaukee-Western Fuel Oil Co. v. Industrial Comm., 172 Wis. 561, 179 N.W. 763.

  4. The Pietro Campanella

    47 F. Supp. 374 (D. Md. 1942)   Cited 13 times

    This statutory permission of the enemy to defend "any suit in equity or action at law" must be construed broadly enough to include admiralty suits in rem. Ex parte Colonna, 314 U.S. 510, 62 S.Ct. 373, 86 L.Ed. 379; Wisconsin River Imp. Co. v. Pier, 137 Wis. 325, 118 N.W. 857; Riddell v. Fuhrman, 233 Mass. 69, 71, 123 N.E. 237. In a number of cases arising under the Trading with the Enemy Act it is at least implied that the alien enemy is a proper if not a necessary party, even though the property has been taken over by the Alien Property Custodian. Birge-Forbes Co. v. Heye, 251 U.S. 317, 40 S.Ct. 160, 64 L.Ed. 286; City Nat. Bank of Selma v. Dresdner Bank of Bremen, D.C., 255 F. 225; Milwaukee-Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Comm., 172 Wis. 561, 179 N.W. 763.

  5. Peters v. McKay

    195 Or. 412 (Or. 1952)   Cited 24 times
    Noting that "the great mass of federal and state decisions" support the view that the statute of limitations is suspended during war

    Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 85 L ed 1193, 1198. And see Riddell v. Fuhrman, 233 Mass. 69, 123 N.E. 237; Sears v. The Scotia, 14 Wallace 170, 20 L ed 822. The rule has been briefly stated as follows:

  6. Fuller v. Sylvia

    137 N.E. 173 (Mass. 1922)   Cited 6 times

    Every practical consideration is against delay. Riddell v. Fuhrman, 233 Mass. 69, 71. In the case at bar the question whether issues should be framed for trial by jury was presented in behalf of an heir who seasonably appeared to contest the will. It was decided adversely to the contestant.