About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Dow v. Johnson U.S. 158 (1880)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0432 and id is 1 raw text is: Dow V. JOHNSON. [Sup. Ct. Dow v. JOHNSOw. 1. On the trial of an action at law, when the judges of the Circuit Court are op posed in opinion on a mdterial question of law, the opinion bf the presiding judge prevails; but the judgibent rendered conformably thereto may, with- out regard to its amount, be reviewed on a writ of error, upon'their certifi. cate stating such question. 2. An officer of the army of the United States, whilst serving in the enemy's couptry during the rebellion, was not liable to an action in the courts of that country for injuries resulting from his military orders or acts; nor could he be required by a civil tribunal to justify or explain them upo any allegation of the injured party that they were not justified by military ne- cessity. He was subject to the laws of war, and amenable only to his own government. 3. When any portion of the insurgent States was in the occupation of the forces of the United States during the rebellion, the municipal laws, if not suspended or superseded, were generally administered there by the ordinary tribunals for the protection and benefit of persons not in the military service. Their continued enforcement was not for the protection or the control of ofacers or soldiers of the army. 4. A district court of Louisiana - continued in existence after the military occupation of the State by the United States, and authorized by the com- manding general to hear causes between parties -summoned a brigadier- general of the army of the United States to answer a petition filed therein, setting forth that a military comp ny had, pursuant to 'his orders, seized and carried off certain personal property of the plaintiff, who alleged that the seizure was unauthorized by the necessities of war, or martial law, or by. the superiors of that officer. Judgment by default was rendered April 9, 1863, against him for the value of the property. When sued in the Circuit Court of the United States, upon the judgment, he pleaded that the property was taken to supply the army. Held, on demurrer to the plea, that the State court had no jurisdiction of the cause of action, and that the judgment was void. ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Dis- trict of Maine. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The case was argued by The Attorfney- General and.Mr. E. B. Smith, Assistant Attorney-General, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Thomas J. Durant for the defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant in the court below, the plaintiff in error here, Neal Dow, was a brigadier-general in the army of the United States during the late civil war, and in 1862 and 1863 was

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most