Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (1795)

Wilson, Works 305 (1804); cf. Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 454, 460-461 (1878); Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 124 (1877); Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, 76-77 (1868); Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402, 416-417 (1851); Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 92-93 (1795) (Iredell, J.); Mass. Const., Preamble.

But, as Mr. Justice Paterson said in Penhallow v. Doane's Admr., 3 Dall. 54, 88-89 (1795), "motives of commiseration, from whatever source they flow, must not mingle in the administration of justice." The Court sets aside the conviction here on due process grounds, finding that the formal confession made by petitioner on January 7 was obtained by "secret inquisitorial processes" and other forms of compulsion.

There were some curious cases of conflicting jurisdiction, illustrated by Doane v. Penhallow (1787), 1 Dall. 218, 221 ; Penhallow v. Doane (1795), 3 Dall. 54, 79, 86 ; and United States v. Peters (1809), 5 Cranch, 115, 135, 137 .

Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 86, 91 ; Story’s note, 2 Wheat.

Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 97, 118 ; Jennings v. Carson, 2 Cranch 21 ; Livingston v. McKenzie, 3 T.

As he put it, “that previously thereto [the National Government] did exercise, with the acquiescence of the States, high powers of what I may, perhaps . . . call ex- ternal sovereignty, is unquestionable.”173 Or as Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1780, the Continental Congress “ha[s] done many of the highest acts of sovereignty, which were always che[e]rfully submitted to — the declaration of independence, the declaration of war, the levying an army, creating a navy, emitting mo…

Judges, in the exercise of their functions, have frequent occasions to exclaim, `durum valde durum, sed sic lex est.'" See Penhallow v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54 , 89, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795) ("Hard very hard, but such is the law."). 14 The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Judges, in the exercise of their functions, have frequent occasions to exclaim, ‘durum valde durum, sed sic lex est.’ ” See Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54 , 89, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795) (“Hard very hard, but such is the law.”).

"Durum valde durum, sed sic lex est." Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 54 , 88-89, 1 L.Ed. 507, 521-22 (1795) ("Hard very hard, but such is the law"). 1 The bylaw provision in question requires a staff doctor to: be of a temperament and disposition that will enable him to work in harmony with his colleagues on the Medical Staff; with the professional, technical, and other personnel in the hospital, and with the administration, accepting criticism without r…

“Durum valde durum, sed sic lex est.” Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 54 , 88-89, 1 L.Ed. 507, 521-22 (1795) (“Hard very hard, but such is the law”). .

Co., 7 Cir., 124 F.2d 780, 781, 783 ; Clark, Code Pleading, 227, 234; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 86, 87 , 1 L.Ed. 507 ; Dennis v. Village of Tonka Bay, 8 Cir., 151 F.2d 411, 412 . [16] "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between the litigants.

In Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54 (1795), Supreme 6 Court Justice Iredell declared that “a Court of Admiralty in one nation, can carry 7 into effect the determination of the Court of Admiralty of another.” Id. at 97. 8 Justice Cushing wrote separately that it “seems to be settled law and usage” that 9 “courts of Admiralty can carry into execution decrees of foreign Admiralties.” Id. 10 at 118.

In Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54 (1795), Supreme 6 Court Justice Iredell declared that “a Court of Admiralty in one nation, can carry 7 into effect the determination of the Court of Admiralty of another.” Id. at 97. 8 Justice Cushing wrote separately that it “seems to be settled law and usage” that 9 “courts of Admiralty can carry into execution decrees of foreign Admiralties.” Id. 10 at 118.

Id. at 117.

Regardless, because Younger involves the discretionary exercise of my equity powers and implicates comity and federalism concerns, I address Seeto’s arguments in his separate memorandum without requiring a further response 1 There are exceptions to Younger abstention when a litigant can “show[] bad faith, 2 harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief.” Younger, 401 3 U.S. at 54.

Judges, in the exercise of their functions, have frequent occasion to exclaim, ‘durum valde durum, sed sic lex est.’ ” Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (Dall.) 54 , 88-89, 1 L.Ed. 507, 521-22 (1795).

Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 101, 117 .

(N. S.) 324; Sadler v. Evans, 4 Burr. 1984; Edden v. Read, 3 Camp. 339; Bamford v. Shuttleworth, 11 A. & E. 926; Cox v. Prentice, 3 M. & S. 344; Buller v. Harrison, Cowp. 565; Tugman v. Hopkins, 4 M. & G. 389, 401; Penhallow v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 Dall. 54, 87, 105, 114, 118 ; Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137, 153-158 ; Perkins v. Eaton, 3 N. H. 152; Hoit v. Hodge, 6 N. H. 104.

This is said on the authority of Penhallow v. Doane’s adm'rs, 3 Dall. 54, 86, 101, 118 ; but that doctrine holds only of a proceeding properly and solely in rem.

See Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54, 80-81 ..

See Penhallow v. Doane Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54 , 97, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795) (opinion of Iredell, J.); see also Vitol, 708 F.3d at 538 (stating “centuries of settled hornbook admiralty law establish that ‘admiralty jurisdiction in the United States may be broadly stated as extending to ... any claim to enforce a judgment of a foreign admiralty court’ ”); Ost-West-Handel Bruno Bischoff GmbH v. Project Asia Line, Inc., 160 F.3d 170, 174 (4th Cir.1998); 1-VII Benedict on Admiral…

See Penhallow v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 53 , 97, 1 L.

See Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 54 , 97, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795) (opinion of Iredell, J.); Victrix S.S.

See Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 53, 97 , 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795) (Iredell, J.) (“It was clearly shown at the bar, that a Court of Admiralty, in one nation, can carry into effect the determination of the [Cjourt of Admiralty of another.”).

See also Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 , 3 Dali. 54, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795) (holding that where a vessel that was the subject of restitution had already been sold and removed from the venue, specific restitution was “impracticable”); 14 American General Insurance Co. v. Equitable General Corp., 493 F.Supp. 721 , 759 n. 68 (E.D.Va.1980) (finding that specific restitution was not possible because the shares of stock at issue had ceased to exist); Todd v. Bettingen…

See Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. (3 Dal *427 las) 54, 80, 103, 109, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795); Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 199, 231-32, 1 L.Ed. 568 (1796); Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), reprinted in U.S.C.A.

See, also, Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall., 54.)” 11 Corpus Juris Secundum, 380, reads: “Body politic.