Woodworth v. Insurance Co.
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Samuel Frank, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee (2d Cir. 1996)
- Barry W. Ritchie v. Don Eberhart (6th Cir. 1994)
- Jenkins v. Hospital of Medical College of Pennsylvania (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)
- Mandel v. Myers (Cal. 1981)
- Gibson v. Commonwealth (Pa. 1980)
- Robert Dean Mattis, M.D. v. Patrolman Richard R. Schnarr (8th Cir. 1974)
- State v. Brickhouse (Kan. Ct. App. 1995)
- United States v. Doris Lasanta, Luis Rivera, Juan Cardona, and Eladio Gonzalez (2d Cir. 1992)
- Cucci v. Introcaso (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986)
- Remola Boykin v. The District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1982)
- Akau v. Olohana Corp. (Haw. 1982)
- Americans United For Separation Of Church And State, Inc. v. United States Department Of Health, Education And Welfare (3d Cir. 1980)
- Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. v. United States Department of Health, Education & Welfare (3d Cir. 1980)
- United States v. Zenith Radio Corp. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1977)
- Dr. Joseph Gilbert v. Donald Johnson and Dr. Marc J. Musser (5th Cir. 1974)
- Kowall v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1971)
- Lufkin v. United States (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1958)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the' court.
The litigation to • establish the liability of the Boss was troublesome and expensive to the Corn Exchange Company. Mr. Woodworth did not, in any manner, aid, or offer to aid in it. His interest was against the liability which the company sought to establish; for, if the Boss was declared pot liable, he received these proceeds .and remnants as mortgagee of that vessel. But, after permitting his own libel to sleep during this struggle, he attempts, When it is over, to revive that libel, and claims to share in the fruits of a victory won without his aid, and against his wishes. The District and Circuit Courts both thought he was not entitled to do this, so long as the Corn Exchange Company remained unpaid. In this view' we concur.
Our remarks are meant to apply to the libel filed April 1, 1863. But all that "we have said in reference to that libel applies with additional force to the one filed 14th April, 1864, arising from the longer delay in asserting the claim.
Decrees aeeirmed with costs.
See The Saracen, 6 Mooré P. C. 56; The Clara, 1 Swabey, 1.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.