Court Opinion

ID: 9418148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:10:21.256612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:59.867569
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Holmes,
dissenting.
I agree to pretty much everything that is said on behalf of the majority of the court, except'the conclusion reached. But my trouble is this. The Territory could have abolished the right of action altogether if it had seen fit. Tt said by its statutes that it would not do that, but would adopt the common law liability on certain conditions precedent, making them, however, absolute conditions to the right to recover at all. One of those conditions was that the party should sue in the Territory. Section 1. A condition that goes to the right conditions it everywhere. Davis v. Mills, 194 U. S. 451, 457. I am willing to assume that the statute could not prohibit a suit in another State, and, indeed, it recognized that in that particular it might be disobeyed with effect. Section 3. But I do not see why the condition in' § 1 was not valid and important. If it had been complied with there might have been a different result.
Me. Justice McKenna concurs in this dissent.