SCHOONMAKER
v.
GILMORE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that federal admiralty courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over in personam suits arising from vessel collisions on the Ohio River, because the Judiciary Act of 1789 expressly preserves suitors' right to pursue common-law remedies where available, and common-law remedies for collision damages have long existed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mb. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of . the court.
The single question in this case is, whether the courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River. This is ..a Federal-question, and gives us jurisdiction; but we cannot consider it as any longer open to argument, as it -was decided substantially in The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The Hine v. Trevor, id. 555; The Belfast, 7 id. 624; Leon v. Galceran, 11 id. 185; and Steamboat Company v. Chase, 16 id. 522. The Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73, sect. 9), reproduced in sect. 563, Rev. Stat., par. 8, which confers admiralty jurisdiction on the courts of the United States, expressly saves to suitors, in all cases, the' right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. That there always has been a remedy at common law for damages by collision at sea cannot be denied.
The motion to dismiss is overruled, and that to affirm granted.
Judgment affirmed:
Note. — Brown v. Davidson, error to the Supreme Court of the State of Penn, syb ania, involved the same question as the preceding case. It was submitted by the same counsel and determined in the same manner.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1917)…ssachusetts, 469. See Ogle v. Barnes, 8 T. R. 188. Nicholson v. Mounsey, 15 East, 384. Even where the admiralty has unquestioned jurisdiction the common law may have concurrent authority and the state courts concurrent power. Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 118. The invalidity of state attempts to create a remedy for maritime contracts or torts, parallel to that in the admiralty, that was established in such cases as The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, and The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, is immaterial to the p…1 / 2
-
Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1959)…entitled. . . This provision, plainly, was a recognition that there were, prior to 1789, maritime claims within the concurrent jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and law, 1 Benedict, American Admiralty (6th ed. 1940), § 20; Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 118, 119, and it was clearly the intention of Congress to perpetuate this duality of remedy. It is true that certain classes of cases, such as the traditional in rem, prize, and seizure cases, lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of the admiralty, 1 Be…
-
Panama R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1924)…ore the Constitution, and it is still permissible. Judicial Code, §§24 and 256; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, 460; New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants’ Bank, 6 How. 344, 390; Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185, 188, 191; Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 118; Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638, 646; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U. S. 255, 259; Bed Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., ante, 109. , Rightly understood the statute neither withdraws injuries to seamen from the reach and o…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411 (U.S. 1866)