EX PARTE HAGAR
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 denied a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the District Court's admiralty jurisdiction over a dispute concerning pilotage fees owed by a British ship that refused a pilot's services in Delaware waters. The Court held that claims for pilotage fees are properly within the jurisdiction of admiralty courts, and therefore the District Court could lawfully proceed with the suit.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered tbe opinion of the court.'
This is an application by the agent of the master, part-owner, and claimant of-the British ship “ William Law,”- for a writ of prohibition to restrain the District Court-'of the District of Delaware, sitting in admiralty, from -proceeding further in a suit pending in that court against the vessel to recover - the half-pilotage, which is claimed to be due under the statutory regulations of Delaware,' for refusing, to accept the services of a pilot when tendered, outside of Cape Henlopen light-liouse, to conduct the ship to the Delaware breakwater,' where she was bound for orders. It has long been settled that claims -for pilotage fees are within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. Ex parte McNeil, 18 Wall. 236; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108. Such-being the case, under the decision just rendered in Ex parte Gordon (supra, p. 515), the District Court can properly hear and decide the matters in dispute, and the application for the writ is accordingly
Benied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Fassett, 142 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1892)…nial was that the matter was in course of litigation in the District Court, on due process. A like view was taken by this, court in Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68; Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515; Ex parte Ferry Company, 104 U. S. 519; Ex parte Hagar, 104 U. S. 520; and Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610, 625, 626. The subject matter of the libel is a marine torts, cognizable in a cause of possession in admiralty by any District Court of the United States which finds the vessel within the territorial lim…
-
Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1883)…Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion, of the court. We are unable to distinguish this case in principle from Ex parte Hagar, 104 U. S. 520, where it was held "on the authority of Ex pante Gordon, id. 515, that as the admiralty court had-jurisdiction of the vessel sued, and the subject-matter of the suit, it could not be restrained by a-writ of prohibition from deciding all questions pr…
-
Lent Traffic Co. v. Gould, 2 F.2d 554 (3d Cir. 1924)…maritime service, and that the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. “A pilot is as much a part of the commercial marine as the hull of the ship and the helm by which it is guided.” Ex parte McNiel, supra. See also Ex parte llagar, 104 U. S. 520, 26 L. Ed. 816. Applying the criterion stated in Insurance Company v. Dunham to the facts of the present case, we hold the contract before us was one having reference to maritime service and, therefore, was a maritime contract within the jurisdicti…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Samuel B. Hobart and others v. Andrew Drogan and others, 10 Pet. 108 (U.S. 1836)