EX PARTE PENNSYLVANIA

U.S. | 1883-11-05
109 U.S. 174 Supreme Court of the United States (1883) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 27 L. Ed. 894 · 3 S. Ct. 84 · 1883 U.S. LEXIS 951 · SCDB 1883-029
Cited by 7 cases

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.

Synopsis

In a dispute involving pilotage fees claimed by a Delaware pilot under Delaware law, the Supreme Court held that an admiralty court properly seized of a vessel within its territorial jurisdiction cannot be restrained by prohibition from deciding all questions properly arising in the suit, including the validity of the statute under which the fees are claimed. The Court affirmed that the remedy for a supposed error on the merits is appeal, not prohibition, and that only Congress has the power to determine whether judgments of competent federal courts may be reviewed.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

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 properly arising in that suit.' This, like that, is a suit for pilotage fees, and the question is, whether a statute of Delaware, under which, the fees are claimed, is valiá. If valid' in Delaware it is in Pennsylvania, and. the court sitting in Pennsylvania is as cdmpetent to decide that question in a suit of which it has jurisdiction,. as a court in Delaware. The jurisdiction of "the court in Pennsylvania is no more dependent oh the validity of the law than was that of the court in Delaware. The1 subject-matter of the suit is a claim of a Delaware pilot for his pilotage fees under a Delaware statute, and the sole question in the case is, whether the fees are recoverable. The vessel when seized was confessedly within the jurisdiction of the court in Pennsylvania, and she was properly brought into court to answer thé claim which was made upon her. About that there is no dispute, as there was at the last term in Devoe Manufacturing Company, 108.

U. S., where the question was as to the right of the court in New Jersey to send its process to the place where the seizure Was made. There the question was as to the jurisdiction of the court' oyer a particular place; here as to the liability of a vessel confessedly seized within the territorial jurisdiction of the court upon a claim subject tq judicial determination in an admiralty proceeding. The evident purpose of this application is to correct a supposed error in a judgment of an admiralty court on the merits of an action. That cannot be done by prohibition. The remedy, if any, is by appeal. If an appeal will not lie, then the parties are concluded by what has been done. Congress alone has the power • to. determine whether the judgment, of a court of the United States, of competent jurisdiction, shall be reviewed or not. If it fails to provide for such a review, the judgment stands as the judgment of the court of last resort, and settle? finally the rights of the parties which are involved.

The petition is dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Smith v. Whitney & Others, 116 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1886)
    …ress to issue writs of prohibition to the District Courts sitting as gourts of admiralty ; United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68; Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515 ; Ex parte Ferry Co., 104 U. S. 519; Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174; as well as by the courts of England and of the several States, in the exercise of their inherent jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition to courts martial. Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. 69; State v. Wakely, 2 Nott & McCord, 410; State v. Stevens, 2 M…
  • Winters v. Abe Lavine, 574 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1978)
    …of material and essential issues is not affected by the fact that the losing party could not appeal that determination to a higher court. Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U.S. 252, 256-57, 260-61, 14 S.Ct. 608, 38 L.Ed. 429 (1894); Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U.S. 174, 176, 27 L.Ed. 894 (1883); Napper v. Anderson, Henley, Shields, Bradford & Pritchard, 500 F. 2d 634, 636-37 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 837, 96 S.Ct. 65, 46 L.Ed.2d 56 (1975); Elk Garden Co. v. T. W. Thayer Co., 206 F. 212, 215 (W.D.Va.1…
  • Ex parte: in the Matter of Davis, 262 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1923)
    …urisdiction to determine all the points presented. Moreover, by appeal in the ordinary way possible errors can be corrected; and there is no imperative reason for awarding a writ of prohibition. Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515; Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495; In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14; In re New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523; Ex parte Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 255 U. S. 273, 275, 280. The rule to show cause is discharged and the prayer of…

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw