THE MAMIE. PARCHER & ANOTHER
v.
CUDDY, ADMINISTRATOR
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.
Vessel owners sought an injunction from the Supreme Court to halt state court proceedings while they appealed a federal district court decision denying them liability limitation protections under federal statute. The Court refused the injunction, holding that even if it possessed such power, the extraordinary remedy should not be granted in a doubtful case where two lower courts had already denied relief, and that the vessel owners had adequate alternative remedies through appellate review if errors occurred.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice "Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
"Without deciding whether an injunction may be granted under any circumstances by this court to stay proceedings in the State courts during the pendency of an appeal in a suit brought by the owners of a vessel to obtain .the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for by §§ 4283, 4284, 4285, and 4286 of the Revised Statutes, we are all of the opinion that this motion should be denied. Both of the courts below have decided that the vessel owned by the appellants did not come within the purview of the statute, and consequently that the relief asked for should not be granted. If the suits in the State courts go on and judgments are rendered against the appellants, there is a way in which decisions overruling defences set up under the statute may be brought here for review, and the errors, if any, corrected.
In view of these facts we are not inclined to use the ,extraordinary -writ of injunction to-stay proceedings in suits begun in the State courts before the appellants filed their libel in the District Court, simply because of the expense that will be consequent upon trials pending the appeal. If we have the power it should not be used in a doubtful case, and after two judgments below denying the relief, unless the reasons are imperative.
Writ refused.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1923)
-
Butler v. Boston & Savannah S.S. Co., 130 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1889)
-
In re Morrison, 147 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1893)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence