LEECH
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
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.
Leech was convicted under Louisiana law for piloting a foreign vessel to New Orleans without holding a Louisiana pilot's license, and he claimed a Mississippi pilot's license was sufficient under a federal statute authorizing pilots licensed by either state to work on waters that form boundaries between states. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the federal statute applied only to the portion of the Mississippi River that actually serves as a boundary between the two states, and since New Orleans lies wholly within Louisiana, Louisiana had exclusive authority to regulate piloting in that location.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mb. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an information charging the plaintiff in error with piloting a foreign vessel from the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans, the port to which she Was bound, he not being a duly qualified pilot under the laws of Louisiana. He was convicted after a trial, and the Supreme Court of the State pronounced the judgment correct. 119 Louisiana, 522. By demurrer, motion to quash and motion in arrest of judgment he raised the objection that the power of Louisiana was not exclusive, and that a license from the Board of Pilot Commissioners for the Harbor of Natchez, Mississippi, was a sufficient authority .under the act of Congress of March 2, 1837, e. 22, 5 Stat. 153. Rev. Stat., § 4236.
The Mississippi River, it will be remembered, is a boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana from below the port of Natchez as far north as Louisiana extends. On the other hand, all the southernmost portion of the river is wholly within Louisiana. The destination of the vessel which the plaintiff in error undertook to pilot was to a point within this southernmost portion, New Orleans, as the information charged. For the purposes of decision it may be assumed, although it is disputed, that the State of Mississippi has attempted to authorize the plaintiff in error to do what he did, while Louisiana has made his conduct criminal if it has power to do so under the United’States law.
The section of the Revised Statutes reads as follows: “The master of any vessel coming into or going out of any port situate upon waters which are the boundary between two States, may employ any pilot duly licensed or authorized by the laws of either of the States bounded on such waters, to pilot the vessels to or from such port.”
The case for the plaintiff in error depends upon the assumption that the “waters which are the boundary between two States” are, in this case, the whole Mississippi River so far as navigable. We are of opinion that the assumption is wrong, and that the limit of the waters referred to is the point at which they cease to be a boundary between two States. Neither continuity of water nor identity of name will carry them beyond that point. If the plaintiff in error had undertaken to pilot from the Gulf to Natchez, a different question would have been presented, and it may be that in that case the Mississippi license would have been good. But New Orleans, although upon the Mississippi, is not situate upon waters which are the boundary between two States, and therefore the section relied upon does not apply. That being out of the way, Louisiana had power .to pass her local regulations. Rev. Stat., § 4235. Act -of August 7, 1789, c. 9, § 4. 1 Stat. 54.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Stark (W.D.N.Y. 1929)…y incidental to the suit brought against him. See U. S. v. Brooke, 184 F. 341, decided by this court and cited with approval in Big Vein Coal Co. v. Read, 229 U. S. at page 38, 33 S. Ct. 694, 57 L. Ed. 1053, and see Laborde v. Ubarri, 214 U. S. 173, 29 S. Ct. 552, 53 L. Ed. 955. The Clerk holds the separate bonds deposited with her and claimed to have been attached, not as an individual but in her capacity as Clerk of this court, and, accordingly, the judgment of the state court, and attachment issued in pu…
-
Morton v. The United States, 708 F.2d 680 (Fed. Cir. 1983)…sofar as it ordered Colonel Morton to make alimony and child support payments to Patricia Kay Morton, the writs of garnishment must necessarily fall along with the portion of the decree on which they were based. Laborde v. Ubarri, 214 U.S. 173, 174 [29 S.Ct. 552, 53 L.Ed. 955] (1909). [*685] As the Alabama court, in purporting to order Colonel Morton to make alimony and child support payments to Patricia Kay Morton, was not a “court of competent jurisdiction” because it had not acquired jurisdiction over th…1 / 4
-
Warner v. Dunlap, 532 F.2d 767 (1st Cir. 1976)…but also validates laws concerning “pilots in the bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and ports of the United States . . ..” (Emphasis supplied). Moreover, plaintiffs are unable to cite any authority in support of their proposition. Leech v. Louisiana, 214 U.S. 175, 29 S.Ct. 552, 53 L.Ed. 956 (1909), to which they point, is inapposite. Leech dealt with pilotage in waters forming the boundaries between two states and with 46 U.S.C. § 212 which permits a vessel to use a pilot licensed in either state regardless…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cooley v. The Bd. of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 12 How. 299 (U.S. 1851)
- Cribb v. The State, 9 Fla. 409 (Fla. 1861)