EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF DAVIS, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, ETC. PETITIONER
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 Director General of Railroads sought a writ of prohibition or mandamus to prevent a federal district court from proceeding with an admiralty suit brought by a shipbuilding company to recover damages to its scow caused by a railroad company's steamtug operating under federal control. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to determine the issues presented and that prohibition was not warranted because errors could be corrected through ordinary appeal procedures.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition or mandamus commanding the judges of the District Court, Southern District of New York, not to take further steps in an admiralty proceeding instituted by the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Company to recover from him for damage inflicted upon its scow by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company’s steamtug “ Mahanoy ” while under federal control, or in the alternative to direct vacation of an interlocutory order theretofore entered and dismiss the libel. A rule to show cause issued but of this Court and return has been made showing, the relevant facts and circumstances.
The District Court after hearing ruled upon the matters presented for its determination and, under settled doctrine, we can find no occasion for mandamus. Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70.
Involved in the cause are questions touching the liability of the Director General of Railroads as Agent designated by the President under the Transportation Act of 1920 for maritime torts committed by vessels under federal control; his power to enter appearance by counsel without prior service of process; and whether in the same proceeding he may take different and antagonistic positions, first as the agent of one railroad system and then of another. We cannot say the court below was clearly without jurisdiction 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 the petition is denied.
Rule discharged.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pa. Tpk. Comm'n v. Welsh, 188 F.2d 447 (3d Cir. 1951)…to it that lower courts do not abuse their powers as courts. Generally, this function has been confined to cases where the abuse is plain from the record. E. g., Ex parte Wisner, 1906, 203 U.S. 449, 27 S.Ct. 150, 51 L.Ed. 264; Ex parte Davis, 1923, 262 U.S. 274, 43 S.Ct. 574, 67 L.Ed. 979; Ward Baking Co. v. Holtzoff, 2 Cir., 1947, 164 F. 2d 34.2 [*450] The Supreme Court has expressed the prevailing judicial approach to this type of case by observing that even in “the traditional use” of extraordinary writ…
-
Mueller v. Mueller, 124 F.2d 544 (8th Cir. 1942)…, 264, 268, 269, 11 S.Ct. 773, 35 L.Ed. 464; Radford v. Myers, 231 U.S. 725, 733, 34 S.Ct. 249, 58 L.Ed. 454; Bates v. Bodie, 245 U.S. 520, 526, 38 S.Ct. 182, 62 L.Ed. 444, L.R.A.1918C, 355; International Life Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 262 U.S. 346, 351, 43 S.Ct. 574, 67 L.Ed. 1018.…
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Roe, 234 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1914)
- Ex parte in the Matter of Chicago, 255 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1921)
- In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1892)
- In re Morrison, 147 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1893)
- In re NEW York & Porto RICO S.S. Co., 155 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1895)
- Ex parte Gordon, 104 U.S. 515 (U.S. 1881)
- Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1883)