TRANSPORTES MARITIMOS DO ESTADO
v.
ALMEIDA

U.S. | 1924-05-12
No. 265
265 U.S. 104 Supreme Court of the United States (1924) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 68 L. Ed. 932 · 44 S. Ct. 449 · SCDB 1923-140 · 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2586
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

A Portuguese seaman sued Transportes Maritimos do Estado for unpaid wages in federal court, and the defendant claimed immunity as a department of the Portuguese government. The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because a sovereign immunity claim does not present a federal question under the relevant statute, and transferred the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brandéis

Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the Court.

Almeida, a seaman, brought this action for wages against Transportes Maritimos do Estado on the common law side of the federal court for southern New York. The defendant appeared generally; answered that it was a department of the Government of the Republic of Portugal; offered evidence in support of the allegation; and claimed the immunity of a sovereign from all process. The District Judge entered judgment for the plaintiff in an amount stipulated by counsel; allowed a direct writ of error from this Court; and issued the certificate of a jurisdictional question provided for in § 238 of the Judicial Code.

This Court is without jurisdiction of the writ of error. It was settled in Oliver American Trading Co. v. United States of Mexico, 264 U. S. 440 (decided since the entry of judgment below) that the claim of sovereign immunity does not present a question of federal jurisdiction within the meaning of § 238. This is equally true whether the claim of immunity is contested because of the character of the defendant or because the immunity is alleged to have been waived. The question involved here is not that presented in The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, and The Carlo Poma, 255 U. S.

219. There, the question requiring decision was whether Congress had conferred upon the district court sitting in admiralty power to entertain a suit against a “ general ship engaged in the common carriage of merchandise by water, for hire ” which, at the time of the arrest, was owned by the Italian Government and was in its possession. That question being one of the jurisdiction of the court as a federal court, the direct appeal was sustained in The Pesaro and the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals was ordered dismissed in The Carlo Poma. A related question was presented in The Sao Vicente, 260 U. S. 151, which was likewise a suit in admiralty. There, the writ of certiorari was dismissed. Compare Ex parte Transportes Maritimos do Estado, 264 U. S. 105.

As the writ of error from this Court was improvidently allowed, the case must be transferred to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Section 238 (a) of the Judicial Code, Act of September 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837. Smith v. Apple, 264 U. S. 274.

it is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. Pa. R.R. Co., 274 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1927)
    …exactly alike, and the same disposition will be made of them. They were dismissed at this term for lack of-jurisdiction, as follows: “ Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this Court on the authority of Transportes Maritimes Do Estado v. Almeida, 265 U. S. 104, 105, and Oliver American Trading Company v. Government of the United States of Mexico, 264 U. S. 440, 442." This is a motion, to set aside the dismissals and to substitute therefor orders transferring them to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the S…
    1 / 2
  • Transportes Maritimos Do Estado v. Almeido, 5 F.2d 151 (2d Cir. 1925)
  • In re Waddell v. Fleming, 510 F.2d 4 (10th Cir. 1975)
    …other. The question of Waddell’s insolvency on the date the judgment lien was obtained, for purposes of § 67a, was not at issue and was in no way determined by the adjudication of his bankruptcy. See Liberty National Bank v. Bear, 265 U.S. 365, 370, 44 S.Ct. 449, 68 L.Ed. 1057; 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 67.05 at 99-100 (14th ed. 1971). Certainly the Bankruptcy Judge who adjudicated Waddell bankrupt did not believe that adjudication determined the issue of Waddell’s insolvency for purposes of § 67a, for he…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw