THE PANOIL
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 United States sued the steamship Panoil in federal court for damages to a government-constructed dike in the Mississippi River that the ship struck while navigating in fog. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the dike constituted an extension of the shore and therefore land rather than a structure subject to admiralty jurisdiction, even though it aided navigation, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction over the tort claim.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States libeled the Steamship' “ Panoil ” and asked a decree for two thousand dollars because of damage inflicted upon spur dike No. 5, a structure extending into the Mississippi River. Upon exception duly taken the District Court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction of the matter and dismissed the libel.
In order to deflect the current and cause it to deepen the channel at the mouth of the river the United States built submerged dikes and sills, composed of willow mattresses weighted down with stone; also several spurs. Spur dike No. 5, located near the “ Head of the Passes,” consists of a cribwork of round piles, hewn walings and sawn cross braces, all securely bolted together, with a curtain of round piles bolted against the upstream face. It is driven into the bed of the river and extends out about seven hundred feet from the east bank, approximately at right angles to the channel. Its special purpose is to slacken the current, induce deposits of sediment and eventually build out the shore; and in this way to improve the channel and aid navigation. Proceeding in a thick fog the “ Panoil ” struck this dike, shoved thirty feet of the channel end upstream, and so damaged it as to require rebuilding at an expense of two thousand dollars.
Appellants maintain that as the dike is an aid to navigation the court below had jurisdiction of the alleged tort, within the doctrine of The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361, and The Raithmoor, 241 U. S. 166. We think the principle of those cases does not go so far. The dike constitutes an extension of the shore, and must be regarded as land. The mere fact that its presence may affect the flow of the water and thereby ultimately facilitate navigation is not enough to bring the injury within the admiralty jurisdiction. Cleveland Terminal & Valley R. R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208 U. S. 316; The Troy, id. 321.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westfall Larson & Co. v. All-Man-Hubble Tug Boat Co., 73 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1934)…6, 174, 36 S. Ct. 514, 60 L. Ed. 937; State Industrial Com. v. Nordenholt Co., 259 U. S. 263, 273, 42 S. Ct. 473, 66 L. Ed. 933, 25 A. L. R. 1013; Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co., 264 U. [*205] S. 219, 227, 44 S. Ct. 302, 68 L. Ed. 646; The Panoil, 266 U. S. 433, 435, 45 S. Ct. 164, 69 L. Ed. 366; London Co. v. Industrial Commission, 279 U. S. 109, 123, 124, 49 S. Ct. 296, 73 L. Ed. 632; Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 55, 52 S. Ct. 285, 76 L. Ed. 598. In addition to Martin v. West, supra, there are at le…1 / 2
-
United States v. Matson Nav. Co., 201 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1953)…doctrine. However, the Supreme Court specifically considered this question and held that just such a dike was not an “aid to navigation”, and therefore not subject to the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States district courts. The Panoil, 1925, 266 U.S. 433, 45 S.Ct. 164, 69 L.Ed. 366. Apparently The Blackheath doctrine differentiates between a structure which aids the act of navigation and one which aids in the navigability of waters. Since it is established that Dike 67-1 was an extension of the lan…
-
Sound Marine & Mach. Corp. v. Westchester Cnty., 100 F.2d 360 (2d Cir. 1938)…U.S. 388, 7 S.Ct. 254, 30 L.Ed. 447); or a drawbridge’s pier was damaged by a ship (Cleveland Terminal & Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208 U.S. 316, 28 S.Ct. 414, 52 L.Ed. 508, 13 Ann.Cas. 1215) ; or a dike was struck by a ship (The Panoil, 266 U.S. 433, 45 S.Ct. 164, 69 L.Ed. 366), it has been held to be insufficient to invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Our inquiry here is the nature of the damage or thing injured and the location of the injury. The right to use this waterway is essentially maritime…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cleveland Terminal & Valley R.R. Co. v. Cleveland S.S. Co., 208 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1908)
- The Blackheath, 195 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1904)
- The Raithmoor, 241 U.S. 166 (U.S. 1916)
- The Troy, 208 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1908)
- Mo. & Kan. Interurban Ry. Co. v. City of Olathe, 222 U.S. 191 (U.S. 1911)
- The Phœnix Constr. Co. v. The Steamer Poughkeepsie C. & the Steamer Homer Ramsdell C. Cent. Hudson Steamboat Co., 212 U.S. 558 (U.S. 1908)
- Capitol Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 260 U.S. 699 (U.S. 1922)