Ex parte Gordon
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 814,104 U.S. 515 |
| Parties | EX PARTE GORDON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
PETITION for a writ of prohibition.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Arthur George Brown and Mr. Stewart Brown for the petitioner.
Mr. John H. Thomas, contra.
This is an application by the owner of the British steamer 'Leversons' for a writ of prohibition to restrain the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, sitting in admiralty, from proceeding further in a cause begun in that court against his vessel to recover damages for the drowning of certain persons in consequence of a collision on the Chesapeake Bay between the steamer and the schooner 'David E. Wolf,' caused by the fault of the steamer.
Sect. 688 of the Revised Statutes gives this court authority to 'issue writs of prohibition to the District Courts when proceeding in admiralty.' The writ thus provided for is a common-law writ, which lies to a court of admiralty only when that court is acting in excess of, or is taking cognizance of matters not arising within, its jurisdiction. 6 Bac. Abr. 587, tit. Prohibition, K. Its office is to prevent an unlawful assumption of jurisdiction.
The judicial power of the United States extends to 'all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction' (Const., art. 3, sect. 2); and Congress, by sect. 563, subd. 8, of the Revised Statutes, committed the exercise of this power in most cases primarily to the District Courts. Admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime contracts and service, and to torts or injuries of a civil nature, committed on navigable waters. The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624. The District Courts have the power to hear and decide all cases arising under this jurisdiction, and when a prohibition is applied for, the question presented is not whether a libellant can recover in the suit he has begun, but whether he can go into a court of admiralty to have his rights determined.
The collision which caused the injury now complained of was certainly a subject of admiralty jurisdiction. It occurred between two vessels while navigating the public waters of the United States, and was a maritime tort. For damages to the vessels or their cargoes, caused by the collision, a suit could unquestionably be maintained in the District Court of any district where the vessel should be found. The question in the present suit is whether the vessel is liable to the libellants for pecuniary damages resulting from a loss of life in the collision, and that, as we think, a court of admiralty may properly decide. The suit is for damages growing out of the collission. Having jurisdiction in respect to the collission, it would seem necessarily to follow that the court had jurisdiction to hear and decide what liability the vessel had incurred thereby. Suppose the courts of common law had never decided that an action could not be maintained at common law for damages caused by the death of a human being, would any one doubt the power of courts of admiralty to determine whether such an action could be brought in that jurisdiction? It is no doubt true that down to within a comparatively recent period the courts of admiralty, both in England and in this country, have followed the rule of the common law in respect to such actions, and have decided that damages for such wrongs were not recoverable; but since Lord Campbell's Act in 1846 (9 & 10 Vict., c. 93), it has been provided y statute in England, and in most of the States of the Union, that suits may be brought in the courts of common law for the benefit of those having a pecuniary interest in the life of one who has been killed by the wrongful act of another, to recover such damages as they may have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Underwriter
... ... case the master, by the maritime law, is allowed to ... hypothecate the ship. ' 2 P. Wms. 367. See Ex parte ... Shank, 1 Atk. 234 ... Very ... likely Lord Hardwicke meant no more by this expression than ... to say that the master abroad might ... Thereafter prohibitions became rare, ... though still permitted by statute. See Rev. St. § 688 (U.S ... Comp. St. 1901, p. 565); Ex parte Gordon, 104 U.S. 515, 26 ... L.Ed. 8814; In re Fassett, 142 U.S. 479, 12 Sup.Ct ... 295, 35 L.Ed. 1087; Ex parte Phoenix Ins. Co., 118 U.S. 610, ... 7 ... ...
-
The City of Norwalk
...apply whatever law is operative upon it. This was the precise point adjudicated in Ex parte Gordon, 104 U.S. 515, and in Ex parte Ferry Co., Id. 519, a writ of prohibition was denied in each case on the sole ground that the case was by its nature one that the district court had authority to......
-
Pouppirt v. Elder Dempster Shipping
... ... consonance with the decisions in this country, where ... admiralty takes jurisdiction of this class of cases. Ex parte ... Gordon, 104 U.S. 515, 26 L.Ed. 814, The Harrisburg, 119 U.S ... 199, 7 Sup.Ct. 140, 30 L.Ed. 358; The Norwalk (D.C.) 55 F ... 98; The ... ...
-
State v. Young
... ... above case as to the remedy is erroneous. No authorities are ... cited in it. The opposite conclusion had been adjudged in Ex ... parte Henderson, 6 Fla. 279, and Anderson v. Brown, ... Id. 299, where it was held that mandamus would lie ... from this court to the circuit court in ... apparent on reasonably careful consideration: Ex parte ... Newman, 14 Wall. 152; Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U.S. 794; Ex ... parte Gordon, 104 U.S. 515; Ex parte Hoard, 105 U.S. 578; Ex ... parte Baltimore & O. R. Co., 108 U.S. 566, 2 S.Ct. 876; Ex ... parte Morgan, 114 U.S. 174, 5 ... ...