Lehigh Valley Railroad Company v. Cornell Steamboat Company
| Decision Date | 07 November 1910 |
| Docket Number | No. 18,18 |
| Citation | 218 U.S. 264,54 L.Ed. 1039,20 Ann. Cas. 1235,31 S.Ct. 17 |
| Parties | LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Appt., v. CORNELL STEAMBOAT COMPANY, Claimant of Steam Tug Ira M. Hedges |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William S. Montgomery and George H. Emerson for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 264-266 intentionally omitted] Messrs. J. Parker Kirlin and Amos Van Etten for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 266-269 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a libel for contribution. The libel was excepted to by the claimant and was dismissed on the ground that the district court, sitting as a court of admiralty, had no jurisdiction to enforce contribution between the parties on the facts.
The facts alleged are as follows. The appellant was in possession of the tug Slatington under a demise, and the tug was crossing the North river with car float No. 22 alongside on the port side. The tug Ira M. Hedges was coming up the river on the port side with two stone scows in tow, one on each side. There was a collision between one of those scows, the Helen, and car float No. 22, which was caused or contributed to by the Ira M. Hedges. The owner of the Helen, not being the owner of the Ira M. Hedges, brought an action at common law and recovered a judgment against the appellant, the owner of the Ira M. Hedges not being made a party defendant in that suit. The appellant paid the judgment and brought this libel against the Ira M. Hedges, in terms to recover the amount of the claim set forth in the libel, but, it fairly may be held, in substance to recover, if not the whole then contribution for what the libellant has had to expend.
The first question is whether this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. It is said that the dismissal of the libel, although expressed to be for want of jurisdiction, really is on the merits, because payment of a judgment at common law is not a ground for contribution from a joint wrongdoer, not a party to the suit. There sometimes is difficulty in distinguishing between matters going to the jurisdiction and those determining the merits. Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230, 235, 52 L. ed. 1039, 1041, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 641), and, no doubt, this case presents that difficulty. But perhaps it may be said that the two considerations coalesce here. The admiralty has a limited jurisdiction. If there are no merits in the claim, it is of a kind that the admiralty not only ought not to enforce, but has no power to enforce. At all events, the form of the decree must be taken to express the meaning of the judge. If the decree was founded, as it purports to be, on a denial of jurisdiction in the court, this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. For all admiralty jurisdiction belongs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. Cormack Co
...Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap, 308 U.S. 208, 212, 60 S.Ct. 201, 202, 84 L.Ed. 196; and cf. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 218 U.S. 264, 270, 31 S.Ct. 17, 18, 54 L.Ed. 1039, 20 Ann.Cas. 1235. Pennsylvania having opened its courts to petitioner to enforce federally created rights,......
-
American-Foreign Steamship Corp. v. United States, 126
...373. Since these contentions have been raised by exceptive allegations the Government, in reliance on comment in The Ira M. Hedges, 218 U.S. 264, 270, 31 S.Ct. 17, 54 L.Ed. 1039, is contending that the voluntary character of the payments, for which recovery is sought, deprives the court of ......
-
Binderup v. Pathe Exchange
...of the bill, and there is no suggestion in the opinion that the two propositions are equivalent. In The Ira M. Hedges, 218 U. S. 264, 31 Sup. Ct. 17, 54 L. Ed. 1039, 20 Ann. Cas. 1235, where the same condition was presented, this court, after pointing out the difficulty of sometimes disting......
-
The Western Maid United States v. Thompson the Liberty United States v. Morton the Carolinian United States v. Rose, s. 21-23
...1921. The last cited decisions also show that a prohibition may be granted in a case like this. See The Ira M. Hedges, 218 U. S. 264, 270, 31 Sup. Ct. 17, 54 L. Ed. 1039, 20 Ann. Cas. 1235. Rule absolute for writs of Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS did not hear the argument in this case and took no ......