North Pac Co v. Soley, 63

Citation42 S.Ct. 87,66 L.Ed. 203,257 U.S. 216
Decision Date05 December 1921
Docket NumberNo. 63,63
PartiesNORTH PAC. S. S. CO. v. SOLEY
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Ernest Clewe and Frank W. Aitken, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appeallant.

[Argument of Counsel from page 217-218 intentionally omitted] Mr. Christopher M. Bradley, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here solely upon the question of the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain the suit. The bill was filed in the District Court by the North Pacific Steamship Company against the Industrial Accident Commission of California, William T. Soley, and H. I Mulcrevy, County Clerk of the City and County of San Francisco. The bill alleged that the complainant was engaged in the business of transportation in interstate commerce between various points on the Pacific coast, and operated the steamer Breakwater; that on or about the 12th of June, 1916, the said steamer, then in the navigable waters of the United States loading cargo, had in its employ the respondent, Soley, as a stevedore, and that said Soley was injured by falling down a hatchway of the steamer; that on the 27th day of November, 1916, Soley filed an application with the Industrial Accident Commission for damages under the Compensation Act of California (St. Cal. 1913, p. 279); that, after a hearing the Commission made the following award:

'1. Cash in hand the sum of two hundred eighty-one dollars and twenty-five cents ($281.25), this amount being the sum of weekly payments of said disability indemnity accrued up to and including the 18th day of December, 1916, less, however, the sum of thirty dollars ($30.00) to be deducted therefrom and paid to Herbert N. Ellis as his attorney's fees, as attorney for the applicant herein.

'2. the further sum of eleven dollars and twenty five cents ($11.25) per week payable weekly in advance beginning with the 19th day of December, 1916, until the termination of said disability or the further order of this Commission, the total of payment however not to exceed two hundred and forty weeks.

'3. Cash in hand the sum of five hundred fifteen dollars and thirty-five cents ($515.35) for medical and hospital services rendered as follows.

                    Agnew Sanitarium............................... $149.85
                    Dr. E. H. Crabtree.............................  152.00
                    Dr. Maynard C. Harding.........................  203.50
                    Dr. L. C. Kinney, for X-ray....................  10.00"
                 

The bill averred that by virtue of the award the complainant had been ordered to pay Soley $3,015.35.

The bill further alleged that at the time of his injury Soley was engaged in the performance of a maritime contract aboard a vessel in the navigable waters of the United States engaged in interstate commerce; that his remedy was exclusively within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the courts of the United States; that under section 26 of the Compensation Act a certified copy of the findings and award may be filed with the clerk of the Superior Court, and, that upon filing the copy of the findings and the award, execution may be issued upon the judgment; that Soley had filed certified copies of the findings and the award with the clerk of the Superior Court, and unless restrained by injunction, would cause execution to be issued thereon for the purpose of making the amount of the award out of the property of the complainant. The bill prayed an injunction against any steps for the enforcement of the award.

Respondent, Soley, appeared and answered, and, among other things, set up:

'Defendant denies that the value of the matter in controversy herein exclusive of interest and costs exceeds the sum of three thousand dollars; and alleges that the weekly indemnity of eleven and 25/100 dollars awarded to defendant from complainant under the terms of said award and judgment was contingent upon the continuance of defendant's total disability, as appears at the foot of page 4 of complainant's bill, and that at the time of the filing of complainant's bill herein defendant's said total disability had terminated and all of complainant's subsequent liability under the terms of said award of the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California had ceased; that the total liability of complainant under said judgment sought herein to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Smith v. Sperling
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • December 16, 1953
    ...S.Ct. 461, 83 L.Ed. 1033. While jurisdictional issues in each case are properly triable to the court North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Soley, 1921, 257 U.S. 216, 221-223, 42 S.Ct. 87, 66 L.Ed. 203; Gilbert v. David, 1915, 235 U.S. 561, 566-568, 35 S.Ct. 164, 59 L.Ed. 360; Taylor v. Hubbell, 9 Cir.......
  • Chavez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 15, 2021
    ...... TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC, a foreign company which is the successor to Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, Defendant-Petitioner, and Crecencio Jaramillo, Magdalena Jaramillo, and Tire ......
  • St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1938
    ...upon a denial of jurisdiction in the answer, (Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 35 S.Ct. 164, 59 L.Ed. 360; North Pac. S.S. Co. v. Soley, 257 U.S. 216, 42 S.Ct. 87, 66 L.Ed. 203) but to act sua sponte (McNutt v. General Motors Corporation, supra, 298 U.S. 178, 184, 56 S.Ct. 780, 782, 80 L.Ed.......
  • Shaffer v. Coty, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 3, 1960
    ...has been generally thought and held that issues as to jurisdictional fact are triable to the court. North Pac. S. S. Co. v. Soley, 1921, 257 U.S. 216, 221-223, 42 S.Ct. 87, 66 L.Ed. 203; Gilbert v. David, 1915, 235 U.S. 561, 568, 35 S.Ct. 164, 59 L.Ed. 360; Wetmore v. Rymer, 1898, 169 U.S. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT