Oregon Railway Navigation Company Robert Balfour Oregon Railway Navigation Company v. Robert Balfour
| Decision Date | 22 October 1900 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 73,74,s. 73 |
| Citation | 179 U.S. 55,21 S.Ct. 28,45 L.Ed. 82 |
| Parties | OREGON RAILWAY & NAVIGATION COMPANY, Appt. , ROBERT BALFOUR et al., Partners, Doing Business as Balfour, Guthrie, & Co. et al. OREGON RAILWAY & NAVIGATION COMPANY and Oregon Short Line & Northern Railway Company, Appts. , v. ROBERT BALFOUR et al. , Partners, Doing Business as Balfour, Guthrie, & Co., et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. W. W. Cotton and A. B. Browne for appellants.
Messrs. C. E. S. Wood and George H. Williams for appellees.
These were petitions for a limitation of liability of shipowners, filed in the district court of the United States for the district of Oregon, sitting in admiralty, which proceeded to decree in that court. From this decree appeals were prosecuted to the United States circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit and the decree affirmed. 61 U. S. App. 150, 90 Fed. Rep. 295, 33 C. C. A. 57. From that decree appeals were taken to this court, which appellees now move to dismiss.
By the 6th section of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, it is provided that the judgments or decrees of the circuit courts of appeals in admiralty cases shall be final; and no appeal to this court lies therefrom. If, then, proceedings under the act of Congress to limit the liability of shipowners, and the rules of this court in that regard, are admiralty cases, it follows that the motions to dismiss must be sustained.
By the 2d section of article 3 of the Constitution, the judicial power extends 'to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,' the word 'maritime' having been added, out of abundant caution, to preclude a narrow interpretation of the word 'admiralty.'
The jurisdiction to limit the liability of shipowners was conferred upon the district courts by the act of Congress of March 3, 1851 (9 Stat. at L. 635, chap. 43), carried forward into §§ 4282 to 4289 of the Revised Statutes.
It was not until December term, 1871, in the case of the Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. ed. 585, that the court was called upon to interpret the act, and to adopt some general rules for the purpose of carrying it into effect, and this was done at that term. 13 Wall. xii., xiii., 20 L. ed. 926, 927; Rules of Practice in Admiralty, 54-58.
The power of Congress to pass the act of 1851, and the power of this court to prescribe rules regulating proceedings thereunder, were maintained in that case, and were recognized and reaffirmed in many subsequent cases. The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239, sub nom. New York & W. S. S. Co. v. Mount, 26 L. ed. 351; The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, sub nom. National Steam Nav. Co. v. Dyer, 26 L. ed. 1001; Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co. 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. ed. 1038, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379, 617; Butler v. Boston & S. S. S. Co. 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. ed. 1017, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612; Re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14, 34, sub nom. Morrison v. United States Dist. Ct. 37 L. ed. 60, 67, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 246. In the latter case the proceeding is styled 'an equitable action,' but not in any sense as inconsistent with the admiralty jurisdiction.
In these cases the provisions of the act and of the rules are fully set forth, explained, and commented on, and need...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Oswego Barge Corp.
...605 (6th Cir. 1946), mod. on other gds. 169 F.2d 622 (6th Cir. 1948); The Columbia, 73 F. 226 (9th Cir. 1896), app. dism. 179 U.S. 55, 21 S.Ct. 28, 45 L.Ed. 82 (1900); 2) findings of some degree of fault shared by the various vessels, In re Brown & Root Marine Operators, Inc., 267 F.Supp. 5......
-
Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Dalton
...issued for that purpose, or otherwise. The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 20 Sup. Ct. 290, 44 L. Ed. 320; Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Balfour, 179 U. S. 55, 21 Sup. Ct. 28, 45 L. Ed. 82; United States v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 17 Sup. Ct. 495, 41 L. Ed. 897. The Supreme Court of the U......
-
Austerberry v. United States
...explosion and fire; and from such decree, the respondents appeal. This is a proceeding in admiralty. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co. v. Balfour, 179 U.S. 55, 21 S.Ct. 28, 45 L.Ed. 82; and on appeal, the case is heard de novo. The Cleveco, 6 Cir., 154 F.2d 605. Accordingly, we proceed to re......
-
Charles Nelson Co. v. Curtis
...admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." Proceedings to limit the liability of shipowners are admiralty cases. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Balfour, 179 U. S. 55, 21 S. Ct. 28, 45 L. Ed. 82. "The subject limitation of liability is one pre-eminently of admiralty jurisdiction. The rule of limited lia......