Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Gilhooley
| Decision Date | 11 November 1881 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. v. GILHOOLEY. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
George P. Rich, for exceptions.
Libel by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company against William Gilhooley, setting forth that in December, 1876, respondent had filed his libel in the United States district court for the southern district of New York, against the present libellant, to recover damages for injuries to his canal-boat that the said district court entered a decree in his favor that this decree was afterwards, upon appeal, reversed by the circuit court for said district, and a decree was therein entered dismissing the libel, with costs, which were taxed at $2,352.05. A copy of this decree was annexed to the libel. The libel further set forth that the said last-mentioned decree remained in full force and unsatisfied; that neither the present respondent nor any of his property could be found within the jurisdiction of the circuit court for the southern district of New York, but that such property could be found within this district. Libellant prayed for a decree against respondent for the amount of the decree entered in the circuit court for the southern district of New York. Respondent filed exceptions to the libel on the grounds (1) that the court had no jurisdiction; and (2) that the record of the suit in the courts of the southern district of New York was not attached to the libel. At the hearing it was agreed that these exceptions should stand as an answer.
A court of admiralty will lend its aid to enforce the decree of a foreign admiralty court only upon receipt of letters rogatory or missive, and not at the instance of a party. 6 Viner, Abr 512, pl. 12; Jurodo v. Gregory, 1 Levinz, 267; S.C 1 Ventris, 32; Godb. 260; 2 Bro.Civ. & Ad.Law, 120; 2 Sir Leoline Jenkins, 714, 754, 762, 788; La Madonna della Lettera, 2 Haggard, 289. The reason that courts of admiralty interfere to execute each other's decrees is to prevent a failure of justice; but this reason is inapplicable to the present case, because an action of debt could be brought upon the judgment at common law. The cases in which admiralty courts have executed foreign decrees are either proceedings in rem, where the res had come into another jurisdiction from that in which proceedings had been commenced, or cases where a sentence of imprisonment for contempt, against a party for non-compliance with a decree was asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D'Amico Dry Ltd. v. Primera Mar. (Hellas) Ltd.
...courts of this nation are empowered to carry into effect the maritime decrees of foreign admiralty courts”); Penn. R.R. Co. v. Gilhooley, 9 F. 618, 619 (E.D.Pa.1881) (stating, in the context of an action to enforce a judgment of another district court, that the court “had a general jurisdic......
-
International Sea Food Ltd. v. M/V Campeche, 76-2254
...not only of other federal courts, but even of the admiralty courts of foreign countries . . . ." See also Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Gilhooley, 9 F. 618 (E.D.Pa.1881). Again, in The Jerusalem, 13 F.Cas. No. 7,293, pp. 559, 563 (C.C.D.Mass.1814), there is dictum to the effect that an admir......
-
D'AMICO DRY LTD. v. PRIMERA Mar. LTD.
...decrees, not only of other federal courts, but even of the admiralty courts of other countries. . . ." See also Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Gilhooley, 9 F. 618 (E.D. Pa. 1881). Again, in The Jerusalem, 13 F.Cas. No. 7,293, pp. 559, 563 (C.C.D. Mass. 1814), there is dictum to the effect tha......
-
The James Jackson
... ... twenty-first day of December, 1878, agreed to tow said barge ... and her cargo from Pittsburgh, in the state of Pennsylvania, ... to Marietta, in the state of Ohio, and there safely deliver ... said barge and her cargo to the libellant for the sum of $45; ... that said ... ...