The Alaska Metcalfe v. the Alaska
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BLATCHFORD |
| Citation | 32 L.Ed. 923,130 U.S. 201,9 S.Ct. 461 |
| Parties | THE ALASKA. 1 METCALFE et al. v. THE ALASKA |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1889 |
Page 201
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, and united with it is a motion, under subdivision 5 of rule 6, to affirm the decree below, on the ground that, although the record may show that this court has jurisdiction, it is manifest
Page 202
the appeal was taken for delay only, or that the question on which the jurisdiction dependent is so frivolous as not to need further argument. The suit is a libel in rem, in admiralty, filed in the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, by the owners of the pilot-boat Columbia, against the British steam-ship Alaska, to recover damages for the loss of the Columbia by a collision with the Alaska on the 2d of December, 1883, on the high seas, near the coast of Long Island, N. Y. The libel also embraced a claim for the loss of property and personal effects by some of the libelants. There was claimed for the loss of the pilot-boat, $16,000, and for the loss of the other property, $2,100. It was alleged that the collision occurred solely through the negligence of the persons in charge of the Alaska. All the persons on board of the pilot-boat were drowned. Among them were four pilots and a cook. One of the four pilots was a part-owner of the Columbia. William Pearce, of Glasgow, Scotland, filed a claim to the Alaska after her attachment, and also gave a stipulation for value, in the sum of $20,000, to secure the release of the Alaska from the claims for the loss of the Columbia and of the personal effects. A supplemental libel was filed by the widows of the four pilots and of the cook, who were drowned, and in it four of them on behalf of themselves and infant children severally, and the other one on her own behalf, claimed in each of the five instances damages in the sum of $5,000 for the loss severally of the lives of the persons so drowned. After the filing of the supplemental libel, Pearce gave a further stipulation for value, in the sum of $25,000, to secure the release of the Alaska from the claims for the loss of the five lives. The latter stipulation was in the following terms: 'Whereas, a supplemental libel was filed on the 22d day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, by Catharine A. Metcalfe, Mary E. Noble, Agnes Arnold, Mary Wolf, and Bella Forblade against the British steam-ship Alaska, her engines, etc., for the reasons and causes in the said libel mentioned; and whereas, the said
Page 203
steam-ship Alaska, her engines, etc., in the original action brought against said vessel by Augustus Van Petland others, were in the custody of the marshal under the process issued in pursuance of the prayer of the said libel; and whereas, a claim to said vessel has been filed by William Pearce, and the value thereof has been fixed by consent at twenty-five thousand dollars for the purposes of this action, as appears from said consent now on file in said court; and the parties hereto hereby consenting and agreeing that, in case of default or contumacy on the part of claimant or his surety, execution for the above amount may issue against their goods, chattels, and lands: now, therefore, the condition of the stipulation is such, that if the stipulators undersigned shall at any time, upon the interlocutory or final order or decree of the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Proctor v. Dillon
...law by itself and unaided by statute affords no remedy whatever for the death of a seaman. The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199. The Alaska, 130 U.S. 201. La Bourgogne, 210 U.S. 95. Thus the maritime law in a particular relating to substance and not to form has received by recognition and approval ......
-
The City of Norwalk
...there is no liability therefor under the general maritime law of this country, (The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 7 S.Ct. 140; The Alaska, 130 U.S. 201, 9 S.Ct. 461;) and because, as it is said, it is not competent for state legislation (1) to change the law in maritime cases, or (2) to extend ......
-
Southern Pacific Company v. Marie Jensen, No. 280
...law, afforded no civil remedy for death by wrongful act (The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, 30 L. ed. 358, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201, 209, 32 L. ed. 923, 925, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461), yet a right of action created by statute is enforceable in a state court although the tort wa......
-
THE BUENOS AIRES, No. 63.
...general maritime law did not provide a remedy for wrongful death. The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, 7 S. Ct. 140, 30 L. Ed. 358; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201, 9 S. Ct. 461, 32 L. Ed. 923; Butler v. Boston S. S. Co., 130 U. S. 527, 9 S. Ct. 612, 32 L. Ed. 1017; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 138, 28 ......
-
Proctor v. Dillon
...law by itself and unaided by statute affords no remedy whatever for the death of a seaman. The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199. The Alaska, 130 U.S. 201. La Bourgogne, 210 U.S. 95. Thus the maritime law in a particular relating to substance and not to form has received by recognition and approval ......
-
The City of Norwalk
...there is no liability therefor under the general maritime law of this country, (The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199, 7 S.Ct. 140; The Alaska, 130 U.S. 201, 9 S.Ct. 461;) and because, as it is said, it is not competent for state legislation (1) to change the law in maritime cases, or (2) to extend ......
-
Southern Pacific Company v. Marie Jensen, No. 280
...law, afforded no civil remedy for death by wrongful act (The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, 30 L. ed. 358, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201, 209, 32 L. ed. 923, 925, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461), yet a right of action created by statute is enforceable in a state court although the tort wa......
-
THE BUENOS AIRES, No. 63.
...general maritime law did not provide a remedy for wrongful death. The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, 7 S. Ct. 140, 30 L. Ed. 358; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201, 9 S. Ct. 461, 32 L. Ed. 923; Butler v. Boston S. S. Co., 130 U. S. 527, 9 S. Ct. 612, 32 L. Ed. 1017; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 138, 28 ......