United States In re Nineteen Barges and Four Towboats, No. 23
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McKENNA |
| Citation | 68 L.Ed. 351,263 U.S. 389,44 S.Ct. 130 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 23 |
| Parties | Petition of the UNITED STATES. In re NINETEEN BARGES AND FOUR TOWBOATS |
Argued on Return to Rule Nov. 19 and 20, 1923.
The Attorney General and Mr. Lon O. Hocker, of St. Louis, Mo., for the United States.
Page 390
Messrs.
Joseph T. Davis and Douglas W. Robert, both of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.
Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Motion on part of the United States, as asserted owner of nineteen barges and four towboats, praying a writ of prohibition to be directed to Hon. C. B. Faris, a judge of the District Court, Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri, and the other judges thereof, to prohibit him and them from asserting and exercising jurisdiction in a certain suit brought March 25, 1923, by Edward F Goltra against John W. Weeks, Secretary of War. and other officers of the United States, in which it was averred that a contract was made between the United States, represented by Maj. Gen. William M. Black, Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, as lessor and Goltra, as lessee, whereby the boats and barges (then under construction) by the United States were leased and chartered to Goltra for the period of five years from the date of delivery of the boats and barges to him, Goltra, upon the payment of certain periodical rentals and a compliance by Goltra with other terms and conditions.
The suit by Goltra, the pleadings in which are detailed in the petition, was brought to determine his rights under the contract and a supplement to it.
The contract was preceded by negotiations between Goltra and representatives of the government, particularly
Page 391
with the War Department and the then Secretary of War, which included among other things the construction of a fleet of towboats and barges in the then emergency of war But after the signing of the Armistice when the emergency of war had ceased, other negotiations were had between Goltra and the War Department and the Secretary of War, and a lease was made, the contract above, whereby the boats and barges were leased to Goltra, by him to be operated on the Mississippi river and its tributaries as a common carrier, he to pay all operating expenses, to take out fire and marine insurance, and incur and discharge other obligations.
On May 26, 1921, the supplement to the contract was entered into between Maj. Gen. Beach, then Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, the successor of Black.
On March 3, 1923, Weeks, as Secretary of War, undertook to cancel the contract for the noncompliance by Goltra, as lessee, with its terms and conditions, and demanded the return of the boats and barges to the United States, and the defendants on March 25, 1923, unlawfully took possession of some, and were about to take possession of the remainder of them.
There was a prayer by Goltra for a temporary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weeks v. Goltra, No. 6871.
...by the defendants to warrant his action. In Ex parte in the Matter of the United States, as Owner of Nineteen Barges and Four Towboats, 263 U. S. 389, 393, 44 S. Ct. 130, 68 L. Ed. 351, the Supreme Court denied an application of the United States for a writ of prohibition to forbid the Dist......
-
Ex parte Bakelite Corporation. riginal, No. 17
...L. Ed. 919; Ex parte Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 255 U. S. 273, 41 S. Ct. 288, 65 L. Ed. 631; Petition of United States, 263 U. S. 389, 44 S. Ct. 130, 68 L. Ed. 351. 4 Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 242 (13 L. Ed. 119); Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434, 447 (20 L. Ed. 659......
-
Leonard v. Willcox, No. 179.
...a matter of right." See, also, In re Hussein Lufti Bey, 256 U. S. 616, 619, 41 S. Ct. 609, 610, 65 L. Ed. 1122; Petition of U. S., 263 U. S. 389, 393, 44 S. Ct. 130, 131, 132, 68 L. Ed. 351; In re Muir, 256 U. S. 522, 523, 524, 41 S. Ct. 185, 188, 65 L. Ed. 383; Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 ......
-
United States v. Goltra Goltra v. United States, Nos. 191
...as other judgments of said Court of Claims are paid.' 3 Weeks, Secretary of War, v. Goltra, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 838; Ex parte United States, 263 U.S. 389, 44 S.Ct. 130, 68 L.Ed. 351; Goltra v. Weeks, Secretary of War, 271 U.S. 536, 46 S.Ct. 613, 70 L.Ed. 1074; Goltra v. Davis, Secretary of War, ......
-
Weeks v. Goltra, No. 6871.
...by the defendants to warrant his action. In Ex parte in the Matter of the United States, as Owner of Nineteen Barges and Four Towboats, 263 U. S. 389, 393, 44 S. Ct. 130, 68 L. Ed. 351, the Supreme Court denied an application of the United States for a writ of prohibition to forbid the Dist......
-
Ex parte Bakelite Corporation. riginal, No. 17
...L. Ed. 919; Ex parte Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 255 U. S. 273, 41 S. Ct. 288, 65 L. Ed. 631; Petition of United States, 263 U. S. 389, 44 S. Ct. 130, 68 L. Ed. 351. 4 Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 242 (13 L. Ed. 119); Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434, 447 (20 L. Ed. 659......
-
Leonard v. Willcox, No. 179.
...a matter of right." See, also, In re Hussein Lufti Bey, 256 U. S. 616, 619, 41 S. Ct. 609, 610, 65 L. Ed. 1122; Petition of U. S., 263 U. S. 389, 393, 44 S. Ct. 130, 131, 132, 68 L. Ed. 351; In re Muir, 256 U. S. 522, 523, 524, 41 S. Ct. 185, 188, 65 L. Ed. 383; Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 ......
-
United States v. Goltra Goltra v. United States, Nos. 191
...as other judgments of said Court of Claims are paid.' 3 Weeks, Secretary of War, v. Goltra, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 838; Ex parte United States, 263 U.S. 389, 44 S.Ct. 130, 68 L.Ed. 351; Goltra v. Weeks, Secretary of War, 271 U.S. 536, 46 S.Ct. 613, 70 L.Ed. 1074; Goltra v. Davis, Secretary of War, ......