Wilson v. McNamee
| Citation | 102 U.S. 572,26 L.Ed. 234 |
| Parties | WILSON v. MCNAMEE |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
McNamee tendered his services as a licensed Sandy Hook pilot to conduct the schooner 'E. E. Racket' by way of Sandy Hook to the port of New York. He was the first that offered his services. The tender was made at sea, about fifty miles from that port. The vessel was from a foreign port, sailing under register, and drew nine feet of water. The master refused to accept the services, and came into port without a pilot. McNamee demanded the compensation allowed by the local State law, and, payment having been refused, brought this suit and recovered judgment in the District Court of the city of New York for the First Judicial Circuit against Wilson, the consignee of the schooner. The case was thereupon removed by appeal to the proper Court of Common Pleas, and subsequently to the Court of Appeals of the State. Those courts successively affirmed the judgment. Wilson sued out this writ.
The laws of New York on the subject of pilotage contain, among other provisions, the following:——
'All masters of foreign vessels, and vessels from a foreign port, and all vessels sailing under register, bound to or from the port of New York, by the way of Sandy Hook, shall take a licensed pilot; or, in case of refusal to take such pilot, shall himself, owners or consignees, pay the said pilotage, as if one had been employed; and such pilotage shall be paid to the pilot first speaking or offering his services as pilot to such vessel.'
The fourth section of the act of Congress approved Aug. 7, 1789 (1 Stat. 54), declares that,—— 'All pilots in the bays, inlets, rivers, harbors, and ports of the United States shall continue to be regulated in conformity with the existing laws of the States respectively wherein such pilots may be, or with such laws as the States may respectively hereafter enact for the purpose, until further legislative provision shall be made by Congress.'
This enactment will also be found in sect. 4235 of the Revised Statutes.
The proviso to the second section of an act of Congress of Feb. 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 412), is in these words:——
'Nothing in this act contained, or in the act of which it is amendatory, shall be construed to annul or affect any regulations established by the existing laws of any State requiring vessels entering or leaving a port in such State to take a pilot duly authorized by the laws of such State, or of a State situate upon the waters of the same port.'
Mr. James S. Stearns, for the plaintiff in error.
The court declined hearing counsel for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The only point argued here was the validity of the pilot law of New York with reference to the Constitution of the United States.
At the close of the opening argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error, we announced that the affirmative of the question thus presented was so well settled by the repeated adjudications of this court, that we had no desire to hear the counsel for the defendant in error upon the subject.
Thereafter, the counsel who had been heard submitted a memorandum, in which he called our attention particularly 'to the tenth point of the brief of the plaintiff in error, namely, that the tender took place outside of the jurisdiction of the State of New York.' He added: 'This question has never yet been passed upon by this court in either of the other pilot cases.'
Our opinion will be confined to that subject.
There are several answers to the suggestion.
1. The objection does not appear to have been taken in the Circuit Court, and cannot, therefore, be considered here. Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532.
2. A vessel at sea is considered as a part of the territory to which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Pacific Company v. Marie Jensen
...Mail S. S. Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450, 459, 17 L. ed. 805, 807; Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236, 241, 20 L. ed. 624, 626; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 26 L. ed. 234; Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332, 341, 49 L. ed. 224, 229, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 52; Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co. 225 U. S......
-
Cleveland v. United States Darger v. Same Jessop v. Same Dockstader v. Same Stubbs v. Same Petty v. Same 19
...112. An example of judicial interpretation of the silence of Congress as giving consent to state legislation is Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U.S. 572, 575, 26 L.Ed. 234. 8 Cf. note 9 See opinion of Mr. Justice McKenna, 242 U.S. at page 502, 37 S.Ct. at page 201, 61 L.Ed. 442, L.R.A.1917F, 502. An......
-
South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros
...Co., 2 Pet. 245, 7 L.Ed. 412; Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236, 20 L.Ed. 624; Pound v. Turck, 95 U.S. 459, 24 L.Ed. 525; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U.S. 572, 26 L.Ed. 234; Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 7 S.Ct. 313, 30 L.Ed. 487; cf. Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co., 123 U.S. 288, 8 S.Ct. 11......
-
Commonwealth v. Housatonic R.R.
...of regulation of charges for pilotage, wharfage, and the like, stands upon the same ground, and is conceded to be in the states. Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U.S. 572;Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 88;Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U.S. 423; Vicksburg v. Tobin, Id. 430. The states are permitted to e......
-
Percolation's Value.
...observed that the law is not 'one thing at Rome and another at Athens, one now and another in the future.'" (quoting Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U.S. 572,574 (139.) Id. (140.) Id. (141.) Friendly, supra note 10, at 407. (142.) Id. (143.) Meador, supra note 10, at 634. (144.) Bator, supra note 10......