Ex Parte Davis

Supreme Court

Ex Parte Davis

262 U.S. 274, 43 S. Ct. 574, 67 L. Ed. 979, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2641

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 21, 1923

Docket27, Original

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 U.S. 274 (Ex Parte Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Davis, 262 U.S. 274, 43 S. Ct. 574, 67 L. Ed. 979, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2641 (1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition or mandamus commanding the judges of the District Court, Southern District of New York, not to take further steps in an admiralty proceeding instituted by the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Company to recover from him for damage inflicted upon its scow by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company’s steamtug “ Mahanoy ” while under federal control, or in the alternative to direct vacation of an interlocutory order theretofore entered and dismiss the libel. A rule to show cause issued but of this Court and return has been made showing, the relevant facts and circumstances.

The District Court after hearing ruled upon the matters presented for its determination and, under settled doctrine, we can find no occasion for mandamus. Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70.

Involved in the cause are questions touching the liability of the Director General of Railroads as Agent designated by the President under the Transportation Act of 1920 for maritime torts committed by vessels un *276 der federal control; his power to enter appearance by counsel without prior service of process; and whether in the same proceeding he may take different and antagonistic positions, first as the agent of one railroad system and then of another.

We cannot say the court below was clearly without jurisdiction to determine all the points presented. Moreover, by appeal in the ordinary way possible errors can be corrected; and there is no imperative reason for awarding a writ of prohibition. Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515; Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495; In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14; In re New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523; Ex parte Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 255 U. S. 273, 275, 280.

The rule to show cause is discharged and the prayer of the petition is denied.

Rule discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition or mandamus commanding the judges of the District Court, Southern District of New York, not to take further steps in an admiralty proceeding instituted by the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Company to recover from him for damage inflicted upon its scow by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company’s steamtug “ Mahanoy ” while under federal control, or in the alternative to direct vacation of an interlocutory order theretofore entered and dismiss the libel. A rule to show cause issued but of this Court and return has been made showing, the relevant facts and circumstances.

The District Court after hearing ruled upon the matters presented for its determination and, under settled doctrine, we can find no occasion for mandamus. Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70.

Involved in the cause are questions touching the liability of the Director General of Railroads as Agent designated by the President under the Transportation Act of 1920 for maritime torts committed by vessels un *276 der federal control; his power to enter appearance by counsel without prior service of process; and whether in the same proceeding he may take different and antagonistic positions, first as the agent of one railroad system and then of another.

We cannot say the court below was clearly without jurisdiction to determine all the points presented. Moreover, by appeal in the ordinary way possible errors can be corrected; and there is no imperative reason for awarding a writ of prohibition. Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515; Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495; In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14; In re New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523; Ex parte Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 255 U. S. 273, 275, 280.

The rule to show cause is discharged and the prayer of the petition is denied.

Rule discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 U.S. 274, 43 S. Ct. 574, 67 L. Ed. 979, 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-davis-scotus-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack