Parcher v. Cuddy

Supreme Court

Parcher v. Cuddy

110 U.S. 742, 4 S. Ct. 194, 28 L. Ed. 312, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1736

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 10, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 U.S. 742 (Parcher v. Cuddy) 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

Parcher v. Cuddy, 110 U.S. 742, 4 S. Ct. 194, 28 L. Ed. 312, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1736 (1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

"Without deciding whether an injunction may be granted under any circumstances by this court to stay proceedings in the State courts during the pendency of an appeal in a suit brought by the owners of a vessel to obtain .the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for by §§ 4283, 4284, 4285, and 4286 of the Revised Statutes, we are all of the opinion that this motion should be denied. Both of the courts below have decided that the vessel owned by the appellants did not come within the purview of the statute, and consequently that the relief asked for should not be granted. If the suits in the State courts go on and judgments are rendered against the appellants, there is a way in which decisions overruling defences set up under the statute may be brought here for review, and the errors, if any, corrected.

In view of these facts we are not inclined to use the ,extraordinary -writ of injunction to- stay proceedings in suits begun in the State courts before the appellants filed their libel in the District Court, simply because of the expense that will be consequent upon trials pending the appeal. If we have the power it should not be used in a doubtful case, and after two judgments below denying the relief, unless the reasons are imperative.

Writ refused.

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

Me. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

"Without deciding whether an injunction may be granted under any circumstances by this court to stay proceedings in the State courts during the pendency of an appeal in a suit brought by the owners of a vessel to obtain .the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for by §§ 4283, 4284, 4285, and 4286 of the Revised Statutes, we are all of the opinion that this motion should be denied. Both of the courts below have decided that the vessel owned by the appellants did not come within the purview of the statute, and consequently that the relief asked for should not be granted. If the suits in the State courts go on and judgments are rendered against the appellants, there is a way in which decisions overruling defences set up under the statute may be brought here for review, and the errors, if any, corrected.

In view of these facts we are not inclined to use the ,extraordinary -writ of injunction to- stay proceedings in suits begun in the State courts before the appellants filed their libel in the District Court, simply because of the expense that will be consequent upon trials pending the appeal. If we have the power it should not be used in a doubtful case, and after two judgments below denying the relief, unless the reasons are imperative.

Writ refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 U.S. 742, 4 S. Ct. 194, 28 L. Ed. 312, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parcher-v-cuddy-scotus-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack