Schoonmaker v. Gilmore

102 U.S. 118, 26 L. Ed. 95, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2006
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 18, 1880
Docket878
StatusPublished
Cited by58 cases

This text of 102 U.S. 118 (Schoonmaker v. Gilmore) 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
Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U.S. 118, 26 L. Ed. 95, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2006 (1880).

Opinion

Mb. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of . the court.

The single question in this case is, whether the courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River. This is ..a Federal-question, and gives us jurisdiction; but we cannot consider it as any longer open to argument, as it -was decided substantially in The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The Hine v. Trevor, id. 555; The Belfast, 7 id. 624; Leon v. Galceran, 11 id. 185; and Steamboat Company v. Chase, 16 id. 522. The Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73, sect. 9), reproduced in sect. 563, Rev. Stat., par. 8, which confers admiralty jurisdiction on the courts of the United States, expressly saves to suitors, in all cases, the' right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. That there always has been a remedy at common law for damages by collision at sea cannot be denied.

The motion to dismiss is overruled, and that to affirm granted.

Judgment affirmed:

■ Note. — Brown v. Davidson, error to the Supreme Court of the State of Penn, syb ania, involved the same question as the preceding case. It was submitted by the same counsel and determined in the same manner.

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

Related

United States v. Dawkins, Code
999 F.3d 767 (Second Circuit, 2021)
Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig
106 F.3d 165 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)
Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.
358 U.S. 354 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Hill v. United Fruit Company
149 F. Supp. 470 (S.D. California, 1957)
Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines, Ltd.
147 F. Supp. 223 (S.D. California, 1956)
Wunderlich v. Netherlands Insurance Co.
125 F. Supp. 877 (S.D. New York, 1954)
Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co.
121 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. California, 1954)
Paduano v. Yamashita Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha
120 F. Supp. 304 (E.D. New York, 1954)
Doucette v. Vincent
194 F.2d 834 (First Circuit, 1952)
Bono v. Mellor
68 A.2d 558 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1949)
Caldarola v. Eckert
332 U.S. 155 (Supreme Court, 1947)
Carstens v. Great Lakes Towing Co.
71 F. Supp. 394 (N.D. Ohio, 1945)
Intagliata v. Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co.
159 P.2d 1 (California Supreme Court, 1945)
Arques v. National Superior Co.
155 P.2d 643 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Technidyne Corp. v. McPhilben-Keator, Inc.
72 F.2d 242 (Second Circuit, 1934)
United States of Mexico v. Rask
4 P.2d 981 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 U.S. 118, 26 L. Ed. 95, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoonmaker-v-gilmore-scotus-1880.