The Barbara Cates

E.D. Pennsylvania

The Barbara Cates

8 F. Supp. 470, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1417

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 27, 1934

DocketNo. 9

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 F. Supp. 470 (The Barbara Cates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Barbara Cates, 8 F. Supp. 470, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1417 (E.D. Pa. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

DICKINSON, District Judge.

These exceptions raise the question of jurisdiction in admiralty. Whether any complaint is the proper subject of the law maritime, and hence whether it is of admiralty jurisdiction, is a subject, unavoidably or purposely, left murky.

The instant case concerns itself with a collision between a vessel and a construction in navigable waters. The abstract proposition has been well expressed in the phrases that the question turns “upon the locality of the tort, the nature of the structure and its use.” It is thus clear that whether a given ease is the proper subject of admiralty jurisdiction turns upon a fact finding upon which many considerations bear. The question of whether a court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter in dispute is an omnipresent question. It may be raised at any time, either by a party or by the court of its own volition. Here the attempt is to raise it by exceptions to the libel. The question may be properly so raised; but it necessarily results in the court determining a question of fact upon the bare averments of a pleading.

The ease of The Senator (D. C.) 54 F.(2d) 420, supplies us with a precedent. It would seem that the structure there was the same structure with which the instant case concerns itself. We make the same disposition of the exceptions here filed as was made of the exceptions there filed.

The exceptions are for the present overruled without prejudice; the court not now determining the question of jurisdiction, but reserving the same for further ruling.

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

DICKINSON, District Judge.

These exceptions raise the question of jurisdiction in admiralty. Whether any complaint is the proper subject of the law maritime, and hence whether it is of admiralty jurisdiction, is a subject, unavoidably or purposely, left murky.

The instant case concerns itself with a collision between a vessel and a construction in navigable waters. The abstract proposition has been well expressed in the phrases that the question turns “upon the locality of the tort, the nature of the structure and its use.” It is thus clear that whether a given ease is the proper subject of admiralty jurisdiction turns upon a fact finding upon which many considerations bear. The question of whether a court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter in dispute is an omnipresent question. It may be raised at any time, either by a party or by the court of its own volition. Here the attempt is to raise it by exceptions to the libel. The question may be properly so raised; but it necessarily results in the court determining a question of fact upon the bare averments of a pleading.

The ease of The Senator (D. C.) 54 F.(2d) 420, supplies us with a precedent. It would seem that the structure there was the same structure with which the instant case concerns itself. We make the same disposition of the exceptions here filed as was made of the exceptions there filed.

The exceptions are for the present overruled without prejudice; the court not now determining the question of jurisdiction, but reserving the same for further ruling.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. Supp. 470, 1934 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-barbara-cates-paed-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack