|
|
Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1, 256 U.S. 490 (1921)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1, 256 U.S. 490 (1921)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 256 U.S. 484, click here.
Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1 No. 25, Original Argued December 13, 14, 1920 Decided June 1, 1921 256 U.S. 490
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
AND/OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Syllabus
1. The power to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent a district court from exceeding its jurisdiction in admiralty is conferred upon this Court by Jud.Code, § 234, and may be exercised in a clear case even where an ultimate remedy exists by appeal. Pp. 496, 503.
2. Under the Eleventh Amendment, an admiralty suit in personam cannot be brought against a state, without its consent, by an individual, whether a citizen of the state or not. P. 497.
3. Whether a suit in admiralty is a suit against a state is determined, not by the names of the titular parties, but by the essential nature and effect of the proceeding as it appears from the entire record. P. 500.
4. In suits in rem against privately owned steam tugs for injuries inflicted on libelants’ barges, the tug owners, appearing as claimants, sought to implead the Superintendent of Public Works of the New York, alleging that the damages complained of were occasioned while the tugs were under charter to him officially and under his operation, control, and management pursuant to the state law, and praying that as such official he be cited into the suits to answer for the damages and, if not found, that the goods and chattels of the state used and controlled by him be attached. Monitions, issued accordingly, were served on him in the district. Held that these proceedings against the Superintendent were in personam, and, considering his functions under the state laws and the ultimate incidence of the relief sought, were essentially proceedings against the state, beyond the jurisdiction of the district court in admiralty. P. 501. Workman v. New York City, 179 U.S. 552, distinguished.
Rule absolute for a writ of prohibition.
Prohibition to restrain proceedings in admiralty in the district court. The case is stated in the opinion, post,494.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1, 256 U.S. 490 (1921) in 256 U.S. 490 256 U.S. 491–256 U.S. 494. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=VBLHJNIJJSN6AS2.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1, 256 U.S. 490 (1921), in 256 U.S. 490, pp. 256 U.S. 491–256 U.S. 494. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=VBLHJNIJJSN6AS2.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1, 256 U.S. 490 (1921). cited in 1921, 256 U.S. 490, pp.256 U.S. 491–256 U.S. 494. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=VBLHJNIJJSN6AS2.
|