Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

128 U.S. 132

9 S. Ct. 40

32 L. Ed. 369

Docket No. 1037.

Chappell v. Bradshaw

Supreme Court of the United States

Submitted October 22, 1888.

Decided October 29, 1888.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1888-10-29

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.</p> <p>Motion to dismiss oe affirm. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) “ Where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty, or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity; ” (2) “ Where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity ; ” (3) “ Or where any title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or immunity specially set up and claimed by either party under such Constitution, statute, commission or authority.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Columbia Water Power Co. v. Columbia Electric Street Railway Light & Power Co.

Relies on Spies v. Illinois · The Anarchists' Case Spies · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Trespass”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 8–0 · Decided 1888-10-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co. (1918), Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co. (1924)

3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

20018881890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

¶2To give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court under § 709, Rev. Stat. because of the denial by the state court of any title, ' right, privilege or immunity, claimed under the Constitution or’ any ■ - treaty or statute of the United States, it must appear on the record that . such title, right, privilege or immunity was “ specially set up or claim I " at the proper time, in the proper way.

¶3An action of trespass on the case for damages by fire to the plaintiff's vessel in a port of the United States, alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant’s servants in cutting a burning scow or lighter loose, from a wharf, and allowing it to drift against the vessel, is “ a common law remedy ” which the common law “ is competent to give,’’ and which is saved to suitors by the provisions of § 563, Rev. Stat. conferring admiralty and maritime jurisdiction upon District .Courts of the. United States.

¶4*133Motion to dismiss oe affirm. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

¶5. Mr. William A. Hammond and Mr. B. Howard; Hamcm for the motion. ,

¶6Mr. William A. Fisher Opposing.

¶7Me. Chief Justice Fullee

¶8delivered the opinion of the court.

¶9Bradshaw recovered judgment December 6th, 1887, against Chappell in the Ciróuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, in an action of trespass on the case, after a trial by jury upon a plea of not guilty, for damages by fire to his (Bradshaw’s) schooner, alleged to have resulted from the negligence of Chappell’s servants in cutting a burning scow or lighter loose from Chappell’s wharf and allowing it to drift against Bradshaw’s vessel. From this judgment Chappell prosecuted an appeal to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, by which ‘ tribunal the judgment was affirmed on the 14th day of March, 1888. '

¶10On the 27th of March Chappell moved for a rehearing upon the ground, which had not been up to .that time presented in any form, that the Circuit Court for Howard County should have limited the measure of damages to the value of the scow which occasioned the injury complained of, under the provisions of § 18, c. 121 of the act of Congress of June 26, 1884'. 23 Stat. 57. The Court of Appeals overruled the motion, because, as the court states, “ this act of Congress waá not' before the Circuit Court when the case was tried, nor before this court on appeal, and that no reference to it ór construction of it was made in either court.”

¶11After an unsuccessful - application therefor to the Chief ' Judge of the Court of Appeals a writ of error was finally allowed by one of the. justices of this court, and now comes before us upon a motion to dismiss.

¶12To give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court under § 709 of the Revised Statutes, because of the denial by a state court of any title, right, privilege, or *134■immunity claimed under the Constitution or any treaty or statute of the United States, it must appear on the record that such title, right, privilege, or immunity was “ specially set up. or claimed ” at the proper time in the proper way. “ To be reviewable here,” says Waite, C. J., in Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181, “the decision must be against the right so set up or claimed. As the Supreme Court of the State was reviewing the decision of the trial court, it must appear that the claim was made .in that court, because the Supreme Court was only authorized to review the judgment for errors committed there, and we can do no more.” Tested by this well settled rule it is apparent that this writ of error cannot be maintained, as it is conceded that the plaintiff in error did not set up or claim in the trial court the limitation, the benefit of which he now insists should have been accorded him.

¶13As to the contention of plaintiff in error, also not brought forward below but suggested for the first time when application was made to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals to allow the writ of error, that the state court had no jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is exclusive in all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and that this is necessarily such a case, it is sufficient to say that, as the- action as brought and defended was a common law action without any of the ingredients of an admiralty or maritime cause, it was, as such, clearly within the provision of th'e ninth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, as embodied in § 563 of the [Revised Statutes, “ saving to suitors • in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.”

¶14The motion must T)e granted and the writ dismissed, a/nd it is so ordered■

/128/us/132 · .json · Public domain