262 U.S. 274 - Ex parte Davis — 262 U.S. 274

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1951

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

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.

¶1PETITION POR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND/OR MANDAMUS.

¶2Original.

¶31. Where the District Court, after due hearing, overruled objections to its jurisdiction and made an interlocutory order, held, that a mandamus from this Court was not the proper remedy for correct-, ing its action, if erroneous. Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70. P. 275.

¶42. Prohibition will not issue to forbid the District Court from proceeding with a suit, for want of jurisdiction, when it is not clear that jurisdiction is absent, and when there is no imperative reason *275why error, in that regard, should be corrected by prohibition rather than by appeal. Id.

¶5Rule discharged; petition denied.

¶6Petition for mandamus or prohibition to restrain the District Court from entertaining jurisdiction of a suit in admiralty to recover damages from the Director General of Railroads, for a maritime tort.

¶7Mr. T. Catesby Jones, with whom Mr. James W. Ryan, Mr. Evan Shelby and Mr. D. Roger Englar were on the briefs, for petitioner.

¶8Mr. Mark Ash, with whom Mr. Edward Ash was on the briefs, for respondent.

¶9Mr. Justice McReynolds

¶10delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶11The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition or mandamus commanding the judges of the District Court, Southern District of New York, not to take further steps in an admiralty proceeding instituted by the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Company to recover from him for damage inflicted upon its scow by the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company’s steamtug “ Mahanoy ” while under federal control, or in the alternative to direct vacation of an interlocutory order theretofore entered and dismiss the libel. A rule to show cause issued but of this Court and return has been made showing, the relevant facts and circumstances.

¶12The District Court after hearing ruled upon the matters presented for its determination and, under settled doctrine, we can find no occasion for mandamus. Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70.

¶13Involved in the cause are questions touching the liability of the Director General of Railroads as Agent designated by the President under the Transportation Act of 1920 for maritime torts committed by vessels un*276der federal control; his power to enter appearance by counsel without prior service of process; and whether in the same proceeding he may take different and antagonistic positions, first as the agent of one railroad system and then of another.

¶14We cannot say the court below was clearly without jurisdiction to determine all the points presented. Moreover, by appeal in the ordinary way possible errors can be corrected; and there is no imperative reason for awarding a writ of prohibition. Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515; Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495; In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14; In re New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523; Ex parte Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 255 U. S. 273, 275, 280.

¶15The rule to show cause is discharged and the prayer of the petition is denied.

¶16Rule discharged.