Ex Parte Pennsylvania

Supreme Court of the United States
Ex Parte Pennsylvania, 109 U.S. 174 (1883)
3 S. Ct. 84; 27 L. Ed. 894; 1883 U.S. LEXIS 951

Ex Parte Pennsylvania

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion, of the court.

We are unable to distinguish this case in principle from Ex parte Hagar, 104 U. S. 520, where it was held "on the authority of Ex pante Gordon, id. 515, that as the admiralty court had-jurisdiction of the vessel sued, and the subject-matter of the suit, it could not be restrained by a-writ of prohibition from deciding all questions properly arising in that suit.' This, like that, is a suit for pilotage fees, and the question is, whether *176 a statute of Delaware, under which, the fees are claimed, is valiá. If valid' in Delaware it is in Pennsylvania, and. the court sitting in Pennsylvania is as cdmpetent to decide that question in a suit of which it has jurisdiction,. as a court in Delaware. The jurisdiction of "the court in Pennsylvania is no more dependent oh the validity of the law than was that of the court in Delaware. The1 subject-matter of the suit is a claim of a Delaware pilot for his pilotage fees under a Delaware statute, and the sole question in the case is, whether the fees are recoverable. The vessel when seized was confessedly within the jurisdiction of the court in Pennsylvania, and she was properly brought into court to answer thé claim which was made upon her. About that there is no dispute, as there was at the last term in Devoe Manufacturing Company, 108. U. S., where the question was as to the right of the court in New Jersey to send its process to the place where the seizure Was made. There the question was as to the jurisdiction of the court' oyer a particular place; here as to the liability of a vessel confessedly seized within the territorial jurisdiction of the court upon a claim subject tq judicial determination in an admiralty proceeding. The evident purpose of this application is to correct a supposed error in a judgment of an admiralty court on the merits of an action. That cannot be done by prohibition. The remedy, if any, is by appeal. If an appeal will not lie, then the parties are concluded by what has been done. Congress alone has the power • to. determine whether the judgment, of a court of the United States, of competent jurisdiction, shall be reviewed or not. If it fails to provide for such a review, the judgment stands as the judgment of the court of last resort, and settle? finally the rights of the parties which are involved.

The petition is dismissed.

Reference

Cited By
15 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Appeal — Jurisdiction—Practice— Writ of Prohibition. 1. The District Court of the IT. S. for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over the claim of a pilot appointed under the laws of Delaware for fees when the vessel is seized within the jurisdiction of the court, and properly brought before it. 2. Where the evident purpose of an application for a writ of prohibition is 'the correction of a supposed error in a judgment on the merits, the court will nqt grant the writ.