The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-03-07
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Opinions or the Present Term-Prohibitions-
When and for What Purpose they will
Issue-They will not Issue afters the Discon-
tinuance Of n Suit-Half Pilotnge Laws.
The United Stats us Ogden HoGman, District Judge 81
United States for tie Northern District Of California The
Court for the Northern District OF California Of which
the respondent is judge proceeded court OF ad-
miraty and maritime Jurisdiction, upon libel there filed
upon . claim OF Reddish administrator, against
the steamship Pacific to enforce claim for half pilot
age under the act Of tho Legislature Of the State OF
California passed May 90 1861 which provides that all
vessels their tackle apparel and furniture, and the
masters aud thereof shall be jointly and sever
ally liable for piotage fees, to be recovered in
any court of competent jurisdiction" and that
'swhen vessel Is spoken and the services
OF a pilot declined half OF the pre-
scrjbed rates shall be paid The respondent in the
excepted to the bill on the ground that 1t did not
forth OF which the court MS Court of Admi
rally had jurisdiction. The exception was overrued,
and the proceeded: and although there
era of the same character pending against the
same ovners-tbe California Steam Navigation Compa-
nynone o. them involved sum sufficient to authorize
an appeal Motion therefore made before this Court
for a writ OF prohibition commanding The District Judge
To dess from further proceedings and the success OF
the motion depends upon the determination OF the ques
ton whether not the California statute creates con-
tract and II SO, whether it is maritime contract II it
should be held that the statute creates maritime con-
tract then IL rs OF conceded by the respondents
that the writ will not issue. The return to the
rule TO show cause ID tue case states tnaL
after service thereof the libclIant came INTO court
and moved for dsconnuance OF the suit upon his pay
ment of costs and that after hearing all the costs Of
both parties being paid order dsmissng tho sun was
made. This return brings up the further question
whether the writ will ISSUE notwithstanding the dscon
tinuance
By the Court-Mr Justice Miller delivering the
opinlon-At last term Of this court the relaor made
application for writ OF prohibition TO the Judac Of the
District for the Northern District OF California to
prevent that from proceeding further in certain
cause Of admiralty. This Court, without looking into
~ s.ls1tfzn
rule the judre Of that court to show cause why the
writ should not be issued and order accompanied
until the decision Of this court in the premises The
turn Of Judge Hoffman to the rule Is now before U.s.
The substance Of II Is that after the rule had been
served upon him. the ibellant in the admiralty suit came
into and moved for PERMISSION TO all the costs
that had accrued and to dismiss his suit After hear
ing argument the Court granted the motion, and the
hbcllant having paid all the costs OF both parties
order made dlsmissing the suit Tho reator now
asks that the writ of prohibition may notwth-
standing the return, and this presents the question
which to decide The writ OF prohibition as us
name imports is one which commands tho person TO
whom is directed not do something which, by the
suggestion Of the reator the Court is informed he
about to do the thing be already DONE is manifest
the writ OF prohibition cannot undo IT. FOR that would
require an affirmative act and the only effect OF writ
of prohibition to suspend all action. and TO Prev Mt
any further proceeding ~ me prosIo.ea asecon ~
do than forbid the Judge OF the District Court
from proceeding any further in the case in admiralty
The return shows that such order unnecessary and
will he wholly useless for he cause Is not now pend
ing before tina. court, and there is no reason
to suppose that il win be in any manner
revived or brought up agaio for action The facts shown
by return negativesuch presumption. Counsel has
argued inRenously that tho case should be con-
sidered rs remaining in the court below. In the samc
poeton il was when the rule issued from this court;
but cannot SO regard IT, BY the action OF the bcl-
the OF the court the case s out OF court
and rclator longer harassed by attempt TO
exercise over him jurisdiction which he claims to be
unwaran,ea II The return shows no more snows
fur her In that case. Now onght the writ 10 ISSUE 10
him under such circumstances 1t would to lie
offensive and useless exercise Of authority for the court
order It. The suggestion that there are or may be
other against the caor OF the character
legal force in this II they pend
ing and the rclator will satisfy the Court thvt thew
proper for the cxercee Of the Courts authority, IL
would probably issue writs inst ad OF n rne but writ
in this could restrain tho Judge in the other
by it's force and could affect his action only so
far ne might respect the principle on which the Court
acted in this We not prepared 10 adopt the rule
that will issuc writ In case where It's issue IS
not justified for the sole purpose OF establishing
a principle 10 govern other cases We have examined
carefully all the referred by counsel which show
that prohibition may issue after sentence Judgment;
but in all these cases something remained which tho
party TO whom the writ was directed might do
probably would have DONE tho collection of
otherwise enforcing the sentence Here the return
shows that nothing is left to be done in the II Is
altogether gone out Of the colrt These views
ported by the following In United States
Peters Dallas, l2l which application for pro-
hibon the Admiralty this court suspended It's de-
csion to give the lbelant opportunity to dismiss his
lb, The finally issued the writ but there seems
to doubt from the report OF the that IL
would have considered srcn action by tho belians as
to the request for the writ In the case Of
Hall VS.. Norwood, Sidcricns r., 12. old case.
when writs Of prohibition were much more common
than now, a prohibition was asked 10 court uf the
Cirque Ports at Dover While the under con-
sideraon the reporter says-'On the other hand the
court informed that they had proceeded TO iudg
ment aud execution ut Dover and therefore that they
here too late for prohibition. aud OF tins opinion
the court since there no person TO he prohibited
and possessions never taken away disturbed by
prohibitions The marginal note by The reporter this
t.ProlibiOn will lie after the IL cufcd y
The rule heretofore granted in this is discharged