The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-03-07
THI COURTS.

When IL Is,Hes-h Wi Nof I,sue Amer a Cau,,
/, Discontinned- HdJf ;piiotage Contraets-TA
United State, %. Ogden HOFFMAN, Diarief Judge
Of the United Statss for ths Northern Disrief Of
CahforHia.-The court for the northern district Of
California Of which the respondent is Judge, pro-
ceeded, as q court Of admiralty and maritime ju.
risdiction upon libel there fled upon . claim Of
one Reddish, administrator, against the steamship
Pacific, TO enforce q claim for halfpiotage under
the act Of the Legislature Of the State Of California
passed May 20, 1861, which provides that tall YES
sells, their tackle apparel and furniture, and the
masters and owners thereof, shall be Jointly and
severay liable for pilotage fees to be recovered in
any court Of competent jurisdiction;n and that
when q vessel Is spoken and the services Of a
pilot declined, one half Of the tprescribsd) rates
shall be paid"
The respondent in the case excepted to tho bill,
on the ground that It did not set forth case Of
which the court, as court Of admiralty had juris.
diction. Tho exception was oyerruled and the
cause proceeded and, although there were several
cases Of the same character pending against the
Same owners, the California Steam Navigation
Company, none Of them involved q sum sufficient TO
| authorize an appeal. Motion was therefore made
before this court for writ Of prohibition, com.
mandng the district judge TO desist from further
proceedings and the success Of the motion depends
upon the determination Of the question whether or
not the California statute creates q contract and
| II so. whether II 10 q maritime contract. II Il
shall DO held that the statute creates q maritime
contract, then II Is oil course conceded by the 70.
| spondents that the writ will not issue.
The return TO the rule to show cause In the case
states that after service thereof tho lbollant came
into court and moved for discontnuance Of the suit
upon his payment Of costs, and that after hearing
all the costs Of both parties being paid an order
Diminishing tho suit was made This return brings
up the further question whether the writ will Issue
notwithstanding the discontinuance.
By the Court, Mr.. Justice Miller delivering the
opinion At the last term Of this court tho reator
made application for a writ Of prohibition to the
judge Of the district court for the northern district
Of California, to prevent that court from proceed
ing further In certain cause In admiralty This
court, without looking into tho question Of tho al
legged want OF Jurisdiction, granted rule on the
judge Of that court to show cause why the writ
should not be issued and an order accompanied
the rule that he should proceed no further In tho
case until tho decision Of this court In the prem.
iscs.
The return Of Judge Hoffman to that rule il now
before US. The substance Of II is, that after the
rule had been served upon him. the libelant in the
admiralty suit came into court and moved for per.
mission to pay all tho costs that had accrued and
| to dismiss his suit After hearing argument the
court granted the motion and the libellant having
paid all the costs Of both parties, an order was
made dismissing the suit. Tho relator now asks
that tho writ Of prohibition may Issue, notvith.
standing the RETURN and this presents the question
which we are to decide.
The writ of prohibition, as It's name imports, Is
Ouc Wuiou COmuhnub tuo poIbOn 10 whom u Is Ql-
rected not to do something which, by the sugges.
ton Of the relhtor, the court Is informed he 10
about to do. II the thing be already done II is
manifest tho writ Of prohibition cannot undo H. for
that would require an Affirmative act; and the
only effect Of writ Of prohibition Is to suspend all
action, and to prevent any further proceeding in
the prohibited direction In the case before us the
writ, from Its very nature, could do no more than
forbid the judge Of the District Court from pro.
cecding any further in the case in admiralty.
...l..- 49,. -
sary and will bo wholly useless, for the causS is
not now pending before that court, and there Is no
to suppose that II will be In any manner re-
vived or brought up again for action. The facts
shown by the return negative such q presumption.
Counsel has argued very ingeniously that the
| case should be considered remaining In the court
below, in the position as II was when tho rule
issued from this court; but we cannot so regard IT,
By the action Of the libellant and the consent Of
the court the case Is out Of court and the relator
Is no longer harassed by an attempt to exercise
over him Jurisdiction which he claims to be un-
warranted II the return shows no more II shows
that tho district judge has intention Of proceed
ing further In that case. Now, ought the writ TO
issue to him under such circumstances II would
seem to be offensive and useless exercise of au-
| thority for the court to order It,
| Tho suggestion that there are or may be other
against the relator Of the same character can
have no legal force In this case II they are now
pending and the reator will satisfy the court that
they proper for the exercise Of the cou
authority, 1t would probably issue writs instead of
n rule, but writ in this case could not restrain
the Judge In the other cases by its own force and
could affect his action only so far as he might re-
spect the principle which the court acted In this
case. We arc not prepared to adopt the rule that
we will issue writ in where its issue Is not
justified, for the sole purpose Of establishing prin.
cipe to govern other cases. We have examined
carefully all the referred to by counsel which
show that prohibition may issue after sentence OF
judgment but In all these cases something remained
| which tho court or party TO whom the writ was
directed might do, and probably would have done,
the collection Of costs otherwise enforcing the
sentence. Here, the return shows that nothing |.
left to be done In the case. 1t is altogether gone
out Of the court.
These views are supported by the following cases
In United States VS. Peters, 3 Dallas 12l, which
was application for prohibition to the admiralty
this court suspended its decision to give tho libel
liant an opportunity to dismiss his libel. The cour,
finally issued the writ, but there seems no reason
to doubt from the report of the case that It would
have considered such action by the bellants as ar
answer to the request for the writ.
In the case Of Wall vs. Norwood, Liderfens r.
ia very old case, when writs Of prohibition
were much more common than nova prohibition
was asked to court of the cinquo ports at Dover
| While the case was under consideration the re
porter says "0n the other hand, the court wa
informed that they had proceeded to judgment ant
execution at Dover, and therefore that they NOV,
here too late for prohibition and Of this opinion
was the court, since there is no person to be pro
hibited, and possessions are never taken away o.
disturbed by prohibitions.
The marginal note by the reporter Is this: "PTo
hibition will not lie after the cause Is ended"
Tho rule heretofore granted In this case Is dis
charged.
ReTtdenee' Of hs Judge, Of tie Supreme Court O
the United States.
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase, L street north corn,
Of Sixth street west.
Mr.. Justice Wayne, No. 2 Franklin Place,
street.
Mr.. Justice Nelson, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Grier, No. 8 north A street, Capito
Hill
Mr.. Justice Clifford National Hotel.
Mr. Justice Swayne, Willard's Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Miller, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Davis, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Field Wizards Hotel.
John W. Wallace, reporter, National Hotel.
d. W. Middleton, clerk, No. 66s New jersey
avenue.
David S. GOOding, U. s. Marshal, 4sl E street
CoURT IN EQUITY-Judge Oiin.-M re.
Mary Burch lunatic. Committee appointed to tax,
charge of estate.
Henry D. Goodyear, ct al, VS.. A, o. Daley 10
siah Bacon vs. A. o. Daley Josiah Bacon vs.
Thomas o. Hill Henry b. Goodyear VS.. Thomas o
Hill. Nos. s2S S26, 827, S2S. Order granting
final Injunction This decision makes IL eces.ar,