The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-09
DAMAGES THAT MAY FAIL.
Question of Jurisdiction Settled
in the Sampson
Cases.
The Prospect of the Baker and Doolan
Litigants Is Not Very
Encouraging.

There is not much prospect of a large
amount of pecuniary realization to be
looked forward to by the claimants IN
the schooner Sampson damage cases now
in the Admiralty court.
When the ocean steamer the City of New
York was wrecked off Point Bonita in the
winter of 1884 the Sampson was engaged
IN the work OF unloading the Inflated YES
sci. AS though fate itself were against
q nything connected with the big ship, the
little Sampson was blown ashore and
wrecked on January 5, 1894, and to add
still more misfortune the lives of George
Baker and James Doolan, seamen, were
lost. The Sampson also caught fire.
Suits were subsequently brought in the
Superior Court by Lottie Baker, admins
tratrix for George Baker, and Mary Krone
and others, heirs of James Doolan. The
actions were for $4,000 each.
Then restraining order was obtained
from the Admiralty Court-the Federal
tribunal that has Notwithstanding
short the proceedings in the State court;
and before the same tribunal petition
was made under the act of 1851 (section
1882 of the United States Revised Statutes)
to limit the liability of Thomas P. H.
the value OF the schooner and nothing
over.
The schooner has been appraised at
about $500 gross and $500 net. United
States District Judge Morrow granted the
petition Yesterday, overruling the de-
murrer entered by the attorneys for the
Whitelaws and denying their motion to
dissolve the injunction.
Judge Morrow. in his opinion, goes
thoroughly into the question of the juris-
diction of the Federal and State courts re-
spectiyely. "The only real question pre-
sented by the demurrer and motion to dis
solve he explained, lis whether this
court Admiralty having original and ex-
elusive jurisdiction OF limitation of liability
proceedings can enjoin the suits in the
State court"
In support of their motion counsel for
the Whitelaws cited section 720 of The Re-
vised Statutes, which reads: "The writ OF
injunction shall not be granted by any
court of the United States to stay proceed
ings in a court of a State except in cases
where such injunction may be authorized
by any law relating to any proceeding in
bankruptcy" The court showed that the
original act of March 2, 1898, from which
this section evolved, did not include the
exception relating to bankruptcy proceed
ings, and he also demonstrates that even
in its present form section 100 is inappH-
cable. A decision of United States Dis
trict Judge Choate of New York is copied
from as settling the entire question of jur-
isdiction, as follows:
The popularity OF this case is that the suit
stayed IS one in which by the express terms of
an act of Congress the State court is absolutely
without jurisdiction to proceed. There are not,
therefore, the same reasons of public policy in
this case as in the cases more particularly pro-
vided for in section 720 for prohibiting the
issue OF the injunction or restraining order.
1t does not interfere with any exercise of
jurisdiction which could otherwise be claimed
by the State court, and is not likely to lead TO
unseemly conflicts between the Federal and
State tribunals, to prevent which is under
stood to have been the original purpose OF this
prohibitory legislation. So positive is the Ian
guage OF section 42S5 that it may be doubted
whether, after the transfer therein provided
for, the state court could make any order what
ever III the cause, even one restraining the
plaintiff from its further prosecution.
On the whole, therefore, constituting the two
restrain, by its order pending the suit, parties
who have commenced actions in the State
court from further proceedings therein.
The suggestion that the court which first OBJ
tains jurisdiction in q matter has the right to
go on and determine the cause has no force in
a case where by q valid statute, a court subse-
quently obtaining jurisdiction is vested with
exclusive jurisdiction.
Judge Choate's decision was given in the
Long Island, ETC., Transportation Compa
ny's case g. Federal Reporter, 599). The
action of Judge Morrow limits the liability
of the Whitelaws to the mere value of the
schooner.