The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-07
INDIANA ADMIRALTY CASE
JUDGE JOHN III. BAKER REVERSED
BY COURT OF
An interesting Review of a Case from
Clark County-WiH of Mrs. Moses
-COur Cases.

The United States Circuit Court of APP
peals at Chicago yesterday reversed the
United States District Court of Indiana in
the cause Of James T. Duffy and others
against John o. Gleason, Lawcent A. Doug
lass and Harry W. Phipps. All the parties
reside at Jacksonville and New Albany.
The case is the first one from Judge John
II. Bakers court TO come before the Court
of Appeals for decision since Judge Francis
E. Baker became one of the judges Of that
court. As the opinion of the Court of APP
peals was unanimous it has been suggested
that the son is going TO make his father
toe the law. The case has many interest
ing and novel features. Gleason, VINO was
mate of the vessel Transit, had his leg
broken in a collision with the vessel Aid.
He sued Duffy and Hoffman, owners of the
Aid, and got judgment in the Clark Circuit
Court of Indiana for several thousand dol
lars. on a charge of negligence. The judg-
ment was appealed by the defendants TO
the Appellate Court OF Indiana, where it
was affirmed.
The plaintiff set about to collect his judg-
ment, when the defendants went into the
United States District Court, sitting as a
court of admiralty, and asked Judge Baker
TO limit the liability Of the defendants upon
the judgment to the value of their vessel
and her cargo at the time of the injury.
The basis for their contention was an act
Of Congress of 1851, which, following the
custom of all maritime nations, limits the
liability of vessel owners in all courts of
admiralty when sued upon a maritime
cause of action to the value of the vessel
and her OarCO at the fipna of fha ip},ru
This rule, quite out Of the ordinary range of
laws pertaining to negligence cases, is said
TO be of the greatest antiquity in courts of
admiralty. By its application there can
never be a recovery of damages for loss of
life at sea when the ship goes down. The
law was adopted 10 stimulate the shipping
industry, men Of wealth being unwilling to
risk their fortunes to the masters of their
vessels, who might in their journeying
round the world commit all sorts of mis-
chief, for which the ship owner might be
required to respond in damages for a sum
far in excess of his interest in the craft.
Judge John H. Baker sustained the petit
ton for a limitation of liability and a mont
ton was issued enjoining Gleason and his
attorneys. who were his co-defendants,
from collecting the common law Judgment
rendered in the State court. Judge Baker
then ordered the vessel appraised and it
was found TO be worth 5000, and that sum
was paid by the vessel owners to Noble G.
Butler, clerk of the United States Court,
for the use Of Gleason.
AN FILED
The latter. however. refused to accept
and appealed. He said the District Court
erred in three particulars, as follows:
F1rst-The District Court for Indiana
could have no admiralty Jurisdiction over
the Ohio river, because both banks of that
stream were wholly within the State of
Kentucky.
~Second-The claim against which the
limitation was sought was no longer a
maritime cause of action. Its identity as a
maritime cause of action had become lost
when it was merged in a common-law judg-
ment by the Clark Circuit Court.
~Third-The judgment of the Clark Circuit
Court was entitled TO full faith and credit
under the Constitution of the United States,
and no incident Of that Judgment acquired
judgment was rendered could be Invested
by any tribunal of another and different
sovereignty and Jurisdiction.
Strange as Ii may seem, the latter propo-
sition had never been brought to the atten-
ton of the admiralty courts prior TO its
presentation in the Court OF Appeals in this
suit, though there were many analogies to
be found in the reported decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States. 1t is
said that at the oral argument of this suit
in the Court of Appeals Judge Jenkins in
~terrupted w. V. Rocker. CT. Mason's attor-
ney. with a question which the Judge pref
aced with the remark that he was seeking
information. because, as he remembered his
own record. he had twice. while sitting as
a district judge, committed the same error
that Judge Baker appeared to nave com
mitted in this one instance.
Il want TO be included in that statement
of Judge Jenkins, but only once" added
Judge .Grosscup.
The mandate Of the Court of Appeals will
not reach here for several days. but Mr..
Rocker said last evening that he assumed
the judgment had been reversed on the
third point. After we came back from
the oral argument" he said, II had a chat
with Judge John II. Baker about the case
and told him OF the points upon which /
relied to reverse him. 1t occurred to me
then from the Judges m that If
the case had been presented to him as il
was to the Court of Appeals Mason would
have won below. But the case was one
which grew on counsel, and as the ruling is
one of first impression / feel not only very
happy over it, but am satisfied that no
person connected with the case in any Of its
stages is in the slightest degree at fault or
censurable. One of my pleasant r~ecollec-
tions shall ever be the eloquent and able
arguments made both before Judge John
H. Baker and the Court of Appeals by Mr..
Frank b. Burke, of this city, and Col. c. L.
Jewett, of New Albany, who were my adj
versarieS."