Court Opinion

ID: 9421465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:58:24.879865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:30.531767
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Burton join,
dissenting.
I agree with the result reached by Judge Hincks in his dissenting opinion below, 232 F. 2d 573, 579, and think that this judgment should be reversed. Since federal limitation jurisdiction was properly invoked, we should not permit it to be aborted by subsequent actions by the claimants with a view to obtaining transfer of the trial of their claims to the state courts. At the time the limitation proceeding was commenced the total claims which had been asserted in the several state court actions far exceeded the value of both the vessels owned by the petitioner, and limitation proceedings were required. *155The steps subsequently taken by the claimants to limit their maximum recovery against the petitioner should no more be allowed to defeat or impair the full effectiveness of the limitation proceeding than would a subsequent reduction in the amount involved be permitted to defeat a diversity jurisdiction which had initially been properly invoked. See St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S. 283.