Case: Schoonmaker v. Gilmore
Abbreviation: Schoonmaker v. Gilmore
Decision Date: 1880-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 102 U.S. 118
Volume: 102
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Schoonmaker v. Gilmore.
Judges: 
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
Schoonmaker v. Gilmore.
The courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of'collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River..'
Motion to dismiss a writ of. error to the Supreme Court of .the State, of Pennsylvania, to which is united. a motion to affirm.
This was an action on the case, brought in the Court of Common Pleas of ■ Allegheny ■ County, Pennsylvania, by Gilmore against Schoonmaker &' Brown, owners of' the steam-tug “ Jos. Bigley.” The declaration avers in substance that, by reason of the negligence of the defendants, the- tug, when descending the Ohio River, a few miles below Pittsburgh, collided" with and damaged certain barges belonging to the plaintiff. -
The point was made by the defendants, that the courts of the United States have exclusive .jurisdiction in cases ,of collision on navigable waters^
There was a judgment for the plaintiff, on' the. affirmance of which by the Supreme Court the defendants sued out this writ.
Mr. Alexander M. Watson in support of the motions
Mr. Sill Burgwin, contra.

Opinion:
Mb. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of . the court.
The single question in this case is, whether the courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River. This is .a Federal-question, and gives us jurisdiction; but we cannot consider it as any longer open to argument, as it -was decided substantially in The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The Hine v. Trevor, id. 555; The Belfast, 7 id. 624; Leon v. Galceran, 11 id. 185; and Steamboat Company v. Chase, 16 id. 522. The Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73, sect. 9), reproduced in sect. 563, Rev. Stat., par. 8, which confers admiralty jurisdiction on the courts of the United States, expressly saves to suitors, in all cases, the' right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. That there always has been a remedy at common law for damages by collision at sea cannot be denied.
The motion to dismiss is overruled, and that to affirm granted.
Judgment affirmed:
Note. — Brown v. Davidson, error to the Supreme Court of the State of Penn, syb ania, involved the same question as the preceding case. It was submitted by the same counsel and determined in the same manner.