Citation network
Waring Vs. Clarke
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1847
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 441 (1847) U.S. Supreme Court Waring v. ClarkeSearch
-
U.S. 5 How. 441 441 (1847) Waring v. ClarkeSearch
-
this Honorable Court, of Thomas Clarke, late master of Steamer Luda, for himself and others, owners of said Steamer v. SteamerSearch
-
same positions have been taken again by Mr. Ames and Mr. Whipple in the case of New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants'Search
-
in the controversy upon admiralty jurisdiction in England, without assenting to Mr. Justice Buller's remarks, in Smart v. WolfSearch
-
one case, and the revival of the other, for which the admiralty always contended, we will cite the case of Menetone v. GibbonsSearch
-
in the other. We do not consider it an open question, but res adjudicata by this Court. In Peyroux v. HowardSearch
-
a maritime service and to be performed on the sea or on tidewater. In the case of The Steamboat Orleans v. PhoebusSearch
-
In United States v. CoombsSearch
-
Chamberlain v. ChandlerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
partisans. Among the cases in point as to this, both long before and since our Revolution, one of them, Velthasen v. OrmsleySearch
-
T.R. 315, happened in A.D., 1789, the very year the Constitution was adopted. See also Violet v. BlagueSearch
-
Bemis v. JanusSearch
-
stand prominent, and their views seem today adopted by a portion of this Court. See the argument in De Lovio v. BoitSearch
-
Judge Washington held, it is said, we must go to the general maritime law of the world, and not to England alone. Dain v. SloopSearch
-
Judge Washington in several instances took it for his guide, and commended it as the legal guide. In the United States v. GillSearch
-
and in Gaines v. RelfSearch
-
See also Vattier v. HindeSearch
-
justified in doing it without a statute, because not done in England. 32 U. S. 7 Pet. 324. And in Hobart v. DroganSearch
-
This Court so decided in Robinson v. CampbellSearch
-
and not by judicial construction, and they can rightfully have no force here till so made. United States v. PaulSearch
-
laws of the land. Page 46 U. S. 478 Beside the forms of some of these commissions, referred to in De Lovio v. BoitSearch
-
the instance side of the court, till a recent change, so as to preserve uniformity in the colonies and at home. Bains v. JamesSearch
-
See also to this effect Montgomery v. HenrySearch
-
before the Revolution in respect to the law concerning the locality of torts. The very first case of Quitteville v. WoodburySearch
-
conversion of a vessel and cargo, July 30, 1742, tried before George Cradock, deputy judge in admiralty, Farrington v. DennisSearch
-
But the most decisive of all is a case in A.D., 1780, in the High court of Appeals in Pennsylvania, Montgomery v. HenrySearch
-
United States v. BetseySearch
-
appear to maintain a contrary doctrine. They are sometimes mere dicta, as the leading case of De Lovio v. BoitSearch
-
having been a case of a contract and not a tort, or as in 1 Mason 96, that having occurred on the high seas. So Thomas v. LaneSearch
-
Mason 380. Or they are cases cited, such as Montgomery v. HenrySearch
-
Wheelan v. UnitedSearch
-
tort, they uniformly appear to have been committed on the high seas or without the body of a county and state. Burke v. TrevittSearch
-
Thomas v. LaneSearch
-
Plummer v. WebbSearch
-
Steele v. ThatcherSearch
-
there may well be jurisdiction, as being not within the body of any county here. Page 46 U. S. 487 Thomas v. LaneSearch
-
but only as offenses defined and punished by acts of Congress under the power to regulate commerce. United States v. CoombsSearch
-
tidewaters of the Savannah River are within the jurisdiction of the admiralty as to collisions between boats. Bullock v. SteamboatSearch
-
Baldw. 550-554. So in Adams v. HaffardsSearch
-
Pick. 130. See also the colonial case before cited from 1 U. S. 1 Dall. 53, Montgomery v. HenrySearch
-
of the correctness of this limitation to matters on the ocean than the remarks of Chief Justice Jay, in Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
law and admiralty power, and being obliged to make such an allegation in England in order to gain jurisdiction. Ross v. WalkerSearch
-
Ramsey v. AlleyneSearch
-
Wheat. 638. So decided virtually in Montgomery v. HenrySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial