Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

The Robert W. Parsons

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Oct 26, 1903

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

62 entries 6 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. The Hine Vs. Trevor US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1866
  2. Roach Vs. Chapman US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1859
  3. Edwards Vs. Elliott US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
  4. League Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1902
  5. Fretz Vs. Bull US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1851
  6. Arndt Vs. Griggs US Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1890
  7. Johnson v. Chicago
    Search
  8. Bird v. The
    Search
  9. Brookman v. Hamill
    Search
  10. Poole v. Kermit
    Search
  11. Sheppard v. Steele
    Search
  12. any display of the abundant learning which, ten years before, had characterized his celebrated opinion in De Lovio v. Boit
    Search
  13. and back again to Page 191 U. S. 26 the same port. It was, however, flatly overruled in The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh
    Search
  14. Great Lakes, but the rule was subsequently extended to cases arising upon the rivers above the tidal effect. Fretz v. Bull
    Search
  15. was interrupted by rapids and falls over which portages were required to be made, and to Chicago River in Escanaba Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  16. U. S. 678 . See also Miller v. New
    Search
  17. a collision upon that canal although it was wholly within British territory. While this was, with one exception, Scott v. Young
    Search
  18. Malony v. The
    Search
  19. dock, the floating wharf, the ferry bridge hinged or chained to a wharf, the sailors' Bethel moored to a wharf, Cope v. Valette
    Search
  20. though not a dumb barge, propelled by oars only, Everard v. Kendall
    Search
  21. Endner v. Greco
    Search
  22. service or of admiralty jurisdiction, because it is not used for the purpose of navigation. That was settled in Cope v. Vallette
    Search
  23. The Commerce, 1 Black 574, and Lord v. Steamship
    Search
  24. may be attached as the property of the defendant in the case. But, as remarked by Mr. Justice Miller in The Hine v. Trevor
    Search
  25. proceeding authorized by the New York statute in question was held to be in the nature of a suit in admiralty in Bird v. The
    Search
  26. Josephine, 39 N.Y.19, and Brookman v. Hamill
    Search
  27. for building a ship or supplying materials for her construction is not a maritime contract. People's Ferry Co. v. Beers
    Search
  28. So, in Sheppard v. Steele
    Search
  29. the land, and it is to be performed on the land. The admiralty courts have no jurisdiction for its enforcement. Foster v. The
    Search
  30. a dry dock is to be considered as land in the maritime law seems to be clear from the decision of this Court in Cope v. Vallette
    Search
  31. to and as much a part of the land as a bridge or a wharf. In this connection, reference may be had to Bradley v. Bolles
    Search
  32. that contracts of that description do not constitute a lien upon vessels which can be enforced in admiralty. In Boon v. The
    Search
  33. civil debt by attachment against the property of the defendant. In this connection, reference may be had to The Hine v. Trevor
    Search
  34. full control over the practice and procedure to be pursued in its courts has been often adjudged. Thus, in Missouri v. Lewis
    Search
  35. So MR. JUSTICE WHITE, speaking for the Court in Iowa Central Railway Company v. Iowa
    Search
  36. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago
    Search
  37. Backus v. Fort
    Search
  38. Brown v. New
    Search
  39. and sell it in satisfaction thereof, I insist that the state courts may entertain jurisdiction. It was held in Arndt v. Griggs
    Search
  40. Congress may, if it see fit, change entirely that procedure. As said by Chief Justice Taney in The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh
    Search
  41. a state. I recognize the fact that this Court has decided in a series of cases, commencing with The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh
    Search
  42. So also, in Edwards v. Elliott
    Search
  43. In the opinion of Chief Justice Taney in The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh
    Search
  44. Clearly, as shown by the quotation from Chief Justice Taney's opinion in The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh
    Search
  45. in order that the admiralty jurisdiction may be fully exercised, it was held, and rightfully, in The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh
    Search
  46. De Lovio v. Boit
    Search
  47. The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh
    Search
  48. Escanaba Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  49. Miller v. New
    Search
  50. Scott v. Young
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial