Schoonmaker v. Gilmore
102 U.S. 118 · 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2006 · 26 L. Ed. 95
November 18, 1880 · Docket 878
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The statute confers admiralty jurisdiction on federal courts but includes a saving clause preserving the right to sue under common law if such law can provide relief.
- Headnote 2
The court may entertain a common‑law tort claim for collision damages despite the presence of an admiralty question, because the statutory saving clause applies.
- Headnote 3
The Court applies a single‑factor test derived from the Judiciary Act: if the common law can afford relief, the suit proceeds in in‑personam form.
- Headnote 4
The Court cites a line of cases establishing that a common‑law remedy for collision damages existed long before this decision, satisfying the competency test.
- Headnote 5
Because the common law provides a remedy for collision damages, dismissal on the basis of exclusive admiralty jurisdiction was improper.
- Headnote 6
Having held that the common‑law claim may proceed, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
- Headnote 7
This statutory saving clause limits the doctrine of exclusive admiralty jurisdiction by allowing a federal court to hear an in‑personam claim under the common law when that body of law can provide relief, even though the case also raises an admiralty question.
- Headnote 8
The Court uses a single‑factor competency test: if the common law can furnish a cause of action, the federal court must allow the claim despite the presence of an admiralty component.
- Headnote 9
Historical authority confirms that collision‑damage actions are cognizable at common law, satisfying the competency test and invoking the statutory saving clause.
- Headnote 10
Because the statutory saving clause and the historical availability of a common‑law collision remedy apply, the proper procedural outcome is to allow the claim to proceed rather than grant a motion to dismiss.
- Headnote 11
In a collision case on the Ohio River, the statutory saving clause means the federal court may entertain an in‑personam tort claim for damages even though the case also raises an admiralty question.
- Headnote 12
This single‑factor test determines whether a federal court sitting in admiralty must hear the case under admiralty jurisdiction or may allow a parallel common‑law action.
- Headnote 13
The Court relied on earlier decisions such as The Moses Taylor and others to confirm that common‑law collision damages are available, triggering the statutory saving provision.
- Headnote 14
The motion to dismiss was overruled because the statutory saving clause and the competency of common law to award damages preclude dismissal based on a claim of exclusive admiralty jurisdiction.
- Headnote 15
In Schoonmaker v. Gilmore the Court held that the statutory saving clause applies to an in‑personam collision claim because the common law can provide damages, so the admiralty court may entertain the common‑law tort action.
- Headnote 16
The decision applied a single‑factor competency test: because common‑law damage recovery for vessel collisions is available, the statutory saving displaced exclusive admiralty jurisdiction.
- Headnote 17
The Court cited these precedents to demonstrate that collision‑damage actions are cognizable at common law, satisfying the competency test and triggering the statutory saving clause.
- Headnote 18
The Supreme Court overruled the district court’s motion to dismiss and affirmed judgment, allowing the plaintiff’s common‑law tort claim for collision damages to proceed.
Opinion
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.