Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1

Citations

• 256 U.S. 490
• 41 S. Ct. 588
• 65 L. Ed. 1057
• 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1579

Syllabus

<p>1. The power to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent a District Court from exceeding its jurisdiction in admiralty is conferred upon this court by Jud. Code, § 234,' and may be exercised in a clear case even where an ultimate remedy exists by appeal. Pp. 496, 503.</p> <p>2. Under the Eleventh Amendment, an admiralty suit in personam can not be brought against a State, without its consent, by an individual,'whether a citizen of the State or not. P. 497.</p> <p>3. Whether a suit in admiralty is a suit against a State is determined, not by the names of the titular parties, but by the essential nature and effect of the proceeding as it appears from the entire record. P. 500. '</p> <p>4. In suits in rem against privately owned steam tugs for injuries inflicted on libelants’ barges, the tug-owners, appearing as claimants, sought to implead the Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York, alleging that the damages complained of were occasioned while the tugs were under charter to -him officially and under his operation, control and management, pursuant to the state law, and praying that as such official he be cited into the suits to answer for the damages and, if . not found, that the goods and chattels of the State used and controlled by him be attached. Monitions, issued accordingly, were served on him in the district. Held, that these proceedings against the Superintendent were in personam, and, considering his functions under the state laws and the ultimate incidence of the relief sought, were essentially proceedings against-the State, beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court, in admiralty. P. 501. Workman v. New York City, 179 TJ. S. 552, distinguished.</p> <p>Rule absolute for a writ of prohibition.</p>