Sunday, May 18, 2014

The Moses Taylor case brief summary

 The Moses Taylor (1866)
  • P contracted with owner of steamship as steerage passenger
  • When he arrived in San Fran. He brought suit for bad food and bad conditions.
  • California statute allowed for P to bring ship in rem
  • If the action fell within the savings clause, then the state court could have heard the action but since they held that it didn’t fall under savings clause (common law remedy)
  • In admiralty actions you can go against the personal owner of the vessel in personam but you can also go against the vessel itself as the Δ in the action and treat the vessel as the Δ and if you are successful on the merits, have the vessel seized and sold to satisfy the judgment in your favor
  • Look at federal admiralty courts, you didn’t get a jury
  • Remedy available in common court was a common remedy in 1789
  • Broken down into in personam and in remin personam is not as radical
  • In personam could be brought in state court of common law in 1789; in rem admiralty action could not, it had to be brought in a state admiralty court in 1789
  • Common law could not entertain on an in rem action
  • Saving the suitors clause is in personam actions, concurrent jurisdictions and in rem is federal admiralty
In 1860’s during the Civil War the Supreme Court decides to gives something back to the states to make up for Genesee Chief – gives back concurrent jurisdiction to all in personam suits and keep exclusively the in rem suits

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...