Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1 - 256 U.S. 490 (1921)
U.S. Supreme Court
Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1, 256 U.S. 490 (1921)
Ex Parte State of New York, No. 1
No. 25, Original
Argued December 13, 14, 1920
Decided June 1, 1921
256 U.S. 490
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. 256 U. S. 496, 256 U. S. 503.
2. Under the Eleventh Amendment, an admiralty suit in personam cannot be brought against a state, without its consent, by an individual, whether a citizen of the state or not. P. 256 U. S. 497.
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. 256 U. S. 500.
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 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. 256 U. S. 501. Workman v. New York City, 179 U. S. 552, distinguished.
Rule absolute for a writ of prohibition.
Prohibition to restrain proceedings in admiralty in the district court. The case is stated in the opinion, post, 256 U. S. 494.