This Court will refuse an application for injunction to stay
proceedings begun in a state court before the filing of a libel to
obtain the benefit of the Limited Liability Act, Rev.Stat. §§
4283-4285, when it appears that both courts below decided against
the petitioner's right to the benefit of the act, and that no cause
for granting the petition is shown except the expense consequent
upon trials in the state court pending the appeal.
The steam yacht
Mamie, engaged in carrying passengers
on the Detroit River, came into collision with another steamer and
sank, by reason of which several passengers were drowned. Their
administrator commenced suits in the state court to recover damages
from the owners of the yacht. The owners then commenced proceedings
in admiralty in the District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, to obtain the benefit of the limited liability act. The
district court dismissed the libel
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Without deciding whether an injunction may be granted under any
circumstances by this Court to stay proceedings in the state courts
during the pendency of an appeal in a suit brought by the owners of
a vessel to obtain the benefit of the limitation of liability,
provided for by §§ 4283, 4284, 4285, and 4286 of the Revised
Statutes, we are all of the opinion that this motion should be
denied. Both of the courts below have decided that the vessel owned
by the appellants did not come within the purview of the statute,
and consequently that the relief asked for should not be granted.
If the suits in the state courts go on, and judgments are rendered
against the appellants, there is a way in which decisions
overruling defenses set up under the statute may be brought here
for review, and the errors, if any, corrected.
In view of these facts we are not inclined to use the
extraordinary writ of injunction to stay proceedings in suits begun
in the state courts before the appellants filed their libel in the
district court, simply because of the expense that will be
consequent upon trials pending the appeal. If we have the power it
should not be used in a doubtful case, and after two judgments
below denying the relief, unless the reasons are imperative.
Writ refused.