Ex Parte Hagar, 104 U.S. 520 (1882). · Go Syfert
Ex Parte Hagar, 104 U.S. 520 (1882). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Heil Co. v. Walter (ca2, 1931-02-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1903 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1903 1964 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Heil Co. v. Walter
2d Cir. · 1931 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stow v. Chicago, 104 U. S. 547 , 26 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Hagar
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 1882.
104 U.S. 520
1881 U.S. LEXIS 2040
The case was argued by Mr. Henry G. Ward and Mr. Richard E. McMurtrie for the petitioner, and by Mr. Edward G. Bradford and Mr. Thomas F. Bayard, contra.
Waite.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
[*521] Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered tbe opinion of the court.'

This is an application by the agent of the master, part-owner, and claimant of-the British ship “ William Law,”- for a writ of prohibition to restrain the District Court-'of the District of Delaware, sitting in admiralty, from -proceeding further in a suit pending in that court against the vessel to recover - the half-pilotage, which is claimed to be due under the statutory regulations of Delaware,' for refusing, to accept the services of a pilot when tendered, outside of Cape Henlopen light-liouse, to conduct the ship to the Delaware breakwater,' where she was bound for orders. It has long been settled that claims -for pilotage fees are within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. Ex parte McNeil, 18 Wall. 236; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108. Such-being the case, under the decision just rendered in Ex parte Gordon (supra, p. 515), the District Court can properly hear and decide the matters in dispute, and the application for the writ is accordingly

Benied.