1. Where the district court, after due hearing, overruled
objections to its jurisdiction and made an interlocutory order,
held that a mandamus from this Court was not the proper
remedy for correcting its action, if erroneous.
Ex parte
Roe, 234 U. S. 70. P.
262 U. S.
275.
2. Prohibition will not issue to forbid the district court from
proceeding with a suit, for want of jurisdiction, when it is not
clear that jurisdiction is absent, and when there is no imperative
reason
Page 262 U. S. 275
why error in that regard should be corrected by prohibition
rather than by appeal.
Id.
Rule discharged; petition denied.
Petition for mandamus or prohibition to restrain the district
court from entertaining jurisdiction of a suit in admiralty to
recover damages from the Director General of Railroads for a
maritime tort.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition or mandamus
commanding the judges of the District Court, Southern District of
New York, not to take further steps in an admiralty proceeding
instituted by the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Company to
recover from him for damage inflicted upon its scow by the Lehigh
Valley Railroad Company's steam tug
Mahanoy while under
federal control, or, in the alternative, to direct vacation of an
interlocutory order theretofore entered and dismiss the libel. A
rule to show cause issued out of this Court and return has been
made showing the relevant facts and circumstances.
The district court, after hearing, ruled upon the matters
presented for its determination, and, under settled doctrine, we
can find no occasion for mandamus.
Ex parte Roe,
234 U. S. 70.
Involved in the cause are questions touching the liability of
the Director General of Railroads, as Agent designated by the
President under the Transportation Act of 1920, for maritime torts
committed by vessels under
Page 262 U. S. 276
federal control, his power to enter appearance by counsel
without prior service of process, and whether, in the same
proceeding, he may take different and antagonistic positions, first
as the agent of one railroad system and then of another.
We cannot say the court below was clearly without jurisdiction
to determine all the points presented. Moreover, by appeal in the
ordinary way, possible errors can be corrected, and there is no
imperative reason for awarding a writ of prohibition.
Ex parte
Gordon, 104 U. S. 515;
Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174;
In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472,
143 U. S. 495;
In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14;
In re New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co.,
155 U. S. 523;
Ex parte Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 255 U.
S. 273,
255 U. S. 275,
255 U. S. 280.
The rule to show cause is discharged, and the prayer of the
petition is denied.
