Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia Ex Rel. Soc. for Relief of Distressed Pilots
Supreme Court of the United States
These two cases were brought up from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by writs of error; issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. They both depended upon the same principle, were argued alid decided together, and will be treated as one. The only difference between them was, that the pilotage was demanded from two different vessels, the Undine and the Consul. .. Cooley was the consignee of both vessels.
Read the full summary
These two cases were brought up from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by writs of error; issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. They both depended upon the same principle, were argued alid decided together, and will be treated as one. The only difference between them was, that the pilotage was demanded from two different vessels, the Undine and the Consul. .. Cooley was the consignee of both vessels. The twenty-ninth section of the act passed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania on the 2d of March, 1803, is set forth at length in the opinion of the court and need not be…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr, Justice CURTIS
delivered the opinion of the court.
These cases are brought here by writs of error to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
They are actions to recover half-pilotage fees under the 29th section of the act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, passed on the second day of March, 1803. The plaintiff in error alleges that the highest court of the State has decided against a right claimed by him under the Constitution -of the United States. That right is to be exempted from the payment of the sums of money demanded, pursuant to the State law above referred to,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Martin v. Hunter's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- Houston v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- WILLSON AND OTHERS v. the Black Bird Creek Marsh CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Stuart v. LairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
3Cited by698 opinions
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- New York v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- State v. GunwallWashington Supreme Court · 1986
693 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.