United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association v. Halecki

PETITIONER: United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association
RESPONDENT: Halecki
LOCATION: Sherry Frontenac

DOCKET NO.: 56
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 358 US 613 (1959)
ARGUED: Oct 23, 1958
DECIDED: Feb 24, 1959

Facts of the case

Question

Media for United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association v. Halecki

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 23, 1958 (Part 1) in United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association v. Halecki

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 23, 1958 (Part 2) in United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association v. Halecki

Earl Warren:

Mr. Mahoney, you may continue.

Felix Frankfurter:

Mr. Mahoney, I asked you (Inaudible) what was the last thing?

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

I said I thought it was, Your Honor.

Felix Frankfurter:

Well, it specifically said, it wasn't.

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

I was in error then, Your Honor.

Felix Frankfurter:

Are these the questions of your being in error (Inaudible) what problems that Justice Brennan put to you (Inaudible)

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

Well, if I may say so, Your Honor, I don't --

Felix Frankfurter:

But it said that typically, it isn't diversity in theory and (Inaudible) there's nothing to (Inaudible)

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

I don't think that our problem is necessarily one of diversities.

I think it's one of our --

Felix Frankfurter:

It can't be if -- if jurisdiction would sustain there when it's not derived from diversity and (Inaudible) to say there was no diversity in fact.

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

Well, in my opinion, it doesn't matter whether it's in admiralty, whether it's on the civil side.

Felix Frankfurter:

Very well.

I -- I can follow that argument.

But it does make a difference in the analogies whether on (Inaudible) or whether the cause of action to derive approximately, and then the question, if I may say so, put by my Brother (Inaudible) a question that has to be faced or met, namely, to -- in the federal court because of admiralty jurisdiction may you have to answer the question.

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

Well, if I may say so, the -- the question, I believe, was answered in the Garrett case by Mr. Justice Black when --

Felix Frankfurter:

I'm not suggesting if not -- they're not capable of answering when we put tough questions (Inaudible)

They're capable so it must be answered.

Hugo L. Black:

I thought his question was based on the assumption that the Garrett case did not have.

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

Well, I must --

Hugo L. Black:

And I say it wasn't.

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

Well, I -- I must respectfully defer, Your Honor.

In my whole approach to this, I haven't felt that diversity or the basis for bringing the case into either an admiralty or civil court was germane to the issue.

Felix Frankfurter:

So the claim wouldn't stop with that proposition otherwise we'll get lost because we got very different considerations if it is -- if they're addressed to the problem in the cases.

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

Well, as -- as I understand the proposition, it is -- that if the Court is considering the right and the rules that are to be applied in determining it, it -- then -- I don't want to be redundant, but it must be decided in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which that right originated.

And that works both ways, in my -- not only in my opinion, but in the opinion of Mr. Justice Black.

And not to oversimplify it, but I -- I think that that states the problem and answers it.

Hugo L. Black:

It does if you accept the word, rooted in -- creating -- rooted in the state law or rooted in the other --

Lawrence J. Mahoney:

Right.

Hugo L. Black:

-- as meaning that admiralty, a case which is enforceable and that rises on the high seas is rooted in the state law, rather than the federal.