Lexplug logoLexplug

The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh

Supreme Court of the United States
12 How. 443, 53 U.S. 443, 13 L. Ed. 1058 (1852)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The constitutional grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to federal courts is not limited by the English 'tide-water' rule, but extends to all public waters that are navigable in fact and used for interstate or foreign commerce.


Facts:

  • On May 6, 1847, the schooner Cuba was on a voyage from Sandusky, Ohio, to Oswego, New York, on Lake Ontario.
  • The propeller Genesee Chief was proceeding on a voyage up the same lake.
  • The Genesee Chief collided with the Cuba in the open lake on a starlit night.
  • As a result of the collision, the Cuba sustained serious damage and sank shortly thereafter with its cargo.
  • The owners of the Cuba alleged the collision resulted from the carelessness of the Genesee Chief's crew.
  • The collision occurred on Lake Ontario, a large navigable body of water not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.

Procedural Posture:

  • The owners of the schooner Cuba filed a libel in rem against the propeller Genesee Chief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, proceeding under the Act of 1845.
  • The District Court decreed in favor of the libellants (the owners of the Cuba).
  • The respondents (the master and owners of the Genesee Chief) appealed the decree to the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York.
  • The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's decree.
  • The master and owners of the Genesee Chief, as appellants, then appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the constitutional grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to federal courts extend beyond tidal waters to all public navigable waters where interstate or foreign commerce occurs, thereby making the Act of 1845, which confers such jurisdiction over the Great Lakes, constitutional?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Taney

Yes. The Act of 1845 is constitutional because the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction granted by the Constitution is not limited to tide-waters but extends to all public navigable waters used for interstate commerce. The court explicitly overrules its prior decision in The Thomas Jefferson, which had adopted the restrictive English 'tide-water' rule. The English rule was a practical test for navigability in a country where all navigable rivers were tidal, but it is unsuited for the United States with its vast network of non-tidal, navigable inland lakes and rivers. The true criterion for admiralty jurisdiction is the navigable character of the water, not the presence of tides. This interpretation is consistent with the intent of the framers, as evidenced by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and is necessary to provide a uniform system of maritime law for the nation's expanding commerce.


Dissenting - Justice Daniel

No. The Act of 1845 is unconstitutional because the scope of federal admiralty jurisdiction is fixed by the English common law as it existed when the Constitution was adopted, which strictly limited jurisdiction to the ebb and flow of the tide. The majority improperly expands judicial power based on convenience and changing geographical circumstances, effectively amending the Constitution without the proper process. The court should adhere to its established precedents, which followed the tide-water rule. The Constitution cannot be stretched or contracted to fit geographical limits or judicial opinions of expediency; it must be interpreted according to the original understanding of its terms.



Analysis:

This landmark decision fundamentally reshaped American maritime law by discarding the antiquated English tide-water rule in favor of a modern 'navigability-in-fact' test for federal admiralty jurisdiction. By explicitly overturning its own precedent in The Thomas Jefferson, the Court demonstrated a pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation, adapting legal doctrines to the nation's economic and geographical realities. This expansion of federal power was crucial for establishing a uniform body of law to govern the burgeoning commerce on the Great Lakes and major inland rivers, thereby fostering national economic integration and westward expansion. The case remains a foundational principle of U.S. admiralty law.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh (1852) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh