Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T04:46:04.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Immunity of Public Ships Employed in Trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Edwin D. Dickinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 1927 , pp. 108 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1927

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1812), 7 Cranch, 116

2 The Constitution (1879), L. R. 4 P. D. 39.

3 See The Parlement Bdge (1880), L. R. 5 P. D. 197; Young v. S. S. Scotia [1903], A. C. 501; The Jassy [1906], P. 270

4 See The Gagara [1919], P. 95; The Porto Alexandre [1920], P. 30; Owners of S. S. Victoriav. Owners of S. S. Quillwark (1922), 1 Scots L. T. 65; The Jupiter [1924], P. 236.

5 See Ex parte Muir (1921), 254 U. S. 522; The Pesaro (1921), 255 U. S. 216; Ex parte Hussein Lutfi Bey (1921), 256 U. S. 616; The Gul Djemal (1924), 264 XJ. S. 90.

6 The Pesaro (1921), 277 Fed. 473 (but see 13 F. (2d) 468). Cf. Kingdom of Roumania v. Guaranty Trust Co. (1918), 250 Fed. 341.

7 See The Maipo (1918), 252 Fed. 627; The Maipo (1919), 259 Fed. 367; The Carlo Poma (1919), 259 Fed. 369 (but see 255 U. S. 219)

8 The Pesaro (1926), 46 Sup. Ct. 611; this Journal , Vol. 20, p. 811.

9 13 F. (2d) 468

10 Perhaps amplification is not an exact description of the alternative to restriction. Delivering an oral opinion in The Maipo, 259 Fed. 367 Hough, Judge,and “Ithink the bar is entitled to know that I do not think the enormous extension of sovereign privilege demanded by vessels in all kinds of business of late months and years indicates any change or advance in the law at all. Thelaw remains the same. What has changed is the view which the governments of the world assume toward public duties or public enterprises.” Google Scholar

11 See the opinion of Professor Gamer, this Jotjrnal, Vol. 20, pp. 759, 766

12 See South Carolina v. United States (1905), 199 U. S. 437. Cf. United States v. King County (1922), 281 Fed. 686

13 Cf. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation (1919), 251 U. S. 32, with Jones v. District of Columbia (1922), 279 Fed. 188. See Borchard, “ Government Liability in Tort,” 34 Yale Law Journal, 1, 129

14 Paulus v. State of South Dakota (1924), 201 N. W. 867, 870

15 See The Pampa (1917), 245 Fed. 137.

16 See The Davis (1869), 10 Wall. 15; Long v. The Tampico (1883), 16 Fed. 491; The Johnson Lighterage Co. (1916), 231 Fed. 365. Cf. Young v. S. S. Scotia [1903], A. C. 501.1

17 See The Attualita (1916), 238 Fed. 909. Cf. The Roseric (1918), 254 Fed. 154; The Broadmayne [1916], P. 64; The Messicano (1916), 32 T. L. R. 519; The Eolo [1918], 2 Ir. Rep.78.

18 See Ex parte Muir (1921), 254 U. S. 522.

19 See The Beaverton (1919), 273 Fed. 539.

20 See the Report of the League of Nations Committee of Experts on “ Legal Status of Government Ships Employed in Commerce” [C. 52. M. 29. 1926. V.], printed in Special Supplement to this Journal , July, 1926, pp. 260-278. See also Professor Gamer's comment, this Journal , Vol. 20, p. 759.