| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The Propeller Genesee Chief case was a dispute between the appellants, William L. Pierce, Alexander Kelsey, William H. Cheney, William Hunter, Lansing B. Swan George R. Clark and Elisha B. Strong (collectively referred to as “the owners”) and Henry Fitzhugh Dewitt C Littlejohn and James Peck (collectively referred to as “the respondents”). The owners of the Propeller Genesee Chief vessel sued for damages after their boat was damaged by ice while docked in Buffalo Harbor during the winter months of 1848-1849 due to negligence on behalf of the respondents who were responsible for maintaining safe harbor conditions at that time period . The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondents finding that they had not been negligent in their duties which resulted in no compensation being awarded to the owners for any damage caused by ice or otherwise incurred during this incident . This ruling established an important precedent regarding liability when it comes to incidents involving vessels docked within harbors under certain circumstances
In the dissenting opinion of this case, Chief Justice Taney argued that the majority had incorrectly interpreted a provision in the Constitution which gave Congress exclusive power to regulate navigation. He noted that while it was true that Congress could pass laws regulating navigation, they did not have authority to grant an individual or corporation exclusive rights over navigable waters. Furthermore, he argued that if such a right were granted by Congress then it would be unconstitutional as it would violate states' rights and interfere with their ability to control commerce within their own borders. Finally, he stated that even if such a law were constitutional, there was no evidence presented in this case showing any congressional action granting Fitzhugh et al exclusive rights over navigable waters. Therefore, Chief Justice Taney concluded his dissent by arguing against the majority's decision and stating his belief that Fitzhugh et al should not be given exclusive rights over navigable waters without proper congressional authorization.