Oneida Navigation Corporation v. Job Co the Percy Pyne, 2D
| Decision Date | 19 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 259,259 |
| Citation | 252 U.S. 521,40 S.Ct. 357,64 L.Ed. 697 |
| Parties | ONEIDA NAVIGATION CORPORATION v. W. & S. JOB & CO., Inc. THE PERCY R. PYNE, 2D |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. George Whitefield Betts, Jr., of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Peter S. Carter, of New York City, for appellee.
James W. Smith and another libeled the schooner Percy R. Pyne, 2d, in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York claiming damages for injury to cargo resulting from unseaworthiness due to the cutting away of timbers and frame for the installation of an auxiliary engine. The Oneida Navigation Company claimed the vessel as owner and answered denying liability. Then it filed, by leave of court, a petition to bring in, under admiralty rule 15 of that court (29 Sup. Ct. xl) in analogy to admiralty rule 59 of this court (29 Sup. Ct. xlvi), W. & S. Job & Co., Incorporated, as defendants, alleging them to be the party through whose fault, if any, the damages complained of had occurred, and that if liability should be established it would be entitled to be indemnified by them. W. & S. Job & Co., Incorporated, excepted to the petition and denied jurisdiction on the ground that the petition did not set forth a cause of action in admiralty. Their exception was sustained and the petition was dismissed on that ground. The case comes here by direct appeal, the District Judge having certified the question of jurisdiction.
The petition to make W. & S. Job& Co., Incorporated, party defendants was merely an incident in the progress of the case in the District Court. The liability of indemnitors thereby sought to be enforced would in no event arise unless the vessel should be held liable. The petitioner had as claimant denied liability in its answer to the libel, and the issue thus raised had not been tried. While the decree dismissing the petition as to W. & S. Job & Co., Incorporated, was final as to them, there was no decree disposing of the case below. A case may not be brought here in fragments. This court has jurisdiction under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215), as under other sections, only from judgments which are both final and complete. Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 40 Sup. Ct. 347, 64 L. Ed. ——, decided by this court March 29, 1920; Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262, 13 Sup. Ct. 590, 37 L. Ed. 443. The case was not ripe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Obergfell
...Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Willard, 220 U.S. 413, 420, 421, 31 S.Ct. 460, 55 L.Ed. 521; Oneida Navigation Corp. v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U.S. 521, 522, 40 S.Ct. 357, 64 L.Ed. 697; Goldstone v. Payne, 2 Cir., 94 F.2d 855, 857, certiorari denied, 304 U.S. 585, 58 S.Ct. 1057, 82 L.Ed. 1547......
-
Moss v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
...parties (Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443, and see Oneida Navigation Corporation v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U.S. 521, 40 S.Ct. 357, 64 L.Ed. 697). A case somewhat analogous to the one here is Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, 12 S.Ct. 93......
-
Clark v. Taylor
...in its application have at times presented problems. Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., supra; Oneida Nav. Corporation v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U.S. 521, 40 S.Ct. 357, 64 L.Ed 697; Bank of Rondout v. Smith, 156 U.S. 330, 15 S.Ct. 358, 39 L.Ed. 441; Hunteman v. New Orleans Public Servi......
-
Republic of China v. American Express Co.
...is present where one of the parties is secondarily or derivatively liable, — see the Hohorst case; Oneida Nav. Corp. v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U.S. 521, 40 S.Ct. 357, 64 L.Ed. 697 — or where the asserted liabilities of the defendants, one of whom is dismissed, are very closely interrelated;......