The Lucille
| Citation | 86 U.S. 73,22 L.Ed. 64,19 Wall. 73 |
| Parties | THE LUCILLE |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
ON motion to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction, an appeal in admiralty from the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland.
The act of March 3d, 1803,* amendatory of the Judiciary Act, enacts that 'from all final decrees' rendered in any Circuit Court in any cases of admiralty, 'where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum or value of $2000,' an appeal shall be allowed to this court.
This statute being in force, Nancy Repass libelled the schooner Lucille, in the District Court for Maryland, for damages; alleging a collision by the Lucille, whereby she had been 'damaged to the extent of $2000, for which she claims reparation in this suit.'
The libel concluded with a prayer, that 'the court will pronounce for the libellant's aforesaid demand, and for such other and further relief and redress as to right and justice appertain, and as the court is competent to give in the premises.'
The court decreed in favor of the libellant for $2100. The libellant, objecting to a decree for a sum larger than that claimed, remitted, of record, $100, parcel of the said sum; and the other side appealed to the Circuit Court, where an order was entered affirming the decree below. The order thus made, and from which the present appeal was taken, was in the following words:- 'It is, this 27th day of May, A.D. 1872, adjudged and ordered that the decree of the District Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs.'
It was this appeal that the libellant moved to dismiss.
Messrs. W. S. Bryan and T. A. Seth, in support of the motion:
The libellant never claimed more than $2000, and when more was decreed objected and remitted the surplus. 'The matter in dispute,' in the Circuit Court, was, therefore, the original decree, less the amount remitted; that is to say, it was for $2000, and for no more. Not exceeding $2000 no appeal to this court will lie. The matter in dispute means the amount claimed on the one side and whose payment or surrender is resisted on the other.
Mr. R. S. Matthews, contra:
The decree in the District Court was for $2100, and by the order of the Circuit Court that decree and no other is affirmed. Exceeding thus $2000, an appeal will lie.
Whatever may be the merit of the objection on which the motion is founded, namely, that the above decree is not for an amount exceeding $2000, we are of opinion that there is not a final decree from which an appeal can be taken to this court, and that this appeal must for that reason be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Company
... ... United States, 5 Cranch 281, 9 U.S. 281, 3 L.Ed. 101 (1809); The Lucille, 19 Wall. 73, 86 U.S. 73, 22 L.Ed. 64 (1874); The Charles Morgan v. Kouns, 115 U.S. 69, 5 S.Ct. 1172, 29 L.Ed. 316 (1885); Irvine v. The Hesper, 122 U.S. 256, 7 S.Ct. 1177, 30 L. Ed. 1175 (1887). This view gains some support from § 1 of the Act of February 16, 1875, 18 Stat. 315, which provided ... ...
-
Braithwaite v. Jordan
... ... And in some ... of the cases even stronger language is used. Yeaton ... v. U. S. , 9 U.S. 281, 5 Cranch 281, 3 L.Ed. 101; ... The Collector , 19 U.S. 194, 6 Wheat. 194, 5 L.Ed ... 239; U. S. v. Preston , 28 U.S. 57, 3 Peters ... 57, 7 L.Ed. 601; The Lucille , 86 U.S. 73, 19 Wall ... 73, 22 L.Ed. 64; Penhallow v. Doane , 3 ... Dall. 54. But as was said by Judge Benedict in ... Dutcher v. Woodhull , Fed. Cas. No. 4,204, ... there was no question before the court as to the right of the ... respondent to enforce a decree after appeal, no ... ...
-
Munson S.S. Line v. Miramar S.S. Co.
... ... Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 281, 3 L.Ed. 101; ... Anonymous, 1 Gall. 22, Fed. Cas. No. 444; The Roarer, 1 ... Blatchf. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 11,876; The Saratoga v. 438 Bales ... of Cotton, 1 Woods, 75, Fed. Cas. No. 12,356; The Lucille, 19 ... Wall. 73, 22 L.Ed. 64; The Charles Morgan, 115 U.S. 69, 75, 5 ... Sup.Ct. 1172, 29 L.Ed. 316. We do not think that the fact ... that the claimants did not appeal from the decree of the ... District Court alters the rule. When the libelants appealed, ... they did so in view of the rule, ... ...
-
THE ERNEST H. MEYER
... ... libelants are not entitled to a decree in any amount * * * we may dismiss the libel, notwithstanding the underwriters did not themselves directly appeal from the decree." (Italics supplied.) This decision in the Gilchrist Case, so cited in Justice Cardozo's opinion, in turn relies on The Lucille, 19 Wall. 73, 22 L.Ed. 64, where the Supreme Court held: "An appeal in admiralty has the effect to supersede and vacate the decree from which it is taken. A new trial, completely and entirely new, with other testimony and other pleadings, if necessary, or if asked for, is contemplated, — a ... ...