Furness, Withy Company v. Insurance Association

• Decision Date: 08 January 1917
• Docket Number: No. 106,YANG-TSZE,106
• Citation: 61 L.Ed. 409,37 S.Ct. 141,242 U.S. 430
• Parties: FURNESS, WITHY, & COMPANY, Limited, Petitioner, v. INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Limited, et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

242 U.S. 430

37 S.Ct. 141

61 L.Ed. 409

FURNESS, WITHY, & COMPANY, Limited, Petitioner,

v YANG-TSZE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Limited, et al.

No. 106.

Argued December 18 and 19, 1916.

Decided January 8, 1917.

Messrs. Norman B. Beecher, Charles C. Burlingham, and Roscoe H. Hupper for petitioner.

Messrs. D. Roger Englar, J. Parker Kirlin, Lawrence Kneeland, William H. McGrann, and John M. Woolsey for respondents.

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:

The writ of certiorari was improvidently granted and must be dismissed. We should have denied the petition therefor if the facts essential to an adequate appreciation of the situation had then been brought to our attention. Petitions of this character are at the risk of the party making them, and whenever, in the progress of the cause, facts develop which, if disclosed on the application, would have induced a refusal, the court may, upon motion by a party, or ex mero motu, dismiss the writ. United States v. Rimer, 220 U. S. 547, 55 L. ed. 578, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596; State, Malone, Prosecutor, v. Water Comrs. 30 N. J. L. 247.

In February, 1912, the Yang-Tsze Insurance Association, Limited, filed its libel in the district court at New York against Furness, Withy, & Company, Limited, owner of the Pomaron, to recover damages consequent upon the sinking of the Alleghany. A judgment for libellant, rendered June 13, 1913, was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals in June, 1914; and on October 5, 1914, the Pomaron's owner instituted a proceeding in the same district court for limitation of liability, and the steps customary in such causes were regularly taken. April 12, 1915, the petitioner presented an original application here for a writ of certiorari to bring up the judgment of the circuit court of appeals in the damage cause, and this was denied April 19th.

It now appears that, on April 22, 1915, a final decree containing the following recitals was entered by the district court in the limitation proceedings: 'Whereas the petitioner and all the claimants herein have compromised and settled the issues between them, and in consideration of the said compromise and settlement it has been agreed between the petitioner and all the claimants:' (The terms follow.) 'Whereas, in consideration of the said compromise and settlement, the several claimants herein by agreement have fixed and adjusted the amounts of their several losses consequent on the said collision at the following sums, to wit:' (The amounts are specified.) 'Now on the subjoined admissions of correctness of the foregoing recitals and the subjoined consents and waivers of settlement in respect of the entry of this decree, made by the proctors for all claimants herein . . . it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, etc.'

The following, signed by all the proctors, is subjoined to the decree: 'The undersigned proctors, for all the parties herein, hereby admit the truth of the recitals contained in the foregoing decree and consent to the entry thereof, without further notice.'

Petitioner's second application for certiorari, which was presented June 15, 1915, and granted, contains these statements:

'On May 10, 1915, as your petitioner is informed, this court granted a writ of certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit upon the petition of Olaf Lie, master of the Norwegian steamship Selja, in a suit between said Olaf Lie, master, etc., and the San Francisco & Portland...