Moses Mordecal, Isaac Hertz, Joseph Enslow, and Isaac Mordecai, Carrying On Business Under the Name, Style and Firm, of Mordecai Co Libellants and Appellants v. Lindsay, Owners of the Schooner Mary Eddy, Her Tackle
| Decision Date | 01 December 1856 |
| Citation | 19 How. 199,60 U.S. 199,15 L.Ed. 624 |
| Parties | MOSES C. MORDECAL, ISAAC E. HERTZ, JOSEPH A. ENSLOW, AND ISAAC R. MORDECAI, CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME, STYLE, AND FIRM, OF MORDECAI & CO., LIBELLANTS AND APPELLANTS, v. W. & N. LINDSAY, OWNERS OF THE SCHOONER MARY EDDY, HER TACKLE, &C |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of South Carolina.
It was a libel filed on the 6th of April, 1854, in the District Court of South Carolina, by Mordecai & Co., against the schooner Mary Eddy, and all persons intervening.
A very brief narrative will be sufficient to show the condition in which the case was, when it left the District Court, and this is all that is required under the present opinion of this court.
In March, 1854, the Mary Eddy was in New Orleans, about to sail for Charleston. One hundred and two hogsheads of sugar were shipped on board of her, which were to be delivered to Mordecai & Co. The libel was for the non-delivery of these articles.
The answer admitted the shipment and arrival of the vessel in Charleston, and then averred the delivery of three hogsheads of the sugar, (together with some barrels of syrup,) the freight of which Mordecai & Co. refused to pay. The answer then alleged that the libellants, having refused to pay freight until the sugars were received by them at their store, or until possession had passed to them, the master unloaded the residue of the sugars, and, when landed on the wharf, gave notice to Mordecai & Co. that he would deliver the articles to them upon payment of the freight; that Mordecai & Co. having refused to do this, the master retained the custody of the sugars in order to preserve his lien for the freight. A correspondence took place between the parties, which it is not necessary to state for the purposes of this report.
The district judge decreed in favor of the libellants, with costs, and then added:
Without any further proceedings being had in the case, the claimants appealed to the Circuit Court, and the record was accordingly transmitted.
When the cause came up for hearing before the circuit judge, he reversed the decree of the District Court, and dismissed the libel with costs, whereupon the libellants appealed to this court.
The case was argued upon its merits by Mr. Phillips for the appellants, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, jr., for the claimants, whose arguments it is not necessary to state in this report, in consequence of the case being decided upon a preliminary point.
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of South Carolina.
Upon the hearing of this cause in this court, it was suggested that the court had not jurisdiction of the case, on the ground that the District Court, which had original jurisdiction of it, had not given a final decree in favor of the libellants, before the cause was taken by appeal to the Circuit Court; from the decision of which, reversing the decision of the district judge and dismissing the libel, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. No such decree of the District Court is set out in the record; but the court, supposing it might be a clerical omission, gave to the counsel concerned in the cause time to ascertain the fact, in order that it might be made, either by consent of parties or by certiorari, a part of the record, that there might be no delay in the final disposition of the case by this court. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells v. Shriver
...or other tort (The Palmyra, 23 U.S. 502, 10 Wheat. 502 [6:375]; Chace v. Vasquez, 24 U.S. 429, 11 Wheat. 429 [6:511]; Mordecai v. Lindsay, 60 U.S. 199, 19 How. 199 [15:624]), or in equity establishing the validity of a patent and referring the case to a master to compute and report the dama......
-
Gourkey v. Toledo Co, 35
...the question of liability for a collision or other tort, (The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502; Chace v. Vasquez, 11 Wheat. 429; Mordecai v. Lindsey, [The Mary Eddy,] 19 How. 199,) or in equity establishing the validity of a patent and referring the case to a master to compute and report the damages,......
-
Anastasiadis v. SS Little John
...23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 502, 6 L.Ed. 376 (1825); Chace v. Vasquez, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 429, 6 L.Ed. 511 (1826); Mordecai v. Lindsay, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 199, 15 L.Ed. 624 (1856); Jung v. K & D Mining Co., 356 U.S. 335, 78 S.Ct. 764, 2 L.Ed.2d 806 (1958); Western Electric Co., Inc. v. Pacent Repro......
-
McLean v. Clark
...not final. See, also, Chace v. Vasquez, 11 Wheat. 429; Pullman v. Christian, 6 How. 209. So, also, in the case of The Mary Eddy (Mordecai v. Lindsay,) 19 How. 199, it held that a decree in favor of the libelant upon the merits, with a reference to a commissioner to report the damages, was n......