The Burlington v. Ford
| Decision Date | 15 December 1890 |
| Citation | 11 S.Ct. 138,137 U.S. 386,34 L.Ed. 731 |
| Parties | THE BURLINGTON et al. v. FORD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 386-390 intentionally omitted] H. H. Swan and F. H. Canfield, for appellants.
H. C. Wisner, for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court:
This case comes before us on a motion to dismiss, united with a motion to affirm. Appellee contends that as he recovered for himself, as owner, only the sum of $2,544.61, and for the owners of the cargo only the sum of $3,023.04, the matter standsas though two separate suits had been brought, and that the amount in controversy in either does not reach the jurisdictional sum; and Ex parte Baltimore & O. R. Co., 106 U. S. 5, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 35, and The Nevada, 106 U. S. 154, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234, are cited. But in both of those cases the owners of the vessel and the owners of the cargo were parties to the proceedings, and recovered the amounts due them respectively. Here, Ford is to be treated in all respects as the sole libelant, and the decree is for the recovery of the total sum of $5,567.65, and although this amount was subsequently apportioned so as to show the allowance for the loss of the barge, and that for the loss of the cargo, separately, the decree of recovery of the aggregate remained the same, and the execution ordered against the claimants and their sureties on appeal would issue for the single amount.
Nor does the fact that, upon the subsequent proceedings for limitation of liability, it appeared that Ford could not collect more than $4,658, his pro rata share of the limit decreed, affect the question. That limitation was arrived at in the other suit, and cannot be laid hold of as controlling this. We think, however, under the circumstances, that there was color for the motion to dismiss, though we overrule it, and that we may therefore consider the motion to affirm.
Under the act of February 16, 1875, (18 St. p. 315, c. 77,) our review of the decree of the circuit courts upon their findings of fact and conclusions of law in admiralty cases is 'limited to a determination of the questions of law arising upon the record, and to such rulings of the circuit court, excepted to at the time, as may be presented by a bill of exceptions, prepared as in actions at law.' There is no bill of exceptions here, and the inquiry is reduced simply to whether the findings of the circuit court justify the decree appealed from. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens v. the White City
...Hope, 95 U. S. 297, 299, 24 L. Ed. 477; The L. P. Dayton, 120 U. S. 337, 351, 7 S. Ct. 568, 30 L. Ed. 669; The Burlington v. Ford, 137 U. S. 386, 391, 11 S. Ct. 138, 34 L. Ed. 731; The J. P. Donaldson, 167 U. S. 599, 603, 604, 17 S. Ct. 951, 42 L. Ed. 292; Alexander v. Greene, 3 Hill (N. Y.......
-
The Defender
... ... 185; The J. P. Donaldson, 167 U.S. 599, 17 ... Sup.Ct. 951, 42 L.Ed. 292; The Webb, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 406, ... 20 L.Ed. 774; The Burlington, 137 U.S. 386, 11 Sup.Ct. 138, ... 34 L.Ed. 731; McNally v. The L. P. Dayton, 120 U.S ... 337, 7 Sup.Ct. 568, 30 L.Ed. 669; The Samuel E. Bouker ... ...
-
In re Moran
... ... P. Donaldson, 167 ... U.S. 603, 17 Sup.Ct. 951, 42 L.Ed. 292; The Webb, 14 Waii ... 406, 20 L.Ed. 774; The Burlington, 137 U.S. 391, 11 Sup.Ct ... 138, 34 L.Ed. 731; The L. P. Dayton, 120 U.S. 337, 351, 7 ... Sup.Ct. 568, 30 L.Ed. 669; The Startle (C.C.) 115 F ... ...
-
Thompson v. Winslow
... ... Boston Towboat Company, 49 F ... 464, 1 C.C.A. 314; Atlee v. Union Packet Company, 21 ... Wall. 389,22 L.Ed. 619; The Burlington, 137 U.S. 386, 11 ... Sup.Ct. 138, 34 L.Ed. 731; The Kate Jones (D.C.) 91 F. 796; ... The S.W. Morris (D.C.) 59 F. 616; The Henry Chapel (D.C.) 10 ... ...