The Havilah
| Decision Date | 31 October 1891 |
| Parties | THE HAVILAH. v. THE HAVILAH. PRATT COOMBS et al. v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Henry Arden, for the motion.
Robert D. Benedict, opposed.
Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court affirming a decree of the district court for the southern district of New York in an admiralty cause. 33 F. 875. The cause was heard by the circuit court subsequent to July 1, 1891. A motion has been made to dismiss the appeal. The motion proceeds upon the ground that no findings of fact were made by the circuit court upon the decision of the cause; that no exceptions appear in the record; and that this court, in reviewing appeals in admiralty, is limited to a determination of the questions of law arising upon the record, and to such rulings of the court below, excepted to at the time, as are presented by a bill of exceptions. Prior to the act of February 16 1875, 'to facilitate the disposition of cases in the supreme court and for other purposes,' [1] neither special findings of facts nor exceptions were a necessary part of the record upon an appeal in an admiralty cause, and the hearing in the supreme court and in the circuit court was a trial de novo. It was the purpose of that act to relieve the supreme court from the necessity of deciding questions of fact in admiralty causes, and the provisions whereby findings of facts and conclusions of law were required to be separately stated by the circuit courts had no application to cases which could not, because the amount in controversy was insufficient, be reviewed by the supreme court. Vitrified Pipes, 14 Blatchf. 279; Richards v. Hansen, 1 Fed.Rep. 67. Obviously that act does not apply to an appeal to the circuit court of appeals. The eleventh section of the act of March 3, 1891 establishing the circuit court of appeals, provides that 'all provisions of law now in force regulating the methods and system of review through appeals and writs of error provided for in this act in respect of the circuit courts of appeals. ' By the act appeals in admiralty henceforth lie direct from the district court to the court of appeals, and no method or system of review by findings or bill of exceptions was in force for the review by appeals in admiralty from the district court when the act was passed. It would be unreasonable to hold that congress intended a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munson S.S. Line v. Miramar S.S. Co.
...amount awarded the libelant sufficient. That the act of 1875 does not apply to the Circuit Court of Appeals has been held in The Havilah, 48 F. 684, 1 C.C.A. 77; The Beeche Deene, 55 F. 526, 5 C.C.A. 207; The 60 F. 426, 9 C.C.A. 54; The Glide, 72 F. 200, 18 C.C.A. 504; Nelson v. White, 83 F......
-
The Nyack
... ... Circuit Court of Appeals in The Philadelphian, 60 F. 423, 9 ... C.C.A. 54, also deciding that there might be new evidence in ... the appellate court. See, also, The Alijandro, 56 F. 621, 6 ... C.C.A. 54. Like decisions in the Second circuit are The ... Havilah, 48 F. 684, 1 C.C.A. 77, and The E. A. Packer, 58 F ... 251, 7 C.C.A. 216, both holding the act of 1875 inapplicable ... to the Circuit Court of Appeals. In The Western States, 159 ... F. 354, 86 C.C.A. 354 (certiorari denied 210 U.S. 433, 52 ... L.Ed. 1136, 28 Sup.Ct. 762), the question is ... ...
-
City of Cleveland v. Chisholm
...fact by the circuit court as contemplated by the act of 1875. The trial here is therefore upon the law and the facts. The Havilah, 1 U.S.App. 1, 1 C.C.A. 77, 48 F. 684; Philadelphia, 21 U.S.App. 90, 9 C.C.A. 54, 60 F. 423; The E. A. Packer, 14 U.S.App. 684, 7 C.C.A. 216, 58 F. 251. Notwiths......
-
Pioneer Fuel Co. v. McBrier
...admiralty cases appealed from the district court of appeals. The Philadelphian, 21 U.S.App. 90, 9 C.C.A. 54, and 60 F. 423; The Havilah, 1 U.S. App. 1, 1 C.C.A. 77, and 48 F. The State of California, 7 U.S.App. 20, 1 C.C.A. 224, and 49 F. 172. But it is unnecessary to definitely determine t......