The Pesaro, No. 317
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | VAN DEVANTER |
| Citation | 65 L.Ed. 592,41 S.Ct. 308,255 U.S. 216 |
| Parties | THE PESARO |
| Docket Number | No. 317 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1921 |
Messrs. Oscar R. Houston, of New York City, Harold V. Amberg, of Washington, D. C., and Henry J. Bigham, of New York City, for appellants.
Mr. John M. Woolsey, of New York City, for respondent.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Pesaro, an Italian steamship which carried a shipment of olive oil from Genoa to New York, was sued in rem
Page 217
in admiralty in the District Court to enforce a claim for damage to that part of her cargo, the libel alleging that she was 'a general ship engaged in the common carriage of merchandise by water, for hire.' The usual process issued and the ship was arrested. Afterwards upon a direct suggestion by the Italian Ambassador that the ship was owned by the Italian government and at the time of the arrest was in its possession, and therefore was not subject to the court's process, the court vacated the arrest. The libelants objected that a direct suggestion by the Ambassador was not admissible and that, to be entertained, the suggestion should come through official channels of the United States; but the objection was overruled. The libelants then requested permission to traverse the suggestion and to make a showing in opposition; but the request was denied, the court holding that to controvert or question the suggestion was not allowable. The libelants appealed directly to this court, and in that connection the District Court certified the ground of its decisions as follows:
'I do certify that the vessel was released from arrest by me by a final decree herein, solely because I deemed that the United States District Court, sitting as a court of admiralty, has no jurisdiction to subject to its process a steamship which is by the suggestion of the said Italian Ambassador filed in this court represented to be the public property and in the possession of the kingdom of Italy.'
Our authority to entertain the appeal is challenged upon two grounds. One is that the decree is not final, because it does not dismiss the libel. That it does not formally do so is true, but this is not decisive. The suit is in rem—is against the ship. The decree holds for naught the process under which the ship was arrested, declares she is not subject to any such process and directs her release—in other words, dismisses her without day. Thus the decree ends the suit as effectually as if it formally dismissed the libel.
Page 218
Obviously, therefore, it is final. That it was intended to be so is shown by the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houghton v. County Com'rs of Kent County, No. 76
...in form an order to quash the summons, and not a dismissal of the suit, is a final judgment, and the case is properly here."); The Pesaro 255 U.S. 216, 217-218, 41 S.Ct. 308, 65 L.Ed. 592 (1921) ("[T]he decree ends the suit as effectually as if it formally dismissed the libel. Obviously, th......
-
Chemical Natural Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela, No. 3
...and was of a character entitling it to the immunity. See Ex parte Muir, 254 U.S. 522, 41 S.Ct. 185, 65 L.Ed. 383, supra; The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216, 41 S.Ct. 308, 65 L.Ed. 592; Berizzi Bros. Co. v. The Pesaro, 271 U.S, 562, 46 S.Ct. 611, 70 L.Ed. 1088; Compania Espanola v. The Navemar, 303 U.......
-
Chemical Natural Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela, The Honorable Byron A. MILNER
...and was of a character entitling it to the immunity. See Ex parte Muir, 254 U.S. 522, 41 S.Ct. 185, 65 L.Ed. 383, supra; The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216, 41 S.Ct. 308, 65 L.Ed. 592; Berizzi Bros. Co. v. The Pesaro, 271 U.S, 562, 46 S.Ct. 611, 70 L.Ed. 1088; Compania Espanola v. The Navemar, 303 U.......
-
Wentz v. Thomas, Case Number: 23652
...such action was finality of decision. Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 67 L. Ed. 372, 43 S. Ct. 170; In re Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216, 65 L. Ed. 592, 41 S. Ct. 308. ¶24 Hutchison v. Wilson, 136 Okla. 67, 276 P. 198, and Waldock v. State, 146 Okla. 257, 293 P. 1023, and oth......
-
Chemical Natural Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela, The Honorable Byron A. MILNER
...and was of a character entitling it to the immunity. See Ex parte Muir, 254 U.S. 522, 41 S.Ct. 185, 65 L.Ed. 383, supra; The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216, 41 S.Ct. 308, 65 L.Ed. 592; Berizzi Bros. Co. v. The Pesaro, 271 U.S, 562, 46 S.Ct. 611, 70 L.Ed. 1088; Compania Espanola v. The Navemar, 303 U.......
-
Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman the Baja California, 455
...U.S. 184, 190, 26 S.Ct. 648, 649, 50 L.Ed. 987; Ex parte Muir, 254 U.S. 522, 531-533, 41 S.Ct. 185, 186, 187, 65 L.Ed. 383; The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216, 219, 41 S.Ct. 308, 309, 65 L.Ed. 592; Ex parte State of New York, 256 U.S. 503, 510, 41 S.Ct. 592, 593, 65 L.Ed. 1063; Compania Espanola v. T......
-
Moss v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 10881.
...on the defendant was a final appealable order. Also see Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518, 15 S.Ct. 559, 39 L.Ed. 517.1 In The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216, 217, 41 S.Ct. 308, 65 L.Ed. 592, is a similar holding in an admiralty case involving libel of a vessel where it was held that an order for ......
-
Wentz v. Thomas, Case Number: 23652
...such action was finality of decision. Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 67 L. Ed. 372, 43 S. Ct. 170; In re Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216, 65 L. Ed. 592, 41 S. Ct. 308. ¶24 Hutchison v. Wilson, 136 Okla. 67, 276 P. 198, and Waldock v. State, 146 Okla. 257, 293 P. 1023, and oth......