THE "ADRIATIC."
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that in admiralty and maritime appeals where the lower court has found facts, the transcript sent to the Supreme Court need only contain the pleadings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, bills of exceptions, final judgment or decree, and necessary interlocutory orders—not the underlying testimony, since the Court's review is limited to questions of law and the lower court's factual findings are conclusive. The Court promulgated this as a new rule to guide future admiralty appeals and clarify the statutory requirement that transcripts include only such proofs "as may be necessary" for appellate review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
Sect. 698 of the Revised Statutes provides that, upon the appeal of any cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, a transcript of the record shall be transmitted to this court “ and copies of the proofs and of such entries and papers on file as may be necessary on the hearing of the appeal.” While sect. 1 of the act of Feb. 16, 1875, c. 77 (18 Stat., pt. 3, 315), limits the review by this-court of the judgments and decrees on the instance side of courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the questions of law arising on the record, and to such rulings of the court below excepted to at the time, as may be presented by a bill of exceptions, and requires the court below to find the facts, no change has been made in the law prescribing what should be included in the transcript sent here on an appeal. For that reason we will not order the testimony which has been sent up in this case to be stricken out. As under our repeated decisions, the facts as found are conclusive on us, it is clear the testimony may not be “ necessary on the hearing of the appeal.” The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440; The Benefactor, 102 id.
214. For this reason it may with propriety by consent of counsel be omitted from the printed record. We will not, however, make any order in that behalf; but if it shall be unnecessarily printed against the wishes of either of the parties, we will, on the final determination of the case, give such directions in respect to costs as may seem proper. The section of the Revised Statutes referred to, however, requires only copies of such of the proofs to be sent up “as may be necessary on the hearing of the appeal.” This gives us power to prescribe by rule what shall be done in cases where the act of 1875 applies. For the guidance hereafter of parties appealing, and the officers of the courts below in such a case, we, therefore, now promulgate the following as an additional paragraph, numbered 6, to rule 8: —
“ 6.. The record in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where under the requirements of law the facts have been found in the court below, and our power to review is limited to the determination of questions of law arising on the record, shall be confined to the pleadings, the findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon, the bills of exceptions, the final judgment or decree, and such interlocutory orders and decrees as may be necessary to a proper review of the case.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE E. A. Packer, 140 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1891)…ions of law and to the validity of such rulings, excepted to at the time, as may be presented by a bill of exceptions prepared as in actions at law. The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440; The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214; The Clara, 102 U. S. 200; The Adriatic, 103 U. S. 730; The Connemara, 108 U. S. 352, 360; Watts v. Camors, 115 U. S. 353, 363; The Gazelle and Cargo, 128 U. S. 474. In the case of The Abbotsford it was held that the only rulings which could be presented for review here by-bill of exceptions were those…
-
Merchs'. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 121 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1887)…nsel in preparing the bills of exceptions was to have the whole case retried here on all the evidence. That this cannot be done, since the act of 1875, has long been settled. The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440; The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214; The Adriatic, 103 U. S. 730; The Annie Lindsley, 104 U. S. 187. [*73] The ease as tried below -is reported as Baker v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 916, where the discussion- upon the effect of the evidence- will be found. It only remains to consider an application…
Authorities Cited
- The "Abbotsford.", 98 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1878)