THE "CONNEMARA."
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.
In a salvage dispute, the Supreme Court held that a suit by multiple salvors seeking recovery for a single joint salvage service constitutes one claim for jurisdictional purposes, even though the recovered amount was subsequently apportioned unequally among the salvors based on their individual contributions. The Court distinguished this case from prior decisions involving separate and distinct interests, finding that because the salvors acted together in a common service and the property owners' liability was to the salvors collectively rather than individually, the appeal could proceed despite some salvors receiving less than $5,000.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The suit below was by a set of salvors to recover for a single salvage service, and there was but one claim filed for the property saved. The total amount of the recovery was $14,198, but in the division among the several parties entitled to share in the recovery some got less than $5,000. Separate and distinct interests were not united in the suit. The service rendered was the joint service of all the salvors, and the recovery was on that account. It was a inatter of no consequence to the owners of the property saved how the money recovered was apportioned among those who had earned it. The owners were decreed to pay the salvors for what they, acting together in a common service, had done. In such a suit we think the owners cannot be deprived of their appeal because the court below, in the further progress of the cause, saw fit to apportion the recovery among the salvors according to their respective merits. The decree is, in legal effect, one decree in favor of all the salvors, they having, as between themselves, unequal interests.
In all the cases where we have held that severál sums decreed in favor of or against different persons could not be united to give us jurisdiction on appeal, it will be found that the matters in dispute were entirely separate and distinct, and were’joined in one suit for convenience and to save expense. Thus, in Seaver v. Bigelows (5 Wall. 208), separate judgment creditors joined to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of their debtor, and the appeal was from a decree dismissing their bill; in Rich v. Lambert (12 How. 347), several owners of a cargo, who had distinct interests, united in a libel against the ship to recover for damages done to the goods, and the appeal was from a decree in favor of each owner for his separate loss; in Oliver v. Alexander (6 Pet. 143), the libel was by seamen to recover their wages, and the decree was in favor of each man separately for the amount due him individually; and in Stratton v. Jarvis (8 id. 4), the decree was against each claimant of the goods saved by salvage service for his separate and distinct share of the salvage. The cases were heard, so far as the merits were concerned, precisely the same as if separate libels had been filed for each cause of action, and the decrees as entered w;ere as in case of separate suits. Rich v. Lambert, sufra. Here, however, the matter in controversy was the amount due the salvors collectively, and not the particular sum to which each was entitled when the amount due was distributed among them. As in Shields v. Thomas (17 How. 3), “they all claimed under one and the same title. They had a common and undivided interest in the claim, and it was perfectly immaterial to the appellants how it was to be shared among them. If there was any diffi culty as-to the proportions, . . . the dispute was among them selves.”
The. case, upon the merits, is one which we are not inclined to consider on* a motion to affirm.
Motions denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…g those who have earned it, this coiíft has since decided that the owner of a ship may appeal from a decree against the ship for salvage which exceeds the sum of $5000, although the amount awarded to each salvor is less than that sum. The Connemara, 103 U. S. 754. Upon like grounds, it was held in the case of The Mamie, 105 U, S. 773, that from a decree dismissing a petition to obtain the benefit of the act of Congress limiting the liability of shipowners, the owner of the vessel might appeal, even if [*33]…
-
Clay v. Field, 138 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1891)…eal, but each must stand or fall by itself alone. The principal cases in which the interest has been deemed common and undivided, and appeals have been sustained, are Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3; Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112; The Connemara, 103 U. S. 754; The Mamie, 105 U. S. 773; Davies v. Corbin, 112 U. S. 36; Estes v. Gunter, 121 U. S. 183; and Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366. Mrs. Freeman’s case does not' come within the principle of any of these oases. As before stated, the estate of dower cla…
-
McDANIEL v. Traylor, 196 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1905)…ew, and such recovery was had under the same title and for a common undivided interest, this court had jurisdiction, although the amount decreed to be distributed' to each representative was less than the jurisdictional sum.” See also The Connemara, 103 U. S. 754; Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366; New Orleans Pacific Ry. v. Parker, 143 U. S. 42, 51; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Gentry, 163 U. S. 353, 361; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 647. It is said that as to any single one of' the claims in question the…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143 (U.S. 1832)
- Shields v. Isaac Thomas and others, 17 How. 3 (U.S. 1854)
- Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347 (U.S. 1851)
- Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 (U.S. 1866)