THE SCOTLAND. DYER & OTHERS
v.
NATIONAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY

U.S. | 1886-05-10
Mr. Justice Matthews, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Miller, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Cray dissented. Their dissenting opinion will be found at page 526 post, after the opinion of the court in The Great Western.
118 U.S. 507 Supreme Court of the United States (1886) Caution
Also reported at: 30 L. Ed. 153 · 6 S. Ct. 1174 · SCDB 1885-278 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1947
Cited by 94 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this admiralty case arising from damage to a vessel, the Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's decisions awarding ship owners recovery limited to the value of stripped materials and denying them interest on both the damage award and litigation costs. The Court held that interest on damages is discretionary rather than an absolute right and depends on the circumstances of each case, and that in admiralty proceedings, costs remain within the court's discretion with interest not being automatically included unless expressly allowed.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Bradley,

Mr. Justice Bradley,

after stating the case as reported above, delivered the opinion of the court.

These points are all disposed of in the previous case of The City of Norwich, except the question of interest. Were the' libellants entitled to interest on the amount received from the strippings % In answering this question it must be borne in mind that this is not a question of debt, but of damages. The limitation of those damages to the value of the ship does not make them cease to be damages. The allowance of interest on damages is not an absolute right. Whether it ought or ought not to be allowed depends upon the circumstances of each case, and rests very much in the discretion of the tribunal which has to pass upon the subject, whether it be a court or a jury.

The record now laid before us contains no part of the pleadings or proceedings in the cause prior to the first decree of the Circuit Court. "We are without any means of knowing the circumstances in the pleadings or the evidence upon which the court was called upon to act, except the bare facts stated in the finding of facts before referred to. The right to a limitation of liability seems to have been denied to the respondent from the beginning. If it offered to pay the value of the strippings into court in its discharge from liability, or desired to do. so, it is evident that the court would not allow it to do so, and that the libellants resisted it with all their power. The respondent was obliged to wait till the decision of this court in 'March, 1882, before getting a declaration of its rights in the matter; and the first move afterwards made was the attempt of the libellants to change the whole form of the' controversy by setting up the new claim to the insurance money received by the respondent. Without stopping to decide whether this amendment of the proceedings was lawfully allowed after the decision of this court, it is sufficient to say that the Circuit Court, so far as we have anything before us to show to the contrary, may have had very good reasons for not allowing interest on the value of the strippings. We are not disposed to disturb its decree in this respect.

The question relating to interest on the costs requires but brief examination. Costs in admiralty, as well as in equity, are in the discretion of the court. Benedict’s Adm. § 549. Appeals in matter of costs only are not usually entertained; but when the entire case is before the appellate court, it has control of the subject of costs, as well as of the merits. Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527; 2 Conk. Adm. Pr.

373. In the present case, the Circuit Court by its original decree, made in 1878, adjudged to the libellants their costs in the District Court, amounting to $2173.10. In March, 1882, we affirmed this part of the decree, but without interest. In affirming a decree in admiralty in this court, if interest is not expressly allowed, it is not included. Hemmenway v. Fisher, 20 How. 255. No interest on these costs, therefore, can be claimed up to the date of our decree. The new departure then taken by the libellants in claiming the insurance, opened the matter, so as to postpone a final decree in the case in the Circuit Court until the decree now appealed from was made. This decree adjudges to the libellants their costs in the District Court precisely in accordance with our mandate. All delay in entering the decree was caused by the libellants themselves. If any interest was allowable on the costs in question, it would only have been that accruing from the date of our decree, March 20, 1882, to the time of rendering the decree appealed from, September 22,1884. In view of the circumstances of the litigation which took place in that period, we do not think that the decree of the Circuit Court is open to objection.

Decree affirmed.

Mr. Justice Matthews, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Miller, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Cray dissented. Their dissenting opinion will be found at page 526 post, after the opinion of the court in The Great Western.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

  • Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. S. Pac. Co., 273 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1927)
    …Further consideration to this subject was given by the Court in The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239; in the Providence & New York Steamship Company v. Hill Manufacturing Company, 109 U. S. 578; in the City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468, 503; in The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507; in Butler v. Boston & Savannah Steamship Company, 130 TJ. S. 527; in In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14, 34; in The Albert Dumois, 177 U. S. 240; in The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, and in the La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95. These decisions establish, first, th…
  • Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1928)
    …ops, and that it distinguishes between the damages caused by the collision and the later loss caused by delay in paying for the érst,— between damages and ‘ the allowance of interest on damages ’, as it is put by Mr. Justice Bradley in The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507. What the Act authorizes the Court to ascertain and allow is the‘amount of the legal-damages sustained by reason of said collision.’ Of these, interest is no .part. It might be in case of the detention of money. But this is not a claim for the dete…
    1 / 2
  • Newton v. Consol. Gas Co. of N.Y., 265 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1924)
    …U. S. 319, 323; Wingert v. First National Bank, 223 U. S. 670, 672. Questions of costs in admiralty and equity are discretionary and the action of the court is presumptively correct. United States v. Brig Malek Adhel, 2 How. 210, 237; The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507, 519. The allowance of costs in the federal courts rests not upon express statutory enactment by Congress, but upon usage long continued and confirmed by implication from provisions in many statutes. Ex parte Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 316; and see Pe…

Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (22 total)

View all 22 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw