THE SYBIL.-DANGERFIELD ET AL., CLAIMANTS
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 this maritime salvage case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's award of salvage and distribution in *The Sybil*, finding no manifest error in the trial court's discretionary determination. The Court subsequently rejected the ship owners' claim for freight and average against the salvors, holding that such claims must be pursued separately by libel against the cargo proceeds rather than in the salvage proceeding itself.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a case, in which, under its-peculiar circumstances, the amount of salvage is ,. . T ’ . 1 . &.tl discretionary. . In such cases, it is almost impossible that different minds, contemplating the same subject, should not form different conclüsions as to the amount of salvage to be decreed, and the mode of distribution;. ’ Appeals should not be encouraged upon the ground of minute distinctions; nor would this Court choose to reverse the decision óf a Circuit Court, in this class of cases, unless it manifestly appeared, that some important, error had been committed. In this particular case, the Court is well satisfied, both with the amount of salvage decreed by the Circuit Court, and with the mode of distribution ; and the decree is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.
Decree affirmed.
A question afterwards arose, upon a claim of the ship owners for freight, &c.
Mr. Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, the attention of the Court has been particularly called to the claim" interposed by the ship owners, for. freight and average.
This Court, as at present advised, are very well satisfied that no freight was earned, and that average may have been justly claimed. But in the case then depending, the Circuit Court could not have awarded either of those demands. The question is inter alios. There wás no. pretext for claiming either,, as against the salvors; and the ship owners ought to [*100] have pursued their rights- by 'irbe^ oi petition by way of libel, against the portion of the proceeds of the . , . , v j j . ,. rp, cargo which was adjudged to the shippers. 1 hese parties were entitled to be heard upon such a claim, and Could only be called upon to answer in that mode.
But the ship owners are not yet too late to pursue their remedy. The proceeds are still in the possession of the law, and may be subjected to any maritime claim or lien in the Court below.
Claim rejected.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baltimore & Potomac R.R. Co. v. MacKey, 157 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1895)…04, 516: “ Courts are not inclined to grant a new trial merely on account of ambiguity in the charge of the court to the jury, while it appears that the complaining party made no effort at the trial' to have thé point explained.” See also The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98. What the court said to the jury, in respect of the point now under consideration, was in harmony with the principles announced in Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 213, 218, where it was said that a railroad corporation was under an obligation “ to…
-
THE Connemara. Sinclair & Another v. Cooper & Others, 108 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1883)…les, but depends upon a consideration of all the circumstances of each case. The Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240, 267; The Adventure, 8 Cranch, 221, 228; The Emulous, 1 Sumner, 207, 213; The Cora, above cited; Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150, 161. In The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98, Chief Justice Marshall said: “It is almost impossible that different minds contemplating the same subject, should not form different conclusions as to the amount of salvage to be decreed and the mode of distribution.” And by the uniform course of…
-
United States v. Middleton, 3 F.2d 384 (4th Cir. 1924)…ist that, under the circumstances here, it should not be done. It is only where an error of law has been plainly made, or the award is clearly and manifestly inadequate, that there should he an increase in the same by the appellate court. The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98, 4 L. Ed. 522; Hobert v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 119, 9 L. Ed. 363; The Camanche, 8 Wall. 448, 19 L. Ed. 397; The Ariadne, 13 Wall. 475, 20 L. Ed. 542; Oelwerke Teutonia v. Erlanger, 248 U. S. 251, 39 S. Ct. 180, 63 L. Ed. 399; The R. R. Rhodes, 82 F. 751,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence