THE PALMYRA. DEPAU, CLAIMANT
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 dismissed an appeal in a maritime prize case where the Circuit Court's decree was not final because damages remained undisposed of and could still be appealed separately. The Court held that a decree is not final under the appellate jurisdiction statute when part of the case remains undetermined, and the entire cause cannot be divided to bring up only certain portions on appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshal,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court has had the question submitted in this cause under, consideration, and -is of opinion, that the appeal is not well taken. The decree of the Circuit Court, was not final in the sense of the act of Congress. The damages remain undisposed of and aitappeal may still lie upon that part of the decree awarding damages. The whole cause is not, therefore, finally determined in the Circuit Court ; and we are of opinion that the cause cannot be divided, so as to bring up successively distinct parts of it.
The case in 3 Cranch, 179. is essentially different. In that case, which was an. appeal in an equity cause, there was a decree of foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property. The sale could, only be ordered after an account taken, or the sum due on the mortgage ascertained in some other way; and the usual decree is, that unless the defendant shall pay that sum in a given time, the estate shall be sold. The decree of sale therefore is, in such a case, final upon the rights of the parties in controversy, and leaves, ministerial duties only to be performed.
Appeal dismissed.a a
See Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51. Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. Rep. 448.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201 (U.S. 1848)
-
McGOURKEY v. Toledo & Ohio Cent. Ry. Co., 146 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1892)…r’s report. Burlington, Cedar Rapids &c. Railway v. Simmons, 123 U. S. 52 ; Parsons v. Robinson, 122 U. S. 112. It is equally well settled that a decree in admiralty determining the question of liability for a collision or other tort, (The Palmyra, 10 Wheat. 502; Chace v. Vasquez, 11 Wheat. 429; Mordecai v. Lindsey, [The Mary Eddy,] 19 How. 199,) or in equity establishing the validity of a patent and referring the case to .a master to compute and report the damages, is interlocutory merely. Barnard v. Gibso…
-
The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1 (U.S. 1827)…decree of the said Circuit Court as awards damages to the claimants, be, and the same is, hereby reversed and annulled ; and it is" further ordered, that said cause be remanded to said Circuit Court for further proceedings according to law, S . C. 10 Wheat. Rep. 502.…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ray v. Law, 3 Cranch 179 (U.S. 1805)
- Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch 51 (U.S. 1810)
- Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 Wheat. 448 (U.S. 1821)