ONEIDA NAVIGATION CORPORATION, CLAIMANT OF THE SAILING VESSEL "PERCY R. PYNE, 2D." &C.
v.
W. & S. JOB & COMPANY, INC.
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.
Oneida Navigation Corporation sought to bring W. & S. Job & Company, Inc. as defendants in a cargo damage lawsuit involving the Schooner Percy R. Pyne 2d, claiming they were responsible and owed indemnification, but the district court dismissed the petition for lack of admiralty jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the case was not final and complete, as the underlying liability of the vessel owner had not yet been determined and no final decree disposing of the entire case had been entered.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the court.
James W. Smith and another libelled the Schooner Percy R. Pyne 2d in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York claiming damages for injury to cargo resulting from unseaworthi-" ness due to the cutting away of timbers and frame for the installation of . an auxiliary engine. The Oneida Navigation Company claimed the vessel as owner and answered denying liability. Then it filed, by leave of court, a petition to bring in, under Admiralty Rule 15 of that court in analogy to Admiralty Rule 59 of this court, W. & S. Job & Co., Inc., as defendants, alleging them to be the party through whose fault, if any, the damages complained of had occurred, .and that if liability should be established it would be entitled to be indemnified by them. W. & S. Job & Co., Inc., excepted to the petition and denied jurisdiction on the ground that the petition did not set. forth a cause of action in admiralty. Their exception was sustained and the petition was dismissed on that ground. The case comes here by direct appeal, the District Judge having certified the question of jurisdiction. .
The petition to make W. & S. Job & Co., Inc., party defendants was merely an incident in the progress of the case in the District Court. The liability of indemnitors thereby sought to be enforced would in no event arise unless the vessel should be held liable. The petitioner had as claimant denied liability in its answer to the libel and the issue thus raised had not been tried. While the decree dismissing the petition as to W. & S. Job & Co., Inc., was final as to them, there was no decree disposing of the case below. A case may not be brought here in fragments. This court has jurisdiction under § 238 of the Judicial Code, as under other sections, only from judgments which are both final and complete. Collins v. Miller, decided by this court March 29, 1920, ante, 364; Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262. The case was not ripe for appeal. Although the objection was not raised by the appellee, the appeal is
Dismissedfor want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (35 total)
-
Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1940)…ction may confirm, the purpose of. the wrongdoer.” An order allowing the addition of plaintiffs is interlocutory and not appealable: Central California Canneries Co. v. Dunkley Co., 282 F. 406, 410. See Oneida Navigation Corp. v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U. S. 521; Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, Vol. 5, § 2608. An order of reference to a master is generally interlocutofy and not appealable, at least if'not for a mere ministerial purpose: George v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 293 U. S. 377. See Latta v. Kil…
-
Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1929)…v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684, 699, within the.exception to the general rule which limits the right of review to judgments which are [*223] both final and complete. See Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 370; Oneida Navigation Corp’n v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U. S. 521. It is true that the order deals with a matter which, in one respect, is deemed collateral. As was said in Segurola v. United States, 275 U. S. 106, 111-112: “ & court, when engaged in trying a criminal case, will not take notice of the manner in w…
-
Arnold v. United States for the Use of W. B. Guimarin & Co., 263 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1923)…if the judgment or decree be not thus final and complete, the writ of error or appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Hohorst v. Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262, 264; Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 370; Oneida Navigation Corporation v. Job, 252 U. S. 521, 522; and cases therein cited. And it is clear that the present case does not come within the seeming exception to this rule that an adjudication final in its nature as to a matter distinct from the general subject of the litigation and affecting o…
Previewing 3 of 35 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1893)