THE CARLO POMA
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 addressed whether a District Court sitting as an admiralty court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the Italian ship Carlo Poma, which was claimed to be immune as a vessel of a foreign state. The Court held that the Circuit Court of Appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction over the District Court's jurisdictional ruling and vacated the appellate court's decision, directing it to dismiss the appeal, as such jurisdictional questions could only be reviewed directly by the Supreme Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is much like that of The Pesaro, ante, 216. The only difference requiring notice is that the appeal in that case was to this court while in this it was to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which rendered a decree of affirmance. 259 Fed. Rep. 369. A writ of certiorari brings that decree here for review. 250 U. S. 656.
The question raised and decided in the District Court was whether, sitting as a court of admiralty, it could entertain a suit in rem against a ship such as the Carlo Poma was represented to be in the suggestion of the Italian Ambassador. That was a jurisdictional question in the sense of § 238 of the Judicial Code. The Pesaro, supra. The court resolved it in the negative and accordingly released the ship from arrest, thereby disposing of the suit adversely to the libelant.
From that decree an appeal did not lie to the Circuit Court of Appeals, but only to this court. Such is the effect of the statute, Jud. Code, §§ 128, 238, defining and regulating the appellate jurisdiction of this court and of the Circuit Court of Appeals, as is pointed out in United States v. John, 155 U. S. 109, 114. In that case, after an extended review of the statute, it was said: “If the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court [now District Court] is in issue and decided in favor of the defendant, as that disposes of the case, the plaintiff should have the question certified and take his appeal or writ of error directly to this court.”
As therefore the decree in the District Court was not open to review by the Circuit Court of Appeals, we must vacate the latter’s decision and remand the case to it with a direction to dismiss the appeal. See Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73-74; Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318.
Decree of Circuit Court of Appeals vacated with direction to dismiss appeal from District. Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Stratton v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., 282 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1930)…Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 73-74; 443 Cans of Egg Product v. United States, supra; Carolina Glass Company v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 318; City of New York v. Consolidated Gas Company, 253 U. S. 219, 221; The Carlo Poma, 255 U. S. 219, 221. Decree reversed and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals with directions to dismiss• the appeal to that court'for want of jurisdiction. * The Act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, 38 Stat. 208, 220, U. S. C., Tit. 28, § 47, and section…
-
Berizzi Bros. Co. v. Steamship Pesaro, 271 U.S. 562 (U.S. 1926)
-
Republic OF Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1945)…session, both before The Navemar, supra, Long v. The Tampico, 16 F. 491, 493, 494 (opinion by Judge Addison Brown); The Johnson Lighterage Co. No. 24, 231 F. 365; The Attualita, 238 F. 909; The Carlo Poma, 259 F. 369, 370, reversed on other grounds, 255 U. S. 219; The Beaverton, 273 F. 539, 540; and since, Ervin v. Quintanilla, supra, 941; The Uxmal, 40 F. Supp. 258, 260; The Katingo Hadjipatera, 40 F. Supp. 546, 119 F. 2d 1022; The Ljubica Matkovic, 49 F. Supp. 936. Whether this distinction between possess…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis, 189 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1903)
- United States v. Jahn, 155 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1894)
- Carolina Glass Co. v. State of S.C., 240 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1916)