NYANZA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.
v.
JAHNCKE DRY DOCK NO. 1, ET AL.
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 Steamship Nyanza brought suit against Jahncke Dry Dock asserting four causes of action—two for salvage and two for collision damages, both in rem and in personam—and the lower court dismissed the salvage claims and in rem damage claim for lack of admiralty jurisdiction while leaving the in personam damage claim unresolved. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the judgment was not final, as it failed to dispose of all causes of action, and the Court could only hear appeals from final and complete judgments.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the Court.
The owners of the Steamship Nyanzá filed, in the 'Federal Court for Eastern Louisiana, against Jahncke Dry-dock No. 1 and the owners thereof a single libel setting forth these four causes of action: in rem for salvage, in 'personam for salvage, in rem for damage from collision, and in personam for such damage. The owners appeared as claimants. Excepting to the libel, they prayed that “ in so far as the action is either in rem or in personam for salvage, and in rem for damage ” it be dismissed for want of admiralty jurisdiction. The court maintained the exception; entered a decree of dismissal precisely as prayed for; and allowed an appeal under § 238 of the Judicial Code, with a certificate that “ in this decree the question of jurisdiction alone is in issue.”
The decree leaves the cause of action in personam for damage undisposed of. For this reason the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this Court, although the objection was not taken by the appellee. This Court has jurisdiction under § 238, as under others, only of writs of error or appeals from final judgments. And the judgment must be not only in its nature final, but a complete disposition of the cause. Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 370. This rule is applicable to appeals in admiralty. Bowker v. United States, 186 U. S. 135; Oneida Navigation Corporation v. W. & S. Job & Co., Inc., 252 U. S. 521. There is nothing to the contrary in Withenbury v. United States, 5 Wall. 819, or in The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 217. Counsel suggested that the dismissal of this premature appeal might somehow release the dry-dock, to libelant’s prejudice. It obviously cannot have that effect.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. 243.22 Acres OF Land IN Town OF Babylon, 129 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1942)…ctice, 1941 Supplement, p. 99, note 34. 4a Rubert Hermanos, Inc., v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 118 F. 2d 752, 757. As to limitations on appeals in admiralty where § 227 does not apply, see [*681] Nyanza Steamship Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock Co., 264 U.S. 439, 44 S.Ct. 355, 68 L.Ed. 777. Cf. La Bourgogne, 210 U.S. 95, 28 S.Ct. 664, 52 L.Ed. 973. See, e. g., Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 S.Ct. 590, 37 L.Ed. 443; Bank of Rondout v. Smith, 156 U.S. 330, 15 S.Ct. 358, 39 L.Ed. 441…
-
Clark v. Taylor, 163 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1947)…7 Cir., 253 P. 635, with explanation at 637, certiorari denied 248 U.S. 578, 39 S.Ct. 20, 63 L.Ed. 430; compare the distinctions made as to the former case in the Hohorst case, supra, and in Nyanza S. S. Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1, 264 U.S. 439, 44 S.Ct. 355, 68 L.Ed. 777, Brandéis, J., the last times it has been cited in the Supreme Court. Not all these exceptions are clear; witness the question as to interpleader discussed in 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 22.13. Here, too, a definite rule is to be des…
-
United States v. Florian, 312 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1941)…certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court of Appeals because of the absence of a final judgment in the District Court. Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 370-371; Nyanza Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock, 264 U. S. 439. The cause is remanded to the District Court for a determination of the issues presented by the remaining counts, which the District Court by its order of June 27, 1940, as of October 23, 1939, reserved for disposition.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1920)
- Oneida Navigation Corp. v. W. & S. JOB & Co., Inc., 252 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1920)
- The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216 (U.S. 1921)
- Bowker v. United States, 186 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1902)
- Withenbury v. United States, 5 Wall. 819 (U.S. 1866)