JOHN CLIFTON, CLAIMANT OF THE BRIG WATER WITCH, HER TACKLE, &C., APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM H. SHELDON
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 an admiralty dispute over freight charges on cotton and wool shipped aboard the brig Water Witch, the District Court dismissed the libel but the Circuit Court reversed and awarded the shipper freight payments from two cargo claimants. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the amount decreed against the defendant Sheldon individually was $1,754.22, which fell below the $2,000 jurisdictional threshold required for Supreme Court review of circuit court decrees.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district.of New York, in admiralty. A motion has been made, on the part of the. appellee, to dismiss the appeal, for the want of jurisdiction.
A libel was filed by Clifton, in the District Court, to recover freight on'the two hundred and sixty-nine bales of cotton and nine bags of wool. Brower and Sheldon appeared as claimants, and contested the claim for the freight. Brower claimed sixty-seven of the two hundred and sixty-nine bales, and Sheldon two hundred and two bales. The District Court dismissed the libel.
On appeal to the Circuit Court; this decree was reversed, and decree rendered in favor of the libellant for.the amount of the freight, $2,338.06; that J. ~W. Brower, claimant of a portion of' the cotton, pay to the libellant the sum of $583.84, being the freight on the cotton claimed by him in the suit, and that the claimant, W. H. Sheldon, pay for the portion claimed by him the sum of $1,754.22. Sheldon appealed from the decree to this court.
The motion is now made to,- dismiss the appeal, on the ground.that the decree against.Sheldon is'less than $2,000, and which is apparent from a perusal of the decree. The sum decreed against him is only $1,754.22.
. .The freight was separately awarded against the claimants, in proportion to the cotton shipped by each one. The rights of each were distinct and independent. -
But if it were otherwise, and the whole of the freight jointly against the claimants, the appeal must still be dismissed, as then the claimants should have joined in it.
Motion to dismiss granted.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1887)…n, in one of which the appeal was taken by the libellants, and in the other by the owner of the vessel against which the suit was brought. Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 106 U. S. 5; The Nevada, 106 U. S. 154. See [*32] also Clifton v. Sheldon, 23 How. 481. In the intermediate case of The Rio Grande, 19 Wall. 178, in which material men joining in a libel in rem had severally recovered in the Circuit Court various sums, a motion by them to dismiss the appeal of the owners of the vessel was not sustaine…
-
Estis v. Trabue, 128 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1888)…414; Owings v. Kincannon, 7 Pet. 399 ; Heirs of Wilson v. Life and Fire Ins. Co., 12 Pet. 140; Todd v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 521; Smyth v. Strader, 12 How. 327; Davenport v. Fletcher, 16 How. 142; Mussina v. Cavazos, 20 How. 280, 289; Sheldon v. Clifton, 23 How. 481, 484; Master son v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 416; Hampton v. Rouse, 13 Wall. 187; Simpson v. Greeley, 20 Wall. 152; Feibelman v. Packard, 108 U. S. 14. Where there is a substantial defect in a writ of error, which this court cannot amend, it has no jurisd…
-
Babcock v. Norton, 5 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1924)…everance, not to speak of other possible objections, the appeal must be dismissed.” See, too, Mason v. United States, 136 U. S. 581, 10 S. Ct. 1062, 34 L. Ed. 345; Feibelman v. Packard, 108 U. S. 14, 1 S. Ct. 138, 27 L. Ed. 634; Clifton v. Sheldon, 23 How. 481, 484, 16 L. Ed. 429; Simpson v. Greeley, 20 Wall. 152, 157, 22 L. Ed. 338. There are an almost innumerable number of cases in the lower federal courts in which the rule has been recognized and applied. We cite a few of them: Priest v. Seaman. (C. C…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maguire v. Card, 21 How. 248 (U.S. 1858)
- Olney v. The Steam-ship Falcon, 17 How. 19 (U.S. 1854)
- Udall v. The Steam-ship Ohio, 17 How. 17 (U.S. 1854)