GEORGE R. SAMPSON AND LEWIS W. TAPPAN, MERCHANTS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAMES AND FIRM OF SAMPSON & TAPPAN, CLAIMANTS OF THE SHIP SARAH, HER TACKLE, APPAREL, AND FURNITURE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL WELSH, JOHN WELSH, AND WILLIAM WELSH, TRADING AS S. & W. WELSH

U.S. | 1858-07-20
24 How. 207 Supreme Court of the United States (1858) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 16 L. Ed. 632 · SCDB 1860-014 · 1860 U.S. LEXIS 388
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Sampson & Tappan, ship owners, appealed to the Supreme Court from a Circuit Court decree awarding $1,071.27 to S. & W. Welsh for damages to cargo and disbursements related to the ship Sarah. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the final decree was below $2,000, the statutory minimum amount required for Supreme Court review under federal law at that time, and the respondents' reservation of appeal rights when setting off freight charges could not enlarge the Court's jurisdictional authority.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is brought up by an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.

A libel wa-s filed in the District Court for that district by S. & W. Welsh, the appellees, against the ship Sarah, (of which Sampson &; Tappan, the appellants, are the owners,) to recover compensation for damages-sustained by a cargo of .coffee shipped on board the Sarah, at Rio, ancl consigned to the libellants; and also to recover compensation for sundry disbursements made by the libellants for. the payment of wages ' and provisions for the ship. . . .

The ship-owners appeared, and answeredbut it is unnecessary to state more particularly the facts in controversy between the parties, because the final decree of the • Circuit Court was for less than two thousand dollars, and conse-quently no appeal from its decree will lie to this court.

At the hearing in the District.Court the libel was dismissed: but upon an appeal to the.Circuit Court.this decision was reversed, and "a decree passed by the Circuit Court in favor-of the libellants for the sum of $2,302.78, with leave to the respondents to set off the balance due them for freight, if théy should elect to do so. Afterwards, the respondents appeared in court, and elected to set off this balance against the sum decreed against them, which reduced the amount to $1,071.27. But in making this election, the proctors .for the "esDondents stated in ^writing, and filed in the court, that the •election to set off was made without any waiver of their right to appeal from the decree. After this election was made, the court, on the 31st of August, 1858, passed its decree in favor of the libellants for the above-mentionéd sum of $1,071.27, with interest from July 20, 1858. This was the final decree of the court, and the one from which the.appeal is taken; and, as it is be£ov7 $2,000, no appeal will lie under the act of Congress. And neither the resérvation óf the respondents in ‘making their, election, nor even the consent of both parties, if that had appeared, will give jurisdiction to this court where .it'is'not given.by law' . .

The appeal must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Thompson v. Butler, 95 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1877)
    …the trial court will not allow it to be done. If, however, the reduction is permitted, the errors in the record will be-shut out from our re-examination in cases where our jurisdiction • depends upon, the amount in controversy. In Sampson v. Welch, 24 How. 207, we refused to take jurisdiction upon an appeal in admiralty, where a decree had been rendered against a respond- , ent for more than $2,000, with leave to him,'if he' chose, to-set off an amount due him for freight, and. he afterwards, by the set-o…
  • Lamar v. Micou, 104 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1881)
    …he get any money decree in his favor. All he seeks to do is to defeat the claim of the appellee. Consequently the amount in controversy, so far as this appeal is concerned, is fixed by the decree. Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694; Sampson v. Welsh, 24 How. 207. In effect he insists that, under the rule of liability established against him in. the court below, the decree should have been for more than $5,000, and that for this reason he is entitled to an appeal, so that he may.show he is not liable at all.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw