WITHENBURY
v.
UNITED STATES
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 a prize case involving claims by Withenbury & Doyle against the United States, the Supreme Court held that a decree resolving all matters between the parties and awarding execution in favor of the libellants constituted a final judgment within the meaning of the Judiciary Acts, thereby conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Court. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal, establishing that prize decrees disposing of the entire controversy between the parties are appealable to the Supreme Court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
It appears from the record that the decree disposed of the whole matter in controversy upon tl^e claim of Withenbury & Doyle. It was final as to them and their rights, and it Was final also so far as die claimants and their rights are concerned as to the United States. It left nothing to be litigated between these parties. It awarded execution in favor of the libellants against the claimants.
We think that such a decree in a prize cause must be regarded as final within the meaning of the Judiciary Acts, and that we have jurisdiction of the appeal from it.
The appeals in The Bermuda case, and in the case of the Alexander cotton, were of the same character with that now before us. In neither of these cases had all matters arising upon the libel and the claims been finally disposed of. In the first the appeal was by claimants of part of the property libelled, whose claims had been dismissed and the property claimed -by them condemned. In the other the gppeal was by the United States from a decree of restitution in favor of a claimant of' part of the property libelled, in the same consolidated cause from a decree in which, against another claimant, the appeal -which we are now asked to dismiss was taken.
It is true, that in the cases just referred to no question of jurisdiction was made at the bar, but it existed necessarily in each cause, and was practically determined in favor of the jurisdiction, and, as we still ,think, rightly determined.
The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
The motion to dismiss the appeal in Le More v. United States depends on like, facts and the same principles with that just decided, and must álso be denied.
Mr. Justice CLIFFORD dissented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Holland v. State, 15 Fla. 549 (Fla. 1876)…This demurrer presented an issue of law; that issue involved the entire defense of Daniel P. Holland, and a judgment sustaining the demurrer determined the whole issue between the parties. It left nothing to be litigated, between them. (12 Wall. 98; 5 Wall. 819.) From this judgment this appeal is prosecuted; due notice thereof is given as required by law, and a written agreement,' signed by the attorneys of the parties, is filed in this court, that the appeal may be taken by defendant Holland without givin…
-
Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1893)…on' the court-proceeded to try the issues made by' the answers "of the other defendants .and dismissed-complainant’s bill; but this, attitude of the case- illustrated and required the application of the general rule. In Withenbury v. United States, 5 Wall. 819, it was decided that where a decree in a prize cause disposed of the whole matter in dispute upon.. a claim filed by . particular parties which was final as to them and their rights, and final also so far as the claimants and - their rights were con…
-
Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1939)…te patents were asserted in a single suit. This is in accord with numerous decisions of the Supreme Court holding that final determinations of separable controversies involved in a single suit are appealable. See, e. g., Withenbury v. United States, 5 Wall. 819, 18 L.Ed. 613; Trustees of Internal Improv. Fund v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157; Williams v. Morgan, 111 U.S. 684, 4 S.Ct. 638, 28 L.Ed. 559; Central Trust Co. v. Grant Locomotive Works, 135 U.S. 207, 10 S.Ct. 736, 34 L.Ed. 97; Hill v. Ch…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence