Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Ex Parte the Union Steamboat Company
Ex Parte Union Steamboat Co., 178 U.S. 317 (1900)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1900-05-28
- Topic
- general
Mr. Justice Brown, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. Petitioner applies for this writ of mandamus upon the ground that the District Court refused to enter a decree in conformity with the .opinion of this court dividing the damages, but in effect entered a decree imposing upon the Union Steamboat Company, the petitioner, about seventy-six per cent of the damages occasioned by the collision. The duty of an inferior court upon receiving the mandate of this court is nowhere better described than by Mr. Justice Baldwin in an early case upon that subject, Ex parte Sibbald v.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ex Parte the Union Steamboat Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 51 opinions
Headnotes
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Mandamus Upon receipt of the mandate of a superior court, an inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case and must carry it into execution according to the mandate; it may not vary the mandate or examine it for any purpose other than execution, nor give further relief or review matters already decided on appeal, and it may go no further than to settle so much as has been remanded. 178 U.S. at 319 (quoting Ex parte Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492)
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Mandamus Mandamus to compel an inferior court to obey the mandate of a superior court is available where the mandate is not obeyed or executed, and such a writ lies where no other adequate remedy exists; the writ may not be used as a substitute for a writ of error. 178 U.S. at 319–320
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Mandate — Questions Left Open Below An inferior court is justified in considering and deciding any question left open by the mandate and opinion of the reviewing court, and its decision on such a matter can be reviewed only by a new appeal to the proper court; the reviewing court's opinion may be consulted to ascertain exactly what was decided and settled. 178 U.S. at 320
- Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Mandamus Where the reviewing court in a collision case decided only the respective faults of the two vessels and the cargo underwriters' right to full recovery against one vessel, and left undecided the question whether that vessel could recoup one half of the cargo damages from the other vessel's moiety, the refusal of the district court to allow such recoupment raises a new question that is not a disobedience of the mandate and may be corrected by appeal rather than by mandamus. 178 U.S. at 320–321
EX PARTETHE UNION STEAMBOAT COMPANY,178 U.S. 317(1900)
20 S.Ct. 904
Ex parteTHE UNION STEAMBOAT COMPANY.
ORIGINAL.
No. 12, Original.
Submitted May 14, 1900.
Decided May 28, 1900.
THIS was a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, commanding it to set
aside a decree entered in the case ofThe New York,175 U.S. 187,
and enter a decree dividing the damages equally, so that
petitioner would not be decreed to pay more than one half the
total damages arising out of the collision between the New York
and the Conemaugh, with interest thereon not exceeding five per
cent per annum.
Upon the opinion of this court in the case ofThe New York
being filed, a mandate issued that the decree of the Court of
Appeals be reversed, and the case remanded to the District Court,
with direction "to enter a decree in conformity with the opinion
of this court, with interest at the same rate per annum that
decrees bear in the State of Michigan." Upon the case coming on
to be heard in the District Court, the petitioner, the Union
Steamboat Company, owner of the propeller New York, submitted a
decree to the effect that both vessels were in fault for the
collision, and that the damages resulting therefrom be equally
divided between the Erie and Western Transportation Company,
owner of the Conemaugh, and the Union Steamboat Company, owner of
the New York; that such damages amounted in all to the sum of
$74,319.49, of which certain intervening underwriters of the
cargo were entitled to, and recovered from the Steamboat Company,
$19,841.56; that
Page 318
the Transportation Company, as trustees for the underwriters and
owners of the cargo of the Conemaugh, not intervening, suffered
damages in the sum of $19,627.67; that, as owner of the
propeller, it had suffered damages in the sum of $30,508.46,
aggregating the sum of $50,136.13; that the Transportation
Company recover of the petitioner one half of $50,136.13, less
one half the sum of $19,841.56, decreed to be paid to the
intervening petitioners, etc.
The court, however, declined to enter this decree; refused to
permit the petitioner to recoup any sum that it might pay to the
owners or underwriters of the cargo of the Conemaugh, from any
sum that was due from the Steamboat Company for damages sustained
by the Conemaugh, so that such company was compelled to pay of
the total damages about seventy-six per cent instead of fifty per
cent thereof.
The duty of an inferior court upon receiving the mandate of this court is nowhere better described than by Mr. Justice Baldwin in an early case upon that subject,Ex parte Sibbaldv.United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492: "Whatever," said he, "was before the court, and is disposed of, is considered as finallyPage 319settled. The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution, according to the mandate. They cannot vary it or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it upon any matter decided on appeal for error apparent; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded. . . . If the special mandate, directed by the twenty-fourth section, (of the judiciary act,) is not obeyed or executed, then the general power given to all courts of the United States to issue any writs which are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law, by the fourteenth section of the judiciary act, fairly arises, and a mandamus or other appropriate writs will go," although an appeal will also sometimes lie.Perkinsv.Fourniquet, 14 How. 328, 330;MilwaukeeMinnesota Railroad Co. v.Soutter, 2 Wall. 440, 443. See alsoBoyce's Executorsv.Grundy, 9 Pet. 275;Ex parte DubuquePacific Railroad, 1 Wall. 69;Durantv.Essex Co.,101 U.S. 555;In re Washington Georgetown R.R. Co.,140 U.S. 91;CityBankv.Hunter,152 U.S. 512;In re City National Bank,153 U.S. 246;In re Sanford Fork Tool Co.,160 U.S. 247;In rePotts,166 U.S. 263.
It is equally well settled, however, that such writ, as a general rule, lies only where there is no other adequate remedy and that it cannot be availed of as a writ of error.In rePennsylvania Co.,137 U.S. 451;In re Morrison,147 U.S. 14,26;Ex parte Railway Co.,103 U.S. 794;Ex parte BaltimoreOhio R.R. Co.,108 U.S. 566;In re Atlantic City R.R.,164 U.S. 633. The inferior court is justified in considering and deciding any question left open by the mandate and opinion of this court, and its decision upon such matter can only be reviewed upon a new appeal to the proper court;In re SanfordFork Tool Co.,160 U.S. 247,256, and the opinion of this court may be consulted to ascertain exactly what was decided and settled.Westv.Brashear, 14 Pet. 51;Supervisorsv.Kennicott,94 U.S. 498;Gainesv.Rugg,148 U.S. 228,238,244;Sanford Fork Tool Co.,160 U.S. 247,256.
The libel in this case was for a collision between the ConemaughPage 320and the New York. The only questions decided were as to the respective faults of the two vessels, and the claim of the underwriters upon the Conemaugh's cargo, that they were entitled to a recovery to the full amount of their damages against the New York, notwithstanding the Conemaugh was also in fault for the collision. This claim was sustained, and directions given to enter a decree in conformity to the opinion of this court. Such decree was entered, dividing the damages between the two vessels, and awarding to the underwriters of the cargo a full recovery against the New York. It may be true that the decree holds the New York liable for seventy-six per cent of the entire damages and not fifty per cent, but this results from the fact that she was primarily held for the entire value of the cargo. The equal division applied only to the vessels, and upon the other hand if petitioner be entitled to the recoupment claimed, it would, apparently, result in an affirmative decree in its favor. But no question of recouping one half of such damages to the cargo from the moiety of damages awarded the Conemaugh was made by counsel or passed upon by this court. It is now insisted that, under the cases ofThe Chattahoochee,173 U.S. 540, andThe AlbertDumois,177 U.S. 240, this should have been done. This may be so; but it is an entirely new question, quite unaffected by the case ofThe New York, and if the court erred in refusing to allow such recoupment, the remedy is by appeal and not by mandamus. Perhaps a mandamus might lie to review the allowance of interest, but that may also be considered on appeal.
No disobedience of the mandate having been shown, the petition must beDenied.Page 321