Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Nyanza Steamship Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1

Nyanza S.S. Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1, 264 U.S. 439 (1924)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1924-04-07
Topic
general

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Nyanza Steamship Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Appellate Jurisdiction The rule confining the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to final judgments that completely dispose of the litigation applies to jurisdictional appeals under § 238 of the Judicial Code in admiralty cases. 264 U.S. at 440
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Appellate Jurisdiction — Final Judgments The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under § 238, as under other provisions, only over writs of error or appeals from final judgments, and the judgment must be not only final in nature but a complete disposition of the cause. 264 U.S. at 440 (citing Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 370)
  3. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Appellate Jurisdiction — Finality A decree dismissing for want of admiralty jurisdiction some, but not all, of the causes of action set forth in a single libel is not a final judgment where it leaves one cause of action undisposed of, and an appeal from that decree must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction even though the objection was not raised by the appellee. 264 U.S. at 440
NYANZA CO.v. JAHNCKE DRY DOCK,264 U.S. 439(1924)
44 S.Ct. 355
NYANZA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.v. JAHNCKE DRY DOCK NO. 1, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF LOUISIANA.
No. 307.
Argued March 6, 1924.
Decided April 7, 1924.
The rule confining the jurisdiction of this Court by appeal to final judgments completely disposing of litigation, applies to jurisdictional appeals, under Jud. Code, § 238, in admiralty cases. P. 440. Appeal dismissed.
APPEAL from a decree of the District Court dismissing, for
want of admiralty jurisdiction, three of four causes of action
contained in a single libel.
Mr. Richard B. Montgomeryfor appellant.Mr. Walter Carroll, with whomMr. Geo. H. Terriberrywas on the brief, for appellees.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The owners of the Steamship Nyanza filed, in the Federal Court for Eastern Louisiana, against Jahncke Drydock No. 1 and the owners thereof a single libel setting forth these four causes of action:in remfor salvage,in personamfor salvage,in remfor damage from collision, andin personamfor such damage. The owners appeared as claimants. Excepting to the libel, they prayed that "in so far as the action is eitherin remorin personamfor salvage, andin remfor 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 JudicialPage 440Code, with a certificate that "in this decree the question of jurisdiction alone is in issue."

The decree leaves the cause of actionin personamfor 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.Collinsv.Miller,252 U.S. 364,370. This rule is applicable to appeals in admiralty.Bowkerv.United States,186 U.S. 135;OneidaNavigation Corporationv.W. S. Job Co., Inc.,252 U.S. 521. There is nothing to the contrary inWithenburyv.UnitedStates, 5 Wall. 819, or inThe Pesaro,255 U.S. 216,217. Counsel suggested that the dismissal of this premature appeal might somehow release the drydock, to libelant's prejudice. It obviously cannot have that effect.Dismissed.