Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States

267 U.S. 86

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1925-03-02
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • assessing costs against the United States in an admiralty case when act provided that claims should be heard and determined according to principles and rules governing in similar cases between private parties

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
18 opinions
JAMES SHEWAN SONS, INC.v. UNITED STATES,267 U.S. 86(1925)
45 S.Ct. 238
JAMES SHEWAN SONS, INC.v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
No. 42.
Argued October 7, 8, 1924.
Decided March 2, 1925.
A libelant whose libel against the United States for repairs on a vessel was dismissed by the District Court but sustained by this Court on appeal,heldentitled, under the Suits in Admiralty Act, to costs in the District Court and this Court; and interest as that court shall order in accordance with the statute. P. 87.
APPEAL from a decree of the District Court in Admiralty which
dismissed a libel for repairs. The decree was reversed (See
266 U.S. 108,) and the present decision is upon an application to
withdraw the mandate and to award costs.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.
On November 17, 1924, this Court reversed the decree of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing a libel in admiralty against the United States, brought to recover the value of repairs made on the steamship Biran, owned by the United States. The suitPage 87was brought under an act authorizing suits against the United States in admiralty, etc., approved March 9, 1920, ch. 95,41 Stat. 525. Nothing was said in the opinion about costs. The ordinary rule is that costs are not allowed against the United States.Pine River Companyv.United States,186 U.S. 279,296;Stanleyv.Schwalby,162 U.S. 255,272;United Statesv.Ringgold, 8 Peters, 150, 163;The Antelope, 12 Wheaton, 546, 550. The mandate issued by the Clerk accordingly did not award any costs against the United States. The appellant now applies for a withdrawal of the mandate, in order to award them. He relies on Section 3 of the act under which the suit was brought. That provides that such suits shall proceed and shall be heard and determined according to the principles of law and to the rules of practice obtaining in like cases between private parties. A decree against the United States may include costs of suit, and when the decree is for money judgment, interest also at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum until satisfied, or at any higher rate which shall be stipulated in any contract upon which such decree shall be based. Interest is to run as ordered by the court. In accordance with this provision we must assess the costs of this appeal against the United States and direct the District Court to assess also the costs of suit in that court and interest as that court shall order it in accordance with the statute.It is so ordered.