Devere v. The Haverton

Supreme Court

Devere v. The Haverton

137 U.S. 145, 11 S. Ct. 35, 34 L. Ed. 603, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2075

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 17, 1890

Docket60

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 137 U.S. 145 (Devere v. The Haverton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Devere v. The Haverton, 137 U.S. 145, 11 S. Ct. 35, 34 L. Ed. 603, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2075 (1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

*146 Assuming, as we must do, the total value to have been $6057, the matter in dispute in this court is the' difference-between that value and the decree, namely, $3028.50. ¥e-have, therefore, no jurisdiction. Dows v. Johnson, 110 U. S. 223. On the argument it was urged with much earnestness-on behalf of appellants, that it is within our power, upon the-facts as found, to declare- the Mary and Catherine entirely and solely in fault, and take away from the libelíants what the Circuit Court awarded them, and that jurisdiction can be-maintained by adding the amount the Circuit Court did not-allow to the amount that it is suggested libellants might thus-be deprived of. But as the claimants did not appeal, and as, if they had, the worst that could happen to libellants through our action on such cross appeal, would be the taking away of less than $5000, the suggestion is entitled to no consideration.

There is nothing in the cases of The Hesper, 122 U. S. 256,. or The Alaska,, 130 U. S. 201, to the contrary. In the former, the District Court awarded $8000, while the Circuit Court gave only $4200, but that was a case of salvage, in which the value of the property saved was over $100,000, and compensation was sought for the salvage in such sum "proportioned to-the value as the court might deem meet and reasonable. There was no finding of the Circuit Court that bound us, and in case of reversal a much larger sum than the jurisdictional amount might have been awarded, in addition to the sum which was. The difference between the judgments of the two courts in no respect represented the amount in dispute. Moreover, that case involved only the power of the Circuit Court on appeal, and. not that of this court. In the latter case, the stipulation given to release the vessel libelled was for the sum of $25,000, for the benefit of five parties, each of whose claim for damages was $10,000, and some of whom-might recover more than $5000, so that the amount involved in each case, on the question of jurisdiction, was $10,000, which was, of course sufficient.

This appeal must be dismissed, omd it is so 'ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

*146 Assuming, as we must do, the total value to have been $6057, the matter in dispute in this court is the' difference-between that value and the decree, namely, $3028.50. ¥e-have, therefore, no jurisdiction. Dows v. Johnson, 110 U. S. 223. On the argument it was urged with much earnestness-on behalf of appellants, that it is within our power, upon the-facts as found, to declare- the Mary and Catherine entirely and solely in fault, and take away from the libelíants what the Circuit Court awarded them, and that jurisdiction can be-maintained by adding the amount the Circuit Court did not-allow to the amount that it is suggested libellants might thus-be deprived of. But as the claimants did not appeal, and as, if they had, the worst that could happen to libellants through our action on such cross appeal, would be the taking away of less than $5000, the suggestion is entitled to no consideration.

There is nothing in the cases of The Hesper, 122 U. S. 256,. or The Alaska,, 130 U. S. 201, to the contrary. In the former, the District Court awarded $8000, while the Circuit Court gave only $4200, but that was a case of salvage, in which the value of the property saved was over $100,000, and compensation was sought for the salvage in such sum "proportioned to-the value as the court might deem meet and reasonable. There was no finding of the Circuit Court that bound us, and in case of reversal a much larger sum than the jurisdictional amount might have been awarded, in addition to the sum which was. The difference between the judgments of the two courts in no respect represented the amount in dispute. Moreover, that case involved only the power of the Circuit Court on appeal, and. not that of this court. In the latter case, the stipulation given to release the vessel libelled was for the sum of $25,000, for the benefit of five parties, each of whose claim for damages was $10,000, and some of whom-might recover more than $5000, so that the amount involved in each case, on the question of jurisdiction, was $10,000, which was, of course sufficient.

This appeal must be dismissed, omd it is so 'ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 U.S. 145, 11 S. Ct. 35, 34 L. Ed. 603, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devere-v-the-haverton-scotus-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack