James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States

267 U.S. 86, 45 S. Ct. 238, 69 L. Ed. 527, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 358
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 2, 1925
Docket42
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 267 U.S. 86 (James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States) 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
James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 267 U.S. 86, 45 S. Ct. 238, 69 L. Ed. 527, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 358 (1925).

Opinion

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 pf repairs made on the steamship Biran, owned by the United States. The suit *87 was 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 Company v. United States, 186 U. S. 279, 296; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 272; United States v. 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.

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

Related

United States v. Horn
First Circuit, 1994
United States v. Richard A. Horn
29 F.3d 754 (First Circuit, 1994)
Young v. Pierce
640 F. Supp. 1476 (E.D. Texas, 1986)
United States v. American Cyanamid Co.
34 F.R.D. 532 (S.D. New York, 1963)
United States v. Eastern S. S. Lines, Inc.
171 F.2d 589 (First Circuit, 1948)
State Highway Commission v. Wunderlich
11 So. 2d 437 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1943)
United States v. Jardine
81 F.2d 747 (Fifth Circuit, 1936)
United States v. French Sardine Co.
80 F.2d 325 (Ninth Circuit, 1935)
Sanguinetti v. United States
1 F. Supp. 922 (S.D. Texas, 1932)
United States v. Knowles' Estate
58 F.2d 718 (Ninth Circuit, 1932)
O'Boyle v. United States
49 F.2d 273 (Second Circuit, 1931)
United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.
272 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 U.S. 86, 45 S. Ct. 238, 69 L. Ed. 527, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-shewan-sons-inc-v-united-states-scotus-1925.