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

264 U.S. 439, 44 S. Ct. 355, 68 L. Ed. 777, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2522
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 7, 1924
Docket307
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 264 U.S. 439 (Nyanza Steamship Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1) 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
Nyanza Steamship Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1, 264 U.S. 439, 44 S. Ct. 355, 68 L. Ed. 777, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2522 (1924).

Opinion

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. The court maintained the exception; entered a decree of dismissal precisely as prayed for; and allowed an appeal under § 238 of the Judicial *440 Code, with a certificate that “ in this decree the question of jurisdiction alone is in issue.”

The decree leaves the cause of action in personam for 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. Collins v. Miller, 252 U. S. 364, 370. This rule is applicable to appeals in admiralty. Bowker v. United States, 186 U. S. 135; Oneida Navigation Corporation v. W. & S. Job & Co., Inc., 252 U. S. 521. There is nothing to the contrary in Withenbury v. United States, 5 Wall. 819, or in The Pesaro, 255 U. S. 216, 217. Counsel suggested that the dismissal of this premature appeal might somehow release the dry-dock, to libelant’s prejudice. It obviously cannot have that effect.

Dismissed.

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

Related

United States v. The Lake George
224 F.2d 117 (Third Circuit, 1955)
Bradley v. Pace
183 F.2d 806 (D.C. Circuit, 1950)
Clark v. Taylor
163 F.2d 940 (Second Circuit, 1947)
Stewart v. Roberts
154 F.2d 697 (D.C. Circuit, 1946)
United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land
129 F.2d 678 (Second Circuit, 1942)
United States v. Florian
312 U.S. 656 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Georgia Casualty Co. v. McRitchie
156 S.E. 458 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 U.S. 439, 44 S. Ct. 355, 68 L. Ed. 777, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyanza-steamship-co-v-jahncke-dry-dock-no-1-scotus-1924.