The Sylvia Handy

Supreme Court

The Sylvia Handy

143 U.S. 513, 12 S. Ct. 464, 36 L. Ed. 246, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2038, 1 Alaska Fed. 276

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 29, 1892

Docket58

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 U.S. 513 (The Sylvia Handy) 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

The Sylvia Handy, 143 U.S. 513, 12 S. Ct. 464, 36 L. Ed. 246, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2038, 1 Alaska Fed. 276 (1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice Fullee

delivered the opinion of the ■court. ■

"W"e have already held’in Ex parte Cooper, ante, 472, that the act' of February 16, 1875, (c. 77, sec. 1, 18 Stat. 315,) applies to appeals taken from decrees of the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska sitting in admiralty, and we are therefore limited" upon this appeal to a determination of the questions of law arising upon the record, and to such rulings of the court, excepted to at the time, as may be presented by a bill of exceptions prepared as in actions at law. The libel and findings» in this case, as- in that, are sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction.

*516 The certificate of the clerk is to the effect “ that the foregoing copies.of pleadings, papers and journal entries in the cause of The United States v. The Schooner Sylvia Handy and L. N. Handy & Co. have been by me compared with the originals thereof as the same appear on file and of record in this court, and that the same are full and true transcripts of said original pleadings, papers and journal entries now in my custody and' control.” No mention is made in this certificate of a bilL of exceptions, but we find .in the record a paper so styled filed March 23, 1888,-and presumably signed on that •day. Two terms of the District Court of Alaska are provided for in each year; one beginning on the first Monday of May and the other on the first Monday of November. (23 Stat; 24, c. 53, sec. 3.) The trial of this cause took place oh the 22d of September, 1887, and the decree was entered on that day, and there is nothing in the record showing the authority of the court to allow a bill of exceptions at the succeeding term. Looking into the bill, however, the only exception that vve find there taken, is thus stated: “The defendants there, and then excepted to the ruling of the court and the law as declared by the court, viz;: ” and then follow the findings of fact, and conclusions of law made and filed by the court.

The bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, and no request was made for a finding of fact as to the actual locality of the killing.and the seizure in question.

Under these circumstances, the rulings in Ex parte Cooper are decisive of this case, and the decree will therefore be

Affirmed.

Mb. Justice Field dissented.

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

Me. Chief Justice Fullee

delivered the opinion of the ■court. ■

"W"e have already held’in Ex parte Cooper, ante, 472, that the act' of February 16, 1875, (c. 77, sec. 1, 18 Stat. 315,) applies to appeals taken from decrees of the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska sitting in admiralty, and we are therefore limited" upon this appeal to a determination of the questions of law arising upon the record, and to such rulings of the court, excepted to at the time, as may be presented by a bill of exceptions prepared as in actions at law. The libel and findings» in this case, as- in that, are sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction.

*516 The certificate of the clerk is to the effect “ that the foregoing copies.of pleadings, papers and journal entries in the cause of The United States v. The Schooner Sylvia Handy and L. N. Handy & Co. have been by me compared with the originals thereof as the same appear on file and of record in this court, and that the same are full and true transcripts of said original pleadings, papers and journal entries now in my custody and' control.” No mention is made in this certificate of a bilL of exceptions, but we find .in the record a paper so styled filed March 23, 1888,-and presumably signed on that •day. Two terms of the District Court of Alaska are provided for in each year; one beginning on the first Monday of May and the other on the first Monday of November. (23 Stat; 24, c. 53, sec. 3.) The trial of this cause took place oh the 22d of September, 1887, and the decree was entered on that day, and there is nothing in the record showing the authority of the court to allow a bill of exceptions at the succeeding term. Looking into the bill, however, the only exception that vve find there taken, is thus stated: “The defendants there, and then excepted to the ruling of the court and the law as declared by the court, viz;: ” and then follow the findings of fact, and conclusions of law made and filed by the court.

The bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, and no request was made for a finding of fact as to the actual locality of the killing.and the seizure in question.

Under these circumstances, the rulings in Ex parte Cooper are decisive of this case, and the decree will therefore be

Affirmed.

Mb. Justice Field dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 U.S. 513, 12 S. Ct. 464, 36 L. Ed. 246, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2038, 1 Alaska Fed. 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-sylvia-handy-scotus-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack