TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

NYANZA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. JAHNCKE DRY DOCK No. 1, ET AL.

Nyanza S.S. Co. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1, 264 U.S. 439 (1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 7, 1924
Docket
No. 307
Judges
Brandeis
Citations
264 U.S. 43944 S. Ct. 35568 L. Ed. 7771924 U.S. LEXIS 2522

Opinion — Brandeis

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1931: 11941: 11942: 11946: 11947: 11950: 21955: 119312026peak 1950 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clark v. Taylor163 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1947)
  2. United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land129 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1942)
  3. Bradley v. Pace183 F.2d 806 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
  4. Balboa Shipping Co., Inc. v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co.181 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1950)
  5. Stewart v. Roberts154 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1946)
  6. United States v. The Lake George224 F.2d 117 (3d Cir. 1955)

Most recent

  1. United States v. The Lake George224 F.2d 117 (3d Cir. 1955)
  2. Bradley v. Pace183 F.2d 806 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
  3. Balboa Shipping Co., Inc. v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co.181 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1950)
  4. Clark v. Taylor163 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1947)
  5. Stewart v. Roberts154 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1946)
  6. United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land129 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364 (1920) 215
The Pesaro, 255 U.S. 216 (1921) 60
Oneida Navigation Corp. v. W. & S. Job & Co., 252 U.S. 521 (1920) 41
Bowker v. United States, 186 U.S. 135 (1902) 27
Withenbury v. United States, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 819 (1867) 19

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list