Nyanza Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1
264 U.S. 439 (1924)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Nyanza Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1, 264 U.S. 439 (1924)

Nyanza Steamship Company, Ltd. v. Jahncke Dry Dock No. 1

No. 307

Argued March 6, 1924

Decided April 7, 1924

264 U.S. 439

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Syllabus

The rule confining the jurisdiction of this Court by appeal to final judgment completely disposing of litigation applies to jurisdictional appeal, under Jud.Code § 238 in admiralty cases. P. 264 U. S. 440.

Appeal dismissed.

Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing, for want of admiralty jurisdiction, three of four causes of action contained in a single libel.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The owners of the steamship Nyanza 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, "insofar 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

Page 264 U. S. 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, 252 U. S. 370. This rule is applicable to appeals in admiralty. Bowker v. United States,186 U. S. 135; Oneida Nav. Corp. v. W. & S. Job Co.,252 U. S. 251. There is nothing to the contrary in Withenbury v. United States, 5 Wall. 819, or in The Pesaro,255 U. S. 216, 255 U. S. 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.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.