Where a vessel was libeled in the district court and sold by
agreement of parties, and the proceeds of sale amounted only to $
850, which was paid into the registry, this is insufficient to
bring the case within the jurisdiction of this Court, although an
agreement by counsel was filed admitting the value of the vessel to
be more than two thousand dollars.
This agreement would be evidence of the value if nothing to the
contrary appeared in the record. But the decision of the court
would only determine the right to the proceeds of sale,
viz., $ 850, and the case must therefore be dismissed, for
want of jurisdiction.
The facts in the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of
the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The schooner
Fairy was seized by the collector of the
port of Galveston for a violation of the registry acts of the
United States, and libeled in the District Court for the District
of Texas.
A few days before she was seized by the collector, she had been
seized by the Sheriff of Galveston County upon process of
sequestration issuing from a state court at the instance of Gruner,
the appellant. He appeared in the admiralty court and denied that
the vessel was liable to forfeiture under the registry acts, and
averred that he had an equitable lien upon her to the full amount
of her value by reason of certain transactions with a man by the
name of Fruh which are set out at large in his answer; that he had
proceeded to enforce this lien in the proper court of the State of
Texas and had obtained process of sequestration against the
Fairy, which had been duly served, and that she was in the
custody of the Sheriff of Galveston County upon this process when
she was seized by the collector; and he denied that the district
court had jurisdiction to proceed against her when she was
previously in custody of the law upon process from the state
court.
While the suit was pending in the district court, a written
agreement was filed between the district attorney and the
Page 52 U. S. 164
proctor for the claimant by which it was stipulated that upon
the attorney for the United States procuring an order from the
district court for the sale of the vessel, and upon a similar order
being obtained from the state court, the vessel should be sold and
the proceeds paid into the registry of the district court of the
United States, to abide the ultimate decision of the suits in the
two courts, the rights of neither party to be prejudiced by the
sale. The sale was accordingly ordered, and the schooner was sold
by the marshal for $850 and the proceeds paid into the registry.
And upon the final hearing of the case, the court condemned the
Fairy as forfeited to the United States and disallowed the
claim of Gruner under the sequestration from the state court.
There is an agreement in the record, signed by the attorneys of
the parties, admitting that the schooner was worth over two
thousand dollars.
This brief statement will show how the question of jurisdiction
arises in this Court. And as we think the case must be disposed of
upon that question, it is unnecessary to state more particularly
the facts or the points of law which arose on the trial and which
are fully discussed in the printed arguments filed in the case.
The vessel has been sold by the consent of the parties and the
proceeds of sale paid into the registry. This sum of money is the
only matter in controversy in this Court, and if the decree of the
district court is affirmed or reversed, the decision would do
nothing more than determine the right to this money, and the sum
paid into the registry is far below the amount necessary to give
jurisdiction to this Court.
It is true that there is an admission by the parties, as we have
already stated, that the vessel was worth more than two thousand
dollars. And this admission would be evidence of the value where
nothing to the contrary appeared in the record. But the consent or
agreement of parties cannot give jurisdiction to this Court. Its
appellate power is regulated and limited by law. And as it appears
on the face of the record that the sum in controversy is below two
thousand dollars, the appeal must be
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the District Court of the United States for the District of
Texas and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is now
here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this Court that this cause
be and the same is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.