Supreme Court of the United States, 1924

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

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 7, 1924 · Brandeis

264 U.S. 439; 44 S. Ct. 355; 68 L. Ed. 777; 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2522 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Richard B. Montgomery for appellant., Mr. Walter Carroll, with whom Mr. Geo. H. Terriberry was on the brief, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Clark v. Taylor (2d Cir. 1947)
United States v. The Lake George (3d Cir. 1955)
United States v. The Lake George (3d Cir. 1955)
Balboa Shipping Co., Inc. v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co. (2d Cir. 1950)
Bradley v. Pace (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Stewart v. Roberts (D.C. Cir. 1946)
United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land (2d Cir. 1942)
United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land in Town of Babylon (2d Cir. 1942)
United States v. Florian (Supreme Court of the United States 1941)
Georgia Casualty Co. v. McRitchie (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.