Montgomery v. Anderson, 62 U.S. 386 (1859)

62 U.S.
386
21 How. 386
16 L.Ed. 160
JOSEPH E. MONTGOMERY ET AL., CLAIMANTS OF THE

STEAMER REPUBLIC, &C., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN J. ANDERSON ET AL.
December Term, 1858
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States, sitting in
admiralty, for the district of Missouri.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Polk for the appellants, and Mr. Rankin for the
appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellees in this case filed a petition in the District Court of the United
States for the eastern district of Missouri, stating that they had, by the laws of
Missouri, a lien on the steamboat Republic for $2,000, which they had loaned
to the clerk of the boat to purchase supplies and necessaries, in order to enable
her to proceed on a voyage from St. Louis to New Orleans; that the vessel, at
the time the petition was filed, was under seizure in the district, in a case of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and had been ordered by the court to be
sold; and the petitioners prayed that they might be permitted to intervene for
their interest, and paid out of the proceeds when the steamboat was sold.
The appellants answered, stating that they were owners of seven-eights of the
vessel, and denying that the money was needed or used for supplies; and
insisting that the boat is not liale for it, and that it is not a lien by the laws of
Missouri.
The petition was filed on the 3d of June, 1857, and the vessel, it appears, was
sold by the marshal, upon the seizure mentioned in the petition, and the sale
reported and the proceeds paid into the registry of the court on the 23d of the
same month. The proceeds amounted to $26,250. Further proceedings were had
on the petition of the appellees, and testimony taken; and on the 7th of
September, in the same year, the District Court decreed that the sum claimed
by the petitioner was due, with interest and costs, and a lien on the Republic,
and referred the matter to the commissioner of the court to compute and report
the amount due.
4
The commissioner accordingly made his report, stating the amount due, for
principal and interest on the sum loaned, to be $2,034. This report was
confirmed by the court; and thereupon the court passed a decree, adjudging that
there was due from the fund then in court, to the petitioners, the sum of $2,034,
and to bear interest from that day; but that, inasmuch as some of the causes
against the Republic had not then been determined, and the fund in court might
not be sufficient to satisfy all of the claims that might be established against the
vessel, no order for the payment of the money would be made by the court until
it should be further advised in the premises.
The present appellants thereupon prayed an appeal to the Circuit Court for the
district of Missouri, which was granted; and further proceedings took place in
the Circuit Court, and further testimony was taken. And, at the October term,
1857, the decree of the District Court was affirmed, and the case remanded to
the District Court to carry out this decree; and from this decree the appellants
prayed an appeal to this court.
This is substantially the case, as it appears on the transcript from the Circuit
Court. We do not now speak of the admissions filed here, which we shall
presently notice. But, upon the transcript itself, it appears that there was no
final decree in the District Court, upon which an appeal would lie to the Circuit
Court. No final disposition of the fund in the registry. Indeed, it was not final
even as to the amount in controversy between these parties; for the amount to
be awarded to the appellees was made to depend upon the amount of other
claims upon the fund, which were then depending before the District Court.
And, under the act of Congress, no appeal would lie from the District to the
Circuit Court until there was a final decree upon the whole casethat is, not
until all the claims on the money in the registry had been ascertained and
adjusted, and the whole amount of the proceeds of the sale of the vessel
distributed, by the decree, among the parties which the District Court deemed
to be entitled, according to their respective priorities and rights.
The Circuit Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction of the case, as it came before
them; and their judgment, affirming the decree, was erroneous on that ground.
The appeal ought to have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This point
was directly decided in this court, in the case of Mordecai and others v. Lindsay
and others, (19 How., 200.)
8
But if the appeal had been regularly before the Circuit Court, it was not
authorized to remand the case to the District Court, to carry into execution its
decisions. The appeal carries up the res, or money in the registry, of the
District Court, to the Circuit Court; and when the rights of the parties are
adjudicated there, the court must carry into execution its own decree.
In order to cure these defects in the record, an agreement has been filed in this
court, in which they admit that the whole fund has been finally disposed of by
the Circuit Court among the claimants, with the exception of the sum in
controversy between these parties. And they move to amend the record here
according to this agreement.
10
But, in the case of Mordecai and others v. Lindsay and others, above referred
to, a similar motion was made to amend the record here, upon a like agreement.
But the court decided that, as the defect of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court
appeared upon the transcript, it could not be cured by an amendment in this
court, because consent cannot give jurisdiction, nor legalize jurisdiction
exercised without the authority at law. The rule laid down in that case must
govern this.
11
The decree of the Circuit Court must therefore be reversed, and the case
remanded to the court, with directions to dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. The District Court can then proceed to pass a final decree, if that
has not been already done; and from that decree any party who may think
himself aggrieved may appeal to the Circuit Court, and from the final decree of
that court to this, where the sum in controversy is large enough to give
jurisdiction to the respective courts upon such appeals.
12
This view of the subject makes it unnecessary to examine whether the amount
in controversy between the parties in this appeal is over $2,000; for their
respective rights have not been judicially decided upon in the Circuit Court, for
want of jurisdiction, as above stated, when it acted upon the controversy.

Montgomery v. Anderson, 62 U.S. 386 (1859)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Montgomery v. Anderson, 62 U.S. 386 (1859)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Montgomery v. Anderson, 62 U.S. 386 (1859)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

62 U.S.

JOSEPH E. MONTGOMERY ET AL., CLAIMANTS OF THE

You might also like