Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • David Canter v. The American and Ocean Insurance Company of New York, 27 U.S. 554 (1829)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1829 involving David Canter appealing a circuit court ruling on damages stemming from a previous Supreme Court decision. The circuit court had referred the case to an officer to examine damages sustained by Canter. Canter's counsel protested, arguing the mandate did not authorize damages and the earlier courts did not award them. The officer proceeded anyway. The circuit court then disallowed most of Canter's claimed damages. Canter appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellee moved to dismiss, arguing the mandate did not authorize the circuit court's damages assessment. Chief Justice Marshall denied the motion, stating it concerned the merits of the circuit court's ruling, not the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1829-03-17 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 27 U.S. 554

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1829 involving David Canter appealing a circuit court ruling on damages stemming from a previous Supreme Court decision. The circuit court had referred the case to an officer to examine damages sustained by Canter. Canter's counsel protested, arguing the mandate did not authorize damages and the earlier courts did not award them. The officer proceeded anyway. The circuit court then disallowed most of Canter's claimed damages. Canter appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellee moved to dismiss, arguing the mandate did not authorize the circuit court's damages assessment. Chief Justice Marshall denied the motion, stating it concerned the merits of the circuit court's ruling, not the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    26 views2 pages

    David Canter v. The American and Ocean Insurance Company of New York, 27 U.S. 554 (1829)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1829 involving David Canter appealing a circuit court ruling on damages stemming from a previous Supreme Court decision. The circuit court had referred the case to an officer to examine damages sustained by Canter. Canter's counsel protested, arguing the mandate did not authorize damages and the earlier courts did not award them. The officer proceeded anyway. The circuit court then disallowed most of Canter's claimed damages. Canter appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellee moved to dismiss, arguing the mandate did not authorize the circuit court's damages assessment. Chief Justice Marshall denied the motion, stating it concerned the merits of the circuit court's ruling, not the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    27 U.S.

    554
    2 Pet. 554
    7 L.Ed. 517

    DAVID CANTER, APPELLANT


    v.
    THE AMERICAN AND OCEAN INSURANCE COMPANY
    OF NEW
    YORK, APPELLEE.
    January Term, 1829

    THIS case was heard, and decided upon the preliminary question which it
    involved, in January term 1828. See 1 Peters, 511. On the hearing, the
    Supreme Court decided in favour of the claimant, and decreed restitution
    of the cotton, which was the subject of controversy. By the mandate,
    directed to the circuit court, it was ordered, 'that such execution and
    proceedings be had as, according to right and justice, and according to the
    laws of the United States, ought to be had.' The mandate being filed in the
    circuit court, it was ordered that the same be recorded, 'that the case be
    put on the docket, and it be referred to the officer of this court to examine
    into the damages sustained by the claimant, David Canter, in consequence
    of the proceedings of the libellants; and report thereon at as early a day as
    possible to the court.'
    Upon this order of court being made, Mr Canter filed a statement of his
    claim, and the case went before the register.
    The counsel for the defendants filed with the register the following
    protest:
    And now, on this sixteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and
    twenty-eight, the said libellants, by Petegru and Cruger, their proctors,
    object to the order of reference made by the honourable the circuit court
    of the United States, for the sixth circuit, to ascertain the damages alleged
    to have been sustained by the respondent in this case, and they article and
    protest against all acts and proceedings under the same for these reasons,
    to wit: 1st, That the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States,
    gives no authority or instructions to the circuit court, to inquire into
    damages. 2d, That the decrees of the district, circuit and Supreme Courts

    do not award damages to the respondent. 3d, That the libellants are not in
    any manner liable for damages. 4th, That at all events the inquiry as to
    damages, cannot extend beyond the amount of libellants' stipulations, by
    which alone they are before the Court.
    PETEGRU & CRUGER, Proctors for Libellant.
    These objections were disallowed, and the register proceeded to take
    evidence subject to the protest, and to examine into the claim of damages;
    and afterwards made a report upon the claim to the circuit court.
    The circuit court having by their decree disallowed the claims of the
    appellant to damages, with the exception of a small amount, an appeal was
    entered to this Court.
    Mr Cruger, for the appellees, moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground
    that the mandate of this Court did not authorise any proceedings in the
    circuit court for the assessment of damages.
    The motion was supported by Mr Cruger for the appellees, and opposed
    by Mr Coxe and Mr Webster for the appellant.
    Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

    The motion made is, to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. But a motion
    to dismiss a suit, for want of jurisdiction, applies solely to cases where this
    Court has not jurisdiction of the cause, and not to cases where the circuit court
    has exceeded its proper powers in the particular case. In the present case, this
    Court has, certainly, jurisdiction to revise the decree complained of in the
    circuit court. Whether that decree was proper or not, after the mandate of this
    Court, is matter for discussion upon an argument upon the merits of that decree;
    but not on a motion like the present. The motion is, therefore, overruled.

    You might also like