David Canter v. The American and Ocean Insurance Company of New York, 27 U.S. 554 (1829)
David Canter v. The American and Ocean Insurance Company of New York, 27 U.S. 554 (1829)
554
2 Pet. 554
7 L.Ed. 517
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.