JAMES SHEWAN & SONS, INC.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A shipping company sued the United States under a 1920 admiralty statute to recover for repairs made to a government-owned steamship, and the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's dismissal. The Court held that although the ordinary rule prohibits awarding costs against the United States, the admiralty statute's provision requiring suits to proceed "according to the principles of law and to the rules of practice obtaining in like cases between private parties" required costs to be assessed against the United States, along with interest at four percent per annum.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the Court.
On November 17, 1924, this Court reversed the decree of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing a libel in admiralty against the United States, brought to recover the value pf repairs made on the steamship Biran, owned by the United States. The suit was brought under an act authorizing suits .against the United States in admiralty, etc., approved March 9, .1920, ch. 95, 41 Stat. 525. 'Nothing was said in' the opinion about costs. The ordinary rule is that costs are not allowed against the United States. Pine River Company v. United States, 186 U. S. 279, 296; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 272; United States v. Ringgold, 8 Peters, 150, 163; The Antelope, 12 Wheaton, 546, 550. The mandate issued by the Clerk accordingly did not award any costs against the United States. The appellant now applies for a withdrawal of the mandate, in order to award them. He relies on Section 3 of the act under which the suit was -brought. That provides that such suits shall proceed and shall be heard and determined according to the principles of law and to the rules of practice obtaining in like cases between private parties. A decree against the United States may include costs of suit, and when the decree is for money judgment, interest also at the rate of 4 per cent, per .annum until-satisfied, or at any higher rate which shall be stipulated in any contract upon which such decree shall be based. Interest is to run as ordered by the court. In accordance with this provision we must assess the costs of this appeal against the United States and direct the District Court to assess also the costs of suit in that court and interest as that court shall order it' in accordance with the statute.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (44 total)
-
Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ourt. [*1013] Bowen, 471 So. 2d at 1277 (citations omitted). A sentence imposed for criminal contempt is punitive'—to reassert the authority of the court and to “deter other like derelictions.” Ex paite Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 111, 46 S.Ct. 332, 334, 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925). Therefore, a court may sentence a criminal contemnor to imprisonment for a definite term or to pay a punitive fine. Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827-29,114 S.Ct. at 2557-58. These criminal sanctions may not be imposed unless a contemnor has been aff…
-
State v. Sullivan, 157 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1946)…v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 353, 141 So. 192; Jones v. King, 120 Fla. 87, 162 So. 353, and other Florida cases. Criminal contempts are to be dealt with and tried in a manner analogous to criminal proceedings. Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 45 S. Ct. 332, 69 L. Ed. 527. Due process of law, in the prosecution of contempt, except that committed in open court and in the presence of the trial Judge, requires that the accused should be advised of the charge and be given a reasonable opportunity to meet it by way of de…
-
Aaron v. State, 345 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1977)…U.S. 165, 78 S.Ct. 632, 2 L.Ed.2d 672 (1958); Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954); Fisher v. Pace, 336 U.S. 155, 159-160, 69 S.Ct. 425, 93 L.Ed. 569 (1949); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 117-118, 45 S.Ct. 332, 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925); Michaelson v. United States, etc., 266 U.S. 42, 67, 45 S.Ct. 18, 69 L.Ed. 162 (1924); Myers v. United States, 264 U.S. 95, 104-105, 44 S.Ct. 272, 68 L.Ed. 577 (1924); Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 383, 39 S.Ct. 337, 63 L.Ed. 656 (1919); G…
Previewing 3 of 44 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1896)
- Pine River Logging Co. v. United States, 186 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1902)
- James Shewan & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 266 U.S. 108 (U.S. 1924)
- United States v. Tench Ringgold, 8 Pet. 150 (U.S. 1834)
- The Antelope. The Spanish & Portuguese Consuls, 12 Wheat. 546 (U.S. 1827)