Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/454/case.html
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 00:23:42
Document Index: 579362467

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 129', '§ 129', '§ 227', '§ 129', '§ 129', '§ 70']

Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line (full text) :: 294 U.S. 454 (1935) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line
Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line 294 U.S. 454 (1935)
U.S. Supreme CourtSchoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line, 294 U.S. 454 (1935)Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American LineNo. 424Argued February 8, 1935Decided March 4, 1935*294 U.S. 454CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
2. The order is not an interlocutory injunction within the meaning of § 129 of the Judicial Code, allowing appeals from interlocutory orders in certain proceedings. P. 294 U. S. 456. Page 294 U. S. 455
"Complaints based on failure to fulfill the terms of this contract, claims for damages, etc., on the part of the passenger, must be filed with the representative (agent) of the Hamburg-American Line at the port of destination immediately after the arrival of the ship. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached, both parties agree to refer the matter to the German Consul at the port of destination, whose decision will be acceptable to both parties, subject to the laws applicable thereto. "Page 294 U. S. 456
Abandoning their claims that the orders are final, petitioners, by supplemental brief, argue that they are appealable under § 129, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 227. They rely on the Shanferoke case. That decision was based on the Enelow Page 294 U. S. 457 case. Each of these was an action at law in which the defendant, by answer, sought equitable relief. In each, the order held appealable stayed proceedings on the law side and operated as an injunction, within the meaning of that section, against proceedings in another court. The cases now before us are in admiralty. The orders appealed from merely stay action in the court pending arbitration and filing of the award. As shown by the Enelow case, they are not interlocutory injunctions within the meaning of § 129. And plainly, so far as concerns appealability, they are not to be distinguished from an order postponing trial of an action at law to await the report of an auditor.
And see General Elec. Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U. S. 430, 287 U. S. 432; Arnold v. Guimarin & Co., 263 U. S. 427, 263 U. S. 434; Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v. James, 272 U. S. 701; In re Peterson, 253 U. S. 300, 253 U. S. 305; In re Simons, 247 U. S. 231, 247 U. S. 239; Rexford v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 228 U. S. 339, 228 U. S. 345; Latta v. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524, 150 U. S. 539; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 536, 146 U. S. 545, et seq. De Liano v. Gaines, 131 U.S. Appendix, p. ccxiv. Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199, 59 U. S. 201.
Section 7, Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 828, as amended February 18, 1895, 28 Stat. 666, June 6, 1900, 31 Stat. 660, April 14, 1906, 34 Stat. 116, March 3, 1911, § 129, 36 Stat. 1134. And see The Transfer No. 21, 218 F. 636.
Benedict on Admiralty (5th ed.), § 70. Paterson v. Dakin, 31 F. 682.
Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 47 U. S. 205; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 141 U. S. 665.