Case: Chace and Others, Appellants, against Vasquez, the Consul General of Portugal, Respondent
Abbreviation: Chace v. Vasquez
Decision Date: 1826-02-15
Docket Number: 
Citation: 11 Wheat. 429
Volume: 24
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Chace and Others, Appellants, against Vasquez, the Consul General of Portugal, Respondent.
Judges: 
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
[Practice.]
Chace and Others, Appellants, against Vasquez, the Consul General of Portugal, Respondent.
On á libel, in personam, for damages, if the Court decrees that damages be recovered, and that Commissioners be appointed to ascertain the amount thereof, no appeal will lie from such a decree until the Commissioners have.made their report; this not being a final decree.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Maryland.
The libel in this case was in personam against the owners of the private armed vessel La For-tuna, stated to be owned by American citizens, for the recovery of damages for the illegal seizure, &c. of the Portuguese ship Monte Alegre and cargo, which, by a previous decree of the Court, had been restored to the libellants, no damages having been claimed in the libel in rem. A decree proforma was taken for the libellants in the Circuit Court, and Commissioners were ordered to be appointed to assess the damages: but the appeal was taken before the Commissioners were appointed, upon the ground that no libel could be sustained in personam, in such cases.
Mr. D. Hoffman, for the respondent,
stated, that the appeal might be considered as well taken. The case . f the Palmyra was distin.g>uisha.l>le from this, as the damages there claim-were a part only of an entire decree in rem and in personam; but that here the sule inquiry is, whether any libel in personam could be sustained, which was an objection that covered the whole libel, and the entire decree; that, although the report of the Commissioners, vvhen made, might be appealed from, yet the inquiry was only as to the amount; and that if no libel could be sustained, an expensive and tedious investigation would be saved, by first establishing the point that a libel in personam cannot be sustained in such Feb. 15th.
Feb. 15th.

Opinion:
The Court were of opinion, that the case was embraced by the principle decided in the case of the Palmyra, since an appeal would still lie from the damages when ascertained; but, that, had the decree of the Circuit Court dismissed the libel, such decree would have been final.
Appeal dismissed.