Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
THE LOUISVILLE, GIBSON, Claimant, v. HALLIDAY, 1880 — 154 U.S. 657 · caselaw · US
Admiralty
THE LOUISVILLE, GIBSON, Claimant, v. HALLIDAY
154 U.S. 65725 L. Ed. 771·Supreme Court of the United States·1880
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
THE LOUISVILLE, GIBSON, Claimant, v. HALLIDAY.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 278.
Argued April 23, 1880.
Decided April 26, 1880.
The findings of fact by the Circuit Court in an admiralty suit are conclusive upon this court.
Mr. T. D. Lincoln for appellants.
Mr. William B. Gilbert for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court. It is conceded that upon the facts found by the Circuit Court the. decree appealed from was right. That finding is conclusive upon us. The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440. No exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial.
An appeal in admiralty from the District Court to the Circuit Court vacates the decree appealed from. The case is heard de novo in the Circuit Court, without any regard to what was done below. An entire new decree is entered, which the Circuit Court carries into execution. The cause is not remanded to the District Court. After the suit once-gets into the Circuit Court it is proceeded with substantially in the same way as it would have been if originally begun in that court. The Lucille, 19 Wall. 74; Montgomery v. Anderson, 21 How. 388; Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 283. Affirmed.