Erastus Cornelius Benedict.

The American admiralty, its jurisdiction and practice, with practical forms and directions online

. (page 19 of 80)
Online LibraryErastus Cornelius BenedictThe American admiralty, its jurisdiction and practice, with practical forms and directions → online text (page 19 of 80)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


by whose voluntary assistance a ship or its lading has been saved
to the owner from impending peril, or recovered after actual loss.®*
The right to salvage depends solely upon the consideration, that
property has been saved to the owner, from maritime peril, by the
salvor. His intrepidity, humanity, relief to distress, or preserva-
tion of life do not affect his right to compensation ; they only af-
fect its amount.^

§ 300 a. The Same* — Salvage does not depend upon the character
of the parties rendering the service, nor upon the character of the
assistance rendered, nor upon the kind of peril or cause of loss, nor
upon the national character or ownei-ship of the property saved or
of the ownei*s.

There is no limitation to the kind of pei-sons who may be entitled
to this compensation. They may be persons in the employ of the
nation, as officers and seamen of vessels of war,* the Royal Coast-
Guard and revenue officer ; ^ or semi-official persons, as pilots,^
Lloyd's agent ; ^ or persons having some relation to the subject saved,
as passengers,^ the crew, in extraordinary circumstances,®^ consorts ; ^
or persons of no independent right, as women,^ apprentices,^ boys,^
slaves,** mastei-s, mates, sailoi-s, cooks, surgeons, carpentei-s, passen-
gers, and landsmen of every national character.

^ Abbott on Ship. 654; Hand v. The
Elvira, GUp. 60, 66.

»*The Emblem, Daveis, 61, 64; The
India, 1 W. Rob. 406, 408.

M The Thetis, 3 Hag. 14 ; The Porcher,

2 id. 270, note; The Gage, C. Rob. 273;
The Lord Nelson, Edw. R. 79; The Pen-
samento Felix, id. 11.5 ; The Mary Ann,
IHa^. 158; Prich. Dig. 385 ; The Lustre,

3 Hag. 154; The Ewell Grove, id. 209;
The Helena, id. 430; The Wilsons, 1 W.
Rob. 172; The Iodine, Prich. Dig. 385,
note; The U. S. r. The Amistad, 40 U.
S. (15 Pet. 518.)

»"The Helena, 3 Hag. 430, note; Le
Tigre, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 567, 572; Prich.
Dig. 303, § 323, and note.

«TUe Balsemao, 2 Hag. 270, note;
The Nicolaas Witzen,3 id. 369; Hobart
p. Drogan, 35 U. S. (10 Pet) 108.

» The Traveller, 3 Hag. 370.

»> Prich. Dig. 360, § 38; Newman r.
Walters, 3 Bos. & Pull. 612; Abbott on
Ship. 560; The Great Eastern, 2 Mar. L.
Cas. 148; The Merrimac, 1 Ben. 68.

91 The Neptune, 1 Hag. 227, 327 ; Prich.
Dig. 385, note 55.

w The Waterloo, 2 Dod. 4S3, 443; The
Ganges, Prich. Dig. 389, note 62.

w The Jane & Matilda, 1 Hag. 187, 194.

w Bell V. The Ann, 2 Pet. Ad. Dec. 278,
282; Mason 17. The Blaireau, 6 IT. S.
(2 Cranch), 240, 270; The Two Friends,
8 Jur. 1011; The Columbine, 2 W. Rob.
186; Prich. Dig. Salvage, (Civil) §§ 308,
314, 320, 335, 337.

w Prich. Dig. Salvage, (Civil) §§327,

w Small V, Goods, 2 Pet. Ad. Dec. 284,
287: Mason tj. The Blaireau, 6 U. S
(2 Cranch), 240, 241.

Digitifed by




§ 800 b. The Same. — Neither does salvage depend upon the
character of the assistance rendered, nor upon the kind of peril or
the cause of loss. It need only be the saving of a vessel or cargo
in danger, supplying stores, loaning an anchor, going for assistance,
towing, helping to navigate in a storm, piloting into a port, fishing
up from the bottom, quelling a mutiny, taking from pirates, recap-
turing from an enemy. Neither does it require a request. It must
be voluntary ; that is to say, it must not spring from any particular
duty, or from any particular relation to the saved property or from
any specific contract. It must be a service which the party may law-
fully decline to render. Nor does it depend upon the national char-
acter of the property saved or of the owners.

§ 300 <?. The Same* — Salvage service is highly favored in law, in
all commercial countries, from motives of clear public policy and a
regard to the interests of commerce.^

The stimulus which public policy and the interests of commerce
supply is simply the spur of private interest.*

§ 300 d. The Same* — Compensation for salvage service is an ab-
solute legal right. This right is peraonal to the salvor, notwith-
standing his relation to others.^ It being thus a personal right, a
party cannot be deprived of it except by law.

§ 300 e. The Same* — The right to salvage depends upon the sav-
ing of the property ; .but the rate or amount of salvage depends upon
the amount of the property, the probability of loss, the amount of
peril to the property, the value of the service to the owner of the
property, and the personal toil, loss of time, daring and danger of
the salvors. The highest order of merit, in a pecuniary estimate,
is the safe bringing in of property entirely abandoned and lost to
the owner, — derelict. For such a service, courts have sometimes
awarded seven-eighths for salvage, and it is usual to give one-half. ^^

97 Mason v. The Blaireau, 6 U. S. (2
Ci-anch), 240, 266; The Joseph Harvey, 1
C. Rob. 313, note ; The WiUiam Beckf ord,
3 id. 355; Hand tj. The Elvira, Gilp. 60,
69; The Louisa, IDod. 317,318,319; The
Emblem, Daveis, 61, 64, 65, 66; Centuri-
on, Ware, 477; The Boston, 1 Sum. 328.

98 Adams tJ. The Sophia, Gilp. 77, 79,
80; The Emblem, Daveis, 61, 64.

99 Le Tigre, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 567, 572,

iw Vide The Josephine, 2 Blatchf. C.
C. R. 323.

Digitized by




Salvage cases are within the admiralty jurisdiction, both in Eng-
land and this country .^^^

§ 801. Penalties. — For the protection of its commerce, for the
collection of its revenues, and for the enforcement of all the regula-
tions of its police in navigable watei-s, the United States, like all
other commercial nations, finds it necessary to impose penalties and
forfeitures on goods afloat and on vessels, in relation to which the
laws of trade, navigation, and revenue, have been violated. In a
great variety of such cases, the vessels and the goods are the only
things within the reach of the courts and their process. Whenever,
therefore, a penalty or forfeiture is attached to a ship or vessel, or
goods on board of her, it is enforced by a seizure of the thing, and
the proceeding to condemn it is a suit in the District Court, in the
name of the United States, or other party, in whose favor the pen-
alty or forfeiture is imposed.

An open, visible seizure, by an officer of the government, author-
ized by law to seize, must precede the commencement of judicial
proceedings. The seizures are usually made by the revenue officers,
or by the commanders of armed vessels on the high seas.^^

§ 302. Seizures. — All seizures under laws of impost, navigation,
or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on watei-s
navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden, are
civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and the proceed-
ings to enforce them must be had in the District Court.^^

^* Dunlap*8 Prac. 57; Abbott on Ship-
ping, 554; Mason v. The Blaireau, 6 U. S.
(2 Cranch), 240; Peisch v. Ware, 8 U. S.
(4 Cranch), 347; The American Ins. Co.
r. Canter, 26 U. S. (1 Petei-s), 513; The
Amethyst, Daveis R. 20; The Emblem,
Id. 61; Post tj. Jones, 60 U. S. (19 How.)
150; 8 Penn. Law Jour. 629, — a case of
salvage in Wisconsin; The Two Friends,
1 C. Rob. 228; Houseman v. The North
Carolina, 40 U. S. (15 Pet.) 40; The U.
S. r. Coombs, 37 U. S. (12 Pet.) 72; The
Wave, Blatchf. & H. 235; The John
Gilpin, Olc. 77; Williams tj. Tlie Jenny
Lind, Newb. 443; The Roanoke, 50 F. R.

» ^ Waring ». Clarke, 46 U. S. (5 How.)

464; Collection Act of 1799, § 70"; Col-
lection Act of 1793, § 27; Gelston r.
Hoyt, 16 U. S. (3 Wlieat.) 246; The Ann,
13 U. S. (9 Cranch), 289; Slave Ti-ado
Act, May 10, 1800, March 2, 1807; Pi-
racy Act, March 3, 1819; Rett's Prac.
68; The Commerce, 66 U. S. (1 Black.)

108 Glass V. The Betsey, 3 U. S. (3 Dal-
las), 6; Yeaton v. The IT. S., 9 IT. S. (5
Cranch), 281 ; Steele r. Thatcher, Ware,
97; Jud. Act, § 9; Whelan v. The U. S.,
11 U. S. (7 Cranch), 112; Rose v. Himely,
8 U. S. (4 Cranch), 241, 276; The U. S.o.
The Betsey & Charlotte, 8 U. S. (4
Cranch), 443; The Samuel, 14 U. S. (1
Wheat) 9; Gelaton v. Hoyt, 16 U. S. (3

Digitized by




[The restriction here mentioned upon seizures to such as were
made " on waters navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more
tons burden " was made by a clause in the 9th section of the Judi-
ciary Act of 1789. This clause was decided by the Supreme Court
in the case of The Eagle, 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) 26, to be " no longer
of any force." It was therefore omitted from the Revised Statutes,

§ 303. The Same. — It is the place of seizure, and not the place
of committing the offence, which decides the jurisdiction.^^ If the
seizure be made in a foreign jurisdiction, or on the high seas, the
District Court of the district to which the property is brouglit has
the jurisdiction .1^ If the seizure be made within a judicial district
of the United States, the District Court of that district has the ju-
risdiction. If the seizure be unlawful, the party has his redress by
a suit in persoiiam in the admiralty. The jurisdiction in this class
of torts is co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the seizure, and ex-
ists whether the seizure be on the high seas, in ports and harbors, or
on the lakes and rivei-s of the interior.

Where there has been a condemnation in a revenue case of for-
feiture, an informer entitled to a share of the proceeds may institute
an original suit in the admiralty to recover them.^^

§ 303 a. Duties. — But the collection of duties is not a cause of
admii-alty and maritime jurisdiction, and a suit in rem to enforce
the payment of duties caimot be maintained.^^ ^

vitt, 1 Mason, 96; Delcol v. Arnold, 3
U. S. (3 Dallas), 333; Colson v. Thomp-
son, 15 U. S. (2 Wheat) 336; The Elea-
nor, id. 345; The Amiable Nancy, 16
U. S. (3 Wheat.) 546; Conk. Treat, 2d
ed. 136, 139, 350, ^51 ; Whelan v. The U. S.,
11 U. S. (7 Ci-anch), 112; Glass r. The
Betsey, 3 U. S. (3 Dallas), 6; The U. S.
c. La Vengeance, id. 297; The U. S. v.
The Betsey & Charlotte, 8 U. S. (4
Cranch), 44^; Yeaton u. The U. S., 9 U.
S. (5 Cranch), 281; The Active v. The
U. S., 11 U. S. (7 Cranch), 100; Westcot
V. Bradford, 4 Wash. 492.

*^^ Three Hundred and Fifty Chests of
Tea, 25 IT. S. (12 Wheat) 486; The
Waterloo, Blatchf. A H. 114.

Wheat) 246; The Merino, etc., 22 U. S.
(9 Wheat) 391; The U. S. v. La Ven-
geance, 3 U. S. (3 Dal.) 297; The Sarah,
21 U. S. (8 Wheat) 391; The Palmyra,
25 U. S. (12 Wheat) 1; The Marianna
Flora, 24 U. S.(ll Wheat) 1.

»o* Keene r. The U. S., 9 U. S. (5 Cranch),
304; The Ann, 13 U. S. (9 Cranch), 289;
The Sarah, 21 U. S. (8 Wheat) 391 ; The
U. S. c. The Betsey A Charlotte, 8 U. S.
(4 Cranch.) 443; Whelan v. The U. S.,
11 U. S. (7 Cranch), 112; The Merino,
ete., 22 U. S. (9 Wheat) 391.

106 The Abby, 1 Mason, 361; The Me-
rino et al., 22 U. S. (9 Wheat) 391;
The Margaret, id. 421.

"•Dunlap Prac. 38, 41; Burke v. Tre-

Digitized by




§ 304. Kansom Bills are exclusively of admiralty cognizance.
They necessarily involve the question of prize, or no prize, of the
legality of the capture, and of the regularity of the commission and
conduct of the captors ; which questions are of admiralty cognizance

§ 305. Proceeds. — Whenever there is a maritime lien, it is in the
nature of a proprietary interest, and it adheres to the proceeds of the
thing, into whose hands soever they may go. The ownership and
possession of the proceeds render the party himself liable personally
for the demand^ and he may be proceeded against in personam.
The existence of this principle has led to the mistaken notion, that
there is no jurisdiction in personam^ except as ancillary to, or spring-
ing out of, a lien. But no principle is better settled, than that per-
sonal liability in a maritime cause of action has no connection with
or relation to lien. This lien upon proceeds extends often to the
proceeds of a judicial sale in the registry of the court, it being a
general rule, that before the proceeds are distributed, the court, on
pi-oper proceedings for that purpose, will adjudicate upon the claims
to such proceeds, arising from liens upon them.^^

§ 306. Prize* — Cases of prize have always been held to be within
the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and
in all forms, in rem and in personam, for condemnation, for military
salvage, for restitution, and for damages, have been, from the earli-
est periods, entertained by the courts sitting as Courts of Admiral-
ty ; and, by the act of Congress of June 36, 1812, § 6, they are
expressly made civil causes of admimlty and maritime jurisdic-

»« The Lord WeUington, 2 Gall. 103;
Maisonnaire v, Keating, id. 341, 343;
Girard v. Ware, Pet C. C. R. 142; ante,

i^Sheppard v. Taylor, SOU. S. (5
Pet) 675; Brackett v. The Hercules,
Gilp. 185; Ex parte Levis, 2 Gal. 483;
Mcl^ne r. The U. S., 31 U. S. (4 Pet)
401; Mutual Safety Ins. Co. v. Cargo of
the George, Olc. 89; post, §§501, 562.

110 Glass V. The Betsey, 3 U. S. (3
Dal.) 6; Penhallow v. Doane*s Adminis-

trators, id. 54; Act of June 26, 1812,
§ 6; Conk. Treat 2d ed. 135; Bingham v,
Cabot, 3 U. S. (3 Dal.) 19; Brown r.
The U. S., 12 U. S. (8 Cranch), 137; Mar-
tin V, Hunter's Lessee, 14 IT. S. (1
Wheat) 335; Jennings v. Carson, 1 Pet
Ad. Dec. 1; Fales v. Mayberry, 1 Gal.
56;i; The Alerta, 13 U. S. (9 Cranch),
359; The Adeline, id. 244; La Amistad
De Rues, 18 U. S. (5 Wheat) 3a5; Keen
V, The Gloucester, 2 U. S. (2 Dal.) 36;
The Admiral, 70 U. S. (3 WaU.) 603, 611.

Digitized by




§ 307. The Same* — In Scotland, and among the continental na-
tions of Europe, the admiralty, by virtue of its general powers,
exercises the same jurisdiction, but in England the High Court of
Admiralty has no such jurisdiction by virtue of ite general power; but
the Prize Court is always constituted by virtue of a special com-
mission .^^^

§ 308. Torts. — The Court of Admiralty has jurisdiction over the
whole subject-matter of damage on the high seas.

Cases of torts on the high seas, super altum mare^ have always
been held, even in England, to be within the jurisdiction of the ad-
miralty. And the jurisdiction in such cases has usually been held
to depend upon locality, embracing only civil torts and injuries done
on the sea, or on watei's of the sea where the tide ebbs and flows. It
depends upon the place where the cause of action arises, and that
place must be the waters which are subject to the admiralty juris-
diction.^^ It may, however, be doubted whether the civil jurisdic-
tion, in cases of torts, does not depend upon the relation of the
parties to a ship or vessel, embracing only those tortious violations
of maritime right and duty which occur in vessels, to which the ad-
miralty jurisdiction, in cases of contracts, applies. If one of seveml
landsmen bathing in the sea, should assault, or imprison, or rob
another, it has not been held here that the admiralty would have
jurisdiction of the action for the tort.^^

§ 309. The Same. — Cases of assault and battery, imprisonment,
or other personal injury, or ill usage, arising between the master or
officers on the one hand, and seamen or passengers on the other,
are clearly within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The
admiralty entertains jurisdiction of personal toils committed by the
master on a passenger, whether hy direct force, as trespasses, or by

m Sharswood's Bl. Com. 79, 108; Le
Canx 9. Eden, Doug. 613.

n« The Commerce, 66 U.' S. (1 Black),

»w The Volant, 1 W. Rob. 387; 3 Sto-
ry on Const. 527, 530; Martin r. Hun-
ter's Lessee, 14 U. S. (1 Wlieat) 335;
Dunlap's Ad. Prac. 43, 49; The Amia-
ble Nancy, 1 Paine, 117; Steele v, Thach-
er, Ware, 91, 94; The Greneral Steam

Nav. Co. V, Tonkin, 4 Moore, 322; The
Potsdam, 4 C. Rob. 73; Erauskopp v.
Ames, 7 Penn. Law Jour. 77; The
American Ins. Co. v. Johnson, Blatchf.
<fe H. 10; The Martha Anne, 01c. 18;
The Yankee tj. Gallagher, McAll. 467;
Phila. Wil. etc. R. R. Co. r. Phila. A
Havre de Grace Steam Tug-boat Co., 64
U. 8. (23 How.) 209; Smith t, Wilson,
81 How. Pr. 272.

Digitized by




consequential injuries. The contract of passengers with the master
is not for mere ship-room and personal existence on board, but for
reasonable food, comforts, necessaries, and kindness. In respect to
females, it proceeds yet further, and includes an implied stipulation
against obscenity, immorality, and a wanton disregard of the feel-
ings. A coui-se of conduct oppressive and malicious in these par-
ticulars will be punished by the court, as well as personal assaults.
By the 16th rule of the Supreme Couit, it is provided, that in all
suits for assault and battery, or beating, the suit must be in perso-
nam only.^^*

This is undoubtedly true, where the action is technically for the
assault and battery, as a mere tort ; but it would seem, on princi-
ple, that if the action be brought on the contract, as for not carry-
ing a passenger safely and without injury, or for not treating with
proper kindness a passenger or seaman, an assault or beating being
the gravamen of the breach, the suit may be in rem against the

But causes of action for mere personal torts are not regarded in
admiralty as surviving the death of the person injured ; and a state
statute will not enable an administrator to maintiiin an action for
such tort, committed on the high seas.^^* Nor will the admiralty
enteitain suits for merely nominal damages in cases of personal

§ 309 a. [Damages for Death. — The question whether a suit
would lie in the Admiralty by tlie personal representatives of a per-
son killed by a marine tort to recover damages for the death, has been
greatly discussed before the courts. The Supreme Court in 1886 de-
cided, in the case of The Harrisburg, (119 U. S. 199), in an opinion
collating the different and somewhat conflicting decisions on the
point, that no such action will lie in the courts of the United States
under the general maritime law. Whether such an action will lie in
the Admiralty, either in rem against the offending vessel or in per-
sanam against her owner, where a statute of the state to which she
belongs gives such a right of action, still remains unsettled. In the

"^ Rule 16; Chamberlain v. Chandler,
8 Mason, 242; Marshall v. Bazin, 7 N.
Y. Leg. Obs. 342; vide Peterson v.
Watson, Blatchf. & H. 4S7; Thomas v.
Gray, ScL 493.

"* Crapo V. Allen, Sprague, 1S4.

"• Barnett v. Luther, 1 Curt. C. C.
434; Holmes r. R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 75;
The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199; The
Alaska, 130 U. S. 201.

Digitized by




case of The Harrisburg the Supreme Court declined to pass on the
question whether an action in rem would lie in such a case, because
the action before it had not been brought within the time limited by
the state statute in question.

It may well be that under the principle, that a vessel carries with
her the law of the state to which her owner belongs, it would be
held that a right of action against the owner of a vessel for dam-
ages for a death negligently caused on the high seas is sustainable
in the Admiralty, where the law of the state to which she belongs
gives such a right of action. Such an action has been maintained
at common law.^^^ And the district judge of the Southern Dis-
trict of New York, in a leanied opinion, has recently held that such
an action is maintainable in the Admiralty.^^®

But the question whether an action in rem can be maintained is
quite a difiFerent one. For few, if any, of such statutes provide for
any lien on the vessel. And whether such a suit would lie in the
absence of such statutory lien, as will be seen by the cases cited in
the opinion in the case of The Harrisburg, is a question as to which
the decisions of the courts do not agree.]

§310. Spoliation. — Cases of spoliation and damage are cases of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. These include illegal seizures,
or depredations of vessels or goods afloat, embracing the civil injury
called piracy, which consists in an unwarrantable violation of prop-
erty, committed on the high seas. The injured party may proceed
against the property, or the proceeds of the property, to recover it,
or against the person of the wrong doer for the damage.^^*

§ 311. Tlie Same* — Every violent dispossession of property on
the ocean is, prima facie, a maritime tort, and as such, it belongs to
the admimlty jurisdiction.^ Petitory, as well as possessory suits,
are cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. They may be

"7 McDonald v. Mallory, 77 N. Y. 546.
And see Crapo p. KeUy, 83 U. S. (16
WaU.) 610; and The Chinese Cabin
Waiter, 13 F. R. 256.

"« McCuUough 0. N. Y. & N. St Co.,
55 F. R. 98.

"9 The Hercules, 2 Dod. .369, 375;
2 Chit Gen. Prac. 517; Radly & Del-
bow V, Eglesfield & Whital, 1 Vent 173;

Radly v. Whitwell & Ecclesfield, 2
Keb. 828; 4 Inst 152; 1 Rob. 530, c. 5;
1 Com. Dig. 272; The Helen, 1 Hag. Ad.
R. 142; The Panda, 1 W. Rob. 433; Davi-
son V. Seal-skins, 2 Paine, 324; The
Commerce, 66 U. S. (1 Black.) 574; Cash-
ing V. Laird, 4 Ben. 78.

i->L'Invincible, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat)

Digitized by




brought in all cases to reinstate the ownei-s of ships, who have been
wrongfully deprived of their property. This includes cases of res-
titution of captured property, — of vessels irregularly or illegally
condemned, and sold by the master without legal authority, or in
an illegal or irregular manner.^^

§ 812. Collision* — Cases of collision of vessels are cases of ad-
miralty and maritime jurisdiction.

There have been attempts to exclude from the jurisdiction, in these
cases, all collisions happening within a county, a port, or a harbor.
But the jurisdiction may now be considered as fully settled in all
cases on navigable watei-s, as well on the lakes and rivei's, [and
canals] and within ports, harbors, and counties, Jis on the open sea.^^
And the suit in refn may be brought in any district where the of-
fending thing may be found, and in personam where the defendant
resides,^^ [or where his property may be attached to compel an ap-
peai*ance.] ^^

§312a. [Limitatloil of Liability,— Proceedings by owners of
vessels to limit their liability as such to the value of their interest in
the vessel and freight, are also cases of admiralty and maritime ju-
risdiction. A subsequent chapter has been devoted to these pro-
ceedings. See po8t^ p. .]

§ 318. Jurisdiction exelnsive. — The jurisdiction of the District
Courts, in civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, is ex-
clusive of all others. No state court can entertain such cases ; nor
can a state legislature confer jurisdiction upon a state court to en-

i« L'Invincible, 14 U. S. (1 Wheat.)
238; Manro v. Almeida, 23 U. S. (10
Wheat) 473; The TUton, 5 Mason, 465;
The Dove, 1 Gal. 585; Taylor©. The Roy-
al Saxon, 1 Wall. Jr. C. C.311; Ward r.
Peck, 59 U. S. (18 How.) 467; The
Friendship, 2 Curt. C. C. 440; The J.
B. Lunt, 11 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 137; The
Commerce, 66 U. S. (1 Black.) 574;
contra^ The John Jay, 3 Blatchf. 67.

i«Ad. Rule 15; The Woodrop Sims,
2 Dod. 83; The Dundee, 1 Hag. Ad. R.
109; Reeves v. The Constitution, Gilp.
579; Stroutc. Foster, 42 U. S. (1 How.)


89; The Celt, 3 Hag. Ad. R. 321; War-
ing V. Clarke, 46 U. S. (5 How.) 441 ;
The Leopard, Da veis' R. 193; The Sci-
oto, id. 360; The Lotty, 01c. 329; Jack-
son V. The Magnolia, 61 U. S. (20 How.)
296; Nelson t?. Leland, 63 U. S. (22 How.)
48; The Commerce, 66 U. S. (1 Black.)
574; Town v. The Western Metropolis,
28 How. Pr. 283.

J23The Commerce, 66 U. S. (1 Black.)
574; Nelson v. Leland, 63 U. S. (22
How.) 48.

12* Dyer v. The Nat. S. S. Co., (The
Scotland,) 105 U. S. 25.

Digitized by




force such a lien by a suit or proceeding in rem^ which is the distin-
guishing feature of a suit in admiralty .^^s j^ jg familiar law that
Congress cannot confer judicial power or jurisdiction upon a state
court. This makes it exceedingly important that the proper juris-
diction of the national courts be not denied, lest the citizen be en-

Online LibraryErastus Cornelius BenedictThe American admiralty, its jurisdiction and practice, with practical forms and directions → online text (page 19 of 80)