Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

upon the powers of the English Court of Admiralty as were due to the size of the island of Great Britain, and to the jealousy of the English courts of common law 10 have not been recognized. The maritime usages of foreign countries are not obligatory upon the courts of the United States except in so far as they are consonant with the rules recognized in English and American jurisprudence.11

The jurisdiction now exercised by courts of admiralty was originally divided between two courts held by the same judge. The court of admiralty, which was designated as the instance court, which had jurisdiction over ordinary maritime causes and the prize court, to hold each of which, the judge was authorized by a separate commission.12 The distinction has no proper application to admiralty courts in the United States where the powers of both instance and prize courts are conferred without distinction. 18

Admiralty jurisdiction includes only maritime causes, or such as arise out of commerce and navigation upon' the high seas or the navigable waters of the United States.14 In the courts of the United States, admiralty jurisdiction includes matters arising out of commerce and navigation upon the Great Lakes 15 and navigable rivers 16 of the United States and even upon the State canals. 17 Courts of admiralty have jurisdiction of petitory

V.

9 Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 Howard 443, 13 L. ed. 1058.

10 Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 58; Northern Pacific S. S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U. S. 119, 39 Sup. Ct. 221.

11 The Kongsli, 252 Fed. 267.

12 Douglass 614; Percival Hickey, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 257, 265, 271, 9 Am. Dec. 210.

133 Kent's Commentaries, 355, 378. See Glass v. The Betsy, 3 Dallas (U. S.) 6, 16, 1 L. ed. 485; The Emulous, 1 Gall. 563, 574, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,479; 22 Cyc. 1371. The instance side of the court is specifically mentioned in the Act of Feb. 16, 1875, 18 St, at L. 315, 4 Fed. St. Ann. 557. See Adm.Rules 22.

14 American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Peters, 511, 7 L. ed. 243; The City of Panama v. Phelps, 101 U. S. 453, 25 L. ed. 1061; Ex parte Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 36 L. ed. 232. For cases where there is a conflict between the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty and that of other courts, State or Federal, see supra, $$ 58, 59, 270.

15 Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 Howard, 443, 13 L. ed. 1058.

16 Jackson v. The Steamboat, 20 How. 296, 15 L. ed. 909; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 18 L. ed. 451; The Eagle v. Fraser, 8 Wall. 15, 19 L. ed. 365; Ex parte Garnet, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L. ed. 631. See Williams v. Molther, 189 Fed. 700.

17 Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629,

suits or causes of property, as well as of mere possessory suits.18 The jurisdiction of a court of admiralty to enforce contribution is not lost by the recovery of a judgment at common law against one of the parties by a person whom they have jointly injured. 19 A court of admiralty is not deprived of jurisdiction of a suit to recover possession of a vessel duly licensed and enrolled, under the navigation laws of the United States, by the appearance of officers of the State claiming to hold the boat under process issued by a State court for violation of a State fishery law, where the constitutionality of such law is seriously attacked by the libelant, since such appearance does not render the suit one against the State, within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, and the question is one which it is competent for the libelant to raise and for the court to determine 20

It has been held that the jurisdiction of admiralty extends over a barge

22 which has no means of propulsion and can only be moved by towing, a bath-house built on boats and designed for transportation,23 a chuncker,24 a dredge and its scows, 25 a floating elevator, 26 a ferry 'boat, 27 and a

21

or SCOW

V.

27 L. ed. 1056; The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459, 40 L. ed. 771.

18 New England Ins. Co. v. The Sarah Ann, 13 Peters, 387, 10 L. ed. 213; Ward v. Peck, 18 How. 267, 15 L. ed. 383.

19 The Ira M. Hedges, 218 U. S. 264, 54 L. ed. 1039.

20 The W. J. Hingston, 144 Fed. 560.

21 Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68, 24 L. ed. 373; Wood v. Canal Boat Wilmington, 5 Hughes (U. S.) 205, 48 Fed. 566; The City of Pittsburgh, 45 Fed. 699; Disbrow v. The Walsh Brothers, 36 Fed. 607; Haslett v. The Enterprise, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,197, 19 Int. Rev. Rec, 108; The Coal Boat D. C. Salisbury, Olc. Adm. 71, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,694. But see Jones v. The Coal Barges, 3 Wall. Jr. 53, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,458; Wood v. Two Barges, 46 Fed. 204.

22 Endner v. Greco, 3 Fed. 411; Woodruff v. One Covered Scow, 30 Fed. 269.

23 The Public Bath No. 13, 61 Fed. 692; The Steam-Tug M. R. Brazos, 10 Ben. 435, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,898.

24 Winslow Floating Steam Pump, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,880, 2 N. J. L. J. 124.

25 The Starbuck, 61 Fed. 502; The Atlantic, 53 Fed. 607; Aitche

v. The Endless Chain Dredge, 40 Fed. 253; The Pioneer, 30 Fed. 206; The Alabama, 22 Fed. 449 (following The Floating Elevator Hezekiah Baldwin, 8 Ben. 556, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,449).

26 The Floating Elevator Hezekiah Baldwin, 8 Ben. 556, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,449.

27 U. S. v. Burlington, etc., Ferry Co., 21 Fed. 331; Murray v. The Ferry-Boat F. B. Nimick, 2 Fed.

son

raft.28 Admiralty has no jurisdiction over a claim for damages caused by a vessel to a building on land,29 nor to a bridge or dock, which, although in navigable waters, is connected with the shore and immediately concerns commerce upon land.30 A court of admiralty will ordinarily not enforce a lien against a bridge, 31 nor against a dry dock,32 even though it is a float,33 nor against a marine pump resting on piles, although capable of floating, 34 nor against a pile-driver which can be propelled with a wheel about the harbor, 35 nor even, it has been held, against a steamboat stripped of motive power which is used as a hotel.36 The holder of a maritime claim does not by taking a bond and mortgage as security for the payment thereof lose his right to sue in admiralty for its enforcement.37

Where a suit is within the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States, the objection that it is not within the admiralty jurisdiction is ordinarily waived by an answer which does not raise such objection.38

86; The Steamboat Cheeseman v. Two Ferry-boats, 2 Bond (U. S.) 363, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,633; The Gate City, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 200, 10 Fed. Cas, No. 5,267; The St. Louis, 48 Fed. 312.

28 Seabrook v. Raft of Railroad Cross-Ties, 40 Fed. 596; The F. & P. M. No. 2, 33 Fed. 511; A Raft of Timber, 4 Woods (U. S.) 197, 15 Fed. 555; Fifty Thousand Feet of Timber, 2 Lowell (U. S.) 64, 9 Fed. (as. No. 4,783; A Raft of Spars, Abb. Adm. 485, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,529. Contra, A Raft of Cypress Logs, 1 Flip. (U. S.) 543, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,527; Tome

v. Four Cribs of Lumber, Taney (U. S.) 533, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,083; Gastrel v. A Cypress Raft, 2 Woods (U. S.) 213, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,266. See, The W. H. Clark, 5 Biss. 308, Fed. Cas. 17,482; Thackeray. v. The Farmer, Glip 524; Fed. Cas. 13,852 ; Jones v. The Coal Barges, 3 Wall. Jr. 53; Fed. Cas. 7,458; and infra, 8 593a.

29 Johnson v. Chicago & Pac. Elevated Co., 119 U. S. 388, 30 L. ed. 447

30 Cleveland Terminal & Valley R. R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208 U. S. 316, 52 L. ed. 508; Duluth & S. Bridge Co. v. Steamer “Troy,'' 208 U, S. 321, 52 L. ed. 512, 28 S. Ct. 416.

31 The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213, 18 L. ed. 753.

82 Cope v. Vallette Dry-Dock Co., 119 U. S. 625, 7 S. Ct. 336, 30 L. ed. 501; s. C., below, 10 Fed. 142.

33 Snyder v. A Floating Dry-Dock, 22 Fed. 685. See infra, $ 593a.

34 The Big Jim, 61 Fed. 503.

35 Pile Driver E. 0. A., 69 Fed. 1005.

86 The Steamboat Hendrick Hudson, 3 Ben. 419, 11 Fed. Cas. 6,355.

37 Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Chesbrough, C. C. A., 216 Fed. 121.

38 U. S. v. James W. Elwell & Co., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 941. A libel to collect a penalty under the

2

$ 560a. Contracts enforceable in admiralty. A court of admiralty has jurisdiction over all maritime contracts. Every contract is within the jurisdiction of the court of admiralty when it has reference to maritime service or a maritime transaction; although made on land, and even in some cases when to be performed on land. The English rule in this respect is not followed.5 Admiralty has jurisdiction over a claim for repairs of a vessel while upon a dry dock or when it has been hauled up by ways upon the land, or for salvage of a boat saved from fire while in a dry dock. 8

The following contracts, amongst others, are enforceable in admiralty: contracts for salvage, 9 even when only partially performed and the work was stopped by the owner 10 and even when the salvage contract is attacked for fraud or mistake; for pilotage; 12 for marine insurance; 13 for transportation of passengers on navigable waters; 14 for injury to a passenger at the suit of the passenger or her husband, 15 for the sale or hire

11

Harter Act. See The Susquehanna,
C. C. A., 267 Fed. 811.

$ 560a. 1 North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U. S. 164, 39 Sup. Ct., 221.

119 2 People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How., 393, 401; Phila., W. & B. R. Co. v. Phila., etc., Steam Towboat Co., 23 How., 209, 215; Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 26; The Eclipse, 135 U. S. 599, 608; North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U. S. 119, 39 Sup. Ct. 221.

3 Zea ne v. The President, 4 Wash. 453; Fed. Cas. 18,201.

4 North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U. S. 119, 39 Sup. Ct. 221.

5 Ibid.

6 The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, 33, 34.

7 North Pacific S. S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U. S. 119, 39 Sup. Ct.,

221; Wortman v. Griffith, 3 Blatchf. 528; Fed. Cas. 18,057.

8 The Steamship Jefferson, 215 U. S. 130.

9 Peisch v. Ware, 4 Cranch, 347, 2 L. ed. 643; Houseman v. The North Carolina,

Peters, 40, 10 L. ed. 653; infra, g 590.

10 Sea Ins. Co. v. About Five Hundred Tons of Steel Rails, 191 Fed. 250.

11 The Stanley H. Miner, 172 Fed. 486.

12 Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Peters, 108, 9 L. ed. 363; Re McNiel, 13 Wall. 236, 20 L. ed. 624; Re Hagar, 104 U. S. 520, 26 L. ed. 816.

13 New England Mut. M. Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 20 L. ed. 90.

14 The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 18 L, ed. 397; The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263, in which the author was counsel.

15 Reed v. Weule, C. C. A., 176 Fed. 660.

of a chronometer,16 of affreightment for the transportation of goods on navigable waters 17 and bills of lading when enforced by the consignor or consignee,18 charter parties ; 19 contracts of employment of sailors or other persons engaged in navigation,20 including a bartender on a passenger boat.21 Admiralty has also jurisdiction to enforce bonds of bottomry 22 and respondentia 23 to collect general average, 24 wharfage, 25 and other maritime liens, including one for the sale or hire 26 Admiralty has jurisdiction of a libel for the licitation or sale of a vessel not engaged in navigation and the partition of the proceeds between the owners thereof, when there is an irreconcilable disagreement as to its use, 27 at least when the ownership is equally divided, and to allow one part owner to employ the boat against the other's wishes upon filing a bond for the protection of the latter.28 When a majority owner threatened a sale an injunction

16 N. Y. & Long Branch Steam- 287, 18 Sup. Ct. 140, 24 L. ed. 469. boat Co. v. Johnson, C. C. A., 195 23 Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Fed. 740.

Peters, 386, 7 L. ed. 189; Maitland 17 N. J. Steam Nav, Co. v. Mer- v. The Atlantic, Newb. Adm. 514, chants’ Bank, 6 How. 344, 12 L. ed. 16 Fed. Cas. 8,980. 465.

24 Re 4885 Bags of Linseed, 1 18 McKinlay v. Morrish, 21 How. . Black, 108, 17 L. ed. 35. 343, 16 L. ed. 100.

25 Re Easton, 95 U. S. 68, 24 L. 19 The Harriman, 9 Wall. 161, ed. 373. 19 L. ed. 629; Morewood v. Ene- 26 Bulkley v. Naumkeag Steam quist, 23 How. 491, 16 L. ed. 516. Cotton Co., 24 How. 386, 16 L. ed.

20 The St. Jago de Cuba, 9 Wheat- 599; The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129, on, 409, 6 L. ed. 122; The Thomas 19 L. ed. 651; The Guy, 9 Wall. Jefferson, 10 Wheaton, 428, 6 L. ed. 758, 19 L. ed. 710. 358; Sheppard v. Taylor, 5 Peters, 27 Skrine v. The Hope, Bee 2; 675, 8 L. ed. 269; Oliver v. Alex- Stevens v. The Sandwich, 1 Peters ander, 6 Peters, 143, 8 L. ed. 349. Adm. 233; Willings v. Blight, 2

21 The J. S. Warden, 175 Fed. Peters, Adm. 288; Coyne v. Caples, 314, Former cases held that the 8 Fed. 638; The Emma B., 140 Fed. court would not take jurisdiction of 770; Story on Partnership, $$ 435, a libel to collect the amount due 436; Benedict's Admiralty, 3rd ed., for the services of a musician, $ 274. See Steam-boat Orleans v. Trainor v. Superior, Gilpin, 514, or Phoebus, 11 Peters, 175. barber for passengers, Thackarey v. 28 Tunno v. The Betsina, Fed. Cas. Farmer of Salem, Gilpin, 524, upon 14,236; The Emma B, 140 Fed. a boat, nor for a watchman or ship- 770; The Olga, 254 Fed. 439, 440; keeper, Gurney v. Crockett, Abb. Benedict on Admiralty, 3rd ed., Adm. 490.

$ 274. 22 O'Brien v. Miller, 168 U. S.

« AnteriorContinuar »