201. LIMITATIONS

Admiralty is not bound by the statutes of limitation, for this same reason that they do not in terms apply to those courts. Hence, where the rights of third parties have intervened, an admiralty court will hold a claim stale in a much shorter period than that prescribed by the statutes, and we have seen in other connections that among admiralty liens of the same character the last is preferred to the first.14

But, as between the original parties, unless special circumstances have intervened, the admiralty courts adopt the statutes of limitation by analogy, the doctrine being substantially the same as the chancery doctrine on the subject.45

202. TENDER

In the matter of tender, admiralty is not as rigid as the other courts. A formal offer in actual cash is not de rigueur. Any offer to pay, followed up by a deposit of the amount admitted in the registry of the court, is sufficient.40

§ 201. 44 Ante, pp. 105, 115, 392; Nikita, 62 Fed. 936, 10 C. C. A. 674.

45 Sarah Ann, 2 Sumn. 206, Fed. Cas. No. 12,342; Queen (D. C.) 78 Fed. 155; Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 94 Fed. 180, 36 C. C. A. 135; Queen of the Pacific, 180 U. S. 49, 21 Sup. Ct. 278, 45 L. Ed. 419; Southard v. Brady (C. C.) 36 Fed. 560; Southwark (D. C.) 128 Fed. 149; Davis v. Smokeless Fuel Co., 196 Fed. 753, 116 C. C. A. 381.

§ 202. 46 Dedekam v. Vose, Fed. Cas. No. 3,729; Boulton v. Moore (C. C.) 14 Fed. 922.

203. COSTS

In the matter of costs admiralty courts exercise a wide discretion, and often withhold them as a punishment in case the successful litigant has been guilty of oppression, or has put his opponent, by exorbitant demands, to unnecessary inconvenience or expense."

48

The act of July 20, 1892, as amended June 25, 1910, permits suits in forma pauperis without requiring security for costs. The act, if intended to apply to the admiralty courts, frequently works great injustice by tying up large steamers in foreign ports till they give bond; and they are remediless if the cause of action is unfounded.

204. ENFORCING DECREES

If, after the trial and all its incidents are over, the decision is in favor of libelant, and there is no appeal, the final decree, in case the vessel has been released, goes against the stipulators, and under admiralty rule 21 can be enforced by a writ of fieri facias.

In case the vessel has not been released, the final decree provides that she be advertised and sold by the marshal of the district, who alone, under admiralty rule 41, can perform this duty. The practice is to make the sale for cash, and the rule requires it to be deposited in the registry of the court, to await its further orders.

49

A sale by the marshal vests a clear title against the world.50

§ 203. 47 Shaw v. Thompson, Olcott, 144, Fed. Cas. No. 12,726: Lyra (C. C. A.) 255 Fed. 667.

48 27 Stat. 252; 36 Stat. 866 (U. S. Comp. St. § 1626); post, p. 505. § 204. 49 Lambert's Point Towboat Co. v. U. S., 182 Fed. 388, 104 C. C. A. 598.

50 Trenton (D. C.) 4 Fed. 657; Evangel (D. C.) 94 Fed. 680.

Admiralty rule 42 requires money in the registry of the court to be drawn out by checks signed by the judge.

Under rule 43, parties having any interest in the vessel may come in by petition, and assert it. Under this, a party holding any sort of lien may come in, but not any party having a mere personal claim upon the owner."1

205. THE FIFTY-NINTH RULE

This rule 52 permits the owner of one of two vessels which has been libeled in a collision case by a third party to bring in the other vessel if he can find her, and have the damages assessed against either or both, according to the fact.53

The principle of this rule has been applied to many analogous cases, in the effort to place the responsibility where it equitably belongs."

206. THE COURTS HAVING ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

The federal Constitution vests the judicial power in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time establish. Acting under this authority, Congress, by the Judiciary Act of 1789, divided the United States into districts, and established in each district two

51 Edith, 94 U. S. 518, 24 L. Ed. 167; Leland v. Medora, 2 Woodb. & M. 92, Fed. Cas. No. 8,237; Brackett v. Hercules, Gilp. 184, Fed. Cas. No. 1,762.

$ 205.

52 Admiralty rule 59 (29 Sup. Ct. xlvi).

63 Ante, p. 320; Hudson, Fed. Cas. No. 6,828; Joice v. Canal Boats Nos. 1,758 and 1,892 (D. C.) 32 Fed. 553; Greenville (D. C.) 58 Fed. 805.

54 Dailey v. New York (D. C.) 119 Fed. 1005; Crown of Castile (D. C.) 148 Fed. 1012; Evans v. New York & P. S. S. Co. (D. C.) 163 Fed. 405; Daylight (D. C.) 206 Fed. 864; Barnstable, 181 U. S. 464, 21 Sup. Ct. 684, 45 L. Ed. 954.

courts of original jurisdiction, the District Court and the Circuit Court. To the District Court all classes of peculiar or special character were assigned, such as suits for penalties, admiralty, and bankruptcy cases, and minor criminal cases. On the Circuit Court was conferred the general current litigation usual between man and man, including all cases of common law and equity, and more important criminal cases. The Circuit Court was also given appellate jurisdiction of most of the subjects of District Court cognizance, including admiralty cases.

There was a District Judge appointed for each district, who was empowered to hold both the District and Circuit Courts for that district, except that he could not sit in the Circuit Court on appeals from his own decisions. To provide an appellate judge for such cases, the districts were grouped into larger units, called "circuits," equal in number to the justices of the Supreme Court, and each Justice, during the recess of that court, went around his circuit, holding the Circuit Court in each district.

Thus appeals from the District Courts in admiralty were tried in the Circuit Court by the Supreme Court Justice for that circuit. The appeal took up questions both of law and fact for review, the notes of evidence taken by the District Judge being the evidence on appeal; but the trial was de novo, being rather a new trial than an appeal, and new evidence could be introduced in the appellate court. In the event of an adverse decision in the Circuit Court, there was a second appeal, both on law and fact, to the Supreme Court, in cases involving over $2,000.

The increase of litigation consequent on the Civil War was so great that it was found necessary to increase the judicial force, and lighten the labors of the Supreme Court justices. Hence, in 1869, Congress enacted that there should be an additional judge appointed for each judicial circuit, to be called a "Circuit Judge." He could hold the Circuit Court in any district of his circuit.

The docket of the Supreme Court became more and more congested, and further relief became imperative. And so, by the act of February 16, 1875, Congress raised the limit of appeals to the Supreme Court to $5,000, and further provided that in admiralty there should no longer be an appeal to that court on questions both of law and fact, but that the Circuit Judge on an admiralty appeal from the district court should make a finding of the facts, and draw his conclusions of law therefrom, and the case then went to the Supreme Court simply on this finding, and no longer on all questions, both of law and fact. This, however, still left the litigant one appeal on questions of fact-that from the District Court to the Circuit Court.

This continued to be the law until the act of March 3, 1891, known as the "Appellate Courts Act." It created an additional Circuit Judge for each circuit, abolished the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and established a new appellate court in each circuit, composed of the Circuit Justice and the two Circuit Judges, but with the District Judges used to fill vacancies. Under this law admiralty appeals from the District Court go to this appellate court, with no restriction as to the amount involved, and on the full record of the District Court, thereby nominally giving a review of questions both of law and fact. This new appellate court is the court of last resort in admiralty cases, except that it may certify to the Supreme Court for decision any questions as to which it may desire instruction, and except, also, that the Supreme Court may, by certiorari, bring up for review any cases that it may deem of sufficient importance.

The Circuit Court, having lost its appellate jurisdiction by the Appellate Courts Act of 1891, was finally abolished, and its original jurisdiction transferred to the District Court, by the act of March 3, 1911, known by the short title of the "Judicial Code," but this is immaterial to the presHUGHES, ADM. (2D ED.)—27