§ 557. Forms of actions or suits in admiralty.-There are two forms of suits in admiralty, namely: (1) suits in rem, and (2) suits in personam; and the latter class is subdivided into two classes (1) suits in personam without foreign attachment, and (2) suits in personam with foreign attachment. In some cases, suits in rem and in personam may perhaps be joined in one proceeding.s § 558. Same-Jurisdiction in rem based on maritime lien. The only object of a suit in rem is to enforce, make available, and carry into effect a maritime lien; it subserves no other purpose. The lien and the proceeding in rem are, therefore, correlative; where the former exists, the latter can be taken, and not otherwise. A maritime lien is the foundation of the proceeding in rem.o § 559. Same-Intervention pro interesse suo.-Any person having an interest in any proceeds in the registry of the court of admiralty has the right, by petition and summary proceeding, to intervene pro interesse suo for delivery thereof to him; and this he may do, although he could not maintain an original suit in admiralty against the property which produced the fund, nor has a maritime lien on it. The mortgagee of a vessel may maintain such an intervention to have the residue of the proceeds of the vessel paid to him after all maritime liens have been satisfied.10 ter all maritime liens have been satisfied. It would seem to follow that any priority given by the statute of a state, or by decisions at common law or in equity, is immaterial; and that the admiralty courts of the United States, enforc ing the lien because it is maritime in its nature, arising upon a maritime contract, must give it the rank to which it is entitled by the principles of the maritime and admiralty law." 5 The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443 (13:1058); The Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909); Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48 (16:269); The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574 (17:107); The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15 (19:365); Ex 6 Admiralty rule 2. 8 Admiralty rule 20; Barton v. Brown, 145 U. S. 335, 348 (36:727). 9 Packet Co. V. Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall, 213, 216 (18:753); Hatch v. The Steamboat Boston, 3 Fed. R. 871. 10 Admiralty rule 43; The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558, 609 (22:654); Schuchardt v. Babbidge, 19 How. 239 (15:625); The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 21 (37:345). (b) THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME CAUSES. § 560. Jurisdiction of civil causes in admiralty.-The several district courts of the United States are vested with original jurisdiction of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; saving to suitors in all cases the right of a commonlaw remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. And this jurisdiction is exclusive of the state courts; and is also exclusive of the circuit courts of the United States, except in two specified classes of cases.11 § 561. Suits on maritime contracts.-The several district courts of the United States have exclusive original jurisdiction of all admiralty and maritime causes founded upon any maritime contract, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give If the party elects to pursue his common law remedy, he must prosecute his suit in the state court, or in the circuit court of the United States, where that court has jurisdiction under the federal judiciary acts; but if the party elects to sue in admiralty, the district court of the United States has exclusive original jurisdiction.12 it. § 562. Suits based on marine torts.-The several district courts of the United States have exclusive original jurisdiction 11 U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 563, cl. 8 and 9; U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 629, cl. 6 and 7; U. S. Rev. Stat. sec 711, cl. 3; U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 5308; 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. pp. 230-234, 247-248. 12 U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 563, cl. 8 and sec 711; 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. pp. 220-233; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411 (18:397); The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624 (19:266); The General Smith,, 4 Wheat. 438 (4:609); The Planter, 7 Pet. 324 (8:700); The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522 (17:180); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 559 (22:654); The Glide, 167 U. S. 606 (42:296); De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398, Fed. Cas. No. 3,776; Perry v. Haines, 191 U. S. 17, 55 (48:73); The Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638, 648 (44:921); The Oscoda, 66 Fed. R. 347; The Acadea, Brown Adm. 73, Fed. Cas. No. 24; The Williams, Brown Adm. 208, Fed. Cas. No. 17,710; The Canal Boat W. J. Walsh, 5 Ben. 72, Fed. Cas. 17,922; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68, 78 (24:373); Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1 (20:90); The Eddy, 5 Wall. 481 (18:486); Morewood v. Enequist, 23 How. 491 (16: 516); Andrews v. Wall. 3 How. 568 (11:729); Sheppard v. Taylor, 5 Pet. 675 (8:269); McKinlay v. Norrish, 21 How. 343 (16:100); The Resolute, 168 U. S. 437 (42:533); The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129, 145 (19:651). of all admiralty and maritime causes based on marine torts, saving, as in cases founded on maritime contracts, to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. If the party elects to pursue his common-law remedy, he must prosecute his suit in the state court, or in the circuit court of the United States, where that court has jurisdiction under the federal judiciary acts; but if the party elects to sue in admiralty, the district court of the United States has exclusive original jurisdiction.13 563. Same-Immaterial that the tort is committed within the waters of a foreign country. The admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States over marine torts is not taken away by the fact that the cause of action arose in the waters of a foreign port. That circumstance is immaterial. While in some cases decided by the supreme court it is said that the district courts, as courts of admiralty, have jurisdiction of all torts arising upon the high seas, or upon the navigable waters of the United States, yet the connection in which those words are found indicates that they were not used restrictively; and the law is entirely well settled, both in England and in this country, that marine torts originating upon navigable waters within the territorial limits of a foreign country may be the subject of a suit in admiralty in a domestic court.14 § 564. Suits to enforce maritime liens.-The several district courts of the United States are vested with exclusive original jurisdiction of all admiralty and maritime suits in rem to enforce maritime liens, whether such liens arise out of contracts 13 U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 563, cl. 8 and sec. 711; 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. pp. 220-233; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555 (18:451); The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443 (13:1058); Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466 (13: 1068); The Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909); Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48 (16:269); The Propeller Commerce. 1 Black, 574 (17.107); The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15 (19:365); Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629 (27: 1056); The Quickstep, 9 Wall. 665 (19:767); The Syracuse, 12 Wall. 167 (20:382); The Atlas, 93 U. S. 302 (23:863); The L. P. Dayton, 120 U. S. 337 (30:669); The E. A. Packer, 140 U. S. 360 (35:453); The Avon, Brown Adm. 170, Fed. Cas. No. 680; The Thomas Carroll, 23 Fed. 912; Panama Railroad Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280, 290 (41:1004). 14 Panama Railroad Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280, 290 (41:1004); The Eagle; 8 Wall. 15, 26 (19.365); The Avon, Brown Adm. 170; The Diana, 1 Lush. 539. or torts or by operation of law, and whether created by the general maritime law or the statute of a state.15 § 565. The ship and the owner not to be joined in the same libel.-In suits in admiralty by material-men for supplies or repairs or other necessaries, for mariners' wages, for pilotage, for damages by collision, for sea batteries, or suits founded on maritime hypothecation of ship or freight by the master, or suits on bottomry bonds, or for salvage, as defined in the admiralty rules, the ship and the owner cannot be joined in the same libel.16 Admiralty rules, twelve to twenty inclusive, were intended to prescribe a remedy appropriate to each class of cases in admiralty, allowing in certain cases a joinder of ship and freight, or ship and master, or alternative actions against the ship, master, or owner alone. In no case, however, under these rules, except in possessory suits, can the ship and owner be joined in the same libel, though perhaps they may be in cases not falling within the rules.17 § 566. Jurisdiction of suits by material-men.-The several district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of all suits in admiralty by material-men for supplies or repairs or other necessaries;18 and, in all such suits, "the libelant may proceed against the ship, freight, and master, or against the ship and freight, or against the owner or the master alone in per In the admiralty and maritime law of this country, the following propositions are established as the settled law, viz: (1) For necessary repairs or supplies furnished to a vessel in a foreign port, a lien is given by the general maritime law, following the civil law, and may be enforced in admiralty.20 15 The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555 (18:451); The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411 (18:397); The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624 (19:260); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 559 (22:654); The Glide, 167 U. S. 606 (42:296); Perry v. Haines, 191 U. S. 17, 55 (48:73); The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 21 (37:345). 16 Admiralty rules, 12 to 20 inclusive. 17 The Corsair, 145 U. S. 335, 348 (36:727); The Sabine, 101 U. S. 348 (28:982); The Ethel, 66 Fed. R. 342, S. C. 30 U. S. App. 214. 18 The Glide, 167 U. S. 606 (42: 296); Perry v. Haines, 191 U. S. 17, 55 (48:73); The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438 (4:609). 19 Admiralty rule 12. 20 The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438 (4:609); The St. Jago de Cuba, 9 Wheat. 409 (6:122); The Virgin v. Vyfhius, 8 Pet. 538 (8: 1036); United States v. Neurea, 19 How. 22 (15:531); The Grapeshot (2) For repairs or supplies furnished to a vessel in her home port, or a port of the state to which she belongs, no lien exists in admiralty under the general law, and independently of local statute.21 (3) Whenever the statute of a state gives a lien for repairs or supplies furnished to a vessel in her home port, or a port of the state to which she belongs, the contract being maritime, the lien created by the state statute is a maritime lien, and is, by the principles of the maritime law, given the same rank as maritime liens given by that law for repairs and supplies furnished in a foreign port, and, therefore, may be enforced in the admiralty courts of the United States by a proceeding in rem.22 (4) This maritime lien, created by the state statute, and which is to be enforced by proceeding in rem, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the admiralty courts of the United States, and, under the present distribution of the admiralty jurisdiction, cognizance of such suits is vested exclusively in the district courts.23 (5) The fundamental reasons upon which the proposition, that maritime liens created by state statutes are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty of the United States, are, that the entire judicial power over admiralty and maritime causes is by the constitution vested in the general government, and the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the federal courts can neither be enlarged nor restricted by state legislation, nor can the states exercise any part of that jurisdiction; and, therefore, when a state, by statute creates a lien to secure within its territorial limits, the performance of a contract which is essentially maritime in its nature, and on that account within the exclusive jurisdiction of the admiralty courts of the United States, the lien, so created, being an inci v. Wallerstein, 9 Wall. 129 (19: 651); Hazlehurst v. The Lulu, 10 Wall. 192 (19:906); Pendergast v. Kalorama, 10 Wall. 204 (19:941); The Patapsco, 13 Wall. 239 (20: 696); Pritchard v. Beatly, 17 Wall. 660 (21:683). 21 The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438 (4:609); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558 (22:654); The St. Jago de Cuba, 9 Wheat. 409 (6:122). 22 Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324 (8:700); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 558 (22:654); The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522 (17:180); The Glide, 167 U. S. 606 (42:296); Perry v. Haines, 191 U. S. 17, 55 (48:73). 23 The Glide, 167 U. S. 606 (42: 296); Perry v. Haines, 191 U. S. 17, 55 (48:73); The Lottawana, 21 Wall. 559 (22:654). |