sheriff had seized the vessel. He held her under those attachments when the marshal came to seize her. He had also served copies of the warrants upon the parties who held the freight money, with notice that he attached it. On this state of facts the parties submitted to this court the question, whether there had been a valid attachment of the freight money by the marshal, so as to give this court jurisdiction to hear and determine the libel.

Held, that seamen have a paramount lien for their wages upon the freight money of the voyage, and that such lien is to be administered by a court of admiralty by the service of its attachment upon the freight money in the hands of the parties where

it is found.

That, as against a lien of this character, the principle established by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Taylor v. Carryl (20 How. 483) ought not to be extended.

That the application of the principle of that case to an attachment issuing from a state court against a vessel would only work delay in the enforcement of a sailor's lien for wages upon her, but that the application of it to an attachment against freight money would work the entire destruction of the lien.

That the possession of the freight money by the sheriff, constructive or otherwise, was not such as the possession of the vessel in Taylor v. Carryl, or such as prevented the marshal from levying his process upon it, so as to give this court jurisdiction of it in rem.

That the jurisdiction of this court is therefore sustained. The Sailor Prince and her Freight Money, 1 Ben. 234.

66. (Dec., 1870.) In admiralty, minors are allowed to sue for wages in their own names. The Bark Elwin Kreplin, 4 Ben.

413.

67. (June, 1877) D. was hired as deck hand on a tug at $30 a month, as he claimed. The tug sank at a pier, but was raised again, and after she was raised he worked on board in repairing her. Afterwards he filed a libel against her to recover wages for the whole time. The claimants deposited in court $24.50 to meet his claim, besides costs, amounting in all to $63.82, claiming that he was only entitled to $20.

Held, that D. was entitled to recover $15, for half a month's wages.

That the court had no jurisdiction in respect to his claim for services after the boat sank. The Steamer Propeller M. M. Caleb, 9 Ben. 159.

68. (April, 1879.) Seamen filed a libel against a British vessel to recover wages. The owners of the vessel objected to the court's entertaining jurisdiction of the cause, and the British consul also protested against it.

Held, that while, under such circumstances, the court would refuse to entertain jurisdiction unless there were special circumstances in the case, yet in this case, as none of the seamen belonged in Nova Scotia, where the vessel belonged, and when the libel was filed it was uncertain for what port the vessel would sail, and when the cause was heard the vessel had finished her voyage and it was uncertain where she was, a refusal to entertain the cause would be practically a denial of justice, and the same would be entertained.

That section 190 of the British Merchant Shipping Act did not preclude the sailors from maintaining the action. The Bark Lilian M. Vigus, 10 Ben. 385.

69. (1790.) Two mariners belonging to the brig St. Oloff, a Swedish vessel, were, by decree of the court, allowed their wages and discharged from any further services on board the brig, because of the deviation from the voyage for which they shipped, and because the conduct of the captain with regard to them. had been so cruel and unwarrantable by the maritime law as would of itself have dissolved the contract, the rights of humanity being superior to the specific laws and customs of any nation. Weiberg and Casterius v. The Brig St. Oloff, 2 Pet. Adm. 428. 70. (1804.) The dispute between the master and the mate, in this cause, was concerning the mate's wages. Process or a citation was issued against the master and owner. There were accounts of moneys and articles of traffic and dealing between the captain and mate, but they were not considered within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, except so far they were connected with the claim for wages. Atkyns v. Burrows, 1 Pet. Adm. 244.

71. (1804.) The cook and the steward are authorized to sue in the admiralty court, as mariners and part of the crew. Black v. The Ship Louisiana, 2 Pet. Adm. 269.

72. (1806.) I do not find any precedent or authority to warrant my granting the prayer of the master's petition, in the

case before me, for his wages. His contract is clearly personal, and made with, and on the credit of, the owners resident here, and not on that of the ship. He is the owners' agent and responsible to them for his acts, particularly those relating to mariner's contracts, and other transactions in the affairs of the ship. If in anything he has done wrong, the owners may retain, and the contest is cognizable in another jurisdiction. Gardner v. The Ship New Jersey, 1 Pet. Adm. 228.

73. I have paid out of surplus the wages due to masters of Spanish ships, because the laws of Spain entitle them thereto; and I always am regulated, in the affairs of foreign ships, by the laws of the country to which they belong. I could discover no

precedent for this in the laws of any other country. Ib.

74. (Nov., 1828.) A seaman whose wages have been paid up to the termination of a voyage, but who afterwards remains on board of a vessel moored at the wharf, has no claim for services which a court of admiralty will enforce. Phillips et al. v. The Ship Thomas Scattergood, Gilp. 1.

75. (May, 1830.) Where a portion of a vessel which has been wrecked is saved by the exertions of the seamen, brought to the United States, and sold, they have a lien on the proceeds for their wages. Brackett et al. v. The Brig Hercules, Gilp. 184.

76. (Nov., 1830.) A contract for wages on a voyage between ports of adjoining states and on the tide-water of a river or bay, is within the jurisdiction of the District Court, and may be enforced by a suit in rem in the admiralty. Smith v. The Sloop Pekin, Gilp. 203.

77. (Nov., 1834.) A contract for wages on board of a steamboat plying between ports of adjoining states, on a navigable tide river, may be enforced by a suit in rem in the admiralty. Wilson v. The Steamboat Ohio, Gilp. 505.

78. The pilot, deck-hands, engineer, and firemen on board of a steamboat are entitled to sue in the admiralty for their wages. Ib.

79. (Nov., 1834.) To justify a person employed on board a vessel in suing in the admiralty for his wages, the services rendered must contribute to the preservation of the vessel or of those employed in her navigation. Trainer and Crawshaw v. The Boat Superior, Gilp. 514.

80. Musicians on board of a vessel, who are hired and employed as such, cannot enforce the payment of their wages by a suit in rem in the admiralty. 1b.

81. (Nov., 1834.) Waters within the ebb and flow of the tide are to be considered as the sea. Thackarey v. The Farmer, Gilp. 524.

82. In cases of torts, injuries, and offenses, locality brings them within the admiralty jurisdiction; but in cases of contract it is also necessary that the subject-matter be of a maritime nature. Ib.

83. A contract relative to service on board of a vessel, and on the sea or waters within the ebb and flow of the tide, cannot be enforced in the admiralty unless the service is essentially maritime service. Ib.

84. Steamboats and lighters engaged in trade or commerce on tide-water, and the seamen employed on board, are within the admiralty jurisdiction; but not ferry boats or those engaged in ordinary traffic along the shore. Ib.

85. A contract to pay for labor on board a vessel employed in carrying fuel to the city of Philadelphia from the opposite shore of the Delaware River cannot be enforced by a suit in rem in the admiralty. Ib.

86. (Aug., 1836.) Where suit has been brought in a state tribunal for seamen's wages, and discontinued, this court will sustain a libel for the same cause of action. Bingham v. Wilkins, Crabbe, 50.

87. (1803.) An agreement by the captain of a vessel to pay wages is suable in the admiralty; but another stipulation in the same contract, to pay a sum of money if the voyage should be altered or discontinued, must be enforced at common law. L'Arina v. Manwaring, Bee, Adm. 199.

88. (1781.) Mariners enlisting on board a ship of war or vessel belonging to a sovereign independent state cannot libel against the ship for wages due. Pierre de Moitez v. The South Carolina, Bee, Adm. 422.

In all suits for pilotage the libellant may proceed against the ship and master or against the ship, or against the owner alone or the master alone in personam.

1. (Jan., 1836.) Suits for pilotage on the high seas, and on waters navigable from the sea, as far as the tide ebbs and flows,

are within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. The service is strictly maritime, and falls within the principles already established by the court in the case of The Thomas Jefferson (10 Wheaton's R. 428) and Peyroux v. Howard (6 Peters's R. 682.) Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108.

2. The jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States, in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, is not ousted by the adoption of the state laws by the act of Congress. The only effect is to leave the jurisdiction concurrent in the state courts, and, if the party should sue in the admiralty, to limit his recovery to the same precise sum to which he would be entitled under the state laws adopted by Congress, if he should sue in the state courts. Ib.

3. (Oct., 1881.) The District Court sitting in admiralty will not be restrained from proceeding in a suit to recover pilotage. [Petition for writ of prohibition.] Ex parte Hagar, 14 Otto, 520.

4. (Oct., 1818.) The admiralty has jurisdiction in personam, as well as in rem, for pilotage earned in piloting ships to, from, or on the sea. Schooner Anne, 1 Mason, 508.

5. (May, 1827.) The rule of the common-law courts of England, that a pilot cannot sue in admiralty on a contract for services to be performed on a navigable river, or waters within the body of a county, does not prevail here. Pilotage services partake so much of a maritime character, that, under our system and the grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the District Courts, such a suit may be maintained in those courts, in the absence of any legislative provision on the subject of pilotage. Schooner Wave v. Hyer, 2 Paine, 131.

6. But the jurisdiction of the District Courts is not exclusive over such cases. There is nothing in the nature of the remedy, or of the subject-matter, which can take away the jurisdiction of the common-law courts. And the saving, in the Judiciary Act, of the right to a common-law remedy, is a full recognition of a concurrent jurisdiction, in those courts, of cases which may be denominated admiralty and maritime causes, where they before had such jurisdiction. Ib.

7. Nor is the mere grant, in the Constitution, of cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the courts of the Union, necessarily exclusive, nor a denial of the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of the state in such cases.

Ib.