8. In the state of New York, however, the District Courts have no jurisdiction at all over cases of pilotage service. Congress has adopted the law of the state regulating pilots; and that law has provided for compensating pilots, for both ordinary and extraordinary services of all kinds; and has given to the Board of Wardens power to decide what such compensation shall be. And Congress having adopted the state law previously to the passage of the Judiciary Act, cases of pilotage service were not embraced in the general obligation of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to the District Courts within the state. Ib.

9. (Jan., 1871.) The state statute gives a pilot half pilotage as a compensation for tendering his services to pilot a ship out over the Columbia River bar, in case the same are refused. Held, that such a claim is a claim for pilotage, which, by the general maritime law, is a lien upon the vessel, and the same may be enforced by a suit in admiralty. The California, 1 Sawyer, 463.

10. (Oct., 1867.) The admiralty has jurisdiction to enforce a lien against a vessel given by a state statute in certain cases, to a pilot whose services have been tendered and refused. The Brig America, 1 Lowell, 176.

11. The twelfth admiralty rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, which, as amended, prohibits the District Courts from enforcing certain liens created by state statute, has no application to pilots; for they come under the fourteenth rule. Ib.

12. (April, 1831.) Courts of admiralty have jurisdiction of suits for pilotage. The Wave, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 235.

13. (Sept., 1869.) Where a pilot boarded a ship, some thirty miles from Barnegat, and the master of the ship proposed that his employment should not commence till the vessel reached pilot ground, whereupon the pilot went to bed, and was called when Sandy Hook hove in sight, and then took charge of the vessel, and thereafter libeled her for the amount of off-shore pilotage, awarded by the laws of the state of New York, Held, that the court had jurisdiction of the action. The Bark Alaska, 3 Ben. 391.

14. (March, 1871.) A court of admiralty has jurisdiction over an action brought by a pilot to recover the half pilotage declared by a state statute to be due to the first pilot who tenders his services to a vessel. Banta v. McNeil, 5 Ben. 74.

15. Cases arising quasi ex contractu, pertaining to navigation, are cases in admiralty. Ib.

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

1. (Dec., 1861.) To bring a case of collision within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts, it is not necessary to show that either of the vessels was engaged in foreign commerce or commerce between the states. Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574.

2. (Oct., 1880.) The courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River. Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 12 Otto, 118.

3. (April, 1835.) Whenever any collision arises between the owners of a vessel, it falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the District Court to interfere so as to protect the rights of all. Revens v. Lewis & Thomson, 2 Paine, 203.

4. (Nov., 1845.) The admiralty court has jurisdiction in cases of collision happening upon tide-water in the Chesapeake Bay or the rivers emptying therein; the jurisdiction has been settled by the decision of this court, and has been acted upon on several occasions, and cannot now be considered as open for argument. Taylor v. Harwood, Taney's Dec. 437.

5. (July, 1874.) The admiralty jurisdiction of the United States courts extends to a tort committed by collision on an artificial ship canal connecting navigable waters which are within that jurisdiction. Steamer Oler, 2 Hughes, 12.

6. (Oct., 1853.) The libellant cannot join in this libel a demand in rem against the vessel, and one in personam against the owners. He may proceed in rem or in personam, or successively in each way, until he has full satisfaction; but he cannot blend the proceedings in one libel. Ward v. The Ogdensburgh, 5 Mc

Lean, 623.

7. (June, 1862.) Where a collision is the joint act of two steamboats, there can be no objection to the joinder of both as defendants in an action. Atkinson v. Steamboat R. B. Hamilton, 1 Bond, 536.

8. If each boat is charged with a distinct and separate act of collision, without any allegation of privity between them, or concert or unity of purpose, they cannot be joined in the same libel. Ib.

9. (Aug., 1873.) In case of a total loss of a cargo by collision, a libel may be brought by the insurer against the colliding vessel, after notice and proof of the loss and demand of payment, though without actual payment. The Manistee, 5 Biss. 381.

10. The insured having been fully satisfied for the loss, and not intervening or opposing the prosecution of the libel of the insurer, the carrier cannot be permitted to raise the objection of non-payment of the loss before libel brought. Ib.

11. (April, 1846.) Admiralty has jurisdiction in a cause of collision between vessels when the injury is received in a ship where the tide ebbs and flows between piers or wharves in this port. The Bark Lotty, Olc. Adm. 329.

12. (Dec., 1866.) An admiralty court has no jurisdiction over the "appropriate proceedings," to apportion the value of a vessel which has caused a collision among the parties who have suffered loss thereby, which are provided for by the fourth section of the act of Congress of March 3, 1851. George Place et al. v. The Steamboat City of Norwich, 1 Ben. 89.

13. (May, 1867.) Where, in a collision between a steamer and a schooner, both vessels were sunk and the steamer was afterwards raised and repaired, and this suit was brought by the owners of the schooner against the owners of the steamer, in which a decree was rendered for the libellants with an order of reference to a commissioner to ascertain the damage, and his report fixing such damage was confirmed by the court; and where the respondents thereupon applied to the court, on motion. to reserve the final decree, that they might take "appropriate proceedings" to apportion the sum for which they might be liable among the parties entitled thereto under the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3, 1851, offering to the court proof of the value of their vessel and her freight, and that such value. was exceeded by the amount of the claims for property destroyed in the collision, — Held, . . . that this court has no power to give them such relief in any form of proceeding. That power does not belong to its jurisdiction in admiralty, certainly not in a suit in personam, where neither the faulty ship and freight, nor

their amount or value, is within the control of the court, and where the court can render no judgment that will bind parties not before it, and cannot make parties of such as reside and remain out of the district. And the court has no equity powers adequate to granting such relief. Wright v. Norwich & New York Transportation Co., 1 Ben. 156.

14. (Nov., 1867.) A Dutch schooner and a Russian bark came in collision in the North Sea, by which the schooner was sunk. The owners of the schooner libeled the bark. Held, that this court had jurisdiction of the action. The Bark Jupiter,

1 Ben. 536.

15. (Jan., 1868.) A suit to recover damages for a collision cannot properly be brought against a vessel in rem, and her owner in personam, unless her owner is also master. The Propeller Richard Doane, 2 Ben. 111.

16. All the owners of a vessel injured by a collision should be joined as libellants. Ib.

17. The case of Newell v. Norton, (3 Wallace, 257) discussed. Ib.

18. (June, 1871.) The owners of the schooner, who were carriers of the cargo, could recover for the damage to the cargo [by a collision], without joining the other owner of it as a libelThe Steamer Metis, 5 Ben. 203.

lant.

19. (March, 1877.) This court has jurisdiction in a suit in rem in admiralty, for a collision of a vessel seized under process in the suit, in that part of the river St. Lawrence which is within the territorial limits of this district, without reference to the character of the vessel or of her voyage. The Propeller East, 9 Ben. 76.

20. (May, 1878.) The master of a vessel having charge and custody of her at the time of a collision may maintain an action. to recover the damages caused by the collision, it appearing that the bringing of the action has been authorized and approved by all interested. The master's right of action in such a case is not affected by the fact that underwriters upon the vessel have paid the cost of the repairs which constitute a part of the demand sued for. The Steam-tug Uncle Abe, 9 Ben. 502.

21. (Oct., 1853.) Under Rule 15 of the admiralty, the libellant may proceed: 1st, against the ship and master; 2d, against the ship; 3d, against the owner alone; 4th, against the master

alone. A proceeding in rem against the ship and in personam against the owner, not being authorized by the rule, is prohibited. Ward v. The Propeller Ogdensburgh, Newb. Adm. 140. 22. (April, 1864.) The fact that, prior to the collision, an interest in the injured vessel had been transferred to an alien, and a forfeiture thereby incurred, does not prevent such alien owner from joining in the libel, the forfeiture never having been judicially declared by a condemnation. The Nabob, 1 Brown,

115.

23. (Jan., 1870.) The admiralty has jurisdiction of a collision. between a canal-boat and a tug engaged exclusively in harbor service, and occurring upon navigable waters wholly within the body of a county. The Volunteer, 1 Brown, 159.

24. (Jan., 1874.) A joint action for collision cannot be maintained in rem against one vessel, and in personam against the owner of another. The Young America, 1 Brown, 462.

In all suits for an assault or beating on the high seas, or elsewhere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, the suit shall be in personam only.

1. (Oct., 1837.) An action for damages as for assault and battery against the master cannot be joined in the same libel with an action for wages, if it be excepted to. Pratt v. Thomas, 1 Ware, 437.

2. Quære, if not excepted to, whether the court may not adjudicate upon both in one libel, making in each case a separate decree. Ib.

Rule 17. - Marine Hypothecation.

In all suits against the ship or freight founded upon a mere maritime hypothecation, either express or implied, of the master, for moneys taken up in a foreign port for supplies or repairs or other necessaries for the voyage, without any claim of marine interest, the libellant may proceed either in rem, or against the master or the owner alone in per

sonam.

1. (Dec., 1854.) The courts of the United States, in the exercise of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, cannot take cog