18. Still less have they jurisdiction where such stipulations are contained in an instrument distinct from the charter-party. Ib.

19. The owner of a vessel under charter for the West Indies and a market, agreed by letter that, if a certain price could not be obtained at a designated port, the vessel should proceed to another; which agreement he violated. Held, that admiralty had not jurisdiction of the case. Ib.

20. (Sept., 1858.) A canal-boat, exclusively adapted to canal navigation, and having, of itself, no power, as respects navigation upon public waters, is not subject to a marine lien, in the admiralty, for a breach of a contract of affreightment. The Ann Arbor, 4 Blatchf. 205.

21. (April, 1871.) A District Court has jurisdiction in admiralty of a contract of affreightment, although the voyage contemplated begins and ends in one and the same state, and is prosecuted only on waters within such state, if the contract is to be performed on navigable waters. The Elmira Shepherd,

8 Blatchf. 341.

22. (Aug., 1878.) A cargo of oats was shipped on a canal boat lying in Buffalo Creek, a navigable stream flowing into Lake Erie, to be carried to New York by way of the Erie Canal and the Hudson River. The master of the boat signed a bill of lading for the cargo. While passing through the Erie Canal a part of the oats was feloniously abstracted from the cargo, with the knowledge and assent of the master. On the arrival of the boat in New York she was libelled by the consignee to recover the value of the oats not delivered. A mortgagee of the boat intervened, his mortgage being due, and defended the action, raising an objection to the jurisdiction, claiming a lien superior to that of the libellant, and claiming that the boat was not liable for the felonious action of the master. Held,

(1.) That the admiralty had jurisdiction of an action to enforce such contract, although part of the service was to be performed on the Erie Canal.

(2.) That the admiralty had jurisdiction to enforce such contract against the boat, although she was built to navigate the canal and had no means of locomotion in herself.

(3.) That the lien of the claimant, under his mortgage, was subordinate to that of the libellant.

(4.) That the boat was liable for the taking of the oats. The E. M. McChesney, 15 Blatchf. 183.

23. (Oct., 1863.) A contract for the use of a barge at a stipulated rate is cognizable in admiralty, and a libel may be maintained against the steamboat using it. The Dick Keys, 1 Biss. 408.

24. (April, 1865.) The fact that a contract of affreightment is to be performed wholly between ports within the same state does not exclude it from the admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. The admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution upon these courts extends to all contracts of a maritime character to be performed upon navigable waters. The Mary Washington, Abb. U. S. 1.

25. (June, 1828) A libel on a charter-party for freight due is a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and a court of admiralty has cognizance of the cause, provided the penalty is not demanded. Drinkwater et al. v. The Freight and Cargo of Brig Spartan, 1 Ware, 145.

26. The circumstance that the instrument is under seal does not take away the jurisdiction which the court has over it as a maritime contract.

Ib.

27. The admiralty has a general jurisdiction to enforce maritime liens.

Ib.

28. The ship-owners have a lien on goods for the freight due for maritime transportation, which may be enforced in the admiralty by a libel in rem. Ib.

29. And it is immaterial whether the contract is by a bill of lading, or a charter-party. Ib.

30. (March, 1872.) The District Court has full jurisdiction. of all contracts of affreightment and of claims for indirect as well as direct damages for the violation of them. The A. M. Bliss, 2 Lowell, 103.

31. (Sept., 1872.) The admiralty has jurisdiction of a personal action by a charterer against the owner of a vessel for damages, in not proceeding to the port of lading. The jurisdiction does not depend upon the fact of the cargo, or some part of it, having been put on board the vessel. Oakes v. Richardson,

2 Lowell, 173.

32. It seems an action in rem would lie in such a case.

Ib.

33. (June, 1875.) A cargo of oats was shipped on a canal

boat, lying in the Buffalo River, a navigable stream flowing into Lake Erie, to be carried to New York by way of the Erie Canal and the Hudson River. The master of the boat signed a bill of lading for the cargo. While passing through the Erie Canal a part of the oats were feloniously abstracted from the cargo, with the knowledge and assent of the master. On the arrival of the boat in New York she was libelled by the consignee to recover the value of the oats not delivered. The mortgagee of the boat intervened, his mortgage being due, and defended the action, raising an objection to the jurisdiction, claiming a lien superior to that of the libellants, and claiming that the boat was not liable for the felonious action of the master.

Held, that the admiralty has jurisdiction of an action to enforce such a contract as this, although part of the service was to be performed on the Erie Canal.

That the admiralty has jurisdiction to enforce such a contract against the boat, although she was built to navigate the canal and had no means of locomotion in herself. The Canal Boat E. M. McChesney, 8 Ben, 150.

34. Whether the admiralty has jurisdiction of collisions upon the Erie Canal, or contracts for the carriage of goods from place to place exclusively upon the Erie Canal, quære. Ib.

25. (Feb., 1877.) Where a libel in personam was filed to recover damages on a contract for the use of a steamboat for two excursion trips from the city of New York to Sandy Hook Light and return, and a motion was made to dismiss the libel for want. of jurisdiction, - Held, that the contract set forth had all the legal characteristics of a charter-party, and was a maritime contract within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. Marshall v. Pierrez, 9 Ben. 39.

36. The cases of The William Fletcher (8 Ben. 537), and The Druid (1 Wm. Rob. 391), considered and distinguished. Ib.

37. (March, 1879.) A vessel was chartered to go from New York to ports in the West Indies and back to New York. The charter was expressed to be for the purpose of carrying a circus company and their necessary tents, clothing, horses, &c. It provided for the payment of charter money at the end of each month, and it bound the vessel" and the merchandise laden on board" to the performance of the charter. On the return of the vessel, while she was at Flushing, Long Island, and before

she was towed to her pier in New York, and before any of her cargo was discharged, the owner of the vessel filed a libel to recover a balance of charter money due, and attached the horses and paraphernalia of the circus company on board. The charterer excepted to the libel.

Held, that the libel was not prematurely filed, and the libellant was entitled to recover. Fourteen Horses, &c., 10 Ben. 358.

38. (May, 1844.) Grain was shipped on board the Ninetta, on condition that no other cargo should be taken, and that the grain should be carried directly to Philadelphia without deviation. The master deviated and took additional cargo, whereby, it was alleged, the grain was damaged. This was such a case of violation of maritime contract as to give admiralty courts of the United States jurisdiction in rem therein. Knox v. The Schooner Ninetta, Crabbe, 534.

Cod Fishery.

1. (March. 1860.) A court of admiralty has jurisdiction to decree the bounty allowed to persons employed in the cod fishery, and a claim for this may be united with a claim for an account of the fish taken during the voyages. The Lucy Anne, 3 Ware,

253.

Consortship.

1. (Jan., 1845.) An agreement of consortship between the masters of two vessels engaged in the business known by the name of wrecking is a contract capable of being enforced in an admiralty court against property or proceeds in the custody of the court. Andrews v. Wall, 3 How. 568.

2. The case of Ramsay v. Allegre, 12 Wheat. 611, commented on and explained. Ib.

3. Such an agreement extends to the owners and crews, and is not merely personal between the masters. Ib.

4. If made for an indefinite period it does not expire with the mere removal of one of the masters from his vessel, but continues until dissolved upon due notice to the adverse party. Ib.

Cooperage.

1. (June, 1873.) The admiralty has jurisdiction of a contract, made between the master of a ship and a cooper, to put the cargo of the ship in landing order, the services being rendered partly on the ship and partly on the wharf, but before the delivery of the cargo. The Bark Onore, 6 Ben. 564.

Corporations.

1. (June, 1841.) It is well settled that a foreign corporation may sue in another jurisdiction. Clarke v. N. J. Steam Naviga

tion Co., 1 Story, 531.

2. (Nov., 1870.) A corporate body created by the laws of one state may maintain an action in the state or federal courts of another state. Insurance Co. v. The C. D. Jr., 1 Woods, 72.

Decree of Court of Appeals.

1. (Feb., 1795.) The existence of the Court of Appeals terminated with the old government; this also was the case with the subordinate Court of Admiralty in the State of New Hampshire. The property was not restored to the libellants, nor were they compensated in damages; of course the decree in their favor remains unsatisfied. They had no remedy at common law; they had none in equity; the only forum competent to give redress is the District Court of New Hampshire, because it has admiralty jurisdiction. There they applied, and, in my opinion, with great propriety.

Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake and must be satisfied. Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 86.

Demurrage.

1. (Dec., 1871.) By the maritime law a master has a lien. upon the cargo for demurrage, and such a lien may be enforced in the admiralty. The Hyperion's Cargo, 2 Lowell, 93.

2. This, although demurrage was not expressly stipulated for in the bill of lading. Ib.