Imágenes de páginas

So the owners of vessels damaged, without their fault, by collision, have a maritime lien on the vessel in fault, as security for such damages as may be awarded for the injury sustained. And the lien may be enforced in admiralty by the district court. But, as we have seen, they may waive the lien and sue the wrong-doer, personally, for the damages. Sturgis v. Boyer, 24 How., 117; Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 Id., 553; The Belfast, supra; The Lottawanna, supra.

And, as we have seen, those who furnish material and supplies for vessels in any port other than the port where the vessel belongs, have a lien for the value of such material and supplies, which may be enforced in admiralty, and the district courts of the United States have jurisdiction in such cases. The Samuel Strong, 6 McLean, 587; The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine, 620; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522; The General Smith, 4 Wh., 438. • Will execute state laws in favor of material man.-In the case of The Lottawanna, 18 Wall., 558, it was held that no State law or act of congress could determine the true limits of maritime law or admiralty jurisdiction, conferred by the constitution on the federal courts, that being a judicial question to be determined by the courts; that material men, furnishing repairs or supplies to a vessel in a home port, do not thereby acquire any lien upon the vessel by the general maritime law; that under the power to regulate commerce, congress might authorize liens on vessels of the United States in favor of material men, and make the law uniform throughout the whole country; that until congress shall act in the matter, the states may legislate on the subject; that such laws are valid; and that the contract to furnish such supplies is a maritime contract, and can only be enforced, in rem, in the district court of the United States.

The court say: "It seems to be our settled jurisprudence that so long as congress does not interpose to regulate the subject, the rights of material men, fwnishing necessaries to a vessel in her home port, may be regulated in each State by State legislation. State laws, it is true, cannot exclude the contract for furnishing such necessaries from the domain of admiralty jurisdiction, for it is a maritime contract; nor can they confer upon the State courts authority so as to enable them to proceed in rem for the enforcement of liens created by such State laws, for it is exclusively conferred upon the district courts of the United States." See, also, The St Lawrence, 1 Black, 522; The Richard Busteed, 1 Sprague, 441; Weaver v. The S. G. Owens, 1 Wall., Jr., 359.

Prize cases. The district courts have jurisdiction of questions of prize and its incidents independent of the special provisions of the prize act of 1812, and on an illegal seizure the original wrong-doers may be made responsible beyond the loss actually sustained in a case of gross and wanton outrage. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wh., 546. See, also, The Brig Alerta v. Moran, 9 Cr., 359; The Estrella, 4 Wh., 307; Keene v. United States, 5 Cr., 304; Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How., 489; The Siren, 7 Wall., 162; The United States v. Schooner Sally, 2 Cr., 406.

But seizure cannot be made on land. The Sarah, 8 Wh., 391; 1 Pet., 549. But see, post, $ 566, and authorities under the act of 1845, extending jurisdiction in admiralty. Cognizance of seizure on the high seas belongs

to any district court of a district into which the property is brought, and exceptions to jurisdiction must be pleaded. The Abby, 1 Mason, 360. But see, The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall., 435.

As to trial by jury, see The Margaret, 9 Wh., 421; jurisdiction, Jecker v. Montgomery, supra.

Ninth. Condemnation of property taken as prize.Of all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize, in pursuance of section fifty-three hundred and [seventysix,] [eight,] title “ INSURRECTION.”

6 Aug., 1861, c. 60, s. 2, v. 12, p. 319. 18 Feb., 1875, c. 80, v. 18, p. 317.

Authority over moneys belonging to its registry.—The power of the district court in admiralty over moneys belonging to its registry continues until they are distributed pursuant to final decrees in the causes in which the moneys are paid. And if they are withdrawn without authority of law the court can, by summary proceedings, compel their restitution. The proceeds of property confiscated and paid into court are under its control. Osborne v. United States, 91 U. S., 474. See, also, Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall., 404; Union Insurance Co. v. The United States, 6 Id., 759; Armstrong's Foundery, Id., 766: Morris' Cotton, 8 Id., 507; United States v. Shares of Capital Stock, 5 Blatch., 231.

Tenth. Suits on debentures.-Of all suits by the assignee of any debenture for drawback of duties, issued under any law for the collection of duties, against the person to whom such debenture was originally granted, or against any indorser thereof, to recover the amount of such debenture. [See $ 3039.] 2 Mar., 1799, c. 22, s. 80, v. 1, p. 687.

Eleventh. Suits on account of injuries by conspirators in certain cases.-Of all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person for the recovery of damages on account of any injury to his person or property, or of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section nineteen hundred and eighty-five, title, “Civil Rights." [See § 1980.] 20 April, 1871, c. 22, s. 2, v. 17, p. 13.

Twelfth. Suits to 'redress deprivation of rights secured by the constitution and laws.—Of all suits at law or in equity authorized by law to be brought hy any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law of the United States to persons within the jurisdiction thereof. (See 22 1977, 1979.]

20 April, 1871, c. 22, s. 1, v. 17, p. 13. 31 May, 1870, c. 114, ss. 16, 18, v. 16, p. 144. 9 April, 1866, c. 31, s. 3, v. 14, p. 27.

Thirteenth. Suits to recover offices.-Of all suits to recover possession of any office, except that of elector of President or Vice-President, Representative or Delegate in congress, or member of a State legislature, authorized by law to be brought, wherein it appears that the sole question touching the title to such office arises out of the denial of the right to vote to any citizen offering to vote, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude: Provided, That such jurisdiction shall extend only so far as to deterinine the rights

right guaranteed by the constitution of the United States, and secured by any law, to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in all the States. (See { 2010.)

31 May, 1870, c. 114, s. 23, v. 16, p. 146. 1 Mar., 1875, c. 114, s. 3, ». 18, p. 336.

Fourteenth. Suits for removal of officers holding contrary to fourteenth amendment.—Of all proceeding by the writ of quo warranto, prosecuted by any district attorney, for the removal from office of any person holding office, except as a member of congress, or of a State legislature, contrary to the provisions of the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the constitution of the United States. [See & 1786.] 31 May, 1870. c. 114, s. 14, v. 16, p. 143.

Fifteenth. Suits against national banks.-Of all suits by or against any association established under any law providing for national banking associations within the district for which the court is held.

3 June, 1864, c. 106, s. 57, v. 13, p. 116.

Sixteenth. Suits by aliens for torts in violation of the law of nations.-Of all suits brought by any alien for a tort "only” in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States.

21 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 9, v. 1, p. 76. 22 June, 1874, c. 391, s. 17, v. 18, p. 189. 19 Feb., 1875, c. 90, s. 7, v. 18, p. 331.

Seventeenth. Suits against consuls and vice-consuls. -Of all snits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offenses above the description aforesaid.

24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 9, v. 1, p. 76. 23 Aug., 1842, c. 188, v. 4, p. 517.

Suits against foreign consul.—Where a suit was brought in the district court of Massachusetts in 1865, by an inhabitant of Nova Scotia, against the British consul, to recover back fees paid to him by the plaintiff under protest in order to obtain bis ship papers, which fees the plaintiff claimed the defendant had no right to demand, and the defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, to which the plaintiff demurred; the court held: that foreigners, even transiently here, may sue and be sued by citizens, and by each other; that consuls may sue and be sued in the district court; and that international law does not, in the case of consuls, exempt then from the jurisdiction of the courts at the place of their residence. Lorway v. Lousada, 1 Am. L. Rev., 92; 1 Lowell, C. C., 77.

Jurisdiction exclusive of state courts in suits against foreign consuls.-By the constitution the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; and the judiciary act of 1789 gave to the district courts of the United States jurisdiction of all civil suits against consuls and vice-consuls, except for certain offices enumerated in the act. And where a suit was brought in a court of the State of New York against the consul-general of the king of Saxony, and he did not set up his exemption from said suit or the want of jurisdiction of said court, but in the court for the correction of errors in said State where the cause was taken, this matter was assigned as error in fact, and such court gave judgment against defendant, whereupon the case was taken by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, which held:

1. That if a consul being sued in a State court omits to plead his privilege of exemption from the suit, and afterwards on removing the suit from the inferior court of a State to a higher court by writ of error, he claims the privilege, such an omission is not a waiver of the privilege, and that it is the privilege of the country which he represents that he be sued in the federal courts.

2. That if this privilege or exemption was merely personal, it can hardly he supposed that it would have been thought sufficiently important to require a special provision in the constitution and laws of the country; that higher considerations of public policy led to the provision; that the courts of the government should have cognizance of suits against the representatives of a foreign government, and that the act of congress, being general, it applies to all suits against consuls. Davis v. Packard, 7 Pet., 276; 6 Pet., 41; St. Lukes Hospital v. Barkley, 3 Blatch., C. C., 259. See also, Gettings v. Crawford, Taney 1, where it was held that the act of congress, of 1789, giving the district courts of the United States jurisdiction in suits against consuls was constitutional, and that a consul was liable to a civil suit in the country in which he resides. In case of the indictment of a consul, see The United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall., 297; 11 Wh., 473.

Eighteenth. In bankruptcy.-The district courts are constituted courts of bankruptcy, and shall have in their respective districts original jurisdiction in all matters and proceed. ings in bankruptcy.

2 Mar., 1867, c. 176, s. 1, v. 14, p. 517.

Jurisdiction in bankruptcy-sale of real estate.-In Ray v. Norseworthy, 23 Wall., 128, it was held, that the district court of the United States had authority under the provisions of the bankrupt act, to order a sale of the real estate of the bankrupt which he has mortgaged, in such a way as to discharge it of all liens, so that the purchaser shall take it unincumbered; but that it was indispensible in such cases to give the mortgagee or other lien-holder, notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard in the matter. And, if such a sale is made without notice to him, his mortgage is not discharged.

And it has been decided under the bankrupt act of March 2, 1867, that an assignee in bankruptcy, without regard to the citizenship of the parties, could maintain a suit for the recovery of assets, in a circuit court of the United States in a district other than the one in which the decree in bankruptcy was made. Shearman v. Bingham, 7 Bank Reg., 490. See, also, Marks v. Herney, 1 Dill., 407.

Concurrent jurisdiction of circuit and district courts in bankruptcy. The concurrent jurisdiction of the circuit court by the provisions of section two of the bankrupt act, is limited to cases where there is a controversy concerning the right to, or some interest in some specific thing, between the assignee and a third person, and does not include actions to collect a simple debt. The district court has original jurisdiction of all cases and controversies between third persons and the assignee in bankruptcy as such. BEADY, J., in Bachman v. Packard, 2 Saw., 264.

An assignee may maintain an action in a justice's court, for the recovery of property vested in him by the bankrupt act. But such action cannot be

holds it by virtue of an attachment, duly issued by a State court. Johnson v. Bishop, 1 Woolw. C. C., 324. See, also, Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet., 400; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How., 612; Pullman v. Osborne, 17 Id., 471; Taylor v. Carryl, 20 Id., 583; The Olive Jordan, 2 Curtis C. C., 414; The Ship Robert Fulton, 1 Paine 620; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How., 450.

In Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall., 334, the court say: “It is only while the property is in possession of the court, either actually or constructively, that

« AnteriorContinuar »