General Principles as to Admiralty Jurisdiction. plied. The very term assumpsit presupposes a contract. Whatever excludes all idea of a contract, excludes at the same time a remedy which can spring from contract only, which affirms it, and seeks its enforcement. Ibid. 475. To maintain the action for use and occupation, there must be established the relation between landlord and tenant, a holding by the defendant under a knowledge of the plaintiff's claim or title, and under circumstances which amount to an acknowledgment of, or acquiescence in such claim or title, and an agreement | or permission on the part of the plaintiff. The action will not lie where possession has been acquired or maintained under a different or adverse title; or where it was tortious, and makes the holder a trespasser. Ibid. ADJUDICATION. 1. If, after a seizure of a vessel or property by a revenue officer, he shall refuse to institute proceedings, the district court of the United States having cognizance of the cause may, on the application of the aggrieved party, compel him to proceed to adjudication, or to abandon the seizure. Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. ADMINISTRATION BONDS, JOINT. possesses all the power of a court of admiralty, whether considered as an instance, or as a prize court. Glass v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6; 1 Cond. Rep. 10. 3. Courts of admiralty have full jurisdiction as incidental to cases of prize and salvage, and other proceedings in rem, to decree freight to the ship-owner in proper cases. Ship Nathaniel Hooper, 3 Sumner's C. C. R. 542. 4. A survey of a vessel need not be, though it is, commonly, ordered by a court of admiralty. It may be directed by an American consul, as by usage, a part of his official duty; or even be made by persons voluntarily appointed by the master, if, under the circumstances, that is a sound exercise of his discretion. Potter v. The Ocean Ins. Company, 3 Sumner's C. C. R. 27. 5. In all proceedings in rem, when a court of admiralty has jurisdiction over the thing itself, it is wholly unimportant to whom it belongs. Clarke v. New Jersey Steam Navigation Company, 1 Story, 531. and non-resident foreigners cannot be served 6. By the common law, foreign corporations with process by any of the courts of common law, nor can their property be attached to comfrom special custom or statute provisions. Ibid. pel their appearance. This authority results 7. It seems that the principles of the common law are inapplicable to process and proceedings in courts of admiralty. Ibid. 8. The district courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, may award attachments against the property of foreign corporations found within their local jurisdiction. Ibid. 9. A foreign corporation may sue in another jurisdiction. Ibid." 1. Where an administration bond is joint, each administrator is a surety for the other, and is bound for the whole. But if the representatives of the co-administrator, against whom a balance 10. In cases of appeal in admiralty proceedis reported, are not before the court, the reportings, where damages are discretionary, the buris ex parte, and cannot bind them, and conse- den of proof is on the appellant to show some quently cannot affect the co-administrator. Green clear mistake or error in the court below, either et al. v. Hanberry's Executors et al., 2 Brocken-in awarding excessive damages, or in promul brough, C. C. R. 403. ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTOR. See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR. ADMIRALTY. 1. General jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, and of the courts of the U. States in admiralty cases, Page 69 2. Admiralty jurisdiction in cases of capture and prize, 75 3. Admiralty jurisdiction in cases of salvage,.......... 77 4. Admiralty jurisdiction in claims for seamen's wages, 83 5. Admiralty jurisdiction in cases of informationsrevenue seizures-forfeitures, ...... 6. Criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty, 1. General Principles as to Admiralty Jurisdiction. gating an incorrect rule of law, or to offer new and materially important testimony, which must go to the proof of the new allegations without contradicting the former evidence. Cushman v. Ryan, 1 Story, 91. 11. The answer of the respondent upon oath, in reply to interrogatories, does not, in the admiralty, constitute positive evidence in his favour. Its true effect is, either to furnish evidence for the other party, or, in a case doubtful in point of proof, to turn the scale in favour of the respondent. Ibid. 12. The courts of the United States, in the exercise of their admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, are exclusively governed by the legisla tion of congress, or, in the absence thereof, by the general maritime law; and no state can, by 92 its local legislation, narrow or enlarge such jurisdiction. The Barque Chusan, 2 Story, C. C. R. 92 1. If an admiralty court has jurisdiction of a case to give judgment, it is competent to carry its decree into execution. Keane v. The Gloucester, 2 Dall. Rep. 36. 2. Every district court of the United States 456. 13. The power given by the constitution of the United States to congress, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, includes the power to regulate navigation with foreign nations and among the seve ral states, and is an exclusive power in congress, General Principles as to Admiralty Jurisdiction. which may be exercised with or without popu- | all who have any interest in the thing; and it is lar regulations. Ibid. 14. Congress, by conferring admiralty and maritime jurisdiction upon the courts of the United States, have, by implication, adopted the maritime law; inasmuch as such law is the law of admiralty jurisdiction, until modified by congress. Ibid. 15. In a lien for supplies or repairs to a domestic vessel, the admiralty jurisdiction depends upon the local law of the particular state where they are made; but questions of lien on a foreign vessel are governed by the general maritime law, not by the local law of any state. Ibid. reasonable because it is necessary, and because it is the part of common prudence for all who have an interest, to guard it by persons in a situation to protect it. The Mary, 9 Cranch, 126; 3 Cond. Rep. 306. 24. Material men, and others who furnish supplies to a foreign ship, have a lien on the vessel, and may proceed in the admiralty to enforce that right. The Aurora, 1 Wheat. 96; 3 Cond. Rep. 501. 25. During the war between the United States and Great Britain, a French privateer, duly commissioned, was captured by a British cruiser, afterwards captured by an American privateer, again captured by the British, recaptured by another American privateer, and brought into an American port. Restitution on payment of sal 16. The doctrine of Le Loire v. Boit, 2 Gallisson's Reports, 398, respecting the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, over policies of insurance, affirm-vage was claimed by the French consul. A claim ed. Hale v. Washington Ins. Co., 2 Story, C. C. R. 176. 17. Congress had power, before the ratification of the articles of association, to establish courts of appeal for all prize causes; and the decision of the court of appeals is final against all the courts of admiralty erected by or under the authority of the separate states of the Union. Penhallow v. Doane's Administrator, 3 Dall. 54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21. 18. Courts of appeal in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, having all the matter in controversy before them, may make such a decree as the inferior court could have given. Ibid. 19. The district courts of the United States having admiralty jurisdiction, may sustain a libel to carry into effect the decree of the court of appeals erected by congress under the confederation. Ibid. 20. A decree of a court of admiralty in rem, is final and conclusive as to all the matters in controversy; and the grounds of the decree cannot be inquired into in another admiralty court, on a libel to carry the decree into execution. Ibid. 21. The words of the constitution declaring that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," must be taken to refer to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of England. U. S. v. M'Gill, 4 Dall. Rep. 426, 429. was also interposed by citizens of the United States, alleging their property to have been unlawfully taken by the French vessel, before her first capture, and praying indemnity from the proceeds. Restitution, as prayed, decreed. Held, that the courts of this country have no jurisdiction to redress any supposed torts committed on the high seas, upon the property of its citizens, by a cruiser regularly commissioned by a foreign friendly power, except where such cruiser has been fitted out in violation of our neutrality. L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. 238; 3 Cond. Rep. 558. 26. The only point settled in the case of Glass v. The Betsy, 3 Dall. 6, was that the courts of the neutral country have jurisdiction of captures made in violation of its neutrality. Ibid. 258. 27. Every violent dispossession of property on the ocean is prima facie a maritime tort; as such it belongs to the admiralty jurisdiction; but the moment it is ascertained that the seizure was made by a commissioned vessel of war in the exercise of belligerent rights, the courts of neutrals are ousted of their jurisdiction. They may determine the fact whether the capturing vessel be in reality the commissioned cruiser of a belligerent; but, that fact being ascertained, their progress is arrested. Ibid. 28. A British vessel was captured by a French cruiser, and abandoned by the captors, being taken possession of as derelict, brought within the United States, and libelled by the salvors. 22. Whether a vessel is forfeited under the The district court, having jurisdiction of the subact of congress against the slave trade, is a ques-ject of salvage, must have the power of detertion of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. U. S. v. The Sally, 2 Cranch, 406; 1 Cond. Rep. 432. 23. The reason of the doctrine that the whole world are parties in an admiralty cause, and therefore bound by its decision, determines its extent. Every person may make himself a party, and appeal from the sentence; but notice of the controversy is necessary in order to become a party; and before the rights of an individual are bound by a judicial sentence, he must have notice, either actual or implied, of the proceedings. When these proceedings are against the person, notice is served personally or by publication; when they are in rem, notice is served on the thing itself. This is necessarily notice to mining to whom the residue of the property is to be delivered. M'Donough v. Danery, 3 Dall. 188; 1 Cond. Rep. 94. 29. Admitting that the third article of the constitution of the United States, which declares that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," vests in the United States exclusive jurisdiction of all such cases; that a murder committed in the waters of a state, where the tide ebbs and flows, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336; 4 Cond. Rep. 275. 30. The grant to the United States in the constitution of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, does not extend to a cession of the General Principles as to Admiralty Jurisdiction. 71 waters in which these cases may arise, or of | is sufficient if the service is essentially a mari- 31. The admiralty possesses a general juris- 32. Where, however, the proceeding is in 33. Material men have a lien, which may be enforced by a proceeding in the admiralty, for supplies and necessaries furnished in a port to which the vessel does not belong. The St. Jago de Cuba, 9 Wheat. 509; 5 Cond. Rep. 631. 34. Where repairs have been made, or necessaries furnished to a foreign ship, or a ship in a port of a state to which she does not belong, the general maritime law gives the party a lien on the ship itself for his security; and he may maintain a suit in rem, in the admiralty, to enforce his right. Ibid. The Jerusalem, 2 Gallis. 345. 35. As to repairs and necessaries in the port or state to which the ship belongs, the case is governed altogether by the local law, and no lien is implied, unless recognised by that law. Ibid. 36. In cases of violation of our neutrality by any of the belligerents, if the prize comes voluntarily within our territory, it is restored to the original owners by our courts. But their jurisdiction for this purpose, under the laws of nations, extends only to the restitution of the specific property, with costs and expenses during the pendency of the suit, and does not extend to the infliction of vindictive damages, as in ordinary cases of maritime tort. La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheat. 385; 4 Cond. Rep. 697. 37. The constitution and laws of the United States give jurisdiction to district courts, over all cases in admiralty; but jurisdiction over the case does not constitute the case itself. The American Ins. Co. v. 365 Bales of Cotton, 1 Peters, 511. 38. The district courts of the United States have not jurisdiction of a suit for wages earned in a voyage in a steam vessel, from Shipping Port in the state of Kentucky up the river Missouri, and thence back to the port of departure, as a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428; 6 Cond. Rep. 173. 39. The admiralty has no jurisdiction over contracts for the hire of seamen, except in cases where the service was substantially performed or to be performed upon the sea, or upon waters within the ebb and flow of the tide. Ibid. 40. But the jurisdiction exists, although the commencement or termination of the voyage is at some place beyond the reach of the tide. It nises the existing, and does not confer any new admiralty jurisdiction; and its strict interpreta41. The act of July 20th, 1790, ch. 56, recogtion confines the remedy in the admiralty to such cases as ordinarily belong to its cognizance as maritime contracts for wages. Ibid. 42. The courts of the United States, proceedtion, have jurisdiction of cases of maritime tort, and may proceed in personam as well as in rem. ing as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdicManro et al. v. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473; 6 Cond. Rep. 190. to compel an appearance both in cases of mari- well as in personam, when the thing or person 29. in suits on ransom bills. The proper tribunal for such claims, undoubtedly, is a court sitting to 45. The admiralty has exclusive jurisdiction administer the laws of nations. Maisonnaire et al. v. Keating, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 325. favour of material men. It has always rightfully 46. The admiralty has jurisdiction of suits in tracts. The Jerusalem, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 345. possessed jurisdiction over all maritime con unravelling a web of fraud, to aid the party who has sought to impose upon it. If he knowingly 47. A court of prize will never busy itself in assert and persist in a fraudulent claim, it will affect with forfeiture the whole of his property which is engaged in the transaction. The Betsy, 2 Gallis. 377. contracts wheresoever the same may be exe- tract, and is, therefore, of admiralty jurisdiction jurisdiction in personam and in rem. son's C. C. R. 109. wrongs and torts, committed on the high seas, enforce the payment of expenses for curing a General Principles as to Admiralty Jurisdiction, sick seaman in the course of the voyage, by a libel, for they are in the nature of additional wages during sickness. Harden v. Gordon et al. 2 Mason, 541. 53. A court of admiralty has jurisdiction over policies of insurance as maritime contracts, but not over contracts leading to policies; it cannot reform a policy of the antecedent contract; this matter properly belongs to courts of equity. Andrews v. Essex Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 3 Mason's C. C. R. 6. wrecked ship, on the application of the master, and a survey made, is within its jurisdiction; but is not conclusive upon the owner, or upon third persons. Ibid. 67. The jurisdiction of courts of admiralty over contracts depends principally upon their subject matter; and in cases of bottomry, it is not the absolute necessity of the loan that gives the jurisdiction. The Sloop Mary, 1 Paine's C. C. R. 671. 68. The district courts, possessing all the 54. The master of a ship may maintain a suit powers of courts of admiralty, whether consiin personam, in the admiralty, against the own-dered as instance or prize courts, have jurisdicer, for his wages, but not in rem against the tion of all cases of maritime trespass. ship, for he has no lien. Willard et Ux. v. Dorr, Amiable Nancy, 1 Paine's C. C. R. 111. 3 Mason, 91. 55. A state statute of limitations is no bar to a suit on the admiralty side of the courts of the United States. Ibid. 56. Nor is the statute of Anne, limiting suits in the admiralty for seamen's wages to six years, a bar to such suits in the courts of the United States. Ibid. 57. Courts of admiralty do not take notice of set-offs, except so far as they grow out of a maritime contract submitted to its cognizance, and then, principally, by way of diminishing compensation, and not as an independent right. Ibid. 161. 58. Courts of admiralty will not entertain suits upon stale demands: twelve years' delay, unexplained, will affect a demand with the impu tation of staleness. Ibid. 59. Shipping articles, being the proper and usual documents of the ship, for the voyage, are, in the admiralty, always admitted as evidence of the terms of hire, even of the master or his apprentice; but the evidence is not conclusive. Ibid. 60. No suit for services performed by the master, as a factor, or in any other character than that of master, is cognizable in the admiralty. Ibid. The 69. The district courts have a general admiralty jurisdiction in suits by material men, in rem. In cases of foreign ships, or ships of another state, the maritime law gives the lien; but in cases of domestic ships no lien is implied; but if the local law gives a lien, it may be enforced in the district court. The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine's C. C. R. 620. 70. When the district courts, and state courts, have a concurrent jurisdiction in rem, the right to maintain the jurisdiction attaches to the tribunal which first exercises it, and takes possession of the thing. Ibid. 71. An admiralty court in the United States may decree compensation and damages for an illegal capture of an American vessel by a French privateer. The Candalero, Bee's Rep. 60. 72. Admiralty courts have jurisdiction to proceed by attachment in rem for torts. Ibid. 73. If the master borrow money to repair damage to the vessel, done on the high seas, the admiralty has jurisdiction. The Rainbow, Bee's Rep. 116. 74. The admiralty will not entertain jurisdiction of a contract made on land for repairs, the owners being represented on the spot by a consignee who has funds. The Lady Horatio, Bee's Rep. 170. 75. The admiralty courts of the United States, unless under particular circumstances, will decline interfering between foreigners respecting seamen's wages, but will refer them to the tribunals of their own country. The Nanny, Bee's Rep. 217. 76. Over the subject of seamen's wages, the admiralty has an undisputed jurisdiction in rem, as well as in personam; and whenever the lien for the wages exists and attaches upon the proceeds, it is the familiar practice of that court to exert its jurisdiction over them, by way of monition to the parties holding the proceeds. This is familiarly known in the cases of prize and bottomry, and salvage; and is equally applicable to the cases of wages. The lien will follow the ship, and its proceeds, into whose hands soever they may come by title or purchase from the owner. Sheppard and others v. Taylor and others, 5 Peters, 675. 77. 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 General Principles as to Admiralty Jurisdiction. 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. Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Peters, 108. 78. The district courts of the United States will not take cognizance of disputes between the masters and crews of foreign ships, unless in very particular cases. The Forsoket, 1 Ad. Decis. 197. 79. Where the voyage is broken up or ended here, the payment of wages will be compelled; and masters will be assisted in recovering deserters, and reducing to obedience perverse and rebellious mariners. Ibid. 80. A libel was filed in the district court of the United States, for the eastern district of Louisiana, against the steamboat Planter, by H. and V., citizens of New Orleans, for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due to them, as shipwrights, for work done and materials found in the repairs of the Planter. The libel asserts that, by the admiralty law and the laws of the state of Louisiana, they have a lien and privilege upon the boat, her tackle, &c., for the payment of the sums due for the repairs and materials, and prays admiralty process against the boat, &c. The answer of the owners of the Planter avers that they are citizens of Louisiana, residing in New Orleans; that the libellants are also citizens, and that the court have no jurisdiction of the cause. Held, that this was a case of admiralty jurisdiction. Peyroux et al. v. Howard et al. 7 Peters, 324. 81. 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 jurisdiction of the United States. The service is strictly maritime, and falls within the principles established by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the steamboat Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428; 6 Cond. Rep. 173; and in the case of Peyroux v. Howard et al. 7 Peters, 324; the steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Peters, 175. 82. The admiralty has no jurisdiction in matters of account between part owners. The Steamboat Orleans v. Phabus, 11 Peters, 175. 83. The jurisdiction of courts of admiralty in cases of part owners having unequal interests and shares, is not, and never has been applied to direct a sale upon any dispute between them as to the trade and navigation of the ship engaged in maritime voyages, properly so called. The majority of the owners have a right to employ the ship on such voyages as they please, giving a stipulation to the dissenting owners for the safe refurn of the ship, if the latter, upon a proper libel filed in the admiralty, require it; and the minority of the owners may in like manner employ the ship, if the majority decline it. Ibid. 84. The admiralty has no jurisdiction over a vessel not engaged in maritime trade and navigation, though on her voyages she may have touched at one terminus of them in tide water, her employment having been substantially on VOL. I.-7 other waters. The true test of its jurisdiction in all cases of this sort is, whether the vessel is engaged, substantially, in maritime navigation or interior navigation and trade not on tide waters. Ibid. 85. The jurisdiction of courts of admiralty is limited in matters of contract to those and those only which are maritime. Ibid. 86. Contracts for the navigation of steamboats not employed substantially on other than tide waters, or in interior navigation and trade, are not the subjects of admiralty jurisdiction. Ibid. 87. Where proceedings are in rem, all the world become parties to the sentence, as far as the right of property is involved; and of course all persons in any way interested in the property in question are admissible to claim and defend their interests. The Anthony Mangin, 2 Adm. Decis. 452. 88. An agreement by the master of a vessel to pay wages, may be sued upon in the admiralty; but a stipulation, in the same contract, to pay a sum of money in case the voyage should be altered or discontinued, can be enforced only at common law. L'Arina v. Manwaring, Bee's Rep. 199. 89. Attachments may issue out of the admiralty courts of the United States against the goods or debts of an absent person, to make him a party to the suit. Bowysson et al. v. Miller et al. Bee's Rep. 186. 90. An account for provisions furnished to the owner or commander of a vessel, or for articles for her use, when not on a voyage, or in a foreign port, is not within the admiralty jurisdiction of the district court, either as a substantive distinct claim, or as a set-off to a libel for seamen's wages. Bains v. The Schooner James & Catharine, 1 Baldwin's C. C. R. 544. 91. Admiralty jurisdiction is referred to in the constitution as it was restrained by the common law and statutes of England, before the revolution; and as it was exercised by the state courts before the adoption of the constitution. Ibid. 92. The rules which regulated it, and the cases where it could be exercised, considered libels for seamen's wages, as held in England, not to be within the statutes which restrain the jurisdiction of the admiralty, either as being excepted cases, or as coming within the rule of communis error facit jus. Ibid. 93. The seventh amendment of the constitution excludes the jurisdiction of the admiralty over contracts regulated by the common law. Ibid. 94. The admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States being exclusive, cannot be extended to cases of law or equity cognizable by the circuit and state courts, under the eleventh section of the judiciary act. Ibid. 563. 95. The act of congress of 1790, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 105, Statutes of the United States at large, Vol. I. 133, made no provision for the exer cise of admiralty jurisdiction over contracts for materials, labour, or provisions, in building, equipping, furnishing, or provisioning a ship when in a port of the United States. Ibid. 568. K |