Page images
PDF
EPUB

General Principles as to Admiralty Jurisdiction.

96. The admiralty courts of the United States may proceed, under their general powers, in every case in which they are not restrained from the exercise of those powers by statute. The U.S. v. The Sch. Little Charles, 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 380.

97. After a vessel has been seized and libelled, a court of admiralty does not lose its jurisdiction to condemn the vessel by losing possession of it. Ibid.

98. The admiralty has not jurisdiction to distribute remnants and surplus in the hands of the court arising from proceedings in admiralty cases, unless that the claim to the surplus or remnant was in itself or in its origin a lien on the ship, or on the thing from which the remnants and surplus were produced. The Ship New Jersey, 1

Adm. Decis. 223.

99. There is a very respectable authority for believing that the ancient criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty in cases of misdemeanors generally committed on the sea, or on waters out of the body of any county, was not exercised, if it existed, at the period when the constitution of the United States was formed; and if so, it would seem to follow that to the exercise of jurisdiction over such places, some act of the national legislature, to punish them as offences against the United States, is necessary. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 371.

100. If the subject matter of a contract concern the navigation of the sea, it is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, although the contract be made on land. Such is the contract of material men. Zane v. The Brig President, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 453.

101. A contract for seamen's wages on a voyage between ports of adjoining states, and on the tide-waters 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 Pekin, Gilpin's D. C. R. 203.

102. The provisions of the act of congress of the 24th of September, 1789, which give to the district court original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, comprehended all maritime contracts, and those which relate to the business, navigation or commerce of the sea, and the building, repairing, or supplying the vessels. Davis v. A New Brig, Gilpin's D. C. R. 473..

103. A proceeding in rem in the admiralty is not within the provisions of the judiciary act of 1789, which authorizes an order to produce books and writings on the trial of actions at law. The U. S. v. 28 Packages, Gilpin's D. C. R.

[blocks in formation]

the admiralty. Smith v. The Pekin, Gilpin's D. C. R. 203.

107. The pilot, deck hands, engineer and firemen of a steamboat navigating the river Delaware, between Philadelphia and the state of Delaware, carrying passengers and merchandise, may sue in the admiralty. Ibid.

108. To justify a person employed on board a vessel in suing in the admiralty for his wages, the services rendered must contribute to the saving of the vessel or her navigation. Trainer v. The Superior, Gilpin's D. C. R. 514.

109. A contract for the payment of labour on board a vessel employed in carrying fuel to the city of Philadelphia, from the shore of the river Delaware, cannot be enforced by a suit in rem in the admiralty. Thackarry v. The Farmer, Gilpin's D. C. R. 526.

110. Steamboats or lighters employed in trade or commerce on tide-waters, and the seamen engaged on board, are within the admiralty jurisdiction; but not ferry-boats, or those engaged in ordinary traffic along shores. Ibid.

111. A contract between a passenger of a vessel and the master, for a passage, is a personal contract, and is not cognizable in the admiralty. Bracket v. The Hercules, Gilpin's D. C. R. 184.

112. The English courts of admiralty claim and exercise no power to compel the sale of a vessel, on the application of part owners, who object to a contemplated voyage; but they will require stipulations in favour of a dissenting owner, for her safe return. Davis v. The Seneca, Gilpin's D. C. R. 25.

113. A wharfinger has a lien on a vessel for wharfage, which may be enforced in the admiralty. Johnson v. The M'Donough, Gilpin's D. C. R. 103.

114. Courts of admiralty, so far as their jurisdiction extends, administer it upon the principles of a court of equity, and not on the principles of strict law. The Brig Sarah Ann, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 206.

115. Courts of admiralty, like courts of equity, govern themselves by analogies of the common law limitation of actions, and only under very strong circumstances depart from them. Independently of any limitations, they will not entertain suits for stale demands. Ibid.

116. Where the acceptance of an abandonment of a vessel occurred in October, 1828, which related back to the loss in the preceding March, and the libel was brought in September, 1834: Held, that if the vessel had been within the reach of the process of the court for a reasonable time, to the knowledge of the libellants, the libel, after such a lapse of time, ought not to be maintained. Ibid.

117. The admiralty has jurisdiction over charter parties for foreign voyages, and will enforce the lien thereof. Certain Logs of Mahogany, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 589.

118. An objection grounded on the pendency of another suit for the same cause of action, is preliminary in its character, and should be taken in admiralty by a special plea in the nature of a plea in abatement; known, in the practice of the

Jurisdiction in Cases of Capture and Prize.

admiralty, as a delitory or declinatory exception. | tively final, all the charges and expenses should Ibid.

[blocks in formation]

121. The objection of lis pendens can be sustained only where the two suits are of the same character, and where the plaintiff in both suits is the same. Certain Logs of Mahogany, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 589.

122. A suit in a state court by replevin, or by an attachment of the property in question, cannot supersede the right of a court of admiralty to proceed, by a suit in rem, to enforce a right or lien against the property. Ibid.

be ascertained, and the salvage apportioned, and the rights of each salvor definitely fixed, so that he may appeal therefrom if he chooses. Ibid.

133. A re-hearing in the admiralty cannot be had after the term has passed at which the decree was made. Ibid.

134. All decrees in the admiralty are deemed to be enrolled as of the term in which they are made. Ibid.

4

135. An agreement or stipulation of consortship among vessels engaged in saving vessels or property wrecked, is a contract which may be enforced in the admiralty. It is a maritime contract for services to be rendered at sea, and an apportionment of the salvage to be earned therein. Over maritime contracts the admiralty possesses a clear and established jurisdiction, capable of being enforced in personam as well as in rem. Andrews v. Wall et al., 3 Howard, 572.

136. In the case of Ramsay v. Allyn, 12 Wheat. 613; 6 Cond. Rep., all the judges except 123. The admiralty has jurisdiction over all one concurred in the opinion, as of admiralty jumaritime contracts in personam, and also in rem, risdiction; but the claim was extinguished by where there is a maritime lien or express pledge a promissory note having been given for the as security; and this embraces, of course, a bot- amount, which was still outstanding and unsurtomry bond given by the owner in the home rendered. The general doctrine had been preport, where there is an express pledge as secu-viously asserted in the case of The General rity. The Brig Draco, 2 Sumner's C. C. R. 157. 124. Courts of admiralty do not recognise the rule in equity requiring two witnesses, and strong corroborative circumstances, in order to overcome the denial in the answer. Sherwood v. Hill et al., 3 Sumner's C. C. R. 127.

125. The admiralty has no jurisdiction over preliminary contracts, leading to maritime contracts. The Schooner Tribune, 3 Sumner's C. C. R. 144.

126. The jurisdiction of the admiralty does not depend upon the particular name or character of the instrument, but whether it imports to be a maritime contract. Ibid.

127. No appeal lies from a decree of the district court in an admiralty cause, except to the next term of the circuit court. Steamboat New England, 3 Sumner's C. C. R. 495.

128. The appeal, to be effectual, must be entered before the adjournment sine die of the district court, unless a different time is specially allowed by the district court in the peculiar case, or is prescribed by the general rules of the court. Ibid.

129. If, in either case, an appeal is entered within the prescribed term, it relates back to the time of the decree, although actually entered in vacation. Ibid.

130. A party may appeal from an interlocutory decree, having the effect of a final decree; or he may, at his election, wait until the final decree is positively entered, and then may enter an appeal.

Ibid.

131. A decree awarding a certain rate of salvage of the proceeds, after deducting charges and expenses, and fees of court, is not a final decree; but at most is only an interlocutory decree in the nature of a final decree. Ibid.

Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; 4 Cond. Rep. 483; and in
Peroux v. Howard, 7 Peters, 324.

137. It is an inherent incident to the jurisdiction of the admiralty, to entertain supplemental suits by parties in interest, in cases where proceeds are in possession of the admiralty, to ascertain to whom those proceeds rightfully belong, and to deliver them over to the parties who establish the ownership thereof. Ibid.

138. An agreement among vessels engaged as wreckers on the coast of Florida to act in consort, and share mutually with each other the moneys awarded as salvage of vessels and cargoes, whether by one vessel or by both, must be deemed to be made on behalf of the owners and crews of the vessels, and obligatory on both sides until dissolved by the owners. The mere change of masters of the vessels would not dissolve such agreement. Ibid.

2. Jurisdiction in Cases of Capture and Prize.

139. Where a vessel had been captured on the high seas as prize by a French privateer, and brought by the captors into Baltimore, and restoration claimed there by the Swedish and American owners, in the district court of the United States; the United States district court of Maryland has jurisdiction to inquire and decide whether restoration ought to be made to the claimants in whole or in part, consistently with the laws of nations, and with the treaties and laws of the United States. Talbot v.. Jansen, 3 Dall. Rep. 133; 1 Cond. Rep. 62.

140. The district court of the United States has jurisdiction in the case of a capture of a neutral vessel by a privateer fitted out in the United States, and sailing under the French flag. The captured vessel was restored to the owners.

132. To make a decree in a salvage case posi- | Ibid.

Jurisdiction in Cases of Capture and Prize.

141. Captures by belligerent vessels lawfully the courts of the country of the captors. No commissioned are alone exempt from inquiry by neutral courts; and if the capturing vessel claims to be so exempted, the court should inquire if she is entitled to the same. Ibid.

neutral nation can justly interfere with, or take cognizance of prize when brought into its territory; except for the purpose of ascertaining whether the capturing vessel be lawfully commissioned, or the capture made in violation of its neutral sovereignty. The Invincible, 2 Gallis. C. C. 25.

142. The district court has jurisdiction in a case of the capture by a French squadron, and the captured vessel afterwards abandoned as derelict and brought into the United States; a 151. The question of prize or no prize belongs libel for salvage having been preferred to that exclusively to the courts of the captor, and in no court. The residue of the proceeds of the ves- case does a neutral assume the right of deciding sel were decreed to the nation to whom the cap-on it. The Santissima Trinidad, 1 Brockenb. C. turing vessels belonged, and to the captors. C. R. 478. M'Donough v. Danery, 244; 3 Dall. 188; 1 Cond. Rep. 94.

151. Jurisdiction of prize is involved in the general delegation of admiralty and maritime powers to the district court of the United States. Jennings v. Carson's Ex'rs., 1 Peters' Adm. Decis. 1.

143. A prohibition will lie from the supreme court to a district court, proceeding in an admiralty suit where it has no jurisdiction; by which further proceedings were prevented. The pro- 153. Admiralty courts, in many cases, possess ceeding in the district court was against a cumulative powers beyond those of the common French national vessel for an alleged capture on law. The right to proceed in rem does not exthe high seas of a neutral vessel. The U. S. v. clude the remedy in personam, though it is frePeters, 3 Dall. 121; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. quently taken in preference for the greater secu144. Recaptures are cases for admiralty juris-rity. In common law courts, as in the admidiction. The Adeline, 9 Cranch; 3 Cond. Rep.

397.

145. The courts of the United States have jurisdiction over all prizes made in ports, as well as on the high seas, by virtue of the delegation of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Ship Emulous, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 563.

146. A prize court has jurisdiction to decree restitution of a vessel recaptured from the enemy, and to award damages against the recaptors for embezzlement. The Schoooner Dove and Cargo, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 585.

ralty, a party may pursue several remedies, although he can have but one satisfaction. On the instance side of the admiralty, the proceedings are, originally and most commonly, by arrest of the person. The Fair American, 1 Peters' Adm. Decis. 94.

154. The district court must be governed in its decisions by the maritime code possessed anterior to the revolution, as well as by the particular laws since established by our own government. The Catharina, 1 Peters' Adm. Decis. 116.

147. A court of prize will take cognizance, 155. The admiralty courts of the United States not only of all questions of prize, but of every have power to authorize the majority of the ownincident thereto, until a final adjustment of allers of a vessel to fit her out and expedite her claims arising from the capture. It will, there- upon a voyage. Willings et al. v. Blight, 2 Pefore, entertain a supplemental suit for the dispo- ters' Adm. Decis. 288. sition of the proceeds of a prize. Where the proceeds have been paid to the prize agents, and the cause is no longer pending, the proper jurisdiction is the district court. While the proceeds remain in the circuit court, application may be made there, originally, to compel distribution. The St. Lawrence and Cargo, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 19.

148. The prize act of 27th January, 1813, ch. 115, 2 Story's Laws U. S. 1283, authorizing the marshal to make distribution, does not narrow this jurisdiction. He still acts under the control of the prize court. Ibid.

149. Upon mature reflection and authorities, the court is fully satisfied that all questions relative to prize property, and of course all incidental claims upon it by reason of the eapture, properly belong to the court having possession of the property, either actually or in contemplation of law, through prize agents; or having a right to call for the property, in order to execute its decrees, and enforce the rights of the parties connected with its proceedings: and that it is perfectly immaterial whether the court possess the cause as of original jurisdiction or appeal. The St. Lawrence and Cargo, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 22. 150. The trial of prizes belongs exclusively to

156. An indemnity is, however, to be given to the non-consenting owners, who, as they gain no profit, may incur no loss. Ibid.

157. The admiralty has cognizance of matters on land, if they are incident to those at sea. Moxon et al. v. The Fanny, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 309.

158. On a libel for prize, the burden of proof rests on the captors. Miller v. The Resolution, 2 Dallas' Rep. 12.

159. Questions of prize are exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction; and no action at law lies for property captured as prize. Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. Rep. 19; 1 Cond. Rep. 13.

160. In general, the rules of the prize court, as to the vesting of property, are the same with those of the common law, by which the thing sold, after the completion of the contract, is properly at the risk of the purchaser. The St. Joze Indiano, 1 Wheat. 208; 3 Cond. Rep. 543.

161. Concealment, or even spoliation of papers, is not of itself a sufficient ground for condemnation in a prize court. It is a circumstance calculated to excite the vigilance and justify the suspicions of the court; but it is a circumstance open to explanation; for it may have arisen from accident, necessity, or superior force. If the

Salvage. General Principles on which Salvage is allowed.

has authority, as incident to his office, to employ all the usual and customary means, acknowledged by the laws of nations, to carry it into effect. He may, therefore, lawfully authorize the capture of enemy property, wherever, by the law of nations, it is liable to capture. The Ship Emulous, 1 Gallis. 563.

party in the first instance frankly explains it to || 174. Upon a declaration of war the President the satisfaction of the court, it deprives him of no right to which he is otherwise entitled. The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. 227; 4 Cond. Rep. 103. 162. If, on the other hand, the spoliation be unexplained, or the explanation appear weak and futile; if the cause labour under heavy suspicions, or there be a presumption of bad faith or gross prevarication, further proof is denied; and condemnation ensues from defects in the evidence which the party is not permitted to supply. Ibid.

163. Where, in a seizure case, the property was delivered on bail on appraisement, and the decree condemning it was affirmed in the supreme court, it was ordered that damages should be allowed at the rate of six per cent. on the amount of the appraised value of the property; computing the interest from the date of the decree of condemnation in the district court. The Diana, 3 Wheat. 58; 4 Cond. Rep. 196.

164. Where a neutral ship-owner lends his name to cover a fraud with regard to the cargo, this circumstance will subject the vessel to condemnation. The Fortuna, 3 Wheat. 236; 4 Cond. Rep. 244.

165. When the original owner seeks for restitution in our courts, upon the ground of a violation of our neutrality by the captors, the onus probandi lies on him; and if there exist reasonable doubt respecting the facts, the court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction. La Amistad de Rues, 5 Wheat. 385; 4 Cond. Rep. 697.

166. By the rules of the prize court, the onus probandi of a neutral interest rests on the claimant. The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat. 1; 5 Cond. Rep. 1.

167. The evidence to acquit or condemn must come, in the first instance, from the ship's papers, and the examination of the persons captured. Ibid.

168. Where these are not satisfactory, further proof may be admitted, if the claimant has not forfeited his right to it by a breach of good faith.

Ibid.

169. On the production of further proof, if the neutrality of the property is not established beyond reasonable doubt, condemnation follows. Ibid.

170. The assertion of a false claim, in whole or in part, by an agent, or in connivance with the real owner, is a substantive cause of condemnation. Ibid.

171. A cargo of a vessel belonging to enemies, and found in a port of the United States on the breaking out of a war, is confiscable, jure belli, without any special act of congress authorizing the seizure. The Cargo of the Ship Emulous, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 563.

175. A commission to cruise, granted in time of peace, may be used so as to authorize captures as prize after a war breaks out. It gives validity to the capture, if war exists when it is used. 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 478.

176. The sentence of a foreign court of admiralty and prize in rem, is in general conclusive on all parties in interest, and for collateral purposes. Bradstreet v. The Neptune Ins. Co. 3 Sumner's C. C. R. 600.

177. Semble. That no sound distinction can be made between a sentence pronounced in rem, by a court of admiralty and prize, and a liké sentence pronounced by a municipal court, upon a seizure or other proceedings in rem.

Ibid.

178. But this rule proceeds on the ground that the court pronouncing the decree had jurisdiction over the cause, and that the thing was either positively or constructively in its posses sion, and submitted to its jurisdiction. Ibid.

179. In respect to the jurisdiction of courts of prize, acting in rem, the courts of other nations are competent to enquire into and ascertain whether there has been any excess of jurisdiction; but the judgments of municipal courts, when the res is in possession of the sovereign, must, ordinarily, be conclusive upon all foreign tribunals. Ibid.

SALVAGE.

General Principles on which Salvage is allowed.

180. Salvage is a compensation for actual services rendered in saving the property charged with it, and it is demandable of right for vessels saved from enemies, or from pirates. These mnst be meritorious services, and the taking must have been lawful. Talbot v. Seeman, I Cranch's Rep. 1; 1 Cond. Rep. 229.

181. A mere speculative danger will not authorize a claim for salvage. It is not necessary that the danger be such as that escape from it, by any other means, was inevitable; but the peril must have been imminent. Ibid.

182. On a recapture of a vessel by a neutral vessel, no claim for salvage can arise, for the recapture was a hostile act, not justified by the situation of the nation to which the recapturing vessel belongs, in relation to that from the pos session of which the vessel recaptured was taken. The degree of service rendered in such a case, 172. If the party filing a libel against pro-is precisely the same as if it had been rendered perty, or in a suit in rem by an informer as prize of war, is not entitled to it on condemnation, it will go to the United States. Ibid.

173. An alien enemy cannot sustain a claim in a prize court, nor can a citizen maintain a claim of the property of an enemy, upon a sale alleged to have been made after the war commenced. Ibid.

by a belligerent; yet, the rights accruing from the recapture are different, because no right can accrue from an act which was unlawful. Ibid.

183. When a belligerent permits her cruisers to capture neutral vessels, and carry them in for adjudication, and thus subjects such vessels to perils, almost equal to those of absolute capture,

Salvage. General Principles on which Salvage is allowed.

salvage for a recapture of such a neutral vessel | out what may be deemed an honourable reward. will be allowed. Ibid. The same policy has a tendency to discourage 184. The principles and policy which with- petty plundering and concealment of the prohold from mariners their wages on the ship be-perty saved; and to induce salvors to bring it in ing lost, and which deny them salvage for saving good faith before judicial tribunals, and rely their ship, however great the peril, do not apply upon their justice for an ample remuneration. in a case when a vessel has been abandoned by Rowe et al. v. The Brig, 1 Mason's C. C. R. all on board of her but one seaman, who after- 375. wards contributes to save the vessel and cargo. The Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch's Rep. 240; 1 Cond. Rep. 397.

185. If we search for the motives for the very ample reward allowed for services rendered at sea in saving property from peril, we shall find them in a liberal and enlarged policy. The allowance for such services is intended as an inducement to render them; which it is for the public interest, and for the general interests of humanity to hold forth to those who navigate the ocean. Ibid.

186. Underwriters are not liable for salvage upon articles which, by a memorandum in the policy, are declared to be free from average, unless general, under the clause which authorizes the insured to labour and travel for the preservation of the cargo; unless, perhaps, in a case where the salvage may have prevented a total loss of the cargo. Biays v. Chesapeake Ins. Co. 7 Cranch, 415; 2 Cond. Rep. 552.

187. American property recaptured, was restored on payment of salvage; the libel having prayed a condemnation as prize, and no salvage having been claimed. The question of salvage is incident to the question of prize. The Adeline, 9 Cranch's Rep. 244; 3 Cond. Rep. 397.

192. The salvage paid to seamen in cases of shipwreck, is a charge on the property saved, and to be borne by the underwriters, if the ship is abandoned to them. The Two Catherines, 2 Mason, 319.

193. A ship sailed on a voyage from Newport to Gibraltar, and there landed her cargo and went in ballast to Ivica, for a cargo of salt; and after taking it on board proceeded on her homeward voyage for Providence, R. I., and was wrecked on an island in Narraganset bay; the vessel and cargo totally lost, but the ship's tackle, &c., saved. The seamen were entitled to salvage for saving the materials of the ship; and, as they could obtain no wages for the period of the voyage commencing from half the time the vessel was at Ivica, the court allowed them as salvage as much as their wages for the homeward voyage would have amounted to. Ibid.

194. The owner of goods saved should pay salvage in proportion to his property saved, and the advantage he receives, adding a reward as an example and incentive to others. Taylor et al. v. Goods, &c. 1 Adm. Deois. 48.

195. The old rule of allowing half to the finder or salvor of deserted vessels, &c., without regard to degree of merit, labour, or difficulty, is now exploded. Ibid.

188. In a case of civil salvage, where, under its peculiar circumstances, the amount of salvage is discretionary, appeals should not be encouraged 196. Salvage is not allowed as a mere quanupon the ground of minute distinctions of merit; tum meruit; but as a premium to stimulate exnor will the court reverse the decision of an in-ertion, prowess, enterprise, and personal hazard. ferior court, unless it manifestly appears that | The Neptune, 2 Adm. Decis. 356. some important error has been committed. The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98; 4 Cond. Rep. 399.

189. In order to entitle to salvage, as upon a recapture or rescue, the property must have been in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the enemy. The Ann Green, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 274, 289.

190. There is no case where military salvage has been allowed merely from stopping a ship going into an enemy's port; and the case of the Packet de Bilboa, 2 Rob. 133, and the Franklin, 4 Rob. 147, are the other way. I shall adhere to these decisions, because they are founded in fair and equitable principles. STORY, Justice. The Ann Green, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 293.

191. In cases of salvage, the measure of reward has never been adjusted by a mere estimate of the labour and services performed by the salvors. These are important ingredients, and are greatly enhanced in value, when they have been accompanied by personal peril and gallantry, by hardy and prompt enterprise, and by severe and long exposure to the inclemencies of the winds and waves. But an enlarged policy, looking to the safety and interest of the commercial world, decrees a liberal recompense, with a view to stimulate ambition, by holding

197. A vessel in distress, met with at sea, and brought into a neutral port, must be restored, on payment of salvage, to those who were in possession of her when she was met with. L'Esperanza, Bee's D. C. R. 92.

198. Salvage allowed upon a recapture of a ransomed ship, the ransom bill declaring that the sum agreed upon therein, should be payable only upon the arrival of the vessel at her port of destination, which she never reached. The Harriet, Bee's D. C. R. 128.

199. In case of a recapture by a public vessel of war, the salvage can be ascertained only by a sale of the property, unless both parties consent to an appraisement. The Dolphin, Bee's D. C. R. 152.

200. A vessel employed in transporting part of the cargo of a wrecked vessel from the place where it was safely landed to a port, being lost, the owner is not entitled to her value in his claim for salvage. The Argus, Bee's D. C. R. 170.

201. Salvage is not due for rescuing the vessel of a neutral out of the hands of a belligerent, who has taken possession for a supposed violation of a treaty or of the law of nations. The Antelope, Bee's C. C. R. 232.

202. The owner has the election to take the

« PreviousContinue »