No. 2625. Book 4, tit. 4, div. 2, chap. 2, sec. 2, § 1, art. 1. No. 2625. trict court in all admiralty and maritime causes, it has jurisdiction over all cases of torts or injuries committed upon the high seas, and in forts and harbors within the ebb and flow of the tide.(a) The following are examples; the district court, as a court of admiralty, may redress personal wrongs committed on a passenger, on the high seas, by the master of a vessel, whether those wrongs were by direct force or consequential injuries; (b) and the owners as well as the captain of the vessel, are liable for an unlawful capture made by him.(c) A father, whose minor son has been tortiously abducted and seduced on a voyage on the high seas, may sue, in the admiralty, in the nature of an action per quod, etc., also for wages, earned by such son, in maritime service.(d) This court has also jurisdiction of petitory suits to reinstate the owners of vessels who have been displaced from their possession.(e) 4° Of suits on contracts in the admiralty. 2625. The fourth class of remedies in the admiralty, under its ordinary jurisdiction, is by suit on maritime contracts. This court has jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of common law, over all maritime contracts, wheresoever the same may be made or executed, or whatsoever be the form of the contract. (f) But contracts regulated by the common law are excluded from the jurisdiction of the admiralty, by the seventh amendment of the constitution.(g) (a) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304; The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546; De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mason, 380. (6) Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242. (c) Dean v. Angus, Bee, 369, 378. (d) Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mason, 380. (e) The Tilton, 5 Mason, 465. (f) De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; Zane v. The President, 4 Wash. C. C. 453; The Mary, Paine, 671; Davis v. Brig, Gilp. 477. (g) Bains v. The James, Baldw. 544. No. 2626. Book 4, tit. 4, div. 2, chap. 2, sec. . 2, § 1, art. 1. No. 2626. The maritime contracts over which the admiralty has jurisdiction are those which relate to the business, commerce, or navigation of the sea; such as charter parties, affreightments, marine loans and hypothecations, contracts for maritime service in building, repairing, supplying, and navigating ships; contracts and quasi contracts respecting averages, contributions, and jettisons; contracts relating to marine insurance; and those between part owners of ships. But unless a contract be essentially maritime, the jurisdiction does not attach. (a) It is not indispensable that the services, on which suit is brought, should have been performed at sea, the jurisdiction of the admiralty attaches when the services are performed on a ship in port where the tide ebbs and flows.(b) Seamen employed on board of steamboats and lighters, engaged in trade or commerce on tide-water, are within the admiralty jurisdiction ;(c) wages may, therefore, be recovered in the admiralty by the pilot, deck-hands, engineer and fireman on board of a steamboat; (d) but unless the service of those employed contribute in navigating the vessel, or to its preservation, they cannot sue for their wages in the admiralty; musicians on board of a vessel, who are hired and employed as such, cannot, therefore, enforce a payment of their wages by a suit in rem in the admiralty.(e) 2. Of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the district court as a court of admiralty. 2626. This jurisdiction is vested in the district court by various acts of congress: 1, in cases under the laws of imposts, navigation or trade of the United States; (a) The Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428; Thackarey v. The Farmer, Gilp. 529. (6) 10 Wheat. 428; Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324. (c) Thackarey v. Farmer of Salem, Gilp. 532; Wilson v. The Steamboat Ohio, Gilp. 505. (d) Gilp. 505. (e) Turner v. Boat Superior, Gilp. 516. No. 2627. Book 4, tit. 4, div. 2, chap. 2, sec. 2, § 1, art. 1 No. 2628. 2, in cases of captures within the territorial limits of the United States. 1° Of seizures under the impost and navigation laws. 2627. It is enacted by the judiciary act, section ninth, that the district court shall have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, when the seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons burden, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, when the common law is competent to give it. Cases of this kind are properly civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and cognizable in the admiralty; and the court is to decide them without the aid of a jury. The process does not touch the person of the offender, the proceeding is in the nature of a libel in rem. (a) It is the place of seizure, and not the committing of the offence, that gives jurisdiction to the court; (b) for, until there has been a seizure, the forum cannot be ascertained.(c) 2° Of captures within the territorial limits of the United States. 2628. The admiralty jurisdiction expressly vested in the district court, embraces also captures made within the jurisdictional limits of the United States. The court is authorized to take cognizance of complaints, by whomsoever instituted, in case of captures made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of the coasts and shores thereof. (d) (a) United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9. (b) U. S. v. Schooner Betsy and Charlotte, 4 Cranch, 443; Keene v. The United States, 5 Cranch, 304. (c) The Brig Ann, 9 Cranch, 289. (d) Act of April 20, 1818, s. 7; and see act of June 5, 1794. No. 2629. Book 4, tit. 4, div. 2, chap. 2, sec. 2, § 1, art. 2, 3. No. 2630. Art. 2.-Of jurisdiction in cases of seizures on land, and of forfeitures. 2629. The civil jurisdiction of the district court extends to seizures on land, under the laws of the United States, and in suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under those laws. The act gives the court exclusive original cognizance of all seizures made on land, and such waters of the United States which are not navigable by vessels of ten or more tons burden, within their respective districts, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures, as are incurred under the laws of the United States. (a) In all cases of seizure made on land, the court sits as a court of common law, and its jurisdiction is entirely distinct from that exercised in cases of seizure on waters navigable by vessels of ten tons burden and upward.(b) Seizures of this kind are triable by jury; they are not cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.(c) Art. 3.-Of the jurisdiction of the court when an alien sues for a tort. 2630. The district court is also vested with jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of the several states, or the circuit court, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only, in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States.(d) But, unless the case be in the admiralty, the suit of such alien must be against a citizen of a state; for, by the constitution, an alien's right to sue is restricted to that case. (a) Act of September 24, 1789. (b) 8 Wheat. 395. (c) 4 Cranch, 443. (d) Act of September 24, 1789, s. 9. No. 2631. Book 4, tit. 4, div. 2, chap. 2, sec. 2, § 1, art. 4, 5. No. 2632. Art. 4.-Of the jurisdiction of the court in suits by the United States. 2631. Jurisdiction is given to the district court to have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, and the circuit court, of all suits at common law, where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. (a) And by a subsequent act, (b) cognizance is given to it, concurrent with the courts and magistrates of the several states, and the circuit courts of the United States, of all suits at common law, where the United States, or any officer thereof, under the authority of any act of congress, sue, although the debt, claim, or other matter in dispute shall not amount to one hundred dollars. These last words do not confine the jurisdiction given by this act to one hundred dollars, but prevent it from stopping at that sum; and, consequently, suits for sums over one hundred dollars are cognizable in the district, circuit and state courts, and before magistrates, in the cases here mentioned. By virtue of this act, these tribunals have jurisdiction over suits brought by the postmaster general, for debts and balances due to the general post office. (c) Art. 5.-Of jurisdiction by and against consuls. 2632. This court has jurisdiction by or against consuls and vice-consuls, exclusively of the courts of the several states, except for offences where other punishment than whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is inflicted. For offences above this description formerly the (a) Act of September 24, 1789. |