Brown, 170; The Oler, 2 Hughes, 12.) Every species of tot, however occurring and whether on board vessel or not, if on the high seas or on navigable waters, is of admiralty cognizance. (The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20.) Torts are not confined to wrongs or injuries committed by direct force, but embrace all wrongs suffered in consequence of negligence or malfeasance (The Philadelphia W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Towboat Co., 23 How. 209), without distinction as to property or person (Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242), or whether a direct or consequential wrong, as assault and imprisonment, denial of comforts and necessaries, brutal insult and maltreatment. (Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242.) The district courts have cognizance of torts committed on the high seas, when the parties of the vessel are found within their jurisdiction, without reference to the nationality of either. (The Noddleburn, 30 Fed. Rep. 142. And see the Belgenlaud, 114 U. S. 355.) Locality is the test, in cases of tort, by which to determine the question whether the wrongful act is one of admiralty cognizance. (Commercial Trans. Co. v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 574.) Marine torts may be prosecuted in personam ia any district where the offending party resides, or in rem whenever the offending thing is found to be within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the process. (Commercial Trans. Co. v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 574.)

Personal injuries.-Courts of admiralty have jurisdiction of an action of damages for personal injuries caused by negligence of the officers and crew of the vessel (The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. Rep. 137; The Helios, 12 Fed. Rep. 732; Ex parte Gordon, 12 Fed. Rep. 223, note; The Henry P. Dewey, 12 Fed. Rep. 150); such injury is a maritime tort (Leathers v. Blessings, 4 Morr. Traus. 777; S. C. 13 Fed. Rep. 48, note); so an action lies by a passenger for being put on short allowance on the voyage (The Creole, 1 Phila. 193), or for personal injuries caused by an explosion. (In re Long Island Co. 5 Fed. Rep. 599) An injury to a person of one vessel caused by the negligence of those charged with the navigation of another vessel is a maritime to t. (The Sea Gul, Chase, 145; The Sea Gull, 16 Pittsb. L. J. 194.) An injury on board a vessel

caused by explosion is a maritime tort. (The Highland Light, Chase, 150; The New World v. King, 16 How. 469.) A workman employed to make repairs may recover damages for injuries from negligence in moving a vessel (The Tulchen, 2 Fed. Rep. 600); so a person employed by charterers to trim a vessel if injured by dunnage negligently stowed may maintain an action for damages. (The Kate Cann, 2 Fed. Rep. 241.) The admiralty may maintain an action by a passenger for ill-treatment and injury to him during the voyage. (Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242.) So a husband may maintain an action for damages for injury to his wife, causing her death. (The Sea Gull, Chase, 145.) The admiralty has jurisdiction of an action for transporting libelant to a foreign shore against his consent (Yankee v. Gallagher, 1 McAll. 467), or of an action by a parent for shipping his minor son and transporting him beyond seas (Steele v. Thacher, 1 Ware, 91), or for abduction of his son and taking him on a voyage. (Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mason, 380.)

Death caused by negligence.—The court of admiralty has jurisdiction of an action of damages for the death of a person caused by negligence (Holmes v. O. & C. R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 65; Ex parte Detroit Riv. Ferry Co. 12 Fed. Rep. 224, note; The Sylvan Grove, 9 Fed. Rep. 335; The Highland Light, 1 Chase, 150; The Towando, 34 Leg. Int. 394; The Garland, 5 Fed. Rep. 924); and the administrator may bring his suit in rem against the vessel. (The City of Brussels, 6 Ben. 370.) But in the absence of an act of Congress or a state statute giving the right of action therefor, a suit in admiralty cannot be maintained in the courts of the United States to recover damages for the death of a human being on the high seas or the waters navigable from the sea, which is caused by negligence. (The Wydale, 37 Fed. Rep. 716; The Harrisburg v. Rickards, 119 U. S. 199; Metcalfe v. The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201; Van Pelt v. The Alaska, 33 Fed. Rep. 107; Welsh v. The North Cambria, 39 Fed. Rep. 615.) The United States district court has no jurisdiction of a libel filed by an administratrix for the death of her intestate from a marine tort, under a State statute giving a right of action to the personal representatives of one whose death

is caused by a wrongful act. (Oleson v. The Ida Campbell, 34 Fed. Rep. 432.) Any defense that will bar recovery in the State courts in an action for negligence causing the death of a person must be held equally good in admiralty. (The A. W. Thompson, 39 Fed. Rep. 115.)

Torts-Injuries to property.-Torts are not cognizable in admiralty, unless committed on waters within the admiralty jurisdiction. (The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624; The Clatsop Chief, 8 Fed. Rep. 163; Holmes vs. Ohio & C. R. R. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 375.) An action may be maintained to recover money lost by an agent in gambling with the cognizance of the master or an officer (Smith v. Wilson, 31 How. Pr. 272); or an action to recover goods placed by the master in the hands of a salvor on a fraudu lent claim (Houseman v. The North Carolina, 15 Peters, 40); or an action against a wrong-doer, who detains on land property taken at sea (Amer. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, Blatchf. & H. 9); or rescuing goods from a pirate (Davison v. Sealskins, 2 Paine, 324; The North Carolina, 15 Peters, 40); or for unlawful seizure of property. (Ma anro v. The Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473; Martins v. Ballard, B e, 51; McGrath v. Candaler, Bee, 64; The Martha Anne, Olcott, 18; The Magdalena, Bee, 11; Johnson v. City, 8 Chic. L. N. 121.) So where a lighter is tortiously taken by the master of a vessel and used for her benefit. (The Florence, 4 Cent. L. J. 249.) So where property has been illegally and piratically taken on public waters. (Martin v. Ballard, Bee 51. A party deprived of his property on the high seas, whether it be flotsam, jetsam, or ligan, has his remedy in admiralty. (Amer. Ins. Co. v. Joh son, Blatchf. & H. 9.) So the admiralty may entertain an original suit for the restitution of property unlawfully seized for an alleged violation of the revenue laws. (Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason, 96.) So the admiralty has jurisdiction over an action to recover the value of lost baggage. (The H. M. Wright, Newb. Adm. 494); or of the maritime tort, where a master refuses to give a bill of lading to the vendor, the vender having absconded. (The Herreri, 9 Fed. Rep. 408.) The court of admiralty protects only substantial rights, but nominal claims may be connected with substantial rights so as to confer jurisd.ction. (Barnett v.

Luther, 1 Curt. 434.) Tortious acts of the master to prevent a shipper from recovering possession of his goods, committed in port, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the court. (The Zenobia, 1 Abb. Adm. 80.) Torts committed on land are not cognizable in the admiralty, and State legislation cannot confer the jurisdiction. (The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. Rep. 137.) So the owner of a derrick which rests upon the bottom of navigable water cannot maintain a libel for injury to it, though it is entirely surrounded by water. (The Maud Webster, 8 Ben. 547.) For redress in matters of tort, courts of admiralty may proceed in personam, and in rem when the injury is subject of a maritime lien. (The Commerce, 1 Black. 574; The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 212; Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wheat, 473; The Martha Ann, Olcott, 18.) Locality is the test in cases of tort, by which to determine the wrong. ful act is one of admiralty cognizances. (John Spry Lumber Co. v. The C. H. Green, 77 Mich. 199.) Where the liability of the owners of a steamboat arose out of a maritime tort committed on water which was a navigable highway of commerce, the district court had jurisdiction of it in admiralty. (The Tolchester, 42 Fed. Rep. 180.) Damage to an elevator on a river bank, from being struck by a schooner through negligent towing, does not constitute a maritime tort within admiralty jurisdiction. (Johnson v. Chicago & Pac. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388.)

Cases of collision.-District courts have jurisdiction of cases of collision on the great public navigab'e rivers, although within the body of a county or above the tide. (Jackson v. The Magnolia, 20 How. 296; or of collisions occurring on the high seas, between vessels owned by foreigners of different nationalities. (The Belgenland v. Jensen, 114 U. S. 355.) The liability of a passing steamer for injuries from her swell and suction has often been enforced in admiralty. (The New York, 34 Fed. Rep. 757.) The owner of a vessel libeled in rem for a collision may, by process in personam, bring into the suit other parties not her owners, also liable for the same collision. (Joice v. Canal Boats, 32 Fed. Rep. 553.) A libel in rem will lie against a raft for collision on navigable waters. (Seabrook v. Raft of Railroad Cross-Ties. (40 Fed. Rep.

696.) The test is the locality of the thing injured, and not of the thing inflicting the injury. (Boston v. Crowley [C. C. D. Mass.] 38 Fed. Rep. 202; see Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515.)

Damages for injuries to property.-The admiralty has jurisdiction over actions for damages arising from a collision on navigable waters (Warring v. Clarke, 5 How. 411; The Pennsylvania, 9 Blatchf. 451; The Lotty, Olcott, 329; The Grand Republic, 10 Fed. Rep. 398); in such cases the jurisdiction rests on the maritime tort. (The Grand Republic, 10 Fed. Rep. 398.) They have jurisdiction in case of collision on the high seas, between foreign vessels. (The Belgenland, 9 Fed. Řep. 576; Thommasen v. Whitwell, 12 Fed. Rep. 891); and a foreign consul may maintain suit for damages, caused by an American vessel. (The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164.) Over suits in personam for damages growing out of a collision its jurisdiction is not exclusive of the State courts (Schoonmaker v. Davidson, 1 Morr. Trans. 46); but courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction over collisions on the Ohio river (Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 118), and they have jurisdiction in rem in that part of the St. Lawrence which is within the district (The Propeller, East, 9 Ben. 76); or over a collis ion between a tug and a canal-boat engaged in harbor service (The Volunteer, Brown Adm. 159); or on navigable waters within the body of a county. (The Lamar, 8 The Reporter, 275.) Negligence is no defense to an action for collision. (The James M. Thompson, 12 Fed. Rep. 189.) Admiralty entertains jurisdiction on proceedings arising ex contractu or quasi ex contractu, or delicto or quasi delicto (Banta v. McNeil, 5 Ben. 74); but not of torts or injuries in rem or in personam in foreign countries, nor of contracts made there which were not of a maritime nature. (De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398.) The admiralty has jurisdiction of an action for negligence in towing a vessel, although the voyage was between two ports in the same State (The Brooklyn, 2 Ben. 547); or of an action for injury to a pier by negligen e in discharging cargo, unless the pier wis a part of the land (Mayor v. Hichland, 6 Ben. 289; Northwestern U. Packet Co. v. Atlee, 2 Dill. 479); or for damages to a floating dry dock, although moored to

FED. PROC.-19.