Clark, 5 How. 441) The intention is to save the remedy in those courts which proceed according to the course of the common law, as distinguished from the course of admiralty (Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522); and the suitor has the right of seeking redress in either court when it can be so obtained (Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co. 56 N. Y. 1); he can maintain his action in the State court, although the liability of the owner of the vessel is limited by Congress (Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co. 55 N. Y. 1; Bird v. Daly, 57 N. Y. 237; contra, Chisholm v. Northern Trans. Co. 61 Barb. 363); as an action to recover damages for a collision. (Stewart v. Hartz, 3 Bush, 433; Digby v. Kenton Iron Co., 8 Bu h, 166; Sawyer v. Eastern Steamboat Co., 46 Me. 400.) Courts of common law deal with ships as personal property, liable to their remedial process of attachment and execution (Taylor v. Carry, 20 How. 533; The B. F. Woolsey, 3 Fed. Rep. 457); and such personal actions may be maintained against their owners as the common law gives (Hine v. Trevor, 17 Iowa, 249; Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185); so a creditor may sue the owner in a State court to recover for supplies furnished at the home port of the vessel or elsewhere. (Crawford v. Roberts, 50 Cal. 235; Southern Dry Dock Co. v. The J. D. Perry, 23 La. An. 39.) A State court has jurisdiction of an action for damages for loss of goods through negligence of the carrier (Rake v. The Owners, 6 Bush, 25; Parisot v. Helen, 52 Miss. 617); or for damages for breach of contract of alfreightment (Bohannan v. Hammond, 42 Cal. 223; Home Ins. Co. v. Northwestern P. Co. 52 Iowa, 223; Baird v. Daly, 57 N. Y. 237); or of an action for damages for death caused by negligence (Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522; Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 56 N. Y. 1); or for a marine tort (Stewart v. Hartz, 3 Bush, 433; 1ercival v. Hickey, 18 Johns, 257); as an action for fire occasioned by negligence (Chisholm v. Northeru Trans. Co., 61 Barb. 363), or an action of replevin, although defendant claims title under a marshal's sale (Daily v. Doe, 3 Fed. Rep. 903); or on a stipulation taken in admiralty (Lacaze v. State, 1 Addis, 59); or an action for a penalty imposed by a city ordinance. (Ogdensburg v. Lyons, 7 Laus. 215.) A State court may maintain a bill in equity, as to redeem goods from a lien claimed for sal

va e services (Cashmere v. De Wolfe, 2 Sand. 379); or an action for compensation for salvage services where there has been an express contract. (Albany City Ins. Co. v. Whitney, 70 Pa. St. 248.) The State court may entertain a bill in equity filed by one of several owners of a vessel for a sale thereof and a division of the proceeds (Andrews v. Betts, 15 N. Y. Sup. 322); but equitable remedies are not saved where suit is brought for the enforcement of a maritime contract. (The B. F. Woolsey, 3 Fed. Rep. 457.) The common law is not competent to afford a remedy, as between suitors having maritime claims against a vessel. (Stewart v. The Potomac Ferry Co., 5 Hughes, 572.) The concurrent jurisdiction of common-law courts does not deprive admiralty courts of jurisdiction. (Warring v. Clark, 5 How. 441; De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398.

Over seizures and forfeitures.--Congress distinguishes between seizures on navigable waters and those not navigable, or seizures on land, the former being within the admiralty jurisdiction. (The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15; U. S. v. Winchester, 99 U. S. 372; U. S. v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 207; The Sally, 2 Cranch, 406; The Betsey, 4 Crauch, 413; Whelan v. U. S. 7 Cranch, 112; The Samuel, i Wheat, 9; The Margaret, 9 Wheat. 421; The Little Ann, 1 Faine, 40; Clark v. U. S., 2 Wash. C. C. 519; The Queen, 4 Ben. 237; The Irma, 12 Int. Rev. Rec. 42; Fouren Packages, Gilp. 235; One Hundred and Thirty Barrels, 1 Bond, 587.) It does not extend to seizures on land. (U. S. v. Winchester, 99 U. S. 372.) In the trial of all Causes of seizure on land, the district court sits as a court of common law. (The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391.) Before judicial cognizance can attach upon a forfeiture in rem, there must be a seizure (The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391; The Washington, 4 Blatchf. 101; The Ann, 9 Cranch, 289; The May, 6 Biss. 242; Ninety-two Barrels, 8 Blatchf. 450; The Oronto, 5 Biss. 460; The Fideliter, I Sawy. 153; An Open Boat, 5 Mason, 232); and the seizure must be go d and subsisting when the libel or information is filed (The Ann, 9 Cranch, 289; The Little Charles, 1 Brock. 347); but if there is an agreement to that effect, it contirnes subsisting although the vessel is being navigated. (The Abby, 1 Mason, 360.) The seizure must be made within

the district to vest jurisdiction in rem (The Little Ann, 1 Paine, 4); see The Merin, 9 Wheat. 391); unless made on the high seas, when jurisdiction attaches to the court into whose district the property is carried. (The Merino, 9 Wheat. 301; The Abby, 1 Mason, 360; The Little Ann, 1 Paine, 40.) In order to institute and perfect proceedings in rem the thing must be actually or constructively within the reach of the court. (Keene v. U. S., 5 Cranch, 301; The Reindeer, 2 Wall. 383; The Ann, 9 Cranch, 289; The Octavia, 1 Gall. 458; The Abby, 1 Mason, 360; Three Hundred and Ninety-six Barrels, 3 Int. Rev. Rec. 114) An information in rem to enforce a forfeiture is a civil action, and in no degree touches the person of the offend(U. S. v. La Vengeance, 3 Da l. 297; The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1.) The court directs the sale of the vessel upon condemnation, and decrees a distribution of the proceeds according to law. (McLane v. U. S., 6 Peters, 404,) In an information in rem on seizure for undervaluation, if the decree is in favor of the claimant, the court cannot make restitution conditional upon payment of duties or filing a re-exportation bond. (U. S. v. Three Hundred and Fifty Chests, 12 Wheat. 486: U. S. v. Five Hundred Boxes, 2 Abb. U. S. 500.)

er.

Prize jurisdiction.-The district court has jurisdiction over questions of prize or no prize. (The Betsey, 3 Dall 6; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54; The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546; Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 403; Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2; The Admiral, 1 Wall 6.3; The Emulous, 1 Gall. 563; The Anna, Blatchf. Prize, 337; The Magdalena, Bee, 11; The Amy Warw.ck, 2 Sprague, 123.) It embraces the whole question, unrestrained by locality of the capture as prize (Johnson v. Falconer, Van Ness 1; The Emulous, i Gall. 563; Two Hundred and Eighty-two Bales, Blatchf. Prize, 302; U. S. v. Bales, 1 Woolw. 236;) as on inland navigable waters (J. S. v. Bales, 1 Woolw. 236;) or on a wharf (Pieces of Merchandise, 2 Sprague, 233;) or in a port (The Emulous, 1 Gall 563; see Cook v. The U. S., 9 Ct. of Cl. 288); and whether the capture is made by a naval force or conjointly with land forces (Bales, Blatchf. Prize, 302); but it has no jurisdiction of captures on land, unless the ele

ment of force operated from or on the water. (U. S. v. Winchester, 99 U. S. 372; U. S. v. Bales, 1 Woolw. 236; Cook v. U. S., 9 Ct. of Cl. 288.) The district court has jurisdiction of all matters to be determined by the jus belli. (Sasportas v. Jennings, 1 Bay, 470; see Percival v. Hickey, 18 Johns. 257.) So of all matters incident to captures. (Sasportas v. Jennings, 1 Bay, 470.) The common-law courts have no jurisdiction of actions arising out of a capture as prize, the jurisdiction in admiralty is exclusive. (Doane v. Penhallow, 1 Dall. 218; S. C. 3 Dall. 54; Ross v. Rittenhouse, 2 Dall. 160; Novion v. Hallett, 13 Johas. 327; Sasportas v. Jennings, 1 Bay, 470; Simpson v. Nadeau, 1 Conn. 115; Chenot v. Foussat, 3 Bina. 220; Maisoanaire v. Keating, 2 Gall. 325; Hallett v. Lamothe, 3 Murph. 279; but see Taxier v. Sweet, 2 Dall. 81.) If the capture is made on navigable waters the court has jurisdiction, although it was made outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court (The Tropic Wind, Blatchf. Prize, 64; The Hiawatha, Blatchf. Prize, 1; Bales, Blatchf. Prize, 32); and the jurisdiction attaches in any court to which the prize may be brought (The Peterhoff, Blatchf. Prize, 463); it has jurisdiction although the vessel was destroyed because unfit to send into port (The Zavalla, Biatchf. Prize, 173); and although it lies in a foreign neutral port. (The Arabella, 2 Gall. 368.) Whenever the prize or its proceeds can be traced to the hands of any person whatever, jurisdiction attaches (Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 498.) So if government appropriates the captured vessel to its own use jurisdiction attaches, although it is not brought into the district (The Advocats, Batchf. Prize, 142; The A. J. View, Blatchf. Prize, 133; The Osceola, Blatchf. Prize, 150; The Olive, Blatchf. Prize, 185); and the court will proceed to adjudge and condemn or award restitution, although not actually within its possession or control. (Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 498; The Zavalla, Blatchf. Prize, 173; The Edward Burnard, Blatchf. Prize, 122; The Joseph H. Toone, Blatchf. Prize, 223; The Pevensey, Batchf. Prize, 623; The A. J. View, Blatchf. Prize, 143. District courts have

exclusive jurisdiction over ransom bills (Maisonnaire v. Keating, 2 Gall. 325); and captors may change the forum and apply for redress in any country where the property

is found. (Maisonnaire v. Keating, 2 Gall. 325.) The district court is but one court, with different branches of admiralty jurisdiction as well as other and distinct subjects. (U. S. v. Weed, 5 Wall. 62; The Siren, 7 Wall. 152.) A libel on the instance side of the court cannot be filed to enforce a claim or lien after the vessel has been taken as prize; but all claims can be adjusted on the prize proceedings. (The Napan, 4 Wall. 634.)

Prize Captures by foreign vessels.-Acts done under the authority of a sovereign cannot be redressed by the tribunals of another sovereign (L'Invincible, 1 Wheat 238); so if a foreign vessel brings its prize into this country the district court cannot detain her to inquire into the circumstances of the capture (Talbot v. Jansen, 3 Dall. 133; The Divina Pastoria, 4 Wheat. 52; Castello v. Bouteille, Bee, 29; The Friendship, Bee, 40; Nostra Signora Del Camino, Bee, 43; Mar in v. Ballard, Pee, 51; The Wi liam, 1 Pet. Adm. 12; The Fanny, 1 Pet. Adm. 309); as a neutral tribunal has no jurisdiction over a belligerent cruiser (L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. 238; U. S. v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121; Del Col v. Arnold, 3 Dall. 333; Glass v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6); but neutral courts may entertain jurisd ction to inquire whether the capture was made under a lawful commission, or whether fraudulently or Iiratically, or in violation of its territorial rights (L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. 238; Talbot v. Jansen, 3 Dall. 133); but not over a claim for damages for a tortious capture. (Stoughton v. Taylor, 2 Paine, 652.) If the capture is made within the territorial limits of this country by a foreign belligerent (The Alerta, 9 Cranch, 359; Talbot v. Jansen, 3 Dall. 133); or if the foreign captor has violated the neutrality laws of this country (The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298), or if the foreign privateer has been illegally equipped in this country (Talbot v. Jansen, 3 Dall. 133; U. S. v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121; The Alerta, 9 Cranch, 359; L'Invincible, 1 Wheat. 238), or if the force of the foreign vessel is illegally augmented in this country (The Alerta, 9 Cranch, 350; The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283), the district court will award restitution although she did not make the capture until she had obtained her commission at the Lelligerent port (The Gran