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. Rep. 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 was 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.

the land. (The Ceres, 36 Leg. Int. 339; see Hagan v. Brockie, 11 Fed. Rep. 795.) Where the substance of the tort was committed on the high seas, if it be all a continuous act, jurisdiction attaches, though part of the transaction took place on land and within the body of a county. (Steele v. Thacher, 1 Ware, 91; Plummer v. Webb, 1 Ware, 91.) It has jurisdiction of an action for damages occasioned by negligence in leaving obstructions to impede navigation (Philadelphia W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Towboat Co., 23 How, 209), or by obstructions in a navigable river. (Northwestern U. P. Co., 2 Dill. 479.) It has no juris 'iction of an action for damages caused to a bridge by negligence of a vessel (The Neil Cochran, 1 Brown Adm. 162); nor to a wharf (The Ottowa, 1 Brown Adm. 355); nor for injury to buildings on land by fire through negligence of those in charge of the vessel. (The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20.) Jurisdiction attaches only to tortious acts on board the vessel. (The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20.) So no action can be maintained for damages from negligence in hauling a vessel up to be placed in the yard for repairs. (Ransom v. Mayo, 3 Blatchf. 70.) The district court has jurisdiction of an action in rem against a vessel for damaging a raft of logs while in navigable waters. (Cartier v. The F. & P. M. No. 2, Dist. Ct. Wis., 33 Fed. Rep. 511.)

Limited liability act.-Courts of admiralty have jurisdiction of cases arising under the limited liability act. (Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104; In re Long Island Trans. Co., 5 Fed. Rep. 599: Ex parte Slayton, 4 Morr. Trans. 207.) Although a court of admiralty takes possession of a vessel under this act, yet it cannot enjoin a pending action against the owner in a state court. (Hill Manufacturing Co. v. Providence & N. Y. S. Co., 113 Mass. 495.) The law of limited liability of ship-owners is a part of our maritime code, co-extensive with the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, on the sea and the great inland lakes and the navigable waters connecting therewith. (Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; Jackson v. The Magnolia, 20 How. 293; Commercial Transp. Co. v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 574; Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1.) Jurisdiction of the district court, when once acquired, of an action for loss or damages to persons or goods, is exclu

sive; and it is the duty of all other courts to suspend proceedings, dismiss the suit, and refer the whole matter to the district court. (Black v. Southern P. R. Cò., 39 Fed. Rep. 565.) The circuit courts have no jurisdiction of pro-ceedings to limit a ship-owner's liability, under U. S. Rev. Stats., secs. 4282-4285); such proceedings are enforceable in district courts. (Elwell v. Geibel, 33 Fed. Rep. 71.) The power of Congress to prescribe the procedure in admiralty is not necessarily referable to the commercial clause of the Constitution, therefore the fact that the vessel was customarily employed not in foreign or interstate commerce was immaterial. (The Tolchester, 42 Fed. Rep. 183.) Federal courts may appoint receivers to control suits against owners. (Providence etc. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578.) The fact that owners claiming the benefit of limited liability succeed on that issue, and are therefore so far entitled to costs, will not relieve them from costs of the main issue, which was raised by a denial of negligence, if they are defeated on that point. (The Leonard Richards, 41 Fed. Rep. 818.)

Proceedings.-The court may proceed either in rem or in personam. (Amer. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, Blatchf. & H. 9; The Merchant, Abb. Adm. 1.) If the admiralty has jurisdiction over the matter in a proceeding in rem, it has jurisdiction in personam. (Davis v. Child, 2 Ware, 78.) Over maritime contracts it has jurisdiction in personam as well as in rem. (Andrews v. Wall, 3 How. 568; The Jerusalem, 2 Gall. 349; The Volunteer, 1 Sum. 551; The Draco, 2 Sum. 157; contra, The James & Catherine, Bald. 544; see National Steam Nav. Co. v. Dyer, 105 U. S. 24.) The owner of a vessel may institute proceedings to obtain the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for by secs. 4284, 4285 of the Revised Statutes, without waiting for a suit to be begun against him or his vessel for the loss out of which the liability arises. (Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451.) Proceedings to limit the liability of ship-owners for loss or damage to goods supersede all other actions for the same loss or damages, upon the matter being properly pleaded therein. No injunction from the district court is necessary to give them such effect. (Providence & N. Y, S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co.,

109 U. S. 578.) A petition under the 54th admiralty rule may be filed after a trial of the cause of collision upon its merits, and a final decree thereon. (N. Y. & Wilmington S. S. Co. v. Mount, 103 U. S. 239.)

Procedure in rem.-A proceeding in rem is to give effect to a maritime lien arising either ex contractu or ex delicto, and such a lien must exist to form a basis for the proceeding. (The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213; The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; The Perseverance, Blatchf. & H. 335; The Pacific, 1 Blatchf. 569; The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 60; The Hornet, Crabbe, 426; The Mazurka, 2 Curt. 72; The Draco, 3 Sump. 157; The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. 435; A New Brig, I Story, 244.) In proceedings in rem, the thing in litigation must be in the custody of the law, and jurisdiction depends upon a valid seizure and control of the res by the marshal. (Taylor v. Caryl, 20 How. 583; The Commerce, 1 Black, 574; The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine, 62); The Gazelle, 1 Sprague, 378.) The locus sitæ necessarily gives jurisdiction (The Bee, 1 Ware, 332; The Ada, 2 Ware, 408; The Commerce, 1 Black, 574; The Western Metropolis, 28 How. Pr. 233; The Erie, 3 Cliff. 456; The E. McChesney, 8 Ben. 150; and it is of no importance to whom the property belongs. (Clarke v. Navigation C., 1 Story, 531.) So, if property is brought within control of the court, jurisdiction is complete. (The Rio Grande, 23 Wall. 458; The Little Charles, 1 Brock. 347.) A proceeding in rem is not a common-law remedy, but a proceediag under the civil law, and cannot be used in common-law courts unless given by statute (The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; The John Richards, Newb. Adm. 73; The Golden Gate, Newb. Adm. 296), and no form of action at common law can be regarded as a current remedy with the admiralty proceeding in rem (The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624); nor can a State law confer jurisdiction on a State court to entertain a proceeding in rem to enforce maritime lien in a maritime cause of action (The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; Hine v. The Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; The Belfast, 8 Wall. 624; The Mist v. Martin, 41 Ala. 712; The Rio Grande v. Rawson, 42 Ala. 133; Murphy v. Mobile Trade Co., 49 Ala. 436; Bal. lard v. Wiltshire, 28 Ind. 311; The Mollie Doster, 24

Iowa, 192; Haeberle v. Barringer, 29 La. An. 410; The Matanzas, 19 La. An. 381; The Otter, 12 Minn. 465; The David Tatum, 33 Mo. 461; The Bee, 40 Mo. 263; Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 554; The General Buell v. Long, 18 Ohio St. 521; Dowell v. Goode, 25 Ohio St. 390; Campbell v. Sherman, 35 Wis. 103; held otherwise in The Isabella, 1 Brown Adm. 96; The Farmer v. McCraw, 31 Ala. 659; The Columbia, 4 Cal. 268; The Uncle Sam, 9 Cal. 697; The Norway v. Jensen, 52 Ill. 373; The Favorite, 10 Minn. 242; The F. Sigel, 10 Minn. 250; Luther v. Fowler, 1 Grant Cas. 176; The Portland v. Lewis, 2 Serg. & R. 197; The Julius D. Morton, 2 Ohio St. 26; The John Owen v. Johnson, 2 Ohio St. 142; Keating v. Spink, 3 Ohio St. 105; The Trial, 22 Wis. 529); and although a State law attaches a lien to a maritime cause of action against a domestic vessel in her home port, yet it cannot confer jurisdiction to enforce it in rem. (The Edith, 11 Blatchf. 451; The Harrison, 1 Sawy. 353; Murphy v. The Mobile Trade Co., 49 Ala. 433;. The Caroline Reed, 42 Cal. 469; Marshall v. Curtis, 5 Bush, 607; Ferran v. Hosford, 54 Barb. 200; Ballard v. Wiltshire, 28 Ind. 341; The Hope, 42 Miss. 715; Murphy v. Salem, 8 N. Y. Sup. 140; The Josephine, 39 N. Y. 19; Vose v. Cockroft, 44 N. Y. 415; Poole v. Kermit, 59 N. Y. 554; The Petrel v. Dumont, 28 Ohio St. 602; held otherwise in Richardson v. Cleaveland, 5 Port. 251; Fint Riv. Co. v. Foster, 5 Ga. 194; The Montauk v. Walker, 47 Ill. 335; Williams v. Hogan, 46 Ill. 504; The E. P. Dorr v. Waldron, 62 Ill. 221; The Hilton v. Miller, 62 Il. 230; Southern Dry Dock Co. v. Gibson, 22 La. An. 623; The Starlight, 103 Mass. 227; The Victory, 40 Mo. 244; The Fanny Barker, 40 Mo. 253 ) Its sentence in proceedings in rem is conclusive. (Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246.) If it has jurisdiction in personam while proceeding in rem, its decree cannot be collaterally impeached. (Case v. Wooley, 6 Dana, 37.) So its decision as t whether a vessel is domestic or foreign is conclusive (The Rio Grande, 23 Wall. 458); and although a libel is dismissed for want of ju isdiction, libelant is not liable in trespass for taking the vsssel. (Thompson v. Lyle, 3 Watts & S. 166.) A lien of a ship's agents in a fo eign port, for advances for general average arising out of the jettison of a part of the cargo, is enforceable by suit

1