The Supreme Court of the United States, from time to App. 261, 17 C. C. A. 1, 70 Fed. 113, 30 L. R. A. 336; The Willamette, 44 U. S. App. 26, 18 C. C. A. 366, 70 Fed. 874, 31 L. R. A. 715; Robinson v. Detroit & C. S. Nav. Co., 43 U. S. App. 190, 20 C. C. A. 86, 73 Fed. 883; Bolden v. Jensen, 70 Fed. 505; The H. N. Emilie, 70 Fed. 511; Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Moore, 70 Fed. 870; The Willamette Valley, 71 Fed. 712; The Lena Mowbray, 71 Fed. 720; Humboldt Lumber Manuf'g Boutin v. Rudd, 53 U. S. App. 525, 27 C. C. A. 526, 82 Fed. 685; The Glendale, 42 U. S. App. 546, 26 C. C. A. 500, 81 Fed. 633; s. The Oregon, 73 Fed. 846; The Eugene, 83 Fed. 222, reversed, The Humboldt, 86 Fed. 351; The Scow No. 15, 35 C. C. A. 407; 149, 92 Fed. 1008; The Iris, 40 C. C. A. 301, 100 Fed. 104; Rundell v. La Campagnie Générale Transatlantique, 40 C. C. A. 625, 100 Fed. 655, affirming s. C., sub nom. Rundell v. La Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 94 Fed. 366; The Allerton, 93 Fed. 219; Skinner v. Harris, 98 Fed. 442; The H. E. Willard, 52 Fed. 387; Law J. 292, 6 Am. Law Rev. 765, s. C., 53 Fed. 599; The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 98; Williams v. Providence W. Ins. Co., 56 Fed. 159; 7 Am. Law Rev. 381, 20 Pittsb. Leg. J. 19, 20 Int. Rev. Rec. 175, 4 Leg. Gaz. 114, 9 Fhila. 364; Eads v. The H. D. Bacon, 8 Fed. Bain v. Sandusky Transp. Co., Cas. 224, Newb. 274; 60 Fed. 912; The Alvira, 63 Fed. 144; The Advance, 63 Fed. 704; The Katie O'Neil, 65 Fed. 111; The Flora, 9 Fed. Cas. 291, 1 Biss. 29, 3 Chi. Leg. News 130; Francis v. The Harrison, 9 Fed. Cas. 678, 1 Sawy. 353, 2 Abb. U. S. 74; The Globe, 10 Fed. Cas. 477, 2 The Mary Washington, 16 Fed. Jervey v. The Carolina, 66 Fed. Blatchf. 427, 15 Law Rep. 421; 1013; The William M. Hoag, 69 Fed. Cas. 1006, 1 Abb. U. S. 1, Chase 125, 5 Am Law Reg. (N. S.) 692; 742; time, has by its decisions, increased the jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty, so that the jurisdiction of admiralty as to torts now extends in this country to all places where a ship or boat will float, whether on sea, or lake, or river, even within the body of a county, and as to contracts to all such as are mari The Pauline, 19 Fed. Cas. 1, 1 Biss. 390; Peck v. Laughlin, 19 Fed. Cas. 77, 8 Wkly. Notes Cas. 188, 14 Phila. 531, 37 Leg. Int. 18, 21 Alb. Law J. 94; The Glide, 167 U. S. 606, 17 Sup. Ct. 930, 42 L. 296. "To earnest and successive remonstrances have succeeded still wider departures from restrictions previously recognized, until in the case before us, every limit upon power, save those which judicial 455; discretion or the propensity of the Stevens v. The Sandwich, 23 Fed. | Court may think proper to impose, Cas. 29, 1 Pet. Adır. 233. is now cast aside." Justice Dan The Sarah Jane, 21 Fed. Cas. 456, 1 Lowell 203, 2 Am. Law Rev. 6 Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, iels, dissenting, in Jackson v. Mag12 L. 226; nolia, 20 How. 296, 15 L. 909. But the jurisdiction has been vastly increased since then! 7 The jurisdiction of our Admi New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 12 L. 465; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, ralty Courts, though more exten13 L. 1058; sive than that of the admiralty Ward v. Peck, 18 How. 267, 15 L. courts of England, is not quite so extensive, in some respects, as that 383; Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. exercised by Continental courts 296, 15 L. 909; under their system of admiralty The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black jurisprudence. 574, 17 L. 107; Bags of Linseed, 1 Black 108, 17 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, L. 35; 18 L. 397; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 266. 18 L. 451; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. 266; New England Marine Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1, 20 L. 90, approving De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. 418, 2 Gall. 398; Atkins v. Fiber Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 272, 21 L. 841; In De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. 418, 2 Gall. 398, this conclusion was reached by Justice Story: "The jurisdiction of the admiralty depends, or ought to depend, as to contracts, upon the subjectmatter, i. e., whether maritime or not; and as to torts, upon locality, i. e., whether done upon the high sea, or in ports within the ebb and Re Louisville Underwriters, 134 U. S. 488, 10 Sup. Ct. 587, 33 L. 991; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, flow of the tide, or not." 13 Sup. Ct. 498, 37 L. 345; But the case of The Genesee time in their nature, according to the practice of the admiralty courts of the States when the Constitution was adopted. Chief, and cases following it, cited | v. Elliott, 34 N. J. Law 96; and apin note 6, repudiate the ebb and proving Sheppard v. Steele, 43 N. Y. flow of the tide as a test of locality. 52, 3 Am. R. 660). Quoting again from the same case: The decisions of the Circuit "If we examine the etymology, and District Courts of the United or received use, of the words 'ad-States to the effect that a contract miralty' and 'maritime jurisdic- for building a ship is a maritime tion,' we shall find that they include contract, are collected in jurisdiction of all things done upon and relating to the sea, or, in other words, all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages or injuries upon the sea,"-and, under the modern cases, we may add-or upon any navigable lake or river. And quoting once more from the same great case: The Richard Busteed, 20 Fed. Cas. 683, 1 Sprague 441, 21 Law Rep. 601, 40 Hunt Mer. Mag. 196; and in the brief of the plaintiff in error in Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 22 L. 487. The reasoning by which the opposite conclusion is reached-the conclusion adopted by the Supreme Court-is nowhere more forcibly stated than in the old case of Clinton v. The Hannah, 5 Fed. Cas. 1056, Bee 419, decided by the admiralty court of Pennsylvania "All civilians and jurists agree, that in this appellation [maritime contracts] are included, among other things, charter parties, affreightments, marine hypothecations, contracts for maritime ser- in 1781. vice in the building, repairing, supplying, and navigating ships; contracts between part owners of ships; contracts and quasi contracts respecting averages, contributions and jettisons; and, what is more material to our present purpose, policies of insurance." The Supreme Court has not yet followed that case, and others asserting the same doctrine, to the extent of holding that a contract to build a ship is a maritime contract, but that Court denies that such a contract is maritime. Cases collected in The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 13 Sup. Ct. 498, 37 L. 345; especially Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 22 L. 487 (affirming Edwards v. Elliott, 36 N. J. Law 449, 13 Am. R. 463; Elliott v. Edwards, 35 N. J. Law 265; Edwards Other cases denying that shipbuilding contracts are maritime are The John B. Ketcham 2d, 38 C. C. A. 518, 97 Fed. 872, a case commenced in a State court and removed to the Circuit Court; The J. C. Rich, 46 Fed. 136; McMaster v. One Dredge, 95 Fed. 832; Scow M. Tuttle v. Buck, 23 Ohio St. 565, 13 Am. R. 270. There are yet a few subjects connected with, or relating to, navigation and commerce, besides contracts to build ships, over which the Supreme Court has not extended the admiralty jurisdiction. The Eclipse, 135 U. S. 599, 10 Sup. Ct. 873, 34 L. 269. Compared to the great strides which that Court has taken, beginning with The State courts were reluctant to give up jurisdiction over boats navigating inland waters.8 If a suit in admiralty in rem is brought in a State court, Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, 12 L. 226, The Pulaski, 33 Fed. 383. These decisions will illustrate it would be but a little step to in- the classes of cases of which Adclude all these odds and ends. Where an injury occurs upon the land, though the cause be upon the water, or the injured party engaged in navigation, the Admiralty Court has no jurisdiction. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 18 L. 125; Johnson v. Chicago & Pac. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 7 Sup. Ct. 254, 30 L. 447; The Haxby, 95 Fed. 170; The Haxby, 94 Fed. 1016; miralty Courts in this country will not assume jurisdiction, although there has been no attempt to make an exhaustive list of the cases in which jurisdiction has been declined. Said the supreme court of Indiana, in Ballard v. Wiltshire, 28 Ind. 341: "According to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 18 L. 451, the statute Hermann v. Port Blakely Mill by virtue of which the boat was Co., 69 Fed. 646; seized is void, and the whole course Price v. Belle of the Coast, 66 of State legislation and judicial de Fed. 62; The Mary Garrett, 63 Fed. 1009; The H. S. Pickands, 42 Fed. 239; The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. 137, 5 Hughes 312. cision since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, is swept away, and the entire subject is to be deemed exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction of the FedThe admiralty jurisdiction does eral Courts. It is much to be renot extend to a floating structure, gretted that such a decision should not a ship or boat, as a pile driver. have been made, and that a pracPile Driver E. O. A., 69 Fed. 1005. tice so long and uniformly acquiAn Admiralty Court will decline esced in everywhere could not have to foreclose a mortgage on a ship. been regarded as settling the law. Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. Unless Congress shall intervene, it 399, 15 L. 95; is certain that innumerable misSchuchardt v. Babbage, 19 How. chiefs will result, without any ap239, 15 L. 625. parent compensating benefits. But Or to settle the affairs of a partner- upon the particular question, the decision is binding authority upon ship in a ship. Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 330, us, and we must follow it, not be16 L. 249. Or to enforce a contract for the use of a boat for a purpose not maritime, as a contract for storage. The Richard Winslow, 34 U. S. App. 542, 18 C. C. A. 344, 71 Fed. 426, affirming s. c., 67 Fed. 259; cause it commends itself to our judgment, but because due subordination requires it." The supreme court of Illinois still upholds the water-craft act of that State, claiming it to be Constitutional. the State court is without jurisdiction of it. But it is not removable to a United States Circuit Court; for the right of removal extends only to suits at law or in equity.9 Gindele v. Corrigan, 129 Ill. 582, 22 N. E. 516, 16 Am. St. R. 292. Compare Horn v. The Trial, 22 Wis. 529; Thorsen v. The J. B. Martin, 26 Wis. 488, 7 Am. R. 91. 9 Ante §§ 7, 52. Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185, 20 L. 74; American Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 21 L. 369. "The true distinction between such proceedings as are and such as are not invasions of the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction is this: "If the cause of action be one cognizable in admiralty, and the suit be in rem against the thing itself, though a monition be also issued to the owner, the proceed It must not be understood that a suit at law or in equity begun in a State court upon a cause of action of which an Admiralty Court might take jurisdiction in rem or in personam, is not removable. The text is to be limited to suits of admi-ing is essentially one in admiralty. ralty or maritime jurisdiction begun in State courts by admiralty process in rem. Though an Admiralty Court might have jurisdiction in rem against the vessel, a plaintiff may bring his suit in personam in a law or equity court, according to the nature of his action, against any one liable for the debt | or tort involved, in which the plaintiff may have the same remedies by attachment, garnishment, execution, etc., as in other actions at law or equity. Suits of which Admiralty Courts have jurisdiction in personam are within the jurisdiction of courts of law. They are deemed suits in admiralty when begun in an Admiralty Court and suits at law when begun in a law court. If, upon the other hand, the cause of action be not one of which a Court of Admiralty has jurisdiction, or if the suit be in personam against an individual defendant, with an auxiliary attachment against a particular thing, or against the property of the defendant in general, it is essentially a proceeding according to the course of the common law, and within the saving clause of the statute (§ 563) of a common-law remedy. The suit in this case being one in equity to enforce a common-law remedy, the State courts were correct in assuming jurisdiction." Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638, 20 Sup. Ct. 824, 44 L. 921, affirming s. c., 178 Ill. 107, 52 N. E. 898, 69 Am. St. R. Cases cited in notes 3 and 4 to 290, affirming McCaffrey v. Knapp, this section, especially The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. 266; Stout & Co., 74 Ill. App. 80. The opinions in that case contain an exhaustive discussion of the whole subject. |