Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

insurance, marine or otherwise, except upon such conditions as the state may prescribe, and, having the power to impose conditions on the transaction of business by foreign insurance companies within its limits, the state has the equal power to prohibit the transaction of such business by agents of such companies, or by insurance brokers, who are to some extent the representatives of both parties.46

§ 577. Jurisdiction of suits on maritime hypothecation.— The master of a vessel of the United States, being in a foreign port, has power, in a case of necessity, to hypothecate the vessel, and also to bind himself and the owners, personally, for repairs and supplies, and he does so without any express hypothecation, when, in a case of necessity, he obtains them on the credit of the vessel without a bottomry bond; 7 and in a case of urgent necessity, the master, acting in good faith, exercising his best discretion for the benefit of all concerned, and under compulsion of necessity, to be determined in each case by the actual and impending peril to which the vessel was exposed, may hypothecate the cargo.48

49

47

The district courts of the United States have exclusive original jurisdiction of all suits in admiralty upon maritime hypothecations; and "in all suits against the ship or freight founded upon a mere maritime hypothecation, either express or implied, of the master, for moneys taken up in a foreign port for supplies or repairs or other necessaries for the voyage, without any claim of marine interest, the libelant may proceed either in rem or against the master or owner in perso

[blocks in formation]

§ 578. Same-Bottomry bonds-Defined.-Mr. Justice Story defined a bottomry bond as follows: "The true definition of a bottomry bond, in the sense of the general maritime law, and independent of the peculiar regulations of the positive codes of different commercial nations, is, that it is a contract for a loan of money on the bottom of the ship, at an extraordinary

46 Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553, 558 (46:324).

47 Thomas v. Osborn, 19 How. 22, 56 (15:534).

49 The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129, 145 (19:651); The Lulu, 10 Wall. 192, 204 (19:906); Thomas v. Osborn, 19 How. 22, 56 (15:534); The Julia.

48 The Julia Blake, 107 U. S. 414, Blake, 107 U. S. 414, 433 (27:595). 433 (27:595).

50 Admiralty rule 17.

29

.

interest upon maritime risk, to be borne by the lender for a voyage, or for a definite period.'

751

Mr. Chief Justice Chase, delivering the opinion of the supreme court in a suit brought upon an instrument of that character, said: "A bottomry bond is an obligation, executed, generally, in a foreign port, by the master of a vessel for payment of advances to supply the necessities of the ship, together with such interest as may be agreed on, which bond creates a lien on the ship which may be enforced in admiralty in case of her safe arrival at the port of destination; but becomes absolutely void and of no effect in case of her loss before arrival. Such a bond carries usually a high rate of interest, to cover the risk of loss of the ship as well as a liberal indemnity for other risks and for the use of the money, and will bind the ship only where the necessity for supplies and repairs, in order to the performance of a contemplated voyage, is a real necessity, and neither the master nor owners have funds or credit available to meet the wants of the vessel. Some bonds, bearing only the ordinary rate of interest, or executed under circumstances more or less different from those just stated, are called bottomry bonds, and are enforced as such; but the general description just given embraces most instruments known under that name. and is sufficiently accurate for the case presented by the record." 52

An admiralty rule provides that: "In all suits on bottomry bonds, properly so called, the suit shall be in rem only against the property hypothecated, or the proceeds of the property in whosesoever hands the same may be found, unless the master has, without authority, given the bottomry bond, or by his fraud or misconduct has avoided the same, or has subtracted the property, or unless the owner has, by his own misconduct or wrong, lost or subtracted the property, in which latter case the suit may be in personam against the wrongdoer." 53

§ 579. Same-Respondentia bonds.-A respondentia bond is an hypothecation of the cargo, and is-mutatis mutandis-substantially the same as a bottomry bond; 54 but the limitations

51 The Draco, 2 Sumn. 157, Fed. Cas. No. 4,057.

52 The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129, 145 (19:651).

53 Admiralty rule 18.

54 Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 386 (7:189).

upon the authority of the master is applied with greater strictness in the execution of the former than in the latter.55 The exclusive original jurisdiction of suits upon these bonds in admiralty is vested in the district courts.56

§ 580. Jurisdiction of suits on affreightment contracts.-All contracts of whatever character, and whether in writing or resting in parol, for the transportation of property by vessels upon navigable waters are, by the maritime law of this country, maritime contracts, and the district courts of the United States are vested with exclusive original jurisdiction of suits in admiralty, both in rem and in personam, founded on such contracts, and this is true although the port of shipment and the port of destination are within the same state.58

57

§ 580a. Jurisdiction of suits on contracts for the transportation of persons. By our maritime law, contracts for the transportation of persons are maritime contracts, and the jurisdiction of suits upon them in admiralty is vested exclusively in the district courts of the United States."

§ 581. Jurisdiction of suit based on charter-party.-By the maritime code of the United States, a charter-party, which is a contract by which the owner lets and hires his ship or some portion of it to another, is a maritime contract, and the district courts of the United States are vested with exclusive original jurisdiction of all suits in admiralty, both in rem and in - personam, based on such instruments.61

§ 582. Demurrage.-Demurrage, which is an allowance or compensation for the delay or detention of a vessel, and which. may arise either ex delicto or ex contractu, is within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts.62

55 The Julia Blake, 107 U. S. 418, 433 (29:595).

56 Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 386 (7:189).

57 The New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants Bank, 6 How. 344 (12:465).

58 The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 646 (19:266).

59 The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 555 (18:451).

60 1 Parsons on Shipping and Admiralty, 274-299.

61 Morewood v. Enequist, 23 How. 491, 495 (16:516).

62 The Appollon, 9 Wheat. 362 (6:111); The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110, 136 (41:937); The Potomac v. Cannon, 105 U. S. 630, 636 (26: 1194); United States V. The Nuestra Senora De Regla, 108 U. S. 92, 104 (27:662). "The duty of a captor is to institute judicial proceedings for the condemnation of his prize without unnecessary delay, and if he fails in this the court

§ 583. Stevedores.-It has been held by some of the inferior federal courts, that the services of stevedores, who are skilled. laborers engaged in stowing and discharging cargoes, are maritime in their character, and within the admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts; 63 but the question has never been decided by the supreme court.

§ 584. Wharfage.-Contracts for wharfage are maritime, and within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the district courts. If the vessel contracting for the use of the wharf be a foreign one, or belongs to a state other than the one in which the wharf is situated, a maritime lien arises in favor of the proprietor of the wharf against the vessel, which can be enforced only by a suit in rem in the district court sitting in admiralty."4

§ 585. Lighterage.-It seems that the services of lighters in loading and unloading ships are maritime, and within the admiralty jurisdiction.65

§ 586. Consortship.-An agreement between the owners of two vessels, known as "wreckers," that the vessels owned by them, respectively, shall act as consorts with each other in salvage service, and share mutually with each other in the moneys awarded as salvage, whether earned by one vessel or both, is a maritime contract and may be enforced in admiralty against property or its proceeds in the custody of the court.66

§ 587. Jurisdiction of petitory and possessory suits.-The district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of all petitory and possessory suits in admiralty. The court is vested with plenary jurisdiction of all questions of title and possession of ships and other vessels used in navigation."

may, in case of restitution, decree demurrage against him as damages. This rule is well settled." Chief Justice Waite in United States v. The Nuestra Senora De Regla, supra.

63 The George T. Kemp, 2 Lowell, 477, Fed. Cas. No. 5,341; The Seguranca, 58 Fed. R. 908; The Gilbert Knapp, 37 Fed. R. 209; The Magnolia, 37 Fed. R. 367, The Mattie May, 45 Fed. R. 899; The Main, 51 Fed. R. 954; Roberts v. The

Bark Windermere, 2 Fed. R. 722;
The Ivanhoe, 26 Fed. R. 927.

64 Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68, 78 (24:373); The Dora Mathews, 31 Fed. R. 620.

65 1 Parsons on Shipping and Admiralty, 230, 237, 238; Thackarey v. The Farmer, Gilp. 526.

66 Andrews v. Wall, 3 How. 368 (11:729).

67 Admiralty rule 20; Ward v. Peck, 18 How. 267, 271 (15:383); New England Ins. Co. v. Brig

§ 588. Jurisdiction of suits for damages by collision.-The district courts of the United States are vested with exclusive original jurisdiction of all suits in admiralty for damages caused by a collision between two ships or other vessels engaged in navigation and commerce; "s and in such suits, "the libelant may proceed against the ship and master, or against the ship alone, or against the master or owner alone in per

[merged small][ocr errors]

§ 589. Same-Collision infra corpus comitatus.-At the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, the English admiralty had no jurisdiction of a suit for damages based on a collision occurring within the body of a county, and it was at first strenuously insisted that the same limitation should be imposed upon the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States courts; but the English rule was rejected, and the doctrine established that the fact that the collision may have occurred within the body of a county is wholly immaterial to the exercise of jurisdiction over the cause of action.69a

§ 590. Same Venue of suits for damages by collision.— While the rule is fundamental that jurisdiction in admiralty, in cases of tort, depends upon locality, the rule does not require that the suit shall be brought in the district where the tort occurred. The cause of action in such case is transitory. Marine torts are in the nature of trespasses upon the person or upon personal property, and they may be prosecuted in personam in any district where the offending party resides, or in rem wherever the offending thing is found to be within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the process.70

§ 591. Same-Concurrent common-law remedy for damage by collision.-There has always been a remedy at common law for damages by collision at sea;71 and the action is one of trespass vi et armis or trespass on the case, according to the circumstances.72

Sarah Anne, 13 Pet. 387 (10:213);
The Tilton, 5 Mason, 465.

68 The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555 (18:451).

69 Admiralty rule 15.

69a Waring v. Clark, 5 How. 441 (12:226); The Magnolia, 20 How. 296 (15:909); The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574 (17:107); Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48 (16:269).

70 The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574 (17:107); Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48 (16:269).

71 Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 118, 119 (26:95); Billings v. Breining, 45 Mich. 69, 7 N. W. 722. 72 Percival v. Hickey, 18 Johns. 257, Book 6, Law Ed. 579.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »