§ 592. Jurisdiction of suits for damages to vessel caused by obstructions negligently left in navigable waters.-Marine torts, as defined and understood in the maritime law, are not confined to injuries committed by direct force, but also include wrongs suffered in consequence of the negligence or malfeasance of others, where the remedy at common law is by an action on the case. "It is a rule of the maritime law, from the earliest times, 'that if a ship run foul of an anchor left without a buoy, the person who placed it there shall respond in damages;'" and it is an established principle of the maritime code of the United States that if any person or corporation shall negligently place or leave any obstruction in any navigable waters, whereby a ship or vessel is injured, the person or corporation guilty of such negligent obstruction may be compelled to respond in damages by suit in admiralty, and of such suit the district courts have exclusive original jurisdiction, saving, however, the concurrent common-law remedy of a special action on the case.73

§ 593. Jurisdiction of libel in rem against vessel for negligent destruction of beacon.-The supreme court has recently held that the district court in admiralty has jurisdiction in rem of a libel against a British vessel for negligently colliding with and destroying a beacon, erected, as an aid to navigation, by the government, fifteen or twenty feet from the channel of Mobile bay, in water twelve to fifteen feet deep, built on piles driven firmly into the bottom, and thus attached to realty and being a part of it. In deciding the case, the court said: "It is enough to say that we are now dealing with an injury to a government aid to navigation from ancient times subject to the admiralty-a beacon emerging from the water-injured by the motion of a vessel, by a continuous act, beginning and consummated upon navigable water, and giving character to the effects upon a point which is only technically land, through a connection at the bottom of the sea.

9974

73 The Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Co. v. The Philadelphia & Havre De Grace Steam Towboat Co., 23 How. 209, 220 (16:433); Atlee v. Northwestern Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389 (22:

619); Panama Railroad Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280, 290 (41:1004).

74 The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361, 369 (49:236).

§ 594. Jurisdiction of suits for assault and battery.-The district court has exclusive original jurisdiction of suits in admiralty for assaults and batteries upon the high seas and other navigable waters,75 but such suits shall be in personam only.70

§ 595. Action for marine tort resulting in death. It is within the legal competency of the several states to enact statutes giving an action at law for marine torts resulting in death, and to confer jurisdiction of such actions upon their own courts, where the tort occurs upon either the high seas or the navigable waters within the territorial limits of the states, each, respectively. The fact that admiralty may take cognizance of such causes does not bar the action at law. Suitors may have a common-law remedy in all cases where the common law is competent to give it, and the operation of the saving clause of the statute conferring admiralty jurisdiction on the federal courts is not limited to such causes of action as were known to the common law at the time of the passage of the original judiciary act. In such cases, the plaintiff may resort to his commonlaw remedy in the state courts, or in the circuit courts of the United States where the character of the parties and the amount involved are such as to give the circuit court jurisdiction."

§ 596. Same-Jurisdiction in admiralty under state statute. It seems that the following propositions are now regarded as settled, namely: (1) That at the common law no civil action would lie for an injury resulting in death; (2) that, in the absence of proper legislation, no proceeding in admiralty will lie for negligent injury causing death on the high seas or the navigable waters of the United States; (3) that, in the absence of legislation by congress, if a state statute gives a right of action touching the subject of a maritime nature, the admiralty will administer the law within the jurisdiction of such state by a proceeding in rem if the statute grants a lien, or in personam, no lien being granted.78

75 Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242, Fed. Cas. No. 2,575; Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mason, 380, Fed. Cas. No. 11,234.

76 Admiralty rule 16.

77 Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 535 (21:369); Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 108 (23. 819); Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Gilmore, 207 U. S. 398 (52:-), affirming 77 C. C. A. 150.

78 The Onoko, 47 C. C. A. 111, 107 Fed. R. 984; Bigelow v. Nickerson, 17 C. C. A. 1, 70 Fed. R. 113, 30 L. R. A. 336; The Corsair, 145 U. S. 335, 347 (36:727); The Albert Dumois, 177 U. S. 240, 259 (44:751); The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199 (30:358); Mobile L. Ins. Co. v. Brame, 95 U. S. 754 (24:580); Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Gilmore, 207 U. S. 398 (52:-) affirming 77 C. C. A. 150

§ 597. Jurisdiction of suits under the limited liability act.The district courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, are vested with exclusive original jurisdiction of all suits and proceedings under what is known as the "limited liability act," limiting the liability of shipowners, under certain circumstances, to the value of their interest in the vessel and pending freight, and have, as courts of admiralty, plenary power to entertain and carry on all proper proceedings for the due execution and beneficial administration of the law in all its details; and, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, they may restrain the prosecution of any and all suits in either the state courts or other federal courts, whenever it may be necessary to a due and orderly administration of the law, a sale of the property, a disbursement of the fund, and the protection of the parties concerned."9

§ 598. Jurisdiction of maritime seizures.-The federal district courts, as courts of admiralty, are vested with exclusive original jurisdiction of all suits prosecuted for the forfeiture and condemnation of vessels seized upon navigable waters for the violation of the laws of impost, navigation and trade or any other law of the United States; 80 except, however, the district courts and circuit courts have concurrent original jurisdiction of seizures made under the laws relating to the slave trade,

79 Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 127 (20:585); Butler v. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 558 (32:1017); The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 36 (26:1001); Provident & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 593 (27:1038); Ex parte Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 18 (35:631); The Albert Dumois, 177 U. S. 240, 259 (44:751); Admiralty rules 54, 55, 56, 57; U. S. Rev. Stat. secs. 4281-4289; 23 U. S. Stat. at L. ch. 121, sec. 18, p. 57; 3 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 2942-2945; 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. pp. 837-854, with notes collecting the decisions under the act.

80 Sec. 734, U. S. Rev. Stat.; 3 Fed. Stat. Anno. p. 95; Glass v. The Betsey, 3 Dal. 6 (1:485); Uni

ted States v. The Betsey and Charlotte, 4 Cranch, 443 (2:673); Whelan v. United States, 7 Cranch, 112 (3:286); The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9 (4:23); Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246 (4:387); The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391 (6:118); The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1 (6:531); Novion v. Hallett, 16 Johns. 343; The Brig Ann, 9 Cranch, 289 (3:734); United States v. The Schooner Sally, 2 Cranch, 406 (2:320); United States v. La Vengance, 3 Dal. 297 (1: 610); United States v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 83 (41:897); Brig Kate, 2 Wall. 350, 356 (17: 878); The Sarah, 2 Wall. 366 (17: 906); The Bark Reindeer, 2 Wall. 383, 403 (17:911).

and seizures made under section fifty-three hundred and eight of the Revised Statutes.81

§ 599. Same-Seizure necessary to vest jurisdiction.-In such cases, seizure is necessary to give the court jurisdiction, and the seizure must be made before the libel is filed. In order to institute and perfect proceedings in rem, it is necessary that the thing should be actually or constructively within the reach of the court. It is actually within its possession when it is submitted to the process of the court; it is constructively so, when, by seizure, it is held to ascertain and enforce a right of forfeiture which can alone be decided by a judicial decree in rem. There must be a subsisting seizure at the time when the libel is filed.82 The seizure being jurisdictional, the absence from the libel of an appropriate allegation of seizure may be taken advantage of at any time.88

§ 600. Same-Venue of suits to forfeit and condemn seizures. The jurisdiction in such cases is given to the court of the district, not where the offense is committed, but where the seizure is made, or where it is carried. If the property be seized within the territorial limits of the United States, the district court of the district where the seizure is made has jurisdiction; but if the seizure be made upon the high seas or within the territory of a foreign power, the jurisdiction may be exercised by the district court of any district into which the property seized is brought and proceedings instituted.**

§ 601. Jurisdiction of suits for the restitution of vessels illegally seized. The district courts, as courts of admiralty, have and exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of all suits for the restitution of vessels and other property illegally seized upon the high seas or the navigable waters of the United States or navigable waters within the territory of a foreign power, whether such illegal seizure be made under color of the laws of the United States,85 or as prize jure belli.se

81 U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 563, cl. 8, sec. 629, cl. 6 and 7

82 The Brig Ann, 9 Cranch, 289 (3:734).

83 The Washington, 4 Blackf. 101, 103, Fed. Cas. No. 17,221.

84 U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 734; 3 Fed. Stat. Anno. p. 95; The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391 (6:118).

86

85 Ex parte Fassett, 142 U. S. 479 (35:1087); The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110, 136 (41:937); Yeaton v. United States, 2 Cranch, 281 (3: 101); Rose v. Himley, 4 Cranch, 241 (2:608).

so Glass v. The Betsey, 3 Dal. 6 (1:485).

§ 602. Jurisdiction of prize jure belli.-The district courts are vested with exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty of all suits prosecuted for the adjudication of the question of prize or no prize in captures jure belli, and to entertain all claims and proceedings and to make all orders and decrees which may be necessary for the just and lawful disposition of the property, including restitution where the seizure is illegally made; 7 except, however, proceedings under section fifty-threehundred and eight of the Revised Statutes, in which the circuit and district courts have concurrent jurisdiction.88

87

§ 603. Venue of suits in admiralty. The provision of the federal judiciary act requiring suit to be brought in the district whereof the defendant is an inhabitant has no application to causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. By the ancient and settled practice of courts of admiralty, a libel in personam may be maintained for any cause within their jurisdiction, whenever a monition can be served on the libelee, or an attachment made of any personal property or credits of his; and this practice has been recognized and upheld by the rules and decisions of the supreme court, and is controlling in all the courts of admiralty jurisdiction in the federal system.8 89

Suits in rem, the invariable purpose of which is, either to enforce a maritime lien upon specific property, or to forfeit and condemn specific property, or to recover the title or possession of specific property, or to surrender specific property

87 Bingham v. Cabbot, 3 Dall. 19 (1:491); The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546 (4:456); Glass v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6 (1:485); Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2 (2:531); Hudson v. Guestier, 4 Cranch, 293 (2:625); The Estrella, 4 Wheat. 298 (4:574); The Siren, 7 Wall. 152 (19:129); Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635 (17:459); Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 How. 110 (15:311); Penhallow Doane, 3 Dall. 54 (1:507); Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 498 (14:240); The Alerta v. Moran, 9 Cranch, 359 (3:758); The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283

V.

(5:454); M'Donough v. Dannery, 3 Dall. 188 (1:563).

88 U. S. Rev Stat. sec. 563, cl. 9, sec. 629, cl. 6; 4 Fed. Stat. Anno. pp. 234 and 249.

89 Ex parte Louisville Underwriters, 134 U. S. 488, 494 (33: 991); Manro V. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473 (6:369); Atkins v. Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 272 (21:841); Ins. Co. v. Steam Navigation Co., 18 Wall. 307 (21:846); Cushing v. Laird, 107 U. S. 69 (27: 391); Devoe Mfg. Co., Petitioner, 108 U. S. 401 (27:764); Admiralty rules 2, 57.