Thus, in Plummer v. Webb, (b) the jurisdiction of the admiralty over all maritime contracts, upon the

(b) 4 Mason, 380.

doctrine of the case of De Lovio v. Boit, was declared, * 370 and it was considered, that, inasmuch as courts of admiralty act as courts of equity and administer justice upon the same principles, and with equal safety, maritime contracts were suitable objects of such a jurisdiction; and especially as such contracts. require a liberal interpretation and enlarged good faith, and the application of a comprehensive equity. So in Steele v. Thatcher, and Drinkwater v. The Brig Spartan, in the District Court for Maine, the doctrine in De Lovio v. Boit was explicitly recognized as sound. (a) It was declared to have been before the public for (a) Ware, 91, 149.

enforcement in admiralty of liens created by state laws in favor of parties to maritime contracts to whom the general admiralty law does not give such liens is adverted to in the notes to vol. iii. 170, n. 1. By way of finishing the subject of admiralty jurisdiction, it should be added that it does not extend to the decree of a sale or foreclosure of a ship under a mortgage, Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. 399; nor to matters of account between partners, Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 330; nor to matters of account between

of Pittsburg, 45 id. 699; timbers made into a raft for transit and manned by a pilot, crew, and cook for the voyage: Muntz v. A Raft of Timber, 15 id. 555; Seabrook v. Raft of Railroad Cross-Ties, 40 id. 596.

part owners, although the plaintiff was also master and ship's husband, The Larch, 2 Curt. 427. See Kellum v. Emerson, ib. 79; Marengo, 1 Lowell, 52, 1 Am. L. Rev. 88. [As to when a United States district court will take jurisdiction in case of a libel against a foreign vessel, or in suits between foreigners, see The Bark Lilian M. Vigus, 10 Ben. 385; Thomassen v. Whitwell, 9 Ben. 113; The Hermine, 3 Saw. 80; Bernhard v. Creene, ib. 230; The Pawashick, 2 Low. 142. — B.]

eral courts is exclusive and uniform, and State laws providing for maritime liens by proceedings in rem are void. United States v. Burlington & H. Ferry Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 331; The Menominie, 36 id. 197; Aitcheson v. Endless Chain Dredge, 40 id. 253; McCaffrey v. The J. G. Chapman, 62 id. 939; The Wm. M. Hoag, 69 id. 742; Eley v. The Shrewsbury, id. 1017; Butler v. Boston & S. S. Co., 130 U. S. 527; Stewart v. Potomac Ferry Co., 5 Hughes, 372. Maritime freight, proceeded against in a State court of equity without jurisdiction, and in the hands of a depositary, may be attached in admiralty to enforce a maritime lien thereon. The Vigilancia, 63 Fed. Rep. 733. So of a vessel in the possession of a receiver. The Willamette Valley, 66 id. 565; see The admiralty jurisdiction of the Fed- The City of Frankfort, 62 id. 1006.

:

The following are not rough boxes, not manned or enrolled, and used but once or twice for the transportation of coal on a river: Wood v. Two Barges, 46 Fed. Rep. 204; a marine pump: Baker v. The Big Jim, 61 id. 503; a floating dry-dock Cope v. Vallette Dry-dock, 10 id. 142; Snyder ". A Floating Dry-dock, 22 id. 685; a floating pile-driver: Muellerweisse v. Pile Driver, 69 id. 1005; a marine railway with one end fastened to the land and the other extending into the water. The Professor Morse, 23 id. 803.

twelve years, without having its reasoning met, or its conclusions shaken; and it was adjudged that the admiralty had a general jurisdiction over maritime contracts; and the circumstance that the contract was under seal did not affect the jurisdiction, though it was admitted that in England the courts of law would grant a prohibition in such a case. The broad jurisdiction of the American courts of admiralty over all executed maritime contracts (for the jurisdiction is confined to executed contracts (b)1 (z), and (b) 3 Mason, 16, 17.

all cases of a maritime nature, has been equally asserted in the circuit courts of the United States at New York and Philadelphia, founded on the language of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789. (c) This enlarged admiralty cognizance of civil causes was elaborately vindicated, on principles of reason, as well as on the ground of authority, in the case of the Schooner Tilton. (d) It was there held that the admiralty had jurisdiction of all causes of a maritime nature, inclusive of questions of prize, whether they arose from contracts or from torts. The jurisdiction was clear, in all matters that concerned owners and proprietors of ships, as such. It was observed that suits in the admiralty, touching* property in ships, were either petitory * 371 suits, in which the mere title to the property is litigated and sought to be enforced, or they were possessory suits, to restore to the owner the possession, which he had under a claim of title. The jurisdiction over both classes of cases was exercised by the

(c) The Sloop Mary, 1 Paine, 673; Wilmer v. The Smilax, [2 Pet. Adm. 295, n.,] and Davis v. Brig Seneca, [Gilp. 10,] in the Circuit Court of the Pennsylvania district. (d) 5 Mason, 465. It is not disputed that courts of admiralty have jurisdiction over charter-parties and maritime contracts generally, but not over preliminary contracts leading thereto. Andrews v. Essex F. & M. Ins. Company, 3 Mason, 6; The Schooner Tribune, 3 Sumner, 144.

402; personal loans, not on the ship's credit, though made in a foreign port: Hart v. The Advance, 63 id. 142; Brown v. The Alliance, id. 726; Gulf City G. & W. Co. v. The George Dumois, 66 id. 353; a loan of money, secured by a conveyance or mortgage of a vessel: The C. C. Trowbridge, 14 id. 874: The Ella J. Slaymaker, 28 id. 767; The Katie O'Neil, 65 id. 111; Gray v. Proceeds of The Advance, 63 id. 704; fraudulent negotiations inducing the making of a policy of marine insurance: Williams v. Providence W. Ins. Co., 56 id. 159; a contract to procure marine insurance: Marquardt v. French, 53 id. 603; see Rosenthal v. The Louisiana, 37 id. 264; matters of account between part-owners of a vessel: The H. E. Willard, 53 id. 599; 52 id. 387; the lease of a wharf: Upper S. Co. v. Blake, 2 App. D. C. 51; storage of grain through the winter on a vessel tied up to a wharf:

The Pulaski, 33 id. 383; Norton v. The Richard Winslow, 67 id. 259; services of a ship-keeper in the home port: The America, 56 id. 1021; The Sirius, 65 id. 226; a contract for river pilotage under which no services have been performed. The Seven Sons, 69 id. 271.

After the vessel is launched, contracts for equipment or repairs or material are maritime. Before the vessel is launched, they are contracts upon land, and are nonmaritime. Globe Iron-Works Co. v. The John B. Ketcham, 2d, 100 Mich. 583, holding that a claim for the price of a boiler, smokestack, &c. supplied in building and equipping a steamer before launching, was non-maritime and enforceable in a State court by a proceeding in rem under a State statute. See also The Paradox, 61 Fed. Rep. 860; Lake Nav. Co. v. Austin El. Supply Co. (Texas), 30 S. W. Rep. 832.

admiralty, until some time after the restoration in 1660, when the courts of law interfered, and claimed the exclusive cognizance of mere questions of title; and the admiralty jurisdiction over petitory suits has been, in England, abandoned for a considerable length of time, though it is constantly upheld as to possessory suits. (a) The distinction does not appear to rest on any sound principle, for the question of title is necessarily involved in that of the possession; and it is admitted by the courts of law (b) that the admiralty possesses authority to decree restitution of a ship unlawfully withheld by a wrong-doer from the real owner. In the case of illegal captures, and of bottomry, salvage, and marine torts, the admiralty courts in this country inquire into and decide on the rights and titles involved in the controversy; and where they have jurisdiction of the principal matter, it is suitable, and according to the analogies of law, that they should possess it over the incidents. Notwithstanding the English practice to the contrary, the admiralty in this country claim to possess a rightful jurisdiction equally over petitory and possessory suits. (c)

(a) Haly v. Goodson, 2 Meriv. 77; Lord Stowell in the cases of The Aurora, 3 C. Rob. 133, 136; The Warrior, 2 Dods. 288; and The Pitt, 1 Hagg. Adm. 240; 2 Bro. Civ. & Adm. Law, 114, 115.

(b) In the matter of Blanchard, 2 Barn. & Cress. 244.

(c) The Schooner Tilton, 5 Mason, 465; Ware, Judge, in Ware, 248, s. P. In the case of the Schooner Volunteer and Cargo, 1 Sumner, 551, Mr. Justice Story reasserted, with undiminished confidence, the rightful jurisdiction of the American admiralty over charter-parties and all other maritime contracts, whether made in foreign parts or at home, as matters juris et de jure, and that the court might proceed in rem where there was a lien, and in personam where no such lien existed. He reviewed, with his usual accuracy and spirit, the history of the question of admiralty jurisdiction, as he had already done more at large in De Lovio v. Boit. See supra, 367. On the other hand, in Bains v. The Schooner James and Catharine, 1 Bald. 544, Judge Baldwin held, that admiralty jurisdiction, under the Constitution of the United States, was to be considered as restrained by the statutes and common law of England before the Revolution, and as exercised by the state courts before the adoption of the Constitu tion. It is high time that this vexed question of admiralty jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States should be put at rest by a final decision in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court of Appeals in Kentucky, in the case of Case v. Woolley, 6 Dana, 21, do indeed consider the question as authoritatively settled by the cases of De Lovio v. Boit, Plummer v. Webb, Drinkwater v. The Brig Spartan, The Steamboat Thomas Jefferson, and Peyroux v. Howard, that a civil cause arising where the tide ebbs and flows, even though it may be within a county, was

1 Ward v. Peck, 18 How. 267; Taylor v. The Royal Saxon, 1 Wall. Jr. 311; The Friendship, 2 Curtis, 426; The Taranto,

1 Sprague, 170. But see The John Jay, 3 Blatchf. 67.