34 Nor for the nor, it has been held for the rent of a seine purse. price of articles sold to the owner of several boats and not specifically ordered for any one of these.35 The agent and part owner of a vessel has been allowed a lien for advances made to pay bills for necessary repairs and supplies which were specifically made upon the credit of the boat.36 Lienors may sue the owner in personam to recover their proportion of insurance money when the vessel has been burned.37 The lien may be assigned.38 The lien may be lost by a voluntary surrender of possession without its assertion.39 But not by taking notes for part of the amount due in order that the lienor may raise money for temporary use until the owner can arrange for payment.40 Nor by rendering a bill to the owner.41 Nor by relying upon the retention thereof without objection as an account stated.42 Before the Act of 1910 it was held that a court of admiralty had no jurisdiction of a contract for repairs to a vessel, made on land, where the owners were represented there by a consignee who had funds,43 nor for the lease of a wharf,4 44 nor for the storage of sails, or storage of cargo, 46 nor with a passenger agent and freight agent whose office was on land, 47 nor to reimburse the libelant for money advanced to pay railroad 45 The Crystal Stream, 25 Fed. 575; 34 The Geisha, 200 Fed. 865. 36 The Puritan, 258 Fed. 271. 37 Henslee v. West Kentucky Coal Co., C. C. A., 241 Fed. 609. 38 The Emma L. Coyne, Fed. Cas. No. 4,466; The Sarah J. Weed, Fed. Cas. No. 12,350; The Rupert City, 213 Fed. 263, 266. 39 Re 9,889 Bags of Malt, C. C. A., 262 Fed. 946. 40 The Gurnet, 235 Fed. 595. 41 The Hattie Thomas, C. C. A., 262 Fed. 943. 42 Ibid. 43 Pritchard V. Schooner Lady Horatia, Bee Adm. 167, Fed. Cas. 11,438. 44 Upper Steamboat Co. v. Blake, 2 Appeal Cases (D. C.) 51. But see The Clifford v. U. S., 34 Ct. Cl. 223. 45 Hubbard v. Roach, 2 Fed. 393, 9 Bliss 375. 46 The Richard Winslow, C. C. A., 71 Fed. 426, 18 C. C. A., 344, 34 U. S. App. 542; s. c., below, 67 Fed. 259; The Pulaski, 33 Fed. 383. 47 The Humbolt, 86 Fed. 351. See Richard v. Hogarth, 94 Fed. 684; The Bark Joseph Cunard, Ole. A. D. M. 120, 13 Fed. Cas. 7,535; The Ole Oleson, 20 Fed. 394. charges,48 nor for the sale of cargo after landing,49 nor for services in purchasing a vessel and in traveling upon her while looking after the owner's interest, but with no connection with the navigation,50 nor for advertising a vessel,51 nor for the procurement of insurance; 52 nor for the recovery of money paid for maritime services under a contract, fraudulent because made between two corporations by an officer common to both.53 It has been held that a court of admiralty cannot take a vessel from the possession of a mortgagee under a mortgage which is fraudulent; 54 nor to enforce a claim which has been adjusted by arbitration,55 nor to enforce a contract for the sale of a ship under a trust agreement,56 nor to give a remedy for the breach of a covenant in a contract of partnership.57 Admiralty has no jurisdiction of an accounting between partners in a ship,58 or between part owners thereof,59 nor, in general, of a complicated accounting.60 The effect of proceedings in bankruptcy upon the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty is previously discussed.61 § 560c. Jurisdiction of admiralty over torts. A court of admiralty has jurisdiction over torts committed upon navigable 48 Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Ferguson, C. C. A., 76 Fed. 993, 22 C. C. A., 671, 44 U, S. App. 708; Pacific Coast Steamship Co. V. Moore, 70 Fed. 870. 49 Waterbury V. Myrick, 1 Blatchf. & H. A. D. M. 34, 29 Fed. Cas. 17,253. 50 Doolittle v. Knobeloch, 39 Fed. 40. 51 Richard v. Hogarth, 94 Fed. 684. 52 Andrews v. Essex F. & M. Ins. Co., 3 Mason 6, 1 Fed. Cas. 374; Marquardt v. French, 53 Fed. 603; The City of Clarksville, 94 Fed. 201. 53 United Transp. & L. Co. v. N. Y. & Baltimore Transp. Line, C. C. A., 185 Fed. 386. 54 The Hekys, 173 Fed. 928. 55 Toledo S. S. Co. V. Zenith Transp. Co., C. C. A., 184 Fed. 391. 56 The Eclipse, 135 U. S. 599, 10 Sup. Ct. 873, 34 L. ed. 269. 57 Vandewater v. Mills, 19 How. 82, 15 L. ed. 554; Ward v. Thomp son, 22 How. 330, 16 L. ed. 249; Pacific Surety Co. v. Leatham & Smith Towing & Wrecking Co., C. C. A., 151 Fed. 440. A bond given by the charterer of a vessel to secure his performance of the conditions of the charter party, which neither requires nor authorizes the surety to perform such contract in case of the default of the principal, but merely to respond in damages for its breach, is not a maritime contract, and an action thereon is not within the admiralty jurisdiction. 58 Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 330, 16 L. ed. 249. 59 The Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Peters, 175, 9 L. ed. 677. 60 Grant v. Poillon, 20 How. 162, 15 L. ed. 871. See Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477, 15 L. ed. 235. 61 Supra, § 60c. waters at least when the subject matter is maritime.1 The English limitation which excluded torts committed within the limits of a county, infra corpus comitatus,2 is not followed in the United States. The jurisdiction does not depend upon the commission of the wrong on board a boat; but upon its commission upon the high seas or other navigable waters.4 "A trespass on board of a vessel, or by the vessel itself, above tide-water, when that was the limit of jurisdiction, was not of admiralty cogniz To constitute a maritime tort it is not indispensable that there must be either an injury to a boat or an injury by the negligence of a boat or her owners or mariners. A court of admiralty has jurisdiction when the negligent act or omission, wherever done or suffered, takes effect, and produces injury to the person or property of another in navigable waters. In such a case it is unimportant where the breach of duty occurred, or where the physical injury was completed." Admiralty has jurisdiction of a suit in personam by a laborer against a stevedore who has employed him to recover for injuries sustained through the latter's negligence while engaged in loading a vessel lying at the.. dock in navigable waters and of an injury caused by the fall of a workman upon a wharf, while leaving a boat upon which he was employed, the cause being the insecure fastening of the ladder to the boat's side.9 A court of admiralty has no jurisdiction where, although the § 560e. 1 Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 58. 24 Coke Inst. 134. 3 Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, 457, 458; The Magnolia, 20 How. 296; The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black. 574; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 59. 4 The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 335. 5 Ibid. But a vessel was charged with damages for negligence which caused injuries to workmen engaged in repairs upon a dry dock. The Anglo-Patagonian, C. C. A., 235 Fed. 92; Buttner v. Adams, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 105. 6 Atlantic Transport Co. v. Im brovek, 234 U. S. 52, 61, per Hughes, J. 7 The Strabo, 90 Fed. 110, 113, per Thomas, J., whose whole opinion deserves a careful examination. 8 Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52; overruling The Saint David, 209 Fed. 985; The Bee, 216 Fed. 709, where, however, the laboring stevedore while working on the dock was struck by something falling from a boat which he was unloading. 9 The Strabo, 90 Fed. 110, aff'd C. C. A., 98 Fed. 998; contra, The H. S. Pickands, 42 Fed. 239, where the negligence was the removal of 1 active cause of the injury originates upon navigable waters, the tort is consummated on land.10 It has no jurisdiction of a proceeding to recover damages caused to a navigable vessel by a bridge, nor for an injury to a bridge 12 or building,13 nor for damages to a derrick engaged in the construction of a light house, 14 nor to a marine railway,15 nor to a wharf, 16 or other structure on land. It makes no difference whether a structure is solid or floating, realty or personalty, firmly fixed to the land beneath the water or otherwise, unless it is placed upon or under navigable waters.17 In the latter case the injury falls within the jurisdiction of admiralty.18 A court of admiralty has no jurisdiction of an action for damages caused to buildings upon land by fire which originated on a vessel in navigable waters.19 A court of admiralty has jurisdiction to recover damages to a vessel caused by a pier,20 log-boom 21 or by piles 22 built in navigable waters, or to recover damages caused by a vessel to a the end of the ladder from a cleat 10 The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 18 11 The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213, holding that a libel in rem will not lie against the bridge. Possibly a libel in personam against the owner in such a case might be sustained. The Arkansas, 17 Fed. 383, 386. 12 Cleveland T. & U. R. R. Co. v. 13 The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 18 14 The Schooner Maud Webster, 8 Benedict 547, 16 Fed. Cas. 9,302. 15 The Professor Morse, 23 Fed. 803. 16 Cleveland T. & U. R. R. Co. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208 U. S. 316; The C. Accame, 20 Fed. 642; Homer Ramsdell Transp. Co. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 63 Fed. 845; The Haxby, 95 Fed. 170, s. c., 94 Fed. 1016. But see The Ottawa, Brown Adm. 356, 18 Fed. Cas. 10,616; New York City v. Hichland, 6 Ben. (U. S.) 289, 18 Fed. Cas. 10,196. 17 The Arkansas, 5 McCrary, 364, 17 Fed. 383, 386. 18 Railroad Co. v. Steam-Tow Co., 23 How. 209; Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389. 19 The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 18 L. ed. 125. 20 Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389. 21 Ibid. But see The Brig, City of Erie v. Canfield, 27 Mich. 479. 22 Railroad Co. v. Steam-Tow Co., 23 How. 209. beacon in navigable waters 23 even when the construction of the latter is not complete,24 or to a submarine cable.25 A suit by a vessel against her pilot to charge him with responsibility for her anchorage in an unlawful place is within the admiralty jurisdiction.26 Admiralty has no jurisdiction over a tort arising from the issue or negotiation of a bill of lading.27 It has not yet been decided whether in order to give admiralty jurisdiction the tort must be maritime in its nature.28 It has been questioned whether admiralty would entertain a suit for a libel or slander on board a ship by one passenger against another 29 "If one of several landsmen bathing in the sea, should assault, or imprison, or rob another, it has not been held here that admiralty would have jurisdiction of the action for the tort.30 § 560d. Jurisdiction of admiralty over claims for negligence. It has been said that in a suit in admiralty for a personal injury or other tort the place of the injury, locus injuriæ, is the test of jurisdiction. Where the maritime law and the State law are in conflict, the former governs even when the suit is brought in the State court,3 or on the common law side of the Federal court. It has been held that where the injury in its nature is not maritime, the liability of the ship will be governed by the law of the place where it occurred rather than by that of the vessel's home port.5 By the Act of March 4, 1915, "In any suit to recover damages for any injury sustained on board vessel or in its service seamen having command shall not be held to be fellow-servants with 23 The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361. 24 The Raithmoor, 241 U. S. 166. 25 U. S. v. North German Lloyd,' 239 Fed. 587; The Toledo, 242 Fed. 168. 26 Strat hleven Steamship Co. v. Baulch, C. C. A., 244 Fed. 412. 27 William A. Higgins & Co. v. Anglo-Algerian S. S. Co., 242 Fed. 568. 28 Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 61. 29 Benediet on Admiralty, 4th ed., § 231. 30 Benedict on Admiralty, 3rd ed., $308, citing inter al The Voland, 1 W. Rob. 387. § 560d. 1 Hamburg Amerikanische Packetfahrt A. G. v. Gye, C. C. A., 207 Fed. 247. See supra, 8 560e. 2 The C. S. Holmes, 212 Fed. 525; Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 566. 3 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 566. 4 Berg v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 266 Fed. 591. 5 The Bec, 216 Fed. 709. |