M. McChesney, 21 Int. Rev. Rec. 221, Fed. Cas: No. 4,463;. but not to coal barges, not licensed or enrolled ; Wood v. Two Barges, 46 Fed. 204; for injury to vessel in passing through a drawbridge over a navigable riv er ; v. Charleston Bridge Co., 40 Fed. 765; Hill v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County, 45 Fed. 260 ; but not against schooner for damages done to drawbridge; The John C. Sweeney, 55 Fed. 540; but see also contra, Greenwood v. Town of West port, 60 Fed. 560; contracts for conveyance of passengers ; The New World v. King, 16 How. (U. S.) 469, 14 L. Ed. 1019; The Pacif ic, 1 Blatchf. 569, Fed. Cas. No. 10,643; The Zenobia, 1 Abbott, Adm. 48, Fed. Cas. No. 18,208; Walsh v. Wright, 1 Newb. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 17,115 ; The Hammonia, 10 Ben. 512, Fed. Cas. No. 6,006 ; and suits for loss of their baggage ; Walsh v. Wright, Newb. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 17,115 ; The Priscilla, 106 Fed. 739 ; contracts with material-men; The Gen eral Smith, 4 Wheat (U. S.) 438, 4 L. Ed. 609; The Onore, 6 Ben. 564, Fed. Cas. No. 10,538; see People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. (U. S.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 961; 21 Bost. Law Rep. 601 ; jettisons, maritime contributions, and averages ; Dike v. The St. Joseph, 6 McLean 573, Fed. Cas. No. 3,908 ; Cutler v. Rae, 7 How. (U. S.) 729, 12 L. Ed. 890 ; Dupont de Nemours v. Vance, 19 How. (U. S.) 15 L. Ed. 584; 21 Bost. Law Rep. 87, 96; pilot age ; The Anne, 1 Mas. 508, Fed. Cas. No. 412; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 108, 9 L. Ed. 363 ; Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, 12 How. (U. S.) 299, 13 L. Ed. 996 ; see Wave v. Hyer, 2 Paine, C. C. 131, Fed. Cas. No. 17,300 ; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 207, 6 L. Ed. 23; Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 236, 20 L. Ed. 624 ; The America, 1 Low. 177, Fed. Cas. No. 289; The California, 1 Sawy. 463, Fed. Cas. No. 2,312 ; Low v. Com'rs of Pilot age, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 302, 314; Smith v. Swift, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 332; 4 Bost. Law Rep. 20 ; contracts for wharfage ; Ex parte East on, 95 U. S. 68, 24 L. Ed. 373 ; The Kate Tremaine, 5 Ben. 60, Fed. Cas. No. 7,622; Banta v. McNeil, 5 Ben. 74, Fed. Cas. No. 966; The J. H. Starin, 15 Blatchf. 473, Fed. Cas. No. 7,320; Upper Steamboat Co. v. Blake, 2 D. C. App. 51 ; to injuries to a ves sel by reason of a defective dock ; Ball T. Trenholm, 45 Fed. 588 ; but not to injuries to wharves ; The Ottawa, 1 Brown, Adm. 356, Fed. Cas. No. 10,616 ; contracts for tow age ; The W. J. Walsh, 5 Ben. 72, Fed. Cas. No. 17,922 ; surveys of ship and cargo ; Story, Const. § 1665 ; The Tilton, 5 Mas. 465, Fed. Cas. No. 14,054 ; Janney v. Ins. Co., 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 411, 6 L. Ed. 354; but see 2 Pars. Mar. Law 511, ii.; and generally to all assaults and batteries, damages, and tres passes, occurring on the high seas ; 2 Pars. Mar. Law,; see Thomas v. Lane, 2 Sumn. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 13,902 ; The Sea Gull, Chase, Dec. 145, Fed. Cas. No. 145 ; Chase, Dec. 150, Fed. Cas. No. 6,477 ; The Normannia, 62 Fed. 469 ; Jersey v. The Carolina, 66 Fed. 1013; but not where the was received on land though the wrongful action was done on ship; The Mary Garrett, 63 Fed. 1009; Price v. The Belle of. Coast, 66 Fed. 62; The Haxby, 95 Fed. 170; or where the origin of the wrong is on the water but the sub stance or consummation of the injury on land; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 20, 18 L. Ed. 125; Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610, 7 Sup. Ct. 25, 30 L. Ed. 274 ; John son v. Elevator Co., 119 11. S. 388, 7 Sup. Ct. 254, 30 L. Ed. 447; Cleveland T. & V. R. Co. v. Steamship Co., 208 U. S. 316, 28 Sup. Ct. 414, 52 L. Ed. 508, 13 Ann. Cas. 1215 ; The Troy, 208 U. S. 321, 28 Sup. Ct. 416, 52 L. Ed. 512; and see The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361, 25 Sup. Ct. 46, 49 L. Ed. 236 ; for injury to seamen in consequence of negligence of master or owner ; The A. Heaton, 43 Fed. 592; Grimsley v. Hankins, 46 Fed. 400; con tract for supplies to a vessel ; The Electron, 48 Fed. 689; The Ella, 48 Fed. 569; but see The H. E. Willard, 53 Fed. 599; Diefenthal v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Ac tien-Gesellschaft, 46 Fed. 397; and to enforce a lien for repairs on a canal boat in a dry dock ; The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17, 24. Sup. Ct. 8, 48 L. Ed. 73 ; but not for sup plies to a pile-driver ; Pile Driver E. 0. A., 69 Fed. 1005; for labor and material in com pleting and equipping a new vessel after she has been launched and named; The Manhat tan, 46 Fed. 797; but not to contracts to pro cure insurance; Marquardt v. French, 53 Fed. 603; for insurance premium; The Daisy Day, 40 Fed. 603; nor to reform a policy of marine insurance; Williams v. Ins. Co., 56 Fed. 159. It also includes actions for dam ages for death caused by collision on naviga ble waters; The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 98; and for injury to a seaman from the ex plosion of a steamtug boiler due to negli gence; Grimsley v. Hankins, 46 Fed. 400 ; or to a laborer, working in the hold of a vessel, from a piece of timber sent without warning down a chute by a person working on a pier ; Hermann v. Mill Co., 69 Fed. 646. It extends to a bath-house built on boats but designed for transportation; The Public Bath No. 13, 61 Fed. 692.
With respect to the cases in which the cause of action arises partly on shipboard and partly on land, the admiralty jurisdic tion of the United States is much more liber al than that of England, and the different classes of cases are enumerated in the opin ion of Thomas, D. J., in The Strabo, 90 Fed.
110, where he lays down what seem to be the settled principles as to the jurisdiction with respect to maritime torts.
(1) Where the cause arises on the ship and is communicated to the property on land, as fire; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 20, 18 L. Ed. 125 ; Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610, 7 Sup. Ct. 25, 30 L. Ed. 274 ; when missives are sent from the ship and take effect elsewhere; U. S. v. Davis, 2 Sumn. 482, Fed. Cos. No. 14,932 ; The Ep silon, 6 Ben. 378, Fed. Cas. No. 4,506; where some part of the ship comes in contact with the land to the injury of persons or proper ty ; Johnson v. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 7 Sup. Ct. 254, 30 L. Ed. 447; The Maud Webster, 8 Ben. 547, Fed. Cas. No. 9,302 ; and herein where the vessel does damage to wharves; The C. Accame, 20 Fed. 642 ; Hom er Ramsdell T. Co. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 63 Fed. 845 ; also where material discharged from a ship comes in contact with persons on land ; The Mary Gar rett, 63 Fed. 1009; see also Price v. The Belle of the Coast, 66 Fed. 62. In all cases under this class there is no jurisdiction, the injured person or thing being on the land when the negligent act operates upon him or it.
(2) Cases where the primal cause arises on land and is injuriously communicated to the ship, as structures wrongfully maintain ed and interrupting navigation; Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. (U. S.) 389, 22 L. Ed. 619 ; The Maud Webster, 8 Ben. 547, Fed. Cas. No. 9,302; Greenwood v. Town of West port, 60 Fed. 560; Oregon City Transp. Co. v. Bridge Co., 53 Fed. 549; City of Boston v. Crowley, 38 Fed. 202, 204; The Arkansas, 17 Fed. 383; where material discharged from the land into the ship does injury to persons on the ship; Hermann v. Mill Co., 69 Fed. 646. In this class admiralty has jurisdiction. The case of The H. S. Pickands, 42 Fed. 239, was said to be different from those last men tioned, the injury to the libellant being caus ed by the falling of a ladder against the side of the ship, and there was held to no ju risdiction since the negligence was an act done on the wharf ; but in The Strabo, 98 Fed. 998, 39 C. C. A. 375, a fall from a lad der was caused by its being negligently left fastened from the rail of the vessel so that libellant was thrown to the wharf and in jured, and there was jurisdiction. The ulti mate authority to which all cases referred was that of The Plymouth, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 20, 18 L. Ed. 125, cited supra. In The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. 137, it was said that there must he two ingredients, the wrong on the water And the damage resulting, both of which must concur to constitute a maritime cause. This was criticized in City of Mil waukee v. The Curtis, 37 Fed. 705, where it was said that "it suffices if the damage, the substantial cause of action arising out of the wrong, is complete upon navigable waters." So in Hermann v. Mill Co., 69 Fed. 646, cited supra, it was thought that the language in The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. 137, was too broad. It is said that the proper solution of the question of jurisdiction "is to ascertain the place of the consummation and substance of the injury." There is no jurisdiction in Admiralty to administer relief as courts of equity, and an executory contract for the purchase of a vessel could not be enforced; Kynoch v. The S. C. Ives, Newb. 205; Fed. Cas. No. 7,958.
The jurisdiction may be invoked by one of two vessels, both held in fault for collision, to enforce contribution against the other' Erie R. Co. v. Transp. Co., 204 U. S. 220, 27 Sup. Ct. 246, 51 L. Ed. 450.
The jurisdiction extends to all maritime torts, q. v., and as to maritime contracts, see that title.
Its criminal jurisdiction extends to all crimes and offences committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any coun try. The criminal jurisdiction of the•United States courts is extended to the Great Lakes by 26 St. L. 424. The open waters of the Great Lakes are high seas within the mean ing of R. S. § 5346; U. S. v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 14 Sup. Ct. 109, 37 L. Ed. 1071. See JURISDICTION.
A civil suit is commenced by filing a libel, upon which a warrant for arrest of the per son, or attachment of his property if he cannot be found, even though in the hands of third persons, or a simple monition to appear, may issue; or, in suits in rem, a warrant for the arrest of the thing in ques tion ; or two or more of these separate pro cesses may be combined. Thereupon bail or stipulations are taken if the party offer them.
In most cases of magnitude, oral evidence is not, taken.; but it may be taken, and it is the general custom to hear it in cases where smaller amounts are involved. The decrees are made by the court without the interven tion of a jury.
A suit in rem and a suit in personam may be brought concurrently .in the same court, when arising on the same cause of action; The Normandie, 40 Fed. 590; The Baracoa, 44•Fed. 102.
In criminal cases the proceedings are similar to those at common law.
See UNITED STATES COURTS; BOTTOMRY ; SALVAGE ; COLLISION ; COURT OF LORD' HIGH ADMIRAL; COURTS OF ENGLAND; ELDER BRETH REN ; ABANDONMENT ; MARITIME CAUSE.