MARITIME CAUSE. A cause arising from a maritime contract, whether made at sea or on land.
In all cases of contract the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts depends upon the nature or subject-matter of the contract; • but in cases of maritime tort and salvage their jurisdiction depends upon the place in which the cause of action accrued; 1 Conkl. Adm. 19, 32. In general, the courts of common law have a concurrent jurisdic tion with courts of admiralty in those cases which are prosecuted on the instance side of the court. But the admiralty also has jurisdiction of prize cases, and that juris diction is exclusive, except where affected by special statutes; Union Ins. Co. v. U. S., 6 Wall. (U. S.) 759, 18 L. Ed. 879. See PBIZE Covars. The jurisdiction of the district courts in civil cases of admiralty and mari time jurisdiction is exclusive of all others; nor can a state legislature confer jurisdic tion upon a state court; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 411, 18 L. Ed. 397; The Belfast, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 624, 19 L. Ed. 266.
The admiralty jurisdiction has been held not to extend to preliminary contracts, mere ly leading to the execution of maritime con tracts; Andrews y. Ins. Co., 3 Mas. 6, Fed. Cas. No. 374; The Tribune, 3 Sumn. 344, Fed. Cas. No. 14,171; nor to trusts, although they may relate to maritime affairs; Davis v. Child, Daveis 71, Fed. Cas. No. 3,628; nor to enforcing a specific performance of a con tract relating to maritime affairs; nor to a contract not maritime in its character, al tUuug,I the consideration for it may be mari time services; Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mas. 380,, Fed. Cas. No. 11,233; nor to questions of pos session and property between owner and mortgagee; Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. (U. S.) 399, 15 L. Ed. 95; nor to contracts of affreightment from one port of the great lakes to another port in the same state; Al len v. Newberry, 21 How. (U. S.) 244, 16 I.. Ed. 110. In the following cases (cited in Bened. Adm. § 214 a) actions have been sus tained in admiralty: On an insurance pol icy; The Blackwall, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 19 L. Ed. 870; against an owner of cargo to gen eral average; The San Fernando v. Jackson, 12 Fed. 341; for weighing, inspecting, and measuring cargo; Constantine v. The River Queen, 2 Fed. 731; for coopering cargo; The E. A. Baisley, 13 Fed. 703; for compressing cargo; The Wivanhoe, 26 Fed. 927; fob the services Of a watchman; The Erinagh, 7 Fed. 235; a diver; The Murphy Tugs, 28 Fed. 429; an average adjuster; Coast Wrecking Co. v. Ins. Co., 7 Fed. 236; for the use of a dry dock; The Vidal Sala, 12 Fed. 207; Ior removing ballast; Roberts v. The Winder mere, 2 Fed. 722; for lockage in a river; Monongahela Nay. Co. v. The Bob Connell, 1 Fed. 218; for wharfage; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 75, 24 L. Ed. 373; for insurance premiums; The Daisy Day, 40 Fed. 603; for launching a vessel which had been driven ashore; The Ella, 5 Hughes 125, 48 Fed. 569;
for repairing a scow; Enduer v. Greco, 3 Fed. 411; on a contract to supply nets to a fishing vessel; The Hiram R. Dixon, 33 Fed.
297; for the charter, of a vessel yet to be built; The Baracoa, 44.Fed. 102; for serv ices as watchman ; The Maggie P., 32 Fed. ,300; actions to try the title to a ship; Boned. Adm. § 276; but not to enforce a merely equitable title ; The Eclipse, 135 U. S. 599, 10 Sup. Ct. 873, 34 L. Ed. 269.
The following cases are not being within the maritime jurisdiction : For storage of sails ; Hubbard v. Roach, 2 Fed. 393 (contra, Ex parte Lewis, 2 Gall. 483, 'Fed. Cas. No. 8, 310) ; for services of a ship broker ; The Thames, 10 Fed. 848; for wharfage while laid up in the winter; The Murphy Tugs, 28 Fed. 429; for receiving and storing cargo on board a vessel during the winter; The Pulas ki, 33 Fed. 383 ; for obtaining a concession to dig guano ; Wenberg v. A Cargo of Mineral Phosphate, 15 Fed. 285; for lease of a "bar" on board a vessel ; The Illinois, 2 Flipp. 427, Fed. Cas, No. 7,005; on a contract to navi gate a raft; Raft of Cypress Logs, 1 Flipp. 543, Fed. Cas. No. 11,527; a contract to store wheat for. the winter; The Pulaski, 33 Fed. 383 ; a contract by a master to carry cargo, sell it, and account for the proceeds ; Krohn v. The Julia, 37 Fed. 369 ; for services in purchasing a vessel; Doolittle v. Knobeloch, 39 Fed. 40.
As to passengers, it has been a question whether contracts for their transportation were within the jurisdiction ; Brackett v. The Hercules, Gilp. 184, Fed. Cas. No. 1,762; but the contrary view is now established ; The Moses Taylor, 4, Wall. (U. S.) 411, 18 L. Ed. 397.
Stevedores were formerly not considered as rendering marine services, but the con trary view appears now to obtain; Bened. Adm. § 285; The Gilbert Knapp, 37 Fed. 209; Danace v. The Magnolia, 37 l'ed. 367 ; The Main, 51 Fed. 954, 2 C. C. A. 569.
As to jurisdiction over foreign, ships, all persons in time of peace have the right to resort to the tribunals of the nation where they may happen to be, for the protection of their rights, unless the jurisdiction is ex cluded by treaty, though sometimes, as in the case of foreign seamen; they will re fuse, from considerations of expediency, to exercise their jurisdiction; Belied. Adm. § 282; thus, admiralty jurisdiction does not apply to claims 'of bad treatment suffered by an American serving as , a seaman on a Norwegian vessel; The Welhaven, 55 Fed. 80.
As to the jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral of England, see "A Water Court," 22 L. Mag. & Rev. 142, by Sir S. Baker ; "The Water Court of Saltash"; 20 L. Mag. & Rev. 195.
See ADMIRALTY ; WHARFAGE ; STEVEDORES ; PILOTS ; MARITIME ; MARITIME CONTRACT; MARITIME TORY; LIEN; BOTTOMRY ; RESPON DENTIA ; JETTISON ; RANSOM BILLS.