- each case, it becomes the maritime law of the particular nation that adopts it. And without such voluntary adop tion it would not be law; and it can have the effect of law in any country so far only as it is permitted to have.' The admiralty jurisdiction of the United States courts extends not only over the ocean, and where the tide ebbs and flows, as was the English law,-but includes all the waters of the United States which are actually navigable, whether so by nature or by artificial improvement.2 By the federal judiciary act, it is provided that the district courts of the United States "shall have exclusive cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, . . . . saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it." State courts have no jurisdiction of an action against a vessel by name. As to the concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts, the rule is, that they may exercise it in cases of which the cognizance was concurrent in the courts of common law previous to the constitution; and the enforcement of a lien created by state laws for labor performed and materials furnished in building vessels belongs exclusively to state tribunals." A state court may take cognizance of a suit against a master and owner of a vessel, where it is brought under a state statute, by action in personam and for sequestration, to enforce a claim secured by lien not created by maritime law, and not exclusively within the jurisdiction of an 5 1 The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558. Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; The Genessee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443; Jackson v. James, 20 How. 296. 3 U. S. Rev. Stats., sec. 563; Walters v. The Mollie Dozier, 24 Iowa, 192; 95 Am. Dec. 722; Phegley v. The David Tatum, 33 Mo. 461; 84 Am. Dec. 57; The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555; McAllister v. The Sam Kirkham, 1 Bond, 369; The Norfolk, 2 Hughes, 123. 4 Griswold v. Steamboat Otter, 12 Minn. 465; 93 Am. Dec. 239. 5 The Isabella, Brown Adm. 96. Randall v. Roche, 30 N. J. L. 220; 82 Am. Dec. 233; Thorson v. Schooner J. B. Martin, 26 Wis. 488; 7 Am. Rep. 91; Foster v. Richard Busteed, 100 Mass. 409; 1 Am. Rep. 125; Sheppard v. Steele, 43 N. Y. 52; 3 Am. Rep. 660; Sinton v. Steamboat Roberts, 34 Ind. 448; 7 Am. Rep. 229; Scow Tuttle v. Buck, 23 Ohio St. 565; 13 Am. Rep. 270. admiralty court. As to the subject-matter of admiralty jurisdiction, the admiralty jurisdiction extends "to all contracts, claims, and services essentially maritime, amongst which are bottomry bonds, contracts of affreightment, and contracts for the conveyance of passengers, pilotage on the high seas, wharfage, agreements of consortship, surveys of vessels damaged by the perils of the sea, the claims of material-men and others for the repair and outfit of ships belonging to foreign nations or to other states, and the wages of mariners; and also to civil marine torts and injuries, among which are assaults and other personal injuries, collision, spoliation, and damage, illegal seizures or other depredations on property, illegal dispossession or withholding of possession from the owners of ships, controversies between the part owners as to the employment of ships, municipal seizures of ships, and cases of salvage and marine insurance."2 ILLUSTRATIONS.- Plaintiff's property was injured through defendant's negligence while the latter was transporting it across the St. Lawrence River. Held, that a state court had jurisdiction of the action: Baird v. Daly, 57 N. Y. 236; 15 Am. Rep. 488. An attachment was issued against a vessel navigating the Yazoo and Mississippi rivers, to recover for repairs. These rivers were navigable by vessels of ten tons burden and upwards from the sea. The vessel was a steamboat owned and having her home port in Mississippi. Held, that the vessel was within the maritime jurisdiction of the United States; that the state courts had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and could not be invested with such jurisdiction by the legislature of the state: Dever v. Steamboat Hope, 42 Miss. 715; 2 Am. Rep. 643. § 1443. Jurisdiction - Torts on the High Seas. The courts of this country have jurisdiction in cases of torts committed on the high seas, even on board a foreign vessel and between citizens of foreign countries. But in 1 State v. Voorhies, 39 La. Ann. 499; 4 Am. St. Rep. 274. 2 Mr. Justice Clifford, in Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 72. See note to Keating v. Stone, 3 Ohio St. 105, in 62 Am. Dec. 234-246. $ Percival v. Hickey, 18 Johns. 257; 9 Am. Dec. 210; Johnson v. Dalton, 1 Cow. 543; 13 Am. Dec. 564; The Pacific, Blatchf. & H. 187; Davis v. Leslie, 1 Abb. Adm. 183. case of foreigners, the jurisdiction is discretionary, and our courts may remit them to their own tribunals.1 A proceeding in rem against a vessel for the recovery of damages for a maritime tort can be enforced only by the courts of the United States.2 Mason v. Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240; Gardner v. Thomas, 14 Johns. 136; 7 Am. Dec. 445. 2 Young v. Ship Princess Royal, 22 La. Ann. 388; 2 Am. Rep. 731. |