paid to their use.1 The court has no power to decree the sale of a ship for an unpaid mortgage, nor, on that account, can it declare a ship to be the property of the mortgagees, and decree the possession of it to be given to them. And in a case where the owners of different vessels agreed to form a line for carrying passengers and freight between New York and San Francisco, they dividing the profits between them, it was held to be but a contract for a limited partnership, and that an action for a breach of it would not lie in admiralty.3

It has been held that a ship-broker who obtains a crew for a vessel has a lien on her for his services and for advances for their

wages.4

But stevedores have no lien in rem for their services in loading a vessel. Nor can they sue in personam for their services, in admiralty. They may, however, proceed against remnants in the registry. And a person employed to visit a vessel from time to time to see to her safety, ventilate her, and try her pumps, etc., cannot sue in the admiralty to recover compensation for his services, but he can maintain a suit if he navigates the vessel from

2

1 Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477.

Bogart v. Steamboat John Jay, 17 How. 399, s. c. nom. The John Jay, 3 Blatchf. C. C. 67. In Schuchardt v. Ship Angelique, 19 How. 239, it was held where a mortgage existed upon the moiety of a vessel which was afterwards libelled, condemned and sold by process in admiralty, and the proceeds brought into the registry of the court, that the mortgagee could not file a libel against a moiety of the proceeds, but that his proper course should have been either to have appeared as claimant when the first libel was filed, or to have applied to the court by petition for a distributive share of the proceeds. In a note to The Granite State, 1 Sprague, 277, 278, it is said that prior to these cases, jurisdiction had been exercised over questions of property between the mortgagor and mortgagee both in Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in cases which have not been published.

Vandewater v. Mills, 19 How. 82, nom. Vandewater v. The Steamship Yankee Blade, 1 McAll. C. C. 9.

• The Gustavia, Blatchf. & H. Adm. 189.

The Amstel, Blatchf. H. Adm. 215; The Bark Joseph Cunard, Olcott, Adm. 120; M'Dermott v. The S. G. Owens, 1 Wallace, C. C. 370.

6 Cox

v. Murray, Abbott, Adm. 340. The action in this case was to recover damages for the breach of an executory contract, no services having been actually performed. But the language of the court, both in this case and in those cited in the preceding note, fully sustains the position of the text.

'Emerson v. Proceeds of The Pandora, 1 Newb. Adm. 438.

one anchorage to another. And a person hired to scrape the bottom of a vessel, preparatory to her being coppered, cannot sue in admiralty. So the expense of compressing a cargo for the purpose of more convenient stowage, the cost of advertising the vessel for sea, and posting the advertisements, commissions for procuring freight, and wages of lightermen, do not give a lien on the ship.3 Nor has a ship-broker any lien on the vessel for services in drawing a contract between the owner of horses shipped as part of the cargo, and persons who were to accompany the vessel and take charge of the horses, as hostlers.4

It has also been determined that the admiralty has no jurisdiction over a preliminary agreement to execute a maritime contract, and Mr. Justice Story has said that, "if there were a contract to build a ship, or to sign a shipping paper, or to execute a bottomry bond, and the party refused to perform it, it has never been my impression that the enforcement of such a contract belonged to the admiralty." 5

1 Gurney v. Crockett, Abbott, Adm. 490. Bradley v. Bolles, Abbott, Adm. 569.

The Bark Joseph Cunard, Olcott, Adm. 120.

The Gustavia, Blatchf. & H. Adm. 189.

Andrews v. Essex F. & M. Ins. Co., 3 Mason, 6, 16. See also The Sch. Tribune, 3 Sumner, 144. In The Pacific, 1 Blatchf. C. C. 569, a contract to carry a passenger from New York to San Francisco was broken before the ship sailed, by the refusal of the owners to comply with their agreement in respect to the fitting up of the vessel, and the number of passengers that were to be carried. It was held that the admiralty had jurisdiction.

CHAPTER II.

OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE SEVERAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY IN THIS COUNTRY.

SECTION I.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THIS Court has no original jurisdiction in admiralty, but receives appeals from the circuit court, where the matter in dispute exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars.1 If the matter in controversy is exactly two thousand dollars, no appeal lies. This is also held to mean a property value, and unless the fact of value is shown on the record, or by evidence aliunde, the court has no jurisdiction to hear or to re-examine

the case.3

No appeal lies from the district court to the supreme. And it must appear from the record that the circuit court had jurisdiction of the case, by an appeal to it duly entered in the district court.5 If the libellant claims less than a sum exceeding two thousand dollars, he cannot appeal by showing that interest being added makes up the requisite amount, unless the interest is specially

1 Act of March 3, 1803, c. 40, § 2, 2 U. S. Stats. at Large, 244. Walker v. United States, 4 Wallace, 163. It is not sufficient to claim that the damages are "eighteen hundred dollars and upwards." Olney v. Steamship Falcon, 17 How. 19.

* Thus where a decree was made against the claimant of a vessel and his sureties, and they were arrested, but afterwards released on habeas corpus, on the ground that they could not be imprisoned, as the law of the State had abolished imprisonment, and a writ of error was then taken by the libellant, it was held that the supreme court had no jurisdiction of the case. Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1

Black, 276.

The Sloop Sally v. The United States, 5 Cranch, 372.

* Ballance v. Forsyth, 21 How. 389. In this case the court allowed the appellant leave to withdraw the transcript which had been filed, and to use it on the appeal being brought again before the court.

claimed in the libel.1 If judgment is given for the libellant, for an amount less than a sum exceeding two thousand dollars, the respondent cannot appeal by showing that the interest on the judgment, at the time of the appeal, added to the judgment, amounted to more than two thousand dollars.2 And affidavits that the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars, are not admissible. In a case where, upon a libel to recover damages against ship-owners, a decree was passed in the circuit court against them for over two thousand dollars, with leave to set off a sum due them for freight, and the respondents elected to set off the balance, and a decree was then entered for less than two thousand dollars, it was held that no right of appeal to the Supreme Court existed, although the proctors for the respondents, at the time of making their election, filed a statement in writing, that the election to set off was made without waiver of their right to appeal from the decree. The court will also take jurisdiction where the decree in the circuit court was rendered pro forma because the presiding judge had been of counsel in the case. But the court will not take jurisdiction by agreement of parties, if the amount in dispute, however agreed by counsel, is shown by the case not to be sufficient, or if on account of some 1 Udall v. Steamship Ohio, 17 How. 17; Olney v. Steamship Falcon, 17 How. 19. See Godfrey v. Gilmartin, 2 Blatchf. C. C. 340.

2

Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73; Walker v. United States, 4 Wallace, 163. Richmond v. City of Milwaukie, 21 How. 391. Where several persons join in a libel and claim damages amounting in the aggregate to over two thousand dollars, and one of them only appeals to the Supreme Court, he may show by affidavits that his damage exceeded two thousand dollars. The Grace Girdler, 6 Wallace, 441.

• Mordecai v. Lindsay, 19 How. 199. In Gruner v. The United States, 11 How. 163, the vessel was seized for a violation of the registry laws, and while the suit was pending in the district court, a written agreement was filed by the district attorney and the proctor for the claimant, that the vessel should be sold and the proceeds paid into the registry of the court, to abide the ultimate decision of the suit, the rights of neither party to be prejudiced by the sale. The vessel was sold for $850, and was afterwards condemned. There was an agreement on record, signed by the attorneys of the parties, admitting that the vessel was worth over two thousand dollars. The court held that the admission of the parties would be evidence of the value if nothing more appeared in the record, but that the consent of the parties could not give the court jurisdiction, and that, as it appeared on the face of the record that the sum in controversy was below two thousand dollars, the appeal must be dismissed.

informality the appeal should be dismissed,1 or if the case is not of a maritime nature.2

The Supreme Court has also "power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." This writ is issued where the district court has not jurisdiction of the cause brought before it. The writ commands the person to whom it is directed not to do something which, by the suggestion of the relator, the court is informed he is about to do. If the thing is already done, the writ of prohibition cannot undo it, and the only effect of the writ is to suspend all action, and to prevent any further proceeding. Hence, in a case where a writ was applied for to prevent a judge of a district court from proceeding any further in a certain cause in admiralty, and a rule was granted on the judge to show cause why the writ should not issue, and the judge thereupon, after the rule had been served upon him, on petition of the libellant, dismissed the suit, it was held that there was no ground for issuing the writ, as the suit was ended.5

SECTION II.

THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

These courts have only an appellate admiralty jurisdiction from a district court, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of fifty dollars," and the appeal can be made only from final decrees of a district court. As to all pro

1 Montgomery v. Anderson, 21 How. 386; Ballance v. Forsyth, id. 389. Cutler v. Rae, 7 How. 729.

'Act of 1789, c. 20, 1 U. S. Stats. at Large, 81.

4 United States v. Peters, 3 Dallas, 121.

1 United States v. Hoffman, 4 Wallace, 158. It was also held in this case that the fact that there were other suits pending against the same relator, of the same character, in the same court, could have no legal force in the case before the court. It was said that if the relator could satisfy the court that the other cases were proper cases for the exercise of their authority, the court would probably issue writs instead of a rule.

⚫ Act of March 3, 1803, c. 40, § 2, 2 U. S. Stats. at Large, 244.

▾ Thus where a final decree of condemnation had been made of forfeited property, and no appeal had been interposed, and, after execution had been issued, the