A floating bath-house designed for navigation and transportation is within the admiralty jurisdiction.' A marine pump weighted with heavy ballast, resting on piles, but capable of being floated and towed from place to place, was held not to be within the jurisdiction of admiralty." Dredges and scows are subject to admiralty process.3 Bridges, piers and docks: In all cases of maritime torts the locality of the act complained of, as to whether committed upon navigable waters or not, is the test of jurisdiction. The consummation of the act must be upon navigable waters, regardless of where the cause of the injury originated. The cause of the injury may have originated upon land; but if the thing injured is upon navigable waters at the time of the consummation of the act, admiralty has jurisdiction. There can be no maritime lien upon bridges, piers, docks or other objects resting upon land, admiralty having no jurisdiction over actions for injuries done by vessels to such objects. In the case of The Arkansas Judge Love, of the district court, southern district of Iowa, argues with some degree of cogency that, in the case of injuries to structures Dry Dock, 10 Fed. R. 142; 119 U. S. 625. 1 The Public Bath, No. 13, 61 Fed. 692; The Hezekiah Baldwin, 8 Ben. 556; The Pioneer, 30 Fed. R. 206. 2 The Big Jim, 61 Fed. R. 503. 3 The Starbuck, 61 Fed. R. 502. 4 The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; Warring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441. 5 The Professor Morse, 23 Fed. R. 803. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co., 30 U. S. (L. ed.) 447. Admiralty courts have no jurisdiction of a libel in rem against a vessel navigating a river for damages done to a swing-bridge resting upon a pier in the bed of a river. City of Milwaukee v. Curtis, 37 Fed. R. 705. There is no jurisdiction in admiralty over a pier extending into the North river from the city of New 6 The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. York, it being a part of the land 213. Where an elevator standing on a river bank was injured by being struck by a schooner negligently towed, it was held that admiralty had no jurisdiction. Johnson v. and not of the waters of New York lawfully placed in the bed of a navigable stream, admiralty should have jurisdiction, and that the owner of the structure should have the right to proceed in rem against the vessel doing the injury; that there should be a reciprocal right on the part of the owner of a lawful structure in a navigable stream to apply to admiralty for relief in such cases, as well as the vessel for injuries done to it by such lawful structures. The law is well settled to the contrary, however, that no action can be maintained in admiralty for injuries done to a permanent structure resting upon the earth in a navigable stream, though the structure is lawfully there.1 It may, however, entertain actions in personam against the owners of such permanent structures for injuries to vessels navigating United States waters, the test of jurisdiction being the location of the thing injured and not that of the instrument by which the injury is inflicted.2 Ferry-boats or other vessels plying between ports of the same state upon navigable waters are subject to the jurisdiction of maritime courts, although engaged exclusively in domestic commerce.' The early decisions were somewhat at variance upon this question, but the law is now well set 1 The Maud Webster, 8 Ben. 547; The Neil Cochran, 1 Brown, Adm. 162; Johnson v. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 397; The Ottawa, 1 Brown, 356; The Accame, 20 Fed. R. 642; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; The John C. Sweeney, 55 Fed. R. 540. 2 City of Boston v. Crowley, 38 Fed. R. 202; Ball v. Trenholm, 45 Fed. R. 588; Hill v. Board of Freeholders, 45 Fed. R. 260; Assanti v. Charleston Bridge Co., 40 Fed. R. 765. Where damages are done to a structure on shore by fire communicated by a burning vessel, admiralty has no jurisdiction over the tort. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20. Where an injury is done by a passing vessel to a person or property standing on a wharf, or injury is done to the wharf itself, admiralty has no jurisdiction. The Ottawa, Brown, Adm. 356; The Maude Webster, 8 Ben. 547; The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. R. 137. Where injuries are done to a floating dock or wharf, admiralty has jurisdiction although it is moored to the land by chains or other appliances. The Ceres, Fed. Cas. 2555. 3 Murray v. Ferry Boat T. B. Nimick, 2 Fed. R. 86; The Gate City, 5 Biss. 200; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68; The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15. 4 Moore v. American Transp. Co., 24 How. 1; N. Y. Steam Naviga tled that such vessels are within the jurisdiction of admiralty.1 Wrecks: The owner of a wrecked vessel at sea may abandon it, and is not bound to remove it from the path of commerce, and is not liable personally for an injury sustained by another vessel colliding with it.2 Foreign vessels: The admiralty courts of this country have jurisdiction over collisions occurring on the high seas between foreign vessels, if they choose to exercise it, and it is seldom they refuse to entertain such actions, unless it plainly appears that justice will be promoted by refusal, and by referring the matter to the courts of their own country.* Except in rare cases, it is the universal rule of maritime courts to allow the party aggrieved to proceed in rem wherever the offending vessel can be found. Sec. 12. Over what persons.-The jurisdiction of American admiralty courts does not depend upon the nationality of its suitors, and they usually entertain suits when applied to by foreigners unless there are treaty stipulations to prevent, or unless the ends of justice will be better subserved by declining to do so. The fact that our courts usually do entertain jurisdiction does not obligate them to do so, and they may at any time decline to adjudicate litigation. In cases of tort the instances are rare where our courts have declined to act, where the vessels or parties interested are within reach of their process.5 Collision cases arising on the high seas, when the parties tion Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. serve, 5 Fed. R. 209; The Russia, 3 344. Benedict, 471; The Jupiter, 1 Benedict, 536. 1 The Commerce, 1 Black, 574; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624; Langley v. The Syracuse, 6 Blatch. 2; The Elmira Shepard, 8 Blatch. 341. 2 Ball v. Berwind, 29 Fed. R. 541. 3 The Belgenland, 9 Fed. R. 576. 4 The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. 435; Boult v. The Ship Naval Re 5 Chubb v. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 39 Fed. R. 431; The City of Carlisle, 39 Fed. R. 807; Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324, 342; Thomassen v. Whitwell, 9 Bond, 113; The Carolina, 14 Fed. R. 424; Civert v. The British Brig Wex are of different nationalities, are prima facie subjects of inquiry by the admiralty court first obtaining jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the offending ship, and they will not decline to act unless positive grounds can be shown why they should not do so.1 When the court does decline to take jurisdiction in a controversy between foreigners, its decision will not be questioned on appeal unless it is clearly apparent that the court's discretion has been abused. It is the duty of admiralty courts to take cognizance of controversies between foreigners arising under the common law of nations, and to afford the subjects of a friendly nation facilities for obtaining redress for injuries received, unless special reasons are shown to the contrary.3 ford, 3 Fed. R. 577; The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 356; The Maggie Hammond, 9 Wall. 435. Admiralty will refuse to take jurisdiction of a libel for personal injuries inflicted by the master of a foreign vessel on a foreign seaman on the high seas where the relations of libelant to the ship have been settled by the consuls of the nations to which the libelant and the ship belong. Camille v. Couch, 40 Fed. R. 176. In the case of Neptune Steam Nav. Co. v. Sullivan Timber Co., 37 Fed. R. 159, the court declined to entertain jurisdiction where it appeared the libelant was an English corporation and the defendant a corporation not residing within the jurisdiction of the court, no reason appearing why justice could not be administered and relief afforded at the residence of the defendant. on the high seas and was placed in an American hospital to be cared for by the ship, and the British consul having signified his intention of sending the seaman home by the next voyage of the ship, the court declined to take jurisdiction of a case brought by the injured seaman against the ship for personal injuries received, on the ground of comity,-declining to assume jurisdiction against the expressed wishes of the consul. 1 The Belgenland, 9 Fed. R. 576; The Russia, 3 Ben. 471. 2 The Sailor's Bride, Brown, 68; The Noddleburn, 30 Fed. R. 142. 3 The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 356. The provision of the act of congress of March 3, 1887, chapter 373, section 1, that no civil suit shall be brought before a circuit or district court against any person in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, does not apply to causes in admiralty. In re Louisiana Underwriters, 134 In The Walter D. Wallett, 66 Fed. R. 1011, where a British seaman was injured on a British ship U. 3. 488. Sec. 13. What law governs. Cases of collisions between vessels of different nationalities upon the high seas, between vessels of different nationalities in foreign waters, between vessels of the same nation upon the high seas or in foreign waters, have given rise to questions of much difficulty, when redress has been sought in our courts. It is evident that our tribunals cannot be governed by the laws of either party when the laws of the flags are not the same, neither party having any peculiar right to be judged by the laws of his own country to the exclusion of the other. In collisions between foreign vessels upon the high seas our courts apply the general maritime law of nations as administered by the courts of this country,' subject to the qualification that neither vessel will be held liable for following the sailing regulations prescribed by the laws of the country to which it belongs; and where the laws of the countries of the colliding ships are the same, they will be followed, if shown, even though they differ from the law of the forum.2 The first of these conditions can but rarely occur at the present time; for during the past twenty-five years all the principal maritime nations of the world have adopted substantially uniform regulations governing the conduct of their vessels upon the high seas, so that these rules have become part of the maritime law of nations, and will be presumed to be binding upon all foreign ships as well as on our own, unless the contrary is shown. Statute regulations of congress prescribed for the government of American vessels on the high seas, where not declaratory of the general maritime law of nations, are extra-territorial, and are not applicable to a case of collision on the high seas between vessels of dif 1 The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355; The Belle, 1 Ben. 317, 320; The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170; The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 29. 2 The A. M. Hathaway, 25 Fed. R. 926; Leonard v. Whitwell, 10 Ben. 638; The Montana, 17 Fed. R. 377. 3 The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355, 370; The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170, 187. |