(a) The decree, as entered in the minute book in the cause of wages, was as follows :—“ The judge, having maturely deliberated, pronounced that the Bum ot 481. Is. 2ct. is due to the plaintiff for wages and disburse
ments, together with costs, and he directed that the said sum and costs be paid out of the proceeds of the vesse Eugénie and freight, in priority over the olaim of the plaintiff in cause No. 6491, and he further ordered that the defendants, the owners of the cargo lately taken on board the said vessel Eugenie, do forthw ith pay into court the freight due on the said cargo.”
M A R IT IM E LA W OASES.
107Am e r ic a n Reps ] _______________ W . H . Wolf v. Th e Scow Se l t. [ Am e r ic a n Refs. A M E R IC A N R E P O R T S .
Collated by J. P. As p iiia l l, Esq., Barriater-at-Law .
U N IT E D STATES D IS T R IC T COURT IN A D M IR A L T Y .—EASTER N D IS T R IC T OE W lSCO NSIN.(a)
Nov. 1872.
W . H . Wolev. Th e Scow Sec t.
Necessaries—Mortgage of ship—Priority—Lien—
Light to proceed in rem—¡Ship in home port—
Attachment of lien for necessaries.
A right to proceed in rem may exist, although there (a) Although it is becoming a much more common prac- ce in our courts to cite American decisions than i t was
• j ew y°ars back, still it frequently happens that our J uges in the Superior Courts are not very willing to rni°6 decisions of American courts as authorities on questions of law argued before them, with one notable thP°TT namely, the decisions of the Supreme Court of _ United States. The reason for this hesitation is thFt r®n':- In England there is a very prevalent notion e a“m° 8* *' “A the English judges in the United States _ ■P® those of the Supreme Court, are elected by the tho i •r ,a i;6rm ° t years only. This, in the opinion of tbQ English judges and lawyers, is calculated to diminish ind authority of their decisions, on the ground that a - Re, the tenure of whose office depends upon the will rLT1 electoral body, cannot be free from extraneous
*®?®es; political pressure can be brought to bear do«,n i1?’ and, it is to be feared, pressure of even a more En ,°.rallzmR nature. This is not only the opinion of leet 18 A*?611 ma?y Americans of the highest
intel-«. ■ Alexander Hamilton, whose name is well known savs11“ nu* 11)0 United States, writing in the Federalist, in nffi i®. 8tan<lard of good behaviour, for continuance mn«t i , i'nlicial magistracy, is certainly one of the Jnent valnahle improvements in the practice of govern- n„„ ’ ■_*. • Nothing can contribute so much to its firm- next independence as permanency in office. . . . And t 0 1. . permanency in office, nothing can contribute more for tb 1.n" ePendenoe of the judges than a fixed provision this • Jf suPPort - ” . In Story’s Commentaries (No. 1626) datin PS“dence ' s pointed out with special commen- Whp “ • .From these considerations i t is evident that their8' * 1 l ucte0B.are appointed by an executive to hold e n t i t l d i 68!.dtlr‘ng good behaviour, their decisions are so j‘ “ ea to be treated with respect and as of authority, devol g a! there are 110 otber circumstances, suoh as nn- aonni- f y stem of jnrisprudence or lack of means of vain» ^‘ng knowledge of the law, to detract from the Staten0* i,.ose decisions. In a country like the United
° f ind I,Ub;.lc opinion is likely to secure the appointment their fr° 1?1 amongst those men best qualified for In . j >. wherever their tenure of office is permanent.
United ^ufFLlng’ therefore, what decisions in courts of the
® o u n t r ^ es are bo he treated as of authority in this exami ’ w lthout question and without the necessity of it m av1Kng. ni iDutely the reasons given for such decisions, are am. • •a*£en as a rnl® that those courts whose judges
’n o itP-£°'llu dnrinK good behaviour are entitled to the howev 61g“ t in this country. W e have no wish to say,
®tate»er’ .that there may not be judges in the United opinii’ W“° are aleeted periodically to their offices, whose enormr,8 are n° t most valuable; but considering the and the 8 ?umber of State courts with elected judges, of thon Un^or^un.a^e instances of the behaviour of judges i'npossihi°°iUrt8 in the administration of the law, it is tinctim, l i or l awy ers 1“ this country not to draw a dis- bnevaloY,* • j ee? tlle two classes of judges. Another verj have now i a 111 this country is that the Federal courts Points “° <tea' °n ly with constitutional questions — sf.Q4-._i f&W connected in soma wav wit.fi ti'ootiaa fiointa o f t vvauu u u u H iiib u b io im i questions oj
statutea laT connected in some way with treaties oi
°°nn trv' t Unfortunately but little Is known in this United q, , constitution of the various courts in th<
of thoseStates? and i t is proposed to give a short notici entitled t ° u B(which are, according to the rule stated
°°Untrv °Tpe ^rea^e^ with the utmost respect in thii Witjj f u would be a difficult task to deal minutely that alnir ^ ri8dictio n ; but s till, with a view of showing Supeti *** every question that can come before oui Courts is also within the jurisdiction of sue!
may be no maritime lien upon the res against which the claim is made.
There is no maritime lien for necessaries supplied to a ship in her home port, and yet by the United courts as we have mentioned, it may be nseful to point out in a general way the nature of these powers.
The Courts in the United States are composed of two separate and distinct branches, frequently exercising the same jurisdiction over the same area. The first are the Federal or national courts, which derive their authority from the constitution of the United States, and have jurisdiction in certain matters over the whole of the States forming the United States; the second are the State courts, having a separate existence in each several State, depending upon the constitution of eaoh State.
The judges of the Federal courts are all appointed during good behaviour by the President, with the consent of Congress. The judges of the State courts are, as a rule, eleoted either by the people or the assemblies for various terms. There are, however, seven exceptions. In New Hampshire, Massachussets, Delaware, and Florida, they are appointed during good behaviour; in Rhode Island, when appointed, they are removable on a vote of the majority of both Houses of Assembly; in Georgia they are appointed by the governor, but are removable on the address of both Houses of Assembly, or ou impeachment and conviction; in the distriot of Columbia, the seat of of government of the United States, they are ap
pointed by the President of the United States during good behaviour; the courts of this last distriot are rather Federal than State courts. The State courts have jurisdiction in suits of every nature except where their jurisdiction is taken away by express enaotment of the United States Legislature. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts is defined by various enactments of the United States Legislature, and, as it is rather with these latter courts that the present notice is concerned, from the nature of their constitution, an attempt w ill be made to show over what questions their power extends.
By the Constitution of the United States (Art. I I I . s. 1) the judioial power of the United States, that is of the Federal courts “ shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in suoh inferior oourts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.” By seot. 2, “ The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affeoting ambassadors, other publio ministers and oonsuls; to all oases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to whioh the United States shall be a p a rty ; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State olaiming lands under grants from different States, and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public minis
ters, and consuls, and those in whioh a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, w ith such exceptions and under suoh regulations as Con
gress shall make.” By A rt. X I., amonding the Consti
tution, “ the judioial power of the United States shall not be considered to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign Stare.” Under the powers thus given by the Constitution, Congress consti
tuted three courts: the Supreme Court named in the Constitution, and certain inferior courts, the circuit courts, and district courts. Tho Supreme Court has had a varying number of judges, but by an Act passed ou the 10th April 1869 ( lis t Congress, sess. 1, o. 22), s. 1, i t now consists of a Chief Justice and eight associate justices, any six to form a quorum. The circuit oourts for tho different districts, formerly, under the Judiciary Act 1789 (c. 22, s. 1), and Acts passed in 1793 (o. 22, s. 1), and in 1802 (c. 31, s. 4), consisted of a justioe of the Supreme Court and the distriot judge of the district, the judgment of the court being in accordance w ith that of the justioe of the Supreme C o urt; considerable doubt existed at one
108
M A R IT IM E LA W OASES.
Am e r i c a n Re f s. ] W . H . Wolf v. Th e Scow Se l t. [ Am e r i c a n Re p s.
Stales’ rules of practice for Courts of Admiralty the material men may proceed in rem against the ship.
Semble, that the lien o f m a te ria l men for necessaries supplied to a ship in her home port—that is, time as to -whether Conaress had power to make the justices of the Supreme Court act as circuit judges, and as to whether they ought not to appoint circuit judges : (see Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranoh Rep. 299; 1 Cond. 316-) Sow, however, by the above-mentioned Act ot the lutn A p ril 1869, s. 2, a circuit judge has been appointed tor each of the nine judicial circuits, with the powers ot a justice of the Supreme Court within his circu it; and cir
cuit courts are to be held by the justice of the Supreme Court, or by the circuit judge, or by the district judge Bitting alone ; or by the justice of the Supreme Court and the circuit judge sitting together, the justice ot the Supreme Court presiding; or in the event of the absence of either of them, the other (who shall preside) and tne district judge ; and (sect. 4) it is the duty of the justice of the Supreme Court to attend at least one term ot the circuit court in each district of his circuit y during every period of two years. The circuit of each justice ot the Supreme Court and each oircuit judge, extends over several districts. The district courts are held by one district judge for each district, who is compelled to reside in the district for which he is appointed: (Judiciary Act 1789 c. 20 b. 3.) These districts consist either ot tne whole of a’ State, or of parts of a State divided into Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western districts, as the case may b e ; and there are district courts haying jurisdiction over every State of the Union. Here then there is a complete system of courts whose judges are appointed by the highest authority of the United States, and hold their offices apart from popular will I t only remains to show that these courts have jurisdiction m a il matters which come before our courts in order to prove that being competent to deal and dealing with all questions arising in a commercial country bearing an^in
timate resemblance to ours in its laws and customs, their decisions are entitled to respect at our hands.
I t w ill, perhaps, be more convenient to deal with the lowest court first, and, in so doing, we shall only deal w ith the civil jurisdiction, omitting the criminal as apart from our subject. The district courts ‘ have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures ixnder laws of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters which are navig
able from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden within their respective districts, as well as upon the high sea, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give i t • and shall also have exclusive original cognizance ot all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid made, and of all suits for penalties incurred under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cog
nizance concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, ot all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation ot the law of nations, or a treaty of the United States. And also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, ot all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive ot costs, to the sum of lOOdols. And shall also have jurisdiction exclu
sively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls (Judiciary Act 1789, c 20 s 9.) They have also an inherent jurisdiction in ail matters of prize and capture at sea: (Glass v Sloop Betsey, Dallas, 6; Bingham v. Cabot 3 Dallas, 19 ; The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheaton, 546; The EmuUus, 1 Gal- lison, 563, 575), as well as by statute (Act of 1812, c. 107, 8 . 6 ) ' both on the high seas and inland waters (Act ot 1818 c. 88, s. 7) ; and in cases of quasi admiralty juris
diction arising in the inland lakes of the United States they may exercise the ordinary admiralty jurisdiction (Act of 1845, c. 20). The circuit courts have original cognizance concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive ot costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners ; or an alien is a party, or the suit is between the citizens ot the State where the suit is brought, and the citizen of another State, and “ if a suit be commenced in any State court
their rig h t to bo 'paid out o f the res attaches only on the seizure o f the ship under adm iralty process.
Mortgagees have no maritime lien upon a ship upon against an alien, or by a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another State, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of 500 dollars, exclusive of costs, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court,” the defendant inay by petition to the State Court have the cause removed into the dis
tric t court (Judiciary Act 1789, s. 12), and this removal is of right (Gordon v. Longest, 16 Peters, 97, 104); simi
larly any cause where citizens of the same State claim land under grants from different States may be removed into the circuit court: (Judiciary Act 1789, s. 12). The circuit courts have also cognizance in cases ot patents and copyright: (Act of 1819, c. 19; Act of 1836, o. 357, s. 17 ■ Act of 1842, c. 263, s. 5.) The circuit courts have also appellate jurisdiction from the district courts. Final decrees and jadgments in civil actions in a district court, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value or 50 dollars, exclusive of oosts, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in a circuit court held in the same district upon a w rit of error, but there can be no reversal on a w rit of error for error in ruling any plea in abate
ment, other than a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, or suoh a plea to a petition or b ill in equity, as is the nature of a demurrer, or for an error in 1 act: (Judiciary Act 1789 c 20, s. 22.) From final decrees of a district court in'cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of 300 dollars exclusive of costs, there is an appeal to the next circuit court held iu such district (Judiciary Act 1789 c 20 s. 21), and also an appeal from all final judg
ments and’ decrees in any of the district courts where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of 50 dollars to the next circuit court held in the district (Act of 1803, c. 40). The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has already been stated. I t has, moreover, exclu
sive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature where a State is a party, except between a State and its citizens, and except also between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens, in which latter case it has original but not exclusive jurisdiction ; and has exclusive juris
diction of suoh suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise con
sistently’ with the law of nations ; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassa
dors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul, shall be a party : (Judiciary Act 1789, c. 20, s. 13.) The Supremo Court, moreover, has power to j SSue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime juris
diction : (See United States v. Peters, 3 Dallas, 121;
1 Cond. 60; Bonnis v. Schooner James and Catherine, Baldwin, 544, 563) ; and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States: (Judiciary Act 178 , c 20 s. 1 3 .) T h e a p p e lla te j u r i s d ic t io n h a s a lre a d y been noticed in Article 3 of the Constitution before set out, and the way in which it is exercised is prescribed by Act of Congress. I t has appellate jurisdiction trom the oircuit courts and from the courts of the several States in certain cases : (Judiciary Act 1789, c. 20, s. 13.) Final jadgments and decrees in civil actions and suits i equity, in a circuit court, brought there by origma process or removed there from courts of the sever*
States, or removed there by appeal from a district cour , where the sum in dispute exceeds 2000 dollars, may, upon a w rit or error, be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court, subject to the same limitations as writs of error in the circuit courts (Juai ciary Act 1789, c. 20, s. 22), and writs of error also lie to the Supreme Court from all judgments of a circuit cou th in cases brought there by writs of error from the dis
trict courts with the same lim itations: (Act ot 1840, c.
a 3 ) From all final judements and decrees rendereo, or to be rendered in any circuit court or in any court acting as a circuit court in any cases of equity,
a 3 ) From all final judements and decrees rendereo, or to be rendered in any circuit court or in any court acting as a circuit court in any cases of equity,