The State courts were reluctant to give up jurisdiction over boats navigating inland waters.8

If a suit in admiralty in rem is brought in a State court,

Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, 12 L. 226,

The Pulaski, 33 Fed. 383.

These decisions will illustrate

it would be but a little step to in- the classes of cases of which Adclude all these odds and ends.

Where an injury occurs upon the land, though the cause be upon the water, or the injured party engaged in navigation, the Admiralty Court has no jurisdiction. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 18 L. 125;

Johnson v. Chicago & Pac. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 7 Sup. Ct. 254, 30 L. 447;

The Haxby, 95 Fed. 170;

The Haxby, 94 Fed. 1016;

miralty Courts in this country will not assume jurisdiction, although there has been no attempt to make an exhaustive list of the cases in which jurisdiction has been declined.

Said the supreme court of Indiana, in

Ballard v. Wiltshire, 28 Ind. 341: "According to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 18 L. 451, the statute

Hermann v. Port Blakely Mill by virtue of which the boat was Co., 69 Fed. 646;

seized is void, and the whole course

Price v. Belle of the Coast, 66 of State legislation and judicial de

Fed. 62;

The Mary Garrett, 63 Fed. 1009; The H. S. Pickands, 42 Fed. 239; The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. 137, 5 Hughes 312.

cision since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, is swept away, and the entire subject is to be deemed exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction of the FedThe admiralty jurisdiction does eral Courts. It is much to be renot extend to a floating structure, gretted that such a decision should not a ship or boat, as a pile driver. have been made, and that a pracPile Driver E. O. A., 69 Fed. 1005. tice so long and uniformly acquiAn Admiralty Court will decline esced in everywhere could not have to foreclose a mortgage on a ship. been regarded as settling the law. Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. Unless Congress shall intervene, it 399, 15 L. 95; is certain that innumerable misSchuchardt v. Babbage, 19 How. chiefs will result, without any ap239, 15 L. 625. parent compensating benefits. But

Or to settle the affairs of a partner- upon the particular question, the decision is binding authority upon

ship in a ship. Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 330, us, and we must follow it, not be16 L. 249.

Or to enforce a contract for the use of a boat for a purpose not maritime, as a contract for storage.

The Richard Winslow, 34 U. S. App. 542, 18 C. C. A. 344, 71 Fed. 426, affirming s. c., 67 Fed. 259;

cause it commends itself to our judgment, but because due subordination requires it."

The supreme court of Illinois still upholds the water-craft act of that State, claiming it to be Constitutional.

the State court is without jurisdiction of it. But it is not removable to a United States Circuit Court; for the right of removal extends only to suits at law or in equity.9

Gindele v. Corrigan, 129 Ill. 582, | 22 N. E. 516, 16 Am. St. R. 292.

Compare

Horn v. The Trial, 22 Wis. 529; Thorsen v. The J. B. Martin, 26 Wis. 488, 7 Am. R. 91.

9 Ante §§ 7, 52.

Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185, 20 L. 74;

American Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 21 L. 369.

"The true distinction between such proceedings as are and such as are not invasions of the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction is this:

It must not be understood that a suit at law or in equity begun in a "If the cause of action be one State court upon a cause of action cognizable in admiralty, and the of which an Admiralty Court might suit be in rem against the thing take jurisdiction in rem or in per- itself, though a monition be also sonam, is not removable. The text issued to the owner, the proceedis to be limited to suits of admi- ing is essentially one in admiralty. ralty or maritime jurisdiction be- If, upon the other hand, the cause gun in State courts by admiralty of action be not one of which a process in rem. Though an Ad- Court of Admiralty has jurisdicmiralty Court might have jurisdic- tion, or if the suit be in personam tion in rem against the vessel, a against an individual defendant, plaintiff may bring his suit in per- with an auxiliary attachment sonam in a law or equity court, ac- against a particular thing, or cording to the nature of his action, against the property of the deagainst any one liable for the debt fendant in general, it is essentially or tort involved, in which the plain- a proceeding according to the tiff may have the same remedies by course of the common law, and attachment, garnishment, execu- within the saving clause of the tion, etc., as in other actions at statute (§ 563) of a common-law law or equity. Suits of which remedy. The suit in this case beAdmiralty Courts have jurisdiction ing one in equity to enforce a comin personam are within the juris-mon-law remedy, the State courts diction of courts of law. They are were correct in assuming jurisdicdeemed suits in admiralty when tion." Knapp, Stout & Co. v. Mcbegun in an Admiralty Court and Caffrey, 177 U. S. 638, 20 Sup. Ct. suits at law when begun in a law 824, 44 L. 921, affirming s. c., 178 court. Ill. 107, 52 N. E. 898, 69 Am. St. R.

Cases cited in notes 3 and 4 to 290, affirming McCaffrey v. Knapp, this section, especially

The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. 266;

Stout & Co., 74 Ill. App. 80.

The opinions in that case contain an exhaustive discussion of the whole subject.

The State courts were reluctant to give up jurisdiction over boats navigating inland waters.8

If a suit in admiralty in rem is brought in a State court,

Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441, 12 L. 226,

The Pulaski, 33 Fed. 383.
These decisions will illustrate

it would be but a little step to in- the classes of cases of which Adclude all these odds and ends.

Where an injury occurs upon the land, though the cause be upon the water, or the injured party engaged in navigation, the Admiralty Court has no jurisdiction. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 18 L. 125;

Johnson v. Chicago & Pac. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 7 Sup. Ct. 254, 30 L. 447;

The Haxby, 95 Fed. 170;

The Haxby, 94 Fed. 1016;

miralty Courts in this country will not assume jurisdiction, although there has been no attempt to make an exhaustive list of the cases in which jurisdiction has been declined.

8 Said the supreme court of Indiana, in

66

Ballard v. Wiltshire, 28 Ind. 341: According to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 18 L. 451, the statute

Hermann v. Port Blakely Mill by virtue of which the boat was Co., 69 Fed. 646;

seized is void, and the whole course

Price v. Belle of the Coast, 66 of State legislation and judicial deFed. 62;

The Mary Garrett, 63 Fed. 1009; The H. S. Pickands, 42 Fed. 239; The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. 137, 5 Hughes 312.

cision since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, is swept away, and the entire subject is to be deemed exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction of the FedThe admiralty jurisdiction does eral Courts. It is much to be renot extend to a floating structure, gretted that such a decision should not a ship or boat, as a pile driver. have been made, and that a pracPile Driver E. O. A., 69 Fed. 1005. tice so long and uniformly acquiAn Admiralty Court will decline esced in everywhere could not have to foreclose a mortgage on a ship. been regarded as settling the law. Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. Unless Congress shall intervene, it 399, 15 L. 95; is certain that innumerable misSchuchardt v. Babbage, 19 How. chiefs will result, without any ap239, 15 L. 625. parent compensating benefits. But

Or to settle the affairs of a partner-upon the particular question, the ship in a ship. decision is binding authority upon Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 330, us, and we must follow it, not be

16 L. 249.

Or to enforce a contract for the use of a boat for a purpose not maritime, as a contract for storage.

The Richard Winslow, 34 U. S. App. 542, 18 C. C. A. 344, 71 Fed. 426, affirming s. c., 67 Fed. 259;

cause it commends itself to our judgment, but because due subordination requires it.”

The supreme court of Illinois still upholds the water-craft act of that State, claiming it to be Constitutional.

the State court is without jurisdiction of it. But it is not removable to a United States Circuit Court; for the right of removal extends only to suits at law or in equity.9

Gindele v. Corrigan, 129 Ill. 582,

22 N. E. 516, 16 Am. St. R. 292.

Compare

Horn v. The Trial, 22 Wis. 529; Thorsen v. The J. B. Martin, 26 Wis. 488, 7 Am. R. 91.

9 Ante §§ 7, 52.

Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185, 20 L. 74;

American Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 21 L. 369.

"The true distinction between such proceedings as are and such as are not invasions of the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction is this:

"If the cause of action be one cognizable in admiralty, and the suit be in rem against the thing itself, though a monition be also issued to the owner, the proceed

It must not be understood that a suit at law or in equity begun in a State court upon a cause of action of which an Admiralty Court might take jurisdiction in rem or in personam, is not removable. The text is to be limited to suits of admi-ing is essentially one in admiralty. ralty or maritime jurisdiction be- If, upon the other hand, the cause gun in State courts by admiralty of action be not one of which a process in rem. Though an Ad- Court of Admiralty has jurisdicmiralty Court might have jurisdic- tion, or if the suit be in personam tion in rem against the vessel, a against an individual defendant, plaintiff may bring his suit in per- with an auxiliary attachment sonam in a law or equity court, ac- against a particular thing, or cording to the nature of his action, against the property of the deagainst any one liable for the debt fendant in general, it is essentially or tort involved, in which the plain- a proceeding according to the tiff may have the same remedies by course of the common law, and attachment, garnishment, execu- within the saving clause of the tion, etc., as in other actions at statute (§ 563) of a common-law law or equity. Suits of which remedy. The suit in this case beAdmiralty Courts have jurisdiction ing one in equity to enforce a comin personam are within the juris-mon-law remedy, the State courts diction of courts of law. They are were correct in assuming jurisdicdeemed suits in admiralty when tion." Knapp, Stout & Co. v. Mcbegun in an Admiralty Court and Caffrey, 177 U. S. 638, 20 Sup. Ct. suits at law when begun in a law 824, 44 L. 921, affirming s. c., 178 court. Ill. 107, 52 N. E. 898, 69 Am. St. R.

Cases cited in notes 3 and 4 to 290, affirming McCaffrey v. Knapp, this section, especially Stout & Co., 74 Ill. App. 80.

The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L.

266;

The opinions in that case contain an exhaustive discussion of the whole subject.

CHAPTER V.

ORIGINAL CONCURRENT JURISDICTION ESSENTIAL то

REMOVABILITY.

§ 63. Jurisdiction by removal under section two1 of the present judiciary act is limited to suits of which original jurisdiction is given to the United States Circuit Courts by section one 2 thereof.-In the preceding chapters, we have discussed the first great restrictive provision as to the removability of causes-that, to be removable, they must be "of a civil nature, at law or in equity." The next provision of section two of the present judiciary act, and which applies alike to every suit removable thereunder, is that it must be one "of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by the preceding section," that is, by section one of such act.

The original jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts given by section one embraces every case that may be removed under section two. It is not sufficient to make a case removable that it be one of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by some other statute, even if such jurisdiction be concurrent with the State courts. The right of removal given by section two is confined to cases of which original jurisdiction is given to the United States Circuit Courts by this one particular section— section one of the act, and extends to none other.8

§ 63.

1 Ante § 7.

2 Ante § 6.

3 Ante ch. III, IV.

4 Ante § 7.

5 Ante § 6.

& Ante § 7.

7 Ante § 6.

8" The jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts on removal by the defend

ant, under this section, is limited to such suits as might have been brought in that Court by the plaintiff under the first section. The question is a question of jurisdiction as such and cannot be waived." Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 U. S. 201, 15 Sup. Ct. 563, 39 L. 672.

"By the acts of Congress of 1887