The Blackheath
| Decision Date | 03 April 1903 |
| Docket Number | 1,012. |
| Citation | 122 F. 112 |
| Parties | THE BLACKHEATH. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
M. D Wickersham, U.S. Atty.
R. H. & N. R. Clarke, for claimant.
This is a libel in rem to recover damages for the destruction of a structure, and beacon or channel light constructed thereon in the Bay of Mobile, caused from collision by said steamship. A witness for the libelants was introduced, who testified as to the character and construction of the structure on which the beacon light was placed, and where it was situated in the waters of the river or bay of Mobile whereupon the claimant moved the court to dismiss the libel on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit.
In matters of tort the jurisdiction in admiralty depends upon the locality of the thing injured. The locus of the damage, and not the locus of the origin of the tort, is the real test of admiralty jurisdiction. Hermann v. Port Blakely Mill Co. (D.C.) 69 F. 646; The Mary Garrett (D.C.) 63 F. 1009, and authorities therein cited. In the case of The Professor Morse (D.C.) 23 F. 803, it was held that an injury to a marine railway was not a maritime tort, although it extended out into the river for a long distance under the water, with one end resting on or near the bottom of the river, because the marine railway was not a floating structure. In the case of City of Milwaukee v. The Curtis et al. (D.C.) 37 F. 705, the court, speaking in reference to a swing bridge resting on a pier constructed on the bed of the river, and which was damaged by the negligent conduct of vessels navigating the river, said:
And in the case of The Maud Webster, Fed. Cas. No. 9,302, Judge Blatchford held that a derrick resting on the soil of the bottom of a river, and in the midst of the water, which was injured by a vessel colliding with it, was not a case of admiralty jurisdiction. There are many other decisions to the same effect.
The law is well settled that no action can be maintained in admiralty for injuries done to a permanent structure resting upon land in a navigable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Atna
......Vallejo Ferry Co. (D.C.) 173 F. 331; The Montrose (D.C.) 178 F. 495; The. Hokkai Maru (C.C.A. 9) 260 F. 569, 171 C.C.A. 353; The. Strabo, 98 F. 998, 39 C.C.A. 375; The Anglo-Patagonian, 235. F. 92, 148 C.C.A. 586; The Robert W. Parsons, 191 U.S. 17, 24. Sup.Ct. 8, 48 L.Ed. 73; The Blackheath (D.C.) 122 F. 112; The. Raithmoor, 241 U.S. 166, 36 Sup.Ct. 514, 60 L.Ed. 937;. United States v. North German Lloyd (D.C.) 239 F. 587; Evans v. Western Timber & Logging Co. (D.C.). 201 F. 461; The Mackinaw (D.C. Or.) 165 F. 351; Great. Lakes D. & D. Co. v. Kierejewski, etc., 261 U.S. 479, 43. ......
-
Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. v. Federal Contracting Co.
...... . . Upon. the above authorities, it would seem that the question of. jurisdiction here should be decided in favor of the. respondent, but the admiralty jurisdiction has been broadened. very considerably by the recent decision of the Supreme Court. in The Blackheath, 195 U.S. 361, 25 Sup.Ct. 46, 49 L.Ed. 236. That was a question of the jurisdiction of the District Court. for the Southern District of Alabama, arising out of the. destruction of a beacon fastened to piles driven into the. bottom of the Mobile river or bay by a navigating vessel. The. court ......