The Curtis

• Decision Date: 05 February 1889
• Parties: CITY OF MILWAUKEE v. THE CURTIS, THE CAMDEN, AND THE WELCOME.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

37 F. 705

CITY OF MILWAUKEE v. THE CURTIS, THE CAMDEN, AND THE WELCOME.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

February 5, 1889

Eugene S. Elliott, for libelant.

Alfred H. Bright and M. C. Krause, for respondents.

JENKINS J.

The libelant, a municipal corporation, lawfully constructed and maintained a bridge spanning the navigable waters of the Milwaukee river. The structure was a swing-bridge, its center resting upon a stone pier constructed upon the bed of the river. On the 18th of October, 1888, the bridge was damaged by the alleged negligent conduct of the vessels, respondents then navigating the river. The libel is in rem to recover the damages incurred. It is objected for the respondents that the court is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter. In cases of tort locality is the test of jurisdiction in the admiralty. The ultimate judicial authority has determined the principle that the true meaning of the rule of locality is that, although the origin of the wrong is on the water, yet if the consummation and substance of the injury are on the land, a court of admiralty has no jurisdiction; that the place or locality of the injury is the place or locality of the thing injured, and not of the agent causing the injury. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; Ex parte Insurance Co., 188 U.S 610, 7 S.Ct. 25. Within this settled principle a tort is maritime, and within the jurisdiction of the admiralty injury originated on land. The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall 213; Leonard v. Decker, 22 F. 741. In the former case it was ruled that an action in personam would lie against the owners of the bridge, because the injury was consummate upon navigable waters, being inflicted upon a movable thing engaged in navigation; but that a proceeding in rem against the bridge was not maintainable, because a maritime lien can only exist upon movable things engaged in navigation, or upon things which are the subjects of commerce on the high seas or navigable waters. And so an injury happening through default of the master to one upon a vessel discharging cargo at a wharf to which she was securely moored, is within the admiralty jurisdiction, (Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U.S. 626;) but otherwise, if the injury occurred to one upon the wharf, (The Mary Stewart, 10 F. 137.) In the latter case there is an inadvertent remark to the effect that both the wrong and the injury must occur upon the water,-- a proposition not sustained by authority. It suffices if the damage-- the substantial cause of action arising out of the wrong-- is complete upon navigable waters. The Plymouth, supra. It is insisted for the libelant that because this injury happened in the midst of, or in space above, the water, it must be held to have occurred upon the water, and the bridge must be held to be personal property on navigable waters. This contention cannot be upheld. In legal signification land includes not only the surface of the earth, but all under it or over it. It is otherwise with respect to the sea. A suspension bridge is not upon the water, because sustained in space above the water. Nor in any juster sense is a bridge upon the water, because supported upon masonry resting upon the bed of a river. Bridges are merely prolongations over waters of highways upon land. They are not afloat. Like wharves and piers, they are connected with the shore. Unlike wharves and piers, they are obstructions, no aids, to navigation. They concern commerce upon land, not upon the sea. Within the intendment of the maritime law they are-- equally with wharves and piers-- structures upon or connected with the shore. They pertain to the land, not to the sea; and so are without the cognizance of the admiralty jurisdiction. An injury thereto cannot be said to have occurred upon water. The cause of the injury was a movable thing navigating the waters; but the consummation of the wrong was upon an immovable structure above the waters, attached to the land, and not afloat. The absence of admiralty jurisdiction over injuries to such structures is sustained by an overwhelming weight of authority. As to a bridge: The Neil Cochran, 1 Brown, Adm. 162; The Savannah, (U.S.D.C. Pa., CADWALLADER, J., not reported, but referred to in 1 Pars.Shipp. & Adm. 532.) As to a wharf: The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; The Ottawa, 1 Brown, Adm. 356; The C. Accame, 20 F. 642. As to a derrick resting on the soil at the bottom, and in the midst of the water: The Maud Webster, 8 Ben. 547. As to a marine railway: The Professor Morse, 23 F. 803. As to a boom of logs, anchored or fastened to the shore: City of Erie v....