Doolittle v. Knobeloch

• Decision Date: 14 June 1889
• Parties: DOOLITTLE v. KNOBELOCH et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

39 F. 40

DOOLITTLE v. KNOBELOCH et al.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina.

June 14, 1889

Trenholm & Rhett, for libelant.

W. J Gayer and Mitchell & Smith, for respondent.

SIMONTON J.

The libel sets up a claim against the steamer in rem and her owner, the respondent, in personam, for services and advances. The services were going to New York as the agent of Knobeloch, and purchasing for him the steamer Bellevue, and coming in her on her voyage from New York to Charleston looking generally after the interests of the owner; not however, having any control or concern in the navigation of the vessel. The advances consist of cash to the master from time to time, and moneys paid for supplies to the steamer pilotage, and dock fees. The libel was amended by striking out all claim in rem on the steamer. Respondent excepts to the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction in admiralty depends primarily upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims, and services purely maritime and touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation. The Jefferson, 20 How. 393. It is not easy to get an exact definition of the term 'maritime contract.' It is far easier to say what is not a maritime contract. 'The true criterion,' says that eminent jurist, Mr. Justice BRADLEY, 'is the nature and subject-matter of the contract, as whether it has reference to maritime services or maritime transactions. ' Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1. Mr. Browne, in his work on Civil and Admiralty Law, (volume 2, page 82,) asks the question: 'What contracts should be cognizable in admiralty?' and answers it: 'All contracts which relate purely to maritime affairs. ' 'Maritime contracts are such as relate to commerce and navigation,' says Justice CLIFFORD. The Orpheus, 2 Cliff. 29. The English courts limit courts of admiralty by the locality of the contract. Our courts look to the subject-matter. De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398. But 'to be a maritime contract, * * * it is not enough that the subject-matter of it, the consideration, the service, is to be done on the sea. It must be in its nature maritime. It must relate to maritime affairs. It must have a connection with the navigation of the ship, with her equipment or preservation, or with the maintenance of preservation of the crew, who are necessary to the navigation and safety of the ship. Thus a carpenter, a surgeon, a steward, though not strictly mariners or seamen, may all sue for their wages in the admiralty because they contribute in their several ways to the preservation and support of the vessel and her crew. ' The Farmer, Gilp. 531. The charge for services in purchasing the steamer cannot be entertained in this court. It does not spring from a maritime contract. A ship-broker cannot sue in admiralty for services in procuring a charter-party, as they do not arise out of a maritime contract. The Thames, 10 F. 848. Nor do the services of an agent in soliciting freight come within this category. The Crystal Stream, 25 F. 575. Nor is a contract for building a...