Ex parte Easton

• Decision Date: 01 October 1877
• Citation: 95 U.S. 68,24 L.Ed. 373
• Parties: EX PARTE EASTON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

95 U.S. 68

24 L.Ed. 373

EX PARTE EASTON.

October Term, 1877

PETITION for a writ of prohibition to restrain the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York from exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding in rem to enforce an alleged lien for wharfage against the canal-boat or barge 'John M. Welch.'

As the facts in the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court, they are omitted here.

Mr. Edward D. McCarthy and Mr. J. E. Gowen for the petitioners.

The District Court has no jurisdiction over the barge 'John M. Welch,' because, 1, a contract of wharfage is not a maritime contract. The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; The Belfast, 7 id. 624; Insurance Company v. Dunham, 11 id. 1; Rex v. Humphrey, 1 McCle. & Yo. 194; Platt v. Hibbard, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 497; Barry v. Langmore, 12 Ad. & E. 640; Speares v. Hartley, 3 Esp. 81; Richardson v. Goss, 3 Bos. & Pul. 119.

2. The maritime law gives no lien for wharfage. The Coal Barges, 3 Wall. Jr. 53; The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; Cunningham v. Hall, 1 Cliff. 51; The Thomas, 7 Am. Law Rev. 381; The Gem, Browne, Adm. 37; The Asa R. Swift, 1 Newb. Adm. 543; The Alexander McNeil, 20 Int. Rev. Rec. 175.

3. If the statutes of New York gave a lien against the vessel, which they do not, it could not be enforced in a court of admiralty by a proceeding in rem. Wick v. The Samuel Strong, 6 McLean, 587; The Laurel, 1 Newb. Adm. 269; Maguire v. Card, 1 How. 248; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; Delovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; People's Ferry Company v. Beers, 20 How. 393; The Circassian, 1 Ben. 209; Graham v. Haskins, Olc. Adm. 227; The Ship Harriet, id. 229; The Ottawa, 5 Am. Law T. 147; New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchant's Bank, 6 How. 344; Allen v. Newberry, 21 id. 246; Ransom v. Mayo, 3 Blatchf. 71; Cunningham v. Hall, 1 Cliff. 51; The Two Friends, Bee, Adm. 440; Brig Hannah, id. 421; The Lady Horatio, id. 169; Cox v. Murray, Abb. Adm. 343; Garvey v. Crocket, id. 490; The Amstel, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 215; McDermott v. The S. S. Owens, 1 Wall. Jr. 370; The Grand Turk, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 326; Philips v. Scattergood, Gilp. 3; Nicoll v. Gardner 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 290; Sacramento v. New World, 4 Cal. 44; Story, Bailm., sects. 451, 453; 2 Kent, Com. 635, 642; Gaisede v. Trent & Mersey Navigation Co., 4 T. R. 581; Steinman v. Wilkins, 7 Serg. & R. 466.

Mr. F. A. Wilcox, contra.

MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

Judicial power under the Federal Constitution extends to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and it was doubtless the intention of Congress, by the ninth section of the Judiciary Act, to confer upon the District Court the exclusive original cognizance of all admiralty and maritime causes, the words of the act being in terms exactly coextensive with the power conferred by the Constitution. In order, therefore, to determine the limits of the admiralty jurisdiction, it becomes necessary to ascertain the true interpretation of the constitutional grant. On that subject three propositions may be assumed as settled by authority, and to those it will be sufficient to refer on the present occasion, without much discussion of the principles on which the adjudications rest: 1. That the jurisdiction of the district courts is not limited to the particular subjects over which the admiralty courts of the parent country exercised jurisdiction when our Constitution was adopted. 2. That the jurisdiction of those courts does not extend to all cases which would fall within such jurisdiction, according to the civil law and the practice and usages of continental Europe. 3. That the nature and extent of the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution must be determined by the laws of Congress and the decisions of this court, and by the usages prevailing in the courts of the States at the time the Federal Constitution was adopted. No other rules are known which it is reasonable to suppose could have been in the minds of the framers of the Constitution than those which were then in force in the respective States, and which they were accustomed to see in daily and familiar practice in the State courts.

Authority is conferred upon the libellants, as the proprietors of the wharf and slip in question, by the law of the State, to charge and collect wharfage and dockage of vessels lying at said wharf, and within the slip adjoining the wharf of the libellants.

Sufficient appears to show that the respondents are the owners of the barge named in the libel; that on the 10th of October, 1876, she completed a trip from the port of Baltimore for the port of New York, and that she took wharfage at the wharf or pier of the libellants, where she remained for eleven days. For the use of the berth occupied by the barge the libellants charged $34.20, as wharfage and dockage. Due demand was made; and, payment being refused, the libellants instituted the present suit, which is a libel in rem against the barge to recover the amount of that charge. Process was served; and the respondents appeared and excepted to the libel, and set up that process of condemnation should not issue against the barge, for the following reasons: 1. Because no maritime lien arises in the case for the matters set forth in the libel. 2. Because no lien i such a case is given for wharfage against boats or vessels by the laws of the State. 3. Because the law of the State referred to in the libel as giving a lien for wharfage is unconstitutional and void, for the following reasons: (1.) Because it imposes a restriction on commerce. (2.) Because it imposes a duty of tonnage on all vessels of the character and description of that of the respondents. (3.) Because it discriminates against the boats or barges of persons who are not citizens of the State where the proprietors of the wharf reside.

Pending the proceedings in the District Court, the respondents presented a petition here, asking leave to move this court for a prohibition to the court below forbidding the District Court to proceed further in the case.

Pursuant to said petition, this court entered an order permitting argument upon the merits of the petition, and directing that due notice be given to the libellants and the clerk of the District Court. Hearing was had in conformity to that order, and the case was held under advisement.

Power is certainly vested in the Supreme Court to issue the writ of prohibition to the District Court, when that court is proceeding in a case of admiralty and maritime cognizance of which the District Court has no jurisdiction. 1 Stat. 81; United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 12.

Where the District Court is proceeding in a cause not of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, the Supreme Court cannot issue the writ, nor can the writ be used except to prevent the doing of something about to be done, nor will it ever be issued for acts already completed. Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292; United States v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158.

Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution, and Judge Story says it embraces two great classes of cases,—one dependent upon locality, and the other upon the nature of the contract.

Damage claims arising from acts and injuries done within the ebb and flow of the tide have always been considered as cognizable in the admiralty; and, since the decision in the case of The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, it is considered to be equally well settled that remedies for acts and injuries done on public navigable waters, not within the ebb and flow of the tide, may be enforced in the admiralty, as well as for those upon the high seas and upon the coast of the sea.

Speaking of the second great class of cases cognizable in the admiralty, Judge Story says, in effect, that it embraces all contracts, claims, and services which are purely maritime and which respect rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation. 2 Story, Const., sect. 1666.

Public navigable waters, where inter-state or foreign commerce may be carried on, of course include the high seas, which comprehend, in the commercial sense, all tide-waters to highwater mark.

Maritime jurisdiction of the admiralty courts in cases of contracts depends chiefly upon the nature of the service or engagement, and is limited to such subjects as are purely maritime, and have respect to commerce and navigation within the meaning of the Constitution.

Wide differences of opinion have existed as to the extent of the admirality jurisdiction; but it may now be said, without fear of contradiction, that it extends to all contracts, claims, and services essentially maritime, among which are bottomry bonds, contracts of affreightment and contracts for the conveyance of passengers, pilotage on the high seas, wharfage, agreements of consortship, surveys of vessels damaged by the perils of the seas the claims of material-men and others for the repair and outfit of ships belonging to foreign nations or to other States, and the wages of mariners; and also to civil marine torts and injuries, among which are assaults or other personal injuries, collision, spoliation, and damage, illegal seizures or other depredations on property, illegal dispossession or withholding of possession from the owners of ships, controversies between the part owners as to the employment of ships, municipal seizures of ships, and cases of salvage and marine insurance. Conkl. Treatise (5th ed.), 254.

Wharf accommodation is a necessity of navigation, and such accommodations are indispensable for ships and vessels and water-craft of every name and description, whether employed in carrying freight or passengers, or engaged in the fisheries. Erections of the kind are constructed to enable ships, vessels, and all sorts of water-craft to lie in port in safety, and to facilitate their operation in loading and unloading cargo and in receiving and landing passengers.

Piers or wharves are a...