Imágenes de páginas

(d) Even though the subjects of this Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. 8. 9 Wheat. 194 (6 extended limitation of liability, or the ter- L. ed. 23); Moore v. Am. Transp. Co. 65 U. S. ritory in which it is effective, are partially within 24 How. 37 (16 L. ed. 680); The Daniel Ball, the region of state control, yet, where the sub- 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 564 (19 L. ed. 1001); Tradejects are separable, and are partly under the na- Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 95 (25 L. ed. 552); Lord tional control, the Act will be sustained by the courts wherever the power of Congress extends, v. Goodall Steamship Co. 102 U. S. 543 (26 L. and as to all those objects to which it attaches; ed. 225); Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co. 123 and this rule is easily applicable in this case.

U. S. 295 (31 L. ed. 151). (e) As to the Savannah River, it is a pub

We fully recognize the familar principle that lic navigable stream. The voyages of The Katie a law may be constitutional in part and bad in and her cargo are interstate in character, and the part. But the courts never change, limit or jurisdiction of Congress is undoubted.

restrict the natural and obvious meaning of (1) The Act is warranted also by the words so as to amend the Statute into barmony admiralty clause of the Constitution, and with the fundamental law. the power of Congress to modify by statute the United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 220 (23 L. application of admiralty doctrines.

ed. 565); Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82 (25 (g) The entire purpose of the limited L. ed. 550); Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. liability enactments was to encourage in- 304 (29 L. ed. 197); Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 vestments in shipping, and they may be extended U. S. 90 (30 L. ed. 115); Allen v. Louisiana, wherever the admiralty courts of the United 103 U. S. 80 (26 L. ed. 318); Lord v. Goodall States have jurisdiction.

Steamship Co. 102 U. S. 543 (26 L. ed. 225). (November 12, 1889.)

The cases wbich sustain the principle that

"a legislative Act may be entircly valid as to IBEL in admiralty by the owner of the some classes of cases, and clearly void as to

Steamboat Katie to limit his liability for others" are those in wbich the class to which losses to ber cargo occasioned by fire. On de- the law has been applied has been covered by murrer and motion to disniiss libel. Overruled. unobjectionable and separable words or clauses.

The case is fully stated in the opinion. Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123 (26 L. ed.

Messrs. Denmark & Adams, for respon- 103). dents, in support of the demurrer:

Únlike the Legislature of a State, Congress The commerce clause of the Constitution not bas only those powers conferred. only does not authorize, but it probibits, legis- Dwarris, Stat. Const. pp. 367, 368; Martin v. lation by Congress that will affect internal Punter, 14 U. S. 1 Wheat. 326 (4 L. ed. 17); commerce, traffic between citizens of the same Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 93 (25 L. ed. 551); State. This clause was intended to place such Cooley, Const. Lim, 10, 11. commerce beyond its control.

The law under review undertakes to regulate

[ocr errors]


age happening during the entire voyage. The City on the land occasioned by fire which has been comof Norwich, 118 U. S. 468, 491 (30 L. ed. 134, 143). municated by a vessel.

The Statute of June 26, 1884, contains the proviso The language of this Act limits its operation to "that this provision shall not affect the liability of fire happening to or on board a vessel, and not to a any owner, incurred previous to the passage of this fire happening on the wharf. Salmon Falls Mfg. Act, nor prevent any claimant from joining all the Co. v. The Tangier, 6 Am. L. Reg. 504, 11 Law Rep. owners in one action; nor shall the same apply to N. S. 6; The Egypt, 25 Fed. Rep. 323. wages due to persons employed by said ship own

Damage caused by collision. Failure to adopt the provisions of section 4285 Ship owners are entitled to a limitation of liabil. does not deprive sbip owners of the benefits of ity where damage is caused to other veseels and Rev. Stat. $ 4234. The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24 (26 L. their cargo by collision. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. ed. 1001).

Co. v. Wright, 80 U. S. 13 Wall. 104 (20 L. ed. 585):

Wright v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co. 8 Blatchf. Loss by fire.

14, 1 Ben. 156. Owners are exempted by the Act from liability In a case of loss by collision the limitation of the for loss by fire from negligence of their officers and owner's liability under the Act is as applicable agents, in which the owners did not participate (Re when the proceeding is in rem, as when it is in perProvidence & N. Y. Steamship Co.6 Ben, 124; Walker sonam; if his liability is only the amount of the vesv. Western Transp. Co. 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 150 (18 L. ed. sel's value when at the bottom of the sound, bis 172); Moore v. Am. Transp. Co. 65 U. S. 24 How. 1(16 liability after it is raised and repaired is no greatL. ed. 674); Keene v, The Whistler, 2 Sawy. 348; Rev. er. Place v. Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co. 118 U. S. Stat. 884282, 4287); and though the vessel be in a 469 (30 L. ed. 134). wrecked condition, incapable of self propulsion or Where two vessels, both in fault, collide, and one of carrying a cargo. Craig v. Continental Ins. Co. of the vessels is lost, such sum as the surviving ves26 Fed. Rep. 798.

sel is bound to pay to the owners of the sunken The protection of this Statute may be invoked vessel must also be applied to the payment of the notwithstanding the fact that the thing injured is damages sustained by the owners of the cargo on situated on land, if the damage in question be oc- board said sunken vessel. Duncan v. The C. H. casioned by the vessel without fault or privity on Foster, 1 Fed. Rep. 733; Norwich & N. Y. Transp. the part of her owner. Re Vessel Owners' Towing Co. v. Wright, supra. Co. 26 Fed. Rep. 172.

For the mode of applying a limitation of liability But in Goodrich Transp. Co. v. Gagnon, 36 Fed. where both vessels are in fault and the damages Rep. 123, it was held that the words "for any act, are divided, see The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97 (30 L. ed. matter or thing, loss, damage or forfeiture done, 1095). occasioned or incurred," refer only to such acts, For the method of offsetting damages, see The tbings, losses and damages as to which relief can Bristol, 29 Fed. Rep. 887. be had in a court of admiralty, and do not include Where two vessels collided and both were inliability for the destruction of buildings and goods jured, and the vessel in fault subsequently on the

in a material way the rights of the parties who cases arise must at least be "pavigable waters of
patronize the vessel-their traffic on the vessel. the United States," the meaning of which des-
But as the Act applies and was intended to ap- ignation has already been noticed.
ply to the owners of all vessels without excep- The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 U. S. 12
tion-whether the vessels were licensed and en- How. 443 (13 L. ed. 1058); Allen v. Newberry,
rolled or not-including capal-boats and barges, 62 U. S. 21 How. 244 (16 L. ed. 110); The Hine
the decisions will show that as a regulation of v. Trevor, 71 U. S. 4 Wall. 569 (18 L. ed. 455);
vessels the Act is unconstitutional.

The Belfast, 74 U. 8.7 Wall. 624 (19 L. ed. 266);
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 197 (6 | The St. Lawrence, 66 U. S. 1 Black, 527 (17 L.
L. ed. 23); Passenger Cases, 48 U. S. 7 How. ed. 183); Re Long Island N. S. P. & F. Transp.
400 (12 L. ed. 702); Sinnot v. Davenport, 63 U. Co. 5 Fed. Rep. 605, 607–618.
S. 22 How. 243 (16 L. ed. 247); The Bright Star, If the object of the 4th section of the Act of
1 Woolworth, 266; The Thomas Swan, 6 Ben. 1886 was not to regulate internal commerce as
42; The Daniel Ball, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 564 (19 well as that carried on by sea-going vessels, to
L. ed. 1001); Gilman v. Philadelphia, 70 U. S. change the law wbich protected this commerce
3 Wall. 713 (18 L. ed. 96).

from the operation of the Act of Congress, then There is an important limitation of the power, it had no object. If Congress bas the power of Congress over navigation, and that is, it bere attempted to be exercised, then the commust be navigation on navigable waters of the merce clause is meaningless. United States, and which concerns, in some See The Lottawanna, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 558 way, interstate or foreign commerce.

(22 L. ed. 654); Providence & N. Y. Steamship Escanaba & L. M. Transp. Co. v. Chicago, Co. v. Hill Mfg, Co. 109 U. S. 589 (27 L. ed. 107 U. S. 682 (27 L. ed. 444); The Daniel Ball, 1042); The War Eagle, 6 Biss. 366; The Mamie, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 557 (19 L. ed. 999); Viller v. 5 Fed. Rep. 819. New York City, 109 U. S. 393 (27_L. ed. 973); Messrs. Chisholm & Erwin for libelant, Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 631 (27 L. ed. 1057); contra. Hatch v. Wallamet Iron Bridge Co. 6 Fed. Rep. 329; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, 20 Fed. Rep. Speer, J., delivered the following opinion: 903; Sand8 v. Manistee River Imp. Co. 123 U. This is a libel brought under the provisions S. 295 (31 L. ed. 151).

of section 4 of the Act of Congress of June 19, If the power to regulate commerce were made 1886 (24 Stat. at L. 80). Its purpose is to limit in terms as broad as the admiralty and maritime the liability of the owner of the steamer Katie jurisdiction of the courts, still the law under for losses to her cargo occasioned by fire. The review cannot be sustained because it is incon- libelant (the owner) alleges that he is not liable sistent with the limitations of even such a juris- at all for the damage which occurred to the dictional principle. The waters in which the cargo, but, if liable, to limit the liability, he

[merged small][ocr errors]

same voyage was wrecked and sunk by negligence mean the earnings of the vessel in transporting
of the master, the liability of the owners was limited the goods of the owner. Allen v. Mackay, 1
to her value after she had sunk. The City of Nor- Sprague, 219.
wich, 118 U. S. 468 (30 L. ed. 134); The Great Western. Where one of the owners of a vessel commands
118 U. S. 520 (30 L. ed. 156); Thomassen v. Whitwell, and sails on shares and exclusively manages the
9 Ben, 403, 21 Blatchf. 45, 12 Fed. Rep. 891; Re Wright vessel and hires the crew, whereby he in effect be-
10 Ben. 14.

comes cbarterur thereof, he is responsible for her
The value is to be ascertained by taking what she tortious acts. As to whether the owners also are
is found to be worth after she has been raised, and responsible, --quære. Thorp v. Hammond, 79 U. S.
tbe expenses of raising her deducted; and the ex. 12 Wall. 408 (20 L. ed. 419); Somes v. White, 65 Me.542.
pense of raising and repairing her should not be Freight is only one of the items to be taken into
added to the aforesaid yalue, nor is the insurance estimation in ascertaining the extent of the liabil-
on said vessel to be accounted for by the owners. Re ity of the party who is already responsible. Walk.
Norwich & N. Y. Transp. Co. 8 Ben. 312; The City er v. Boston Ins. Co. 14 Gray, 288.
of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468 (30 L. ed. 134).

A claim for unearned freight paid in advance is But in Walker v. Boston Ins. Co., 14 Gray, 288, 309, not within the class of claims protected by the Act. and Barnes v. Steamship Co., 6 Phila. 479, 25 Leg. Re Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. 3 Fed. Rep. 168. Int. 196, it was held that the limitation of liability is The court is not bound to allow interest on the to be ascertained by an estimation of the value of value of the vessel. The Scotland, 118 U. S. 508 (30 the ship at the point of time immediately preced. L. ed. 155). ing that when the wrong was done and injury in

Damages for personal injuries. flicted.

The limitation of liability extends to personal in. The whole value of the vessel means her value at juries sustained by passengers, as well as loss of the close of the voyage, and where she is lost no life. The City of Columbus, 22 Fed. Rep. 460; Butone shall recover compensation for his whole loss. ler v. Boston & S. Steamship Co. 130 U. S. 5:27 (32 L. Re Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co. 6 Ben. 124; ed. 1017); The Amsterdam, 23 Fed. Rep. 112; The Al. Thomassen v. Whitwell, supra: The Alpena, 10 pena, 10 Biss. 436, 8 Fed. Rep. 280; Rounds v. Provi. Biss. 436, 8 Fed. Rep. 280; The City of Norwich, supra. dence & S. Steamship Co. 14 R. I. 344; The Epsilon, &

If the vessel is lost the liability of the owner | Ben. 378; Re Long Island, N. S. P. & F. Transp. Co.5
ceases (Wattson v. Marks, 2 Am. L. Reg. 157; contra, | Fed. Rep. 599.
Barnes v. Steamship Co. 6 Phila. 479, 25 Legal Int. Claims for personal injury caused by fire and
196) and "freight then pending" includes freight explosion on board a steamboat prosecuting her
earned at the end of the voyage for cargo on board voyage on the East River are claims within the
at the time of the collision. Sumner v. Caswell, 20 Act. Re Long Island N. 8. P. & F. Transp. Co. 5
Fed. Rep. 249.

Fed. Rep. 599.
There can be no apportionment of freight. The Damages to the person or loss of baggage are not
Abbie C. Stubbs, 28 Fed. Rep. 719.

taken out of the operation of the Limited Liability Where the same person owns both vessel and Act by Rev. Stat., $ 4493. Re Long Island N. S. P. & cargo, "freight then pending" is to be taken to F. Transp. Co. 5 Fed. Rep. 599.

prays to be accorded the benefit of the Act re. I the Act of June 19, 1886, extending the right ferred to. The allegations of the libel are that to liinit liability to the owners of "all vessels the Katie was on her trip when the fire oc- used on lakes or rivers, or in inland navigation, curred. At that time, and for twenty years including canal-boats, barges and ligbters," was prior thereto, she had been engaged in trans- intended to affect, and ex ri termini does affect, porting freight and passengers from and 10 the vessels used in the purely internal commerce of Ports of Savannah avd Augusta, and interme a State; that this purpose of the Act is exdiate landings on the Savannah River in the pressed in unequivocal words. (2) Even though States of South Carolina and Georgia. She be- it be conceded, they urge, that Congress might longed to a line of carriers issuing through bills have provided a measure of relief for owners of lading to and from localities in Georgia, and of a vessel whose interstate traffic relations to and from ports and places in the other States were identical or similar to those of the of the Union, and to and from foreign ports. Katie, without encroaching upon the domain The libel contains the usual averments that the of internal commerce, the court, they insist, damage was done without the privity or knowl- may not restrict the application of this Act edge of the owner. It is admitted in the plead- so as to give it partial effect simply because ings ibat a large portion of the cargo was laden the facts here are appropriate to national conat different points on tbe Georgia side of the trol, the Statute itself, in plain and unambigu. river, and was consigned to merchants in Salous terms, exceeding, they contend, the limitavanpah, and that other portions, consigned in tions of the commerce clause of the Constitulike manner, were received from the South tion. This clause, they maintain, so far from Carolina landings.

authorizing, actually prohibits, legislation by The various owners of the cargo, as respond. Congress which will affect the internal coments, have interposed a demurrer and motion to merce between citizens of the same State, and dismiss the libel, upon the ground that the since the terms of the Act in question comprefourth section of the Act of Congress of June bend alike constitutional and unconstitutional 19, 1886, is, as they insist, unconstitutional and topics, the entire section of the amended Statvoid; and since the owners of vessels used in ute must, they argue, be beld inoperative and rivers or inland navigation were expressly ex- void, --citing U.S. v. Reese, 92 U. S. 220 (23 L. cluded from the right to limit their liability ed. 565); Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82 (25 under previous Acts of Congress (ES 4283–4289, L. ed. 550); Virginia Coupon Casts, 114 U. S. Rev. Stat.) it follows, they contend, that po re- 304 (29 L. ed. 197]; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, lief can be granted under the allegations and 127 U. S. 647 [32 L. ed. 314); Spraigue v. prayers of the libel. The gist of the conten: Thompson, 118 U. S. 90 [30 L. ed. 115); Allen tion of proctors for respondents may be siated v. Louisiana, 103 U. 80 [26 L. ed. 318]; as follows: (1) They insist that section 4 of State Tonnage Tax Cases, 79 U. S. 12 Wall.

The baggage of passengers is not merchandise, i have reference solely to Josses occasioned otherwise for the loss of which by fire ship owners are exempt. than by fire, bappening without "the knowledge or The Marine City, 6 Fed. Rep. 413; contra, Chamber- privity of the owner." Knowlton v. Providence & lain v. Western Transp. Co. 44 N. Y. 305.

N. Y. Steamship Co. 53 N. Y. 70; Norwich & N. Y.

Transp. Co. v. Wright, 80 U. S. 13 Wall. 104 (20 L. ed. Surrender and transfer of ship and freight.

585); Walker v. Boston Ios. Co. 14 Gray, 288. The privilege of exonerating bimself from his in- If the amount paid into court is insufficient to pay dividual liability, and of causing all legal proceed all the damages caused, it will be apportioned pro ings against himself to cease by the surrender and rata amongst the parties claiming damages in protransfer of the ship and freight, is not given to a portion to their respective losses. Norwich & N Y party who is responsible for damages resulting from Transp. Co. v. Wright, supra. collision, but he is strictly confined to cases of loss The amount recovered, whether before the limiin consequence of embezzlement or destruction by tation proceedings or after, and whether in thecourt the master, mariners or passengers on board ship. of first instance or an appellate court, will stand as Walker v. Boston Ins. Co. 14 Gray, 288.

the basis for pro rata division when the condemned Insurance is not such "an interest in such vessel fund is distributed. The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239 and freight” as the ship owners are bound to sur- (26 L. ed. 351). render for the benefit of claimants. The City of The casualties or losses of different voyages canColumbus, 22 Fed. Rep. 460.

not be aggreated or grouped together, and all Where property is sold, the insurance does not losers be cited in to share what has been saved from follow it, but ceases to have any value, unless the shipwreck or other disasters, together with the pend. insurer consent to the transfer of the policy to the ing freight, and have a decree entered exonerating grantee of the property. In other words the con- the owners from personal liability. The Alpena, 8 tract of insurance does not attach itself to the thing Fed. Rep. 283; Norwich & N.Y. Transp. Co. v.Wright insured, por go with it when it is transferred. 2 and Walker v. Boston Ins. Co. supra. Marshall, Ins. 801; Sadlers Co. v. Badcock. 2 Atk. 554; Carroll v. Boston M. Ins. Co. 8 Mass. 515; Colum

What owners entitled to benefit of Act. bia Ins. Co. y. Lawrence, 35 U. S. 10 Pet. 507, 512 (9 L. All owners of vessels are not entitled to the privi. ed. 512, 514); Carpenter v. Providence W. Ins. Co. 41 leges of the Act, but only such as fall within the deU.S. 16 Pet. 495, 503 (10 L. ed. 1044, 1048); Ætna F. scription named therein, to wit, those who had no Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 16 Wend. 386, 397; Wilson v. Hill, 3 privity or knowledge of the damage incurred. The Met. 68; Bowles v. Innes, 11 Mees. & W. 13; McDon Maria and Elizabeth, 11 Fed. Rep. 520. ald v. Black, 20 Ohio, 185; Plimpton v. Farmers Mut. A vessel must be engaged in interstate or foreign F. Ing. Co. 43 Vt. 497; Place v. Norwich & N. Y. commerce to entitle her owners to claim a limited Transp. Co. 118 U. S. 495 (30 L. ed. 144).

liability. Re Veesel Owners Towing Co. 26 Fed.

Rep. 169. Apportionment of fund paid into court.

A tug engaged in towing into the waters of other The provisions of the Act authorizing the appor- ' States vessels engaged in interstate commerce is as tionment of the sum for which the owner is liable , much engaged in such commerce as the vessels

219 [20 L. ed. 375]. (3) Wbile respondents ments are otherwise without constitutional war-
concede the power of Congress to provide, by rant or validity. (5) They assert that the pro-
inspection, license regulations, etc., for the vision of the Constitution, “the judicial power
safety of vessels engaged in internal traffic, shall extend to all cases of admiralty and
they insist there is a distinction between in maritime jurisdiction,” has relation merely
spection and other laws intended to control the to the law of the forum, and gives no au-
character of machinery, equipment and the thority to Congress to regulate the property
like in vessels plying upon the bavigable waters rights and liabilities of parties litigant there.
of the United States, and laws intended to en- in. Moreover, even though it be conceded,
large or to limit the contract rights and liabili. they say, that the admiralty clause confers
ties of persons concerned with the same vessels; upon Congress the power to legislate as to all
that the legislation, for the one purpose, may topics which are properly within the admi.
be warranted by the commerce clause of the ralty jurisdiction, nevertheless the Act of June
Constitution, while for the purpose of affecting 19, 1886, is broader even than that extensive
the rights of persons contracting with vessels domain,' for it applies to all inland waters,
engaged exclusively in the internal traffic of a while the admiralty jurisdiction is limited to
State the enactments of Congress are nugatory, those waters which, by themselves, or their
-citing The Daniel Ball, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 557 connections with others, form a continuous
(19 L. ed. 999); Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. 8. 631 channel for commerce among the States or with
(27 L. ed. 1057); Hatch v. Wallamet Iron foreign countries,-citing The Daniel Ball and
Bridge Co. 6 Fed. Rep. 329; Yale Lock Mfg. Co. The Geneste Chief v. Fitzhugh, supra; Allen v.
v. James, 20 Fed. Rep. 903; Sands v. Manistee Neuberry, 62 U. Š. 21 How. 244 [16 L. ed. 110];
River Imp. Co. 123 Ù. S. 295 [31 L. ed. 151). The Hine v. Trevor, 71 U. S. 4 Wall. 569 [18
(4) They further ipsist that the legislation em. L. ed. 455); The Belfast, 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 624
bodied in the Act of March 3, 1851, and in sec- [19 L. ed. 266); The St. Lawrence, 66 U. S. 1
tions 4283-4289 of the Revised Statutes, was Black, 527 (17 L. ed. 183].
construed by the Supreme Court of the United Proctors for respondents instance rivers and
States, and by other federal courts, to be au- inland waters in the States which are not in.
thorized by the commerce clause of the Consti- cluded in the navigable waters of the United
tution,-citing Moore v. Am. Transp. Co. 65 U. States; and they cite Veazie v. Moor, 55 U. S.
S. 24 How. 37 [16 L. ed. 680); Lord v. Gooilall 14 How. 568 (14 L. ed. 545]: The Montello, 78
Steamship Co. 102 U. S. 541 (26 L. ed. 224]; The U. S. 11 Wall. 411 [20 L. ed. 191); Sands v.
Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 U. S. 12 How. 443 Manistee River Imp. Co. supra. By all of this
(13 L. ed. 1058]; The Bright Star, 1 Woolw. reasoning they reach with great apparent con-
274; The Mamie, 5 Fed. Rep. 819; The War fidence the conclusion that the Act of June 19,
Eagle, 6 Biss. 366. They argue that the enact- | 1886, has no foundation upon the admiralty

[ocr errors]

themselves and to within the provisions of the Stat- | stituted until after a party has obtained satisfaction ute. Ibid.

of his demand, are inetfectual as to him, and a reA vessel employed in navigation upon the Hud- turn of the money should not be compelled. The son River, and not elsewhere, is not within the class Benefactor, 103 U. 8. 239 (28 L. ed. 351). excepted by the provisions of $ 4289. The Tug If any such proceedings are begun after the suit Sears, 8 Fed. Rep. 365.

brought, they must be in the same district court as It is only vessels engaged in what is known ordi- that in which the suit is pending. The Alpena, 10 parily as maritime commerce which are subject to Biss. 436; Re The Luckenback, 26 Fed. Rep. 870. the provisions of the Act; hence, the owners of a Costs may be imposed upon the owners for desmall steam pleasure yacht engaged in navigating i laying for an unreasonable period to institute prothe Detroit River are not entitled to the benefit of ceedings for a limitation of liability. Re The Garthe Limited Liability Act. The Mamie, 5 Fed. Rep. den City, 27 Fed. Rep. 234; Miller v. O'Brien, 35 Fed. 813, 8 Fed. Rep. 367.

Rep. 779. Proceedings for claim of benefit of Act. Jurisdiction in proceedings for limitation of liability. Limited liability may be claimed (1) merely by The words "in any court" refer to a competent way of defense to an action; or (2) by surrendering federal court, and not to a state court. Re Provi. the ship or paying her value into court; the latter dence & N. Y. Steamship Co. 6 Ben. 124. method is necessary only when the owner desires to In a cause of a limitation of liability, which probring all the creditors claiming damage into con- ceeding is sui generis, partaking of the nature of a course for distribution. Thommessen v. Whitwill, suit in personam, and not a proceeding in rem, pos. 118 U. S. 520 (30 L. ed. 156).

session of the vessel or her proceeds is not essential Ship owners are entitled to the benefit of the Stat- to the jurisdiction. Re The City of Norwich, 6 Ben. ute, thougb no action has been begun against them. 330; The Mendota, 14 Fed. Rep. 358. The John Bramall, 10 Ben. 495.

The “appropriate proceedings" must be proceedWhere the owners may invoke the provisions of ings in personam where the parties to be affected the statute, the court cannot know without appro- are to be duly brought before the court, and such priate proceeding the value of the offending vessel proceedings are not within the jurisdiction of an and the pending freight. The Maria and Elizabeth, admiralty court. Place v. The City of Norwich, 1 11 Fed. Rep. 52), 12 Fed. Rep. 627.

Ben. 89. Where on a libel for collision the vessel has been The rule of limited liability embraces all damages decreed liable for damages, the owper cappot on a done by a vessel without the privity of the owner, petition for a limitation of liability retry the ques- whether consummated on land or water; and this tion of liability, that being res judicata. Ibid, being a maritime rule or regulation, courts of ad.

The institution of proceedings under the Statute, miralty have authority to enforce it, and to enforce followed by a decree, is a bar to an action elsewhere claims on the fund representing the value of the for damages. Rounds v. Providence & S. Steam- vessel. Re Goodrich Transp. Co. 26 Fed. Rep. 718. ebip Co. 14 R. L. 344.

A district court cannot take jurisdiction in adProceedings for a limitation of liability, if not in- | miralty of a petition for a limitation of liability

clause, and none upon the commerce clause, of of respondents' proctors: “It seems to us clear the Constitution, and must therefore be wholly that section 4 of the Act (save in the use of the disregarded, and, as a consequence, that the words 'sea-going vessels') directly collides with libel must be dismissed.

the Constitution, and that its expressed purpose It is not difficult, it would seem, for the ob- was to do the very thing which Congress is serving mird, trained in the philosophy and prevented from doing. The law, as it stood, history of our law, to appreciate the interesting excepted from the operation the owners of vesconsiderations of legal thought suggested by sels engaged in internal commerce. The dethe pending inquiry and the gigantic magpi- sign of the Act of 1886 was so to change the tude of the values which its ultimate adjudica excepting clause as to apply the law to such tion may affect. Sbould the propositions of owners and commerce. Take the law as it was the respondents be deemed finally controlling, in connection with this fourth section, and it this would afford the twenty-first instance when will then appear that the purpose was to do an an Act of Congress was decisively adjudged unconstitutional thing; that is to say, the very unconstitutional. When it is considered that legislation proposed was unconstitutional if our this record of legislative conscientiousness and contention be correct as to the power of Conjudicial conservatism embraces a period of gress.” ninety-nine years, the inchoate and formative In this connection it may be well to state that period of a vast and novel experiment in the elsewbere in the copious and valuable brief science of government, the exciting exigencies from which the quotation is taken an importof foreign wars, the corroding inflammation of ant axiom of constitutional interpretation is civil strife, the expansion of three millions of frankly set forth, viz., "that a court ought not primitive people, employed mainly in the simple to declare a law unconstitutional unless the and unproductive occupations of frontiersmen, fatal infirmity is made clearly to appear, - to to sixty millions whose ventures in the produc. appear beyond any reasonable doubt." Vith tion of national wealth are as diverse in cbar- this cardinal rule in mind, let us attempt to acter as they are intrepid in enterprise and ascertain if there is not at least a reasonable affluent in results; when, also, the mighty vol. doubt as to the existence of error or misappre. ume of decided cases, involving the application hension in the propositions of the proctor, or interpretation of the Constitution, is consid- above set forth. Is it true that Congress bas ered, it must be granted that the national legis- "expressed the purpose" by this Amendment lation is with substantial uniformity stable and to take control of the internal commerce of the valid, and that the occasions when it may be States? 1. Did the law, before the Amendheld by the courts invalid are rarely afforded. ment, except from its operation the owners of It is equally obvious that the courts will de- vessels engaged in internal commerce? 2. Does cline to adjudge a statute to be in conflict with the Amendment assailed apply the law to such the Constitution, unless the reasons therefor owners and commerce? 3. Is it true that the are of that convincing and imperative charac-purpose of Congress was to do an unconstituter which at once clear the mind of doubt and tional thing?" It does not appear that the Law constrain the inevitable decision.

of Limited Liability before the 19th of June, The altempted impeachment of the fourth 1886, excepted from its operation the owners section of the Act of June 19, 1886, extending of vessels engaged in internal commerce. The the privilege of limited responsibility to “all language of ibe exception was applicable to the vessels used on lakes or rivers, or in inland owners of craft of certain description plying navigation, including canal-boats, barges and upon certain waters. It is wholly silent as to lighiers,” is evolved mainly from this premise the character or kind of commerce for which

where it would not have had cognizance in ad-, to their jurisdiction of the main subject. Re Good. miralty originally of the cause of action involved, rich Transp. Co.26 Fed. Rep. 713. as where suit was brought by a sufferer from a fire The fact that a claimant against a vessel has reset out on land by a passing vessel. Er parte Phe- covered in a state court legs than her stipulated nix Ing. Co. 118 U. S. 610 (30 L. ed. 274); The Ply-value does not oust the jurisdiction of the district mouth, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 20 (18 L. ed. 125). See, how court of proceedings to limit her liability where his ever, The Mary Lord, 31 Fed. Rep. 416; Norwich & original claim was greater than its value. Briggs N. Y. Transp. Co. v. Wright, 80 U. S. 13 Wall. 104 (20 v. Day, 21 Fed. Rep. 727. See further, as to the jurisL. ed. 5851; Providence & N.Y. Steamship Co.v. Hill diction of the district court, Ex parte Phenix Ins. Mfg. Co. 109 U. S.578 (27 L. ed. 1038); Elwell v. Geibei, Co. 118 U. S. 610 (30 L, ed. 274). & Fed. Rep. 71; The Epsilon, 6 Ben. 378. Proceedings to limit the liability of ship owners

Injunction to restrain prosecution in state courts. may be instituted in a district where a fund or claim Injunction may issue to restrain the prosecution equitably representing the lost vessel is in litiga- of suits in a state court. The Amsterdam, 23 Fed. tion, though the petitioners reside in another dis- Rep. 112. trict. Re Leonard, 14 Fed. Rep. 53.

The district court may, notwithstanding Rev. In The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239 (28 L. ed. 351), the Stat., 720, restrain parties who have commenced supreme court promulgated a rule that a petition action in the state court from proceeding further for the limitation of liability shall be filed in the therein. Re Long Island N. S. P. & F. Transp. Co. circuit court, if a suit as to the vessel is there pend- 5 Fed. Rep. 599; The Oceanus, 6 Ben. 258; but see Hill ing, and though the ship owner on the trial as to Mfg. Co. v. Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co. 113 the cause of the collision contest all liability what- Mass. 495, 502. ever, The Benefactor, 103 U. 8. 239 (26 L. ed. 351), The making of the 55th Admiralty Rule, restrain.

And though the ship bas been surrendered to the ing, on application by the owners, the further pros. underwriters. The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468 (30 ecution of all suits against them, was within the L. ed. 134).

power of the supreme court, notwithstanding Rev. Admiralty courts have jurisdiction to enforce Stat., 8 720. Re Providence & N.Y. Steamship Co. 6 such claims on the fund as auxiliary and incidental | Ben. 124.

« AnteriorContinuar »