Case ID: super-ct-jud_1/html/0086-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Poor vers. Doble.
    1763.
    An Action on the Cafe for a Rescue cannot be brought in a County where the Conspiracy to rescue, but not the Rescue itself, took Place. One Judge dissenting.
    
    Poor brought an Action against one Jutsham, and, it being suggested to the Admiralty that Jutsham was on board a Vessell in the Harbour, the Writ was committed to a Water Bailiff, who entered the Vessell and took him. Doble interposed, went up to Boston, and upon his Return forced the Defendant Jutsham from the Officer and carried him off; upon this the present Action was grounded. There were several Exceptions in Abatement of the Writ taken. The first was, “Not within the Jurisdiction of the Court; ” it was said they conspired at Boston, but the Act was done below. ()
    
      
      Mr. Thacher,
    
    in support of the Writ said, that the former Writ was said to be purehased in Boston, Complaint made there, Warrant procured there and Contrivance there.
    
      Ch. Just.
    
    If Conspiracy be in one County and Rescous in another, could the Courts in both have Jurisdiction ?
    
      Mr. Gridley.
    
    Jurisdiction of inferiour Courts must be shewn. This is a Court of a limited Jurisdiction; they have shewn the Conspiracy to be within, but ’tis the Rescue, and not Conspiracy, which is the Cause of Action.
    
      
      (1) The declaration set forth the original cause of action, the purchase of the writ, and the subsequent issue of a warrant from the Court of Admiralty, by virtue of which the deputy marshal “ went on board the sloop Pompey, being then within the jurisdiction of the said Court of Admiralty, and there sound the said Samuel Jutsham and him detained as a prisoner till he should convene him to justice or deliver him to the sheriff of this county or his deputy, that the said writ of attachment might be duly served on him.” And it was further alleged that the defendants having conspired and agreed to rescue the prisoner, “ in pursuance of the said unlawful conspiracy and agreement,” “procured a boat at Boston and went down to the said sloop Pompey, then lying at anchor in Nantasket Bay, so called, about a quarter of a mile from the shore,” that they rescued the prisoner, forced the officer to return to Boston without him, and the sloop Pompey to put to sea and carry him off, “ whereby the plaintiff hath wholly lost the benefit of the writ of attachment and his debt aforesaid.”
      The defendants pleaded in abatement “ that the said Patrick hath not in said declaration shown forth that the cause of the said action arose within the county of Suffolk;” and the writ was abated “ upon the first exception.”
    
   Writ abated, 3 vs. 1. () 
      
      (2) It appears to have been assumed that a civil action for a rescue was local, and could only be brought in the county where the cause of action or some part thereof arose, and the decision was Amply to the point that a conspiracy alone within a county was not sufficient to authorize the action to be brought there. No question of admiralty jurisdiction could have arisen, because even if a ship “ in Nantasket Bay a quarter of a mile from shore ” was not infra corpus comitatus, (12 Met. 387,) yet of torts upon the high sea the common law had concurrent jurisdiction. 2 Gallis. 422.
      For a somewhat analogous decision in a case in which the locality of the tort was the limit of jurisdiction, see Adams v. Haffard, 20 Pick. 127, where it was held, that an imprisonment on shore, in pursuance of orders given on the high sea, did not constitute a cause of action within admiralty jurisdiction.
      But whether an action on the case against rescuers is local at common law, quiere. An action of escape against the officer is transitory. Bac. Ab. Escape, F. -2 Chit. PI. (6th Am. Ed.) 736, 737, & note (d).