Polynesian., 1853-12-17
CHE polpnesiai1.
Decision Of Chief Justice Lee.
SUPREME couRr-IN ADMIRALTY.
Motion to dismiss the
suit.

A''A' VS.. s'1'e''' Motion to di.mi.. til.
GEORGE BAILEY, suit.
GEORGE s. GILBERT.
The first point raised by the learned counsel for
1.-THE defendants is, that this court has no jurisdc
tion in the case, the ground nat il belongs to
1.-THE common tGlc, rather than to the admiralty
|sde of the court, and they contend that there can
|bs admiralty jurisdiction except IN cases of a
maritime hen. The supplies, say they, for which
this suit is instituted were furnished not TO the
l"N Nile," the vessel attached, but to the "Walter
lClaxton," and though the jurisdiction would be
lgood and complete were the Walter Claxton"
proceeded against, yet it cannot hold against the
|" Nile," even granting that she has the same own
ers and captain. Now, clearly the plaintiff had no
lien OIL the SMILE" for supplies furnished to the
j"Walter Claxton,n and II the proposition of the
Learned counsel be true, that there be no ad-
miralty Jurisdiction unless.in cases of a maritime
lien, then his point is made good and the plaintiff
Unjust seek his remedy somewhere else. But let us
examine this matter. The eighty-fourt article
of the Constitution of the Hawaiian Islands
declares that the judicial power shall extend
{" to all cases of admiralty and maritime juris-
diction" and Section g, of the Act relating to the
Judiciary Department, passed on the Sd of Decem-
Der 1882 confers upon this court jurisdiction in
all admiralty and maritime cases. and which jd-
rsdiction is precisely the that existing in
the admiralty courts of the United States.-( Con-
sttution of the United States Article 3. Sect.on2
1t only remains then, for to determine what are
cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
under the practice of the courts Of the United
States, which practice has been mainly derived
from that of England, and if that class of cases
extends to the one under consideration, then
it will be conceded that we have jurisdiction III
not, and it shall be found confined to cases Of
maritime lien only, the defendants counsel con-
tend, then the suit must be dismissed.
| What is the true Interpretation OF that clause OF
the constitution 4" all cases of admiralty and mar
itime jurisdiction 2" l cannot better answer this
question: than by giving the language of the dis
tinguished Judge Story in that most luminous OF
all cases, relating to the subject of admiralty u
risdicton, De Lovio Bolt ct al, 2. Gallison's
Rep. 435. 'lf we examine the etymology, or re-
ceived use, of the Z" words admiralty" and 'mar-
itime jurisdiction" shall find, that they include
jurisdiction of all things done upon and relating to
the sea, or, la other words, all transactions and
proceedings relative to commerce and navigation,
and to DANA ges and injuries upon the sea. In all
the great maritime nations Of Europe, the terms
I" admiralty jurisdiction" uniformly applied to
the courts exercising jurisdiction over maritime
contracts and concerns"
| The admiralty is of very high, if not of imme-
mortal antiquity, and though the full nature and
extent of its jurisdiction is somewhat involved inl
obscurity, in common with the courts OF common
law vet there can be little doubt that the admiral
ty and maritime courts of England France, Ho-
land, Spain and all other European States had one
common model ; and that their jurisdiction inclu-
ded the same subjects, as the consular courts OF
the Mediterranean These courts are described
in the ConsOiato del Mare, having jurisdiction
"of all controversies respecting freight; of dam
ages to goods shipped; of the wages of mariners
of the partitions of ships by public sale of jett-
| son of commissions or baiEents to masters and
mariners of debts contracted by the master for
the use and necessities Of his ship; engagements
made by the master with merchants, or by mer-
chants with the master; of goods found on the
high seas or on the shore; of the armament or
equipment of ships, gales or other vessels and
generally of all other contracts declared in the
customs of the sea-" r Browns Admiralty 30. =
Collisions Rep. 40ll.
| After lengthy and most satisfactory examina
ton of the nature and extent of Admrlty jurisdic
ton from the most ancient times, the learned
Judge Story, in the case of De Lovio VS.. Bolt ct
al, comes to the following conclusion. &" On the
whole, am, without the slightest hesitation, really
to pronounce that the delegation of cosnizance Of
/" all civil cases of admiralty and maritime juris-
dictions" to the courts of the United States COM
prehends all maritime contracts, torts and injuries
The latter branch is necessarily bounded by To-
cality; the former extends over all contracts,
(wheresoever they may be made or executed, or
whatsoever may be the form of the siipuations,)
which relate to the navigation, business or COM
merce of the sea-"
"The next inquiry is, what are properly to be
deemed maritime contracts" Happily in this
particular there is little room for controversy. All
civilians and jursts agree that in this appellation
are included, among other things, charter parties,
afreghtments marine hypothecations, contracts for
maritime service in the building repairing, supply
ing and navigating ships contracts between part
| fchir nd ctS
respecting averages, contributions and jettlsons,
and, what is more material to our present purpose
policies of insurance."
I can discover nothing in all the books confning
the jurisdiction of admiralty courts to cases where
maritime lien exists, and there is not the slight
est doubt in my mind that the contract involved
| in this case Is maritime contract, and pro-
perly within the jurisdiction of this conrt. Wide
3 Story's Com. of the Constitution 527-532l-I
Conkling's Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice .,
Ia. so to 55, and authorities there cited. Also,
the case of Fessenden vs.. the cargo OF the Ship
Charles decided in this court Jan. ~, 1853, and
published in the Polynesian oi Feb. 5, 1853.
But say the learned counsel, granting the court
has jurisdiction, we contend that the plaintiff has
no right to issue an attachment against our proper
ty, unless he complies with the provisions OF the
statute in cases of attachment issuing from the
courts of the district justices. lie must not only
give US bond to save us harmless from ali DANA
ges but he must make an affidavit of certain facts
provided in the statute which he has not done,
and hence the suit should be dismissed.
| If this case was of like nature with those re-
erred to in the statute the process the same as
that contemplated in sections g. and &, pp. IA,
Is of the Cd vol. of the statutes, then the argu-
ment to dismiss this suit for nonconformity there
with might have weight but it is totally different
The cases therein referred to have no relation
whatever to the court Of admiralty, whose rules,
process and practice are entirely of another nature
and il would be as reasonable to object to the sei
zure of vessel or libel, for any cause Whatever