, 1866-12-17

Tie Steam pro rcller fulcHr, employed In
rnvica'in. the lakes, archored In the CHI
rh"o River, beside The wharf Of Hough t.
Scr. haw. There were large packing houses
~, the wharf, ard these wczc flllcl With val
unl,ir stores. Owing 10 the negligence of
l'e nltn in charge Of the Falcon. she took
lire, nt,d :tc flames stretching 10 the wharf
sci G,e 10 tho t,ackinl. houses, which, with
.l.cu contrnfs, Tero wholly consumed. The
lin Of II"ugh d kcrshau, believing the
uwucrs efthc Falcon t. ba responsible for
tic Negligence Of their employees, and bound
10 :,sakr good their 1usses, brought suit 10
rrco.cr. They lied u libel, In admiralty, In
tl:c United States District Court Of Northern
Illinois for cause Of damage, civiland mara
tisac. and attached vessel called the Ply
irrrtl, which belonged to the OWNERS Ut t1.c
ltlcon.
In ISIS Congress passed an act declaring
TINT the District LouFls shall hare admiralty
jmi>dictian ''in matters Of contract and tort
rr;>irE In, rpo,, OF concerning steamboats,
md otbes ve>&e.s," on the Northern lakes
''unts navieablc waters" connecting the same,
precisely as in like cases on the high seas
and tile-wntcrs. In this case the
Ta'con lny In -" nayi5ahlc EAtcrs,"
mud VAS subject TO Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Eut the damage was wholly on land, and the
0urst'cu raised n the District Court, was,
wtc'hcr the mere fact that The eau'e Of the
damage originated within the Ad,nira:ty
jn.isd!ciion. made the case case
iii admiralty. The Disuiet Court
decided tlut IL did not, and
dismissed the llca for want Of Jurisdiction.
Tho plaintiffs appealed 10 til, United States
E...> 1,;.. =,
Circuit Court cori,med the decision Of the
District. Court; wht., ,cn this plaintiffs
st:ll further anrellcd TO the Supreme Court
II, The United States. In the third volume
Of Wsl1acc's Reports Of the Decisions Of the
Supreme Court fsr 1865, We have the tiual
determination Of the question,
The attorney for The appellants submitted
an ahtc aud Ingenious argument In favor OF
tho Jurisdiction. lie contended thAt the
wharf itself was q maratime thing; that
1Ac agcut producing tic damage was MAR
time thing; and hence, since the object and
! agent were 1nata:ftnc things, and within the
| admiralty Jurisdiction" he sskcd, would II
! put shock common sense to exclude from
thai jurisdiction the in1urT received by one
from the other, in case Of manifest and ad'
I nit cd tort7' Further, he argued that the
locality was -maratime, that the incident, oi
that which Is accessory, always follows o.
is drawn to, the principal thing
In given combination OF circumstances
that the case was a mixed ono. and in mixed
casca, arising part1y On land aud partly OF
sea, or upon uaricable waters. admiralty
has Jurisdiction. Justice Nelson. delivered
the opinion Of the Court. He pronounced
that " where damage done il done who'll.
upon land, the fact that the,cause Of tn
"aamasc originated On water, suhjec
"to The admiralty Jurisdiction, doe
mot make the case one for th
admiralty Hence, where vessel lyin
eat wharf, on waters subject to sdmirait
Jurisdiction, took ire, ard the IRE, spread
"ipc itself to certain storthouses on IN
I +" wharf, consumed these and their store!
} "held, not to be a case for Admiralty pr
: "cccdinE." Accordingly. the dcclsaon ofth
; District and CircaIt Courts were coud1me
! by the highest tribunal. and Mcssrs- Hous
. l. Ecz8bn~, after several years Of cxpenssr
. I litigation. have succeeded In learning th'
: they started wrong, aud shout
not have commenced suit
= AdtnIraltT at all. This decls't
: is Interesting and valuable to u
: lscal profession, aud 10 business men &c
c orally, but We question whether the plai
!, tiffs find in 1t either solzce OF satistactio
j. They may congratulate themselves On havii
: obtained decision upon point Of law; b
b so far rs the merits Of their controversy vi
|. the owpcrs Of the Falcon arc conccEue
Il they stand precisely where thes did I
T. morning nftcr the fire. There Is, Of cour'
n no appea1 from this decision. aud It ests
Ec lt.bes precedent Which will be followed
- our courts In all similar cases he
r after The rcasontns Of the cou
> wae, simply, that the Jurisdiction Of the
&c mIralty over marine torts depends upon
&c caliiy-M must he upon the high seass
20 othe, na1Igablc waters within Admiralty g
10 nszanca. But tn this case the entire dams
g complained Of occurred on land, and not
nc The water at an.