Source: https://openjurist.org/135/us/599
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:49:30+00:00

Document:
Robinson, Rea & Co., Kay, McKnight & Co., A. W. Cadman & Co., and Joseph McC. Biggert filed their libel in admiralty in the district court of the third judicial district of the territory of Dakota, April 7, 1881, against the steam-boat Eclipse, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and against all persons intervening for their interest therein, in a cause of possession, civil and maritime, alleging—'first, that they are the majority of the owners of the steam-boat Eclipse, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and, being such owners, on or about the 10th day of March, 1881, appointed one William Braith waite master of said vessel, to navigate and sail her for them, at the wages agreed upon between him and the said owners, and the said William Braithwaite continued to be such master until the 4th day of April, 1881, when the libelants removed him as master and appointed another as master in his place; second, that when the new master so appointed by libelants went on board said vessel, by their orders, to enter upon his duties as such master, the said William Braithwaite refused to give up the possession of the papers of said vessel to the said master or to the libelants, who have demanded the same, to the great damage of the libelants.' Process was prayed against the vessel and Braithwaite, and was issued accordingly, returnable on the first Tuesday of June then next. On the 15th of April, 1881, Braithwaite intervened as a claimant of the boat as 'trustee, one of the owners, and master,' averring that he was 'managing owner and master of said steamer, and is entitled to the possession and command thereof, and that no other person is entitled to the possession or command thereof.' The libel was amended by stating that 'the said Robinson, Rea & Co. owns a twenty-five hundred dollar interest in said steam-boat; the said Kay, McKnight & Co., four hundred and fifty dollar interest in said steamboat; the said Joseph McC. Biggert, a twenty-five hundred dollar interest in said steam-boat; the said A. W. Cadman & Co., a one hundred dollar interest in said steam-boat; that the only other person having an interest in said steam-boat is Wm. Braithwaite, who owns a twenty-five hundred dollar interest in said steamboat.' Braithwaite filed an answer and exception on the 6th of May. On the 4th of June the marshal returned that he had attached the boat under the process on the day it was issued, and that on the same day one Joseph Leighton put in a claim to the boat, and with the consent of the libelants, and upon Leighton's executing a stipulation of the value of $12,000, that being the amount agreed upon between him and libelants, he had delivered the boat to Leighton. On the 25th of May, 1881, Leighton and Jordan filed their claim in intervention as purchasers under a bill of sale, bearing date March 31, 1881, and prayed for a decree directing Braithwaite to execute a bill of sale of the Eclipse, and to deliver it and the papers of the steam-boat to them, and on his refusal that all his interest in the boat be transferred to them, and for costs, and such other relief as a court of admiralty is competent to give.
—Which several amounts are to be paid in cash by the respective parties to said parties of the first part, in case said steam-boat is purchased by them as herein provided; so much thereof as may be necessary to be used for paying such of the bid as may be necessary to be paid in cash, and the remainder to be used as working capital.
Second. That, in addition to said cash fund, the second parties are to contribute as capital the amounts of their respective claims against said steam-boat; and, in case said steam-boat is bought by the parties hereto, their claims are not to be paid at once, but to be receipted for by them, and afterwards paid as hereinafter provided for.
Thereupon judgment was rendered dismissing the libel, and also the intervening petition, with costs to be taxed against the libelants and intervenors, respectively, and ordering the marshal to deliver the possession of the steam-boat Eclipse, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, to the claimant, William Braith waite. This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory, and the cause brought to this court by appeal.
G. W. Guthrie and W. Hallett Phillips, for appellants.
J. G. Bigelow, for appellee.
Circuit courts, in deciding causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the instance side of the court, are required to find the facts and the conclusions of law upon which their judgments and decrees are rendered, stating them separately; and we are limited, in reviewing such judgments and decrees, to a determination of the questions of law arising upon the record, and to such rulings of the court, excepted to at the time, as may be presented by a bill of exceptions prepared as in actions at law. 18 St. 315; The Gazelle, 128 U. S. 474, 484, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139. And this judgment of the supreme court of Dakota territory is subject to review in the same manner, and under the same regulations. Rev. St. § 702.
By the purchase of the steamer, on the 18th of February, 1880, under the agreement dated the 4th day of that month, Braithwaite and Biggert acquired the legal title to be held in trust for the payment to the 'parties of the second part.' Cadman & Co., Robinson, Rea & Co., and Kay, McKnight & Co., of their claims as creditors, and their advances to assist Braithwaite and Biggert to make the purchase. When this was accomplished, Braith waite and Biggert were to remain equal owners of the boat, freed from the incumbrance. Joseph McC. Biggert seems to have been substituted for John D. Biggert; but, as our conclusion is reached without regard to that circumstance, they will be treated as one. The agreement provided that the steamer was to be commanded by Braithwaite, and she was accordingly run by him during the navigation season of 1880, and earned $8,000, which went into the hands of Biggert, who was financial agent under the agreement; but this money had not been apportioned and distributed when the libel was filed. On the 2d of February, 1881, Braithwaite and Biggert, the trustees, and Robinson, Rea & Co., Cadman & Co., and Kay, McKnight & Co., the creditors, by a written memorandum signed at Pittsburgh, appointed Rea, Biggert, and Kay a committee to effect the sale of the steamer, with power to accept any offer of not less than $11,500 cash, or the equivalent in approved paper. At this time the steamer was lying in the Missouri river, a little below Ft. Benton; but it appears from the intervenors' petition that on or about April 1st she had been released from the ice in which she had wintered, and been brought down to Bismarck by her master, Braithwaite. The court found that the committee made a conditional agreement with Leighton's agent to sell the steamer for $11,500, if she should not be damaged to exceed $500; that a bill of sale was made by libelants, April 1, 1881, transferring the boat to the intervenors, but it was not delivered, or any money paid thereon; that Braith waite refused to sign it, and notified the intervenors and the committee that his interest was not for sale, after which the intervenors paid the sum of $2,500; that Braithwaite was the owner of one-half interest in the steamer when the action was commenced; and that $800 was due to him for wages under the written agreement with the libelants, no part of which had been paid or tendered to him by any of the parties.
So far as the creditors and intervenors were concerned, if the former desired to wind up the trust, or the latter to enforce an alleged contract of sale, which is, indeed, what is asked by this intervention, they should have resorted to a different tribunal. While the court of admiralty exercises its jurisdiction upon equitable principles, it has not the characteristic powers of a court of equity. It cannot entertain a bill or libel for specific performance, or to correct a mistake, (Andrews v. Insurance Co., 3 Mason, 6, 16,) or declare or enforce a trust or an equitable title, (Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 330; The Amelia, 6 Ben. 475; Kellum v. Emerson, 2 Curt. 79,) or exercise jurisdiction in matters of account merely, (Grant v. Poillon, 20 How. 162; Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477; The Oceam Belle, 6 Ben. 253,) or decree the sale of a ship for an unpaid mortgage, or declare her to be the property of the mortgagees, and direct possession of her to be given to them, (Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. 399.) The jurisdiction embraces all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, or offenses; and it depends, in cases of contract, upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims, and services purely maritime, and touching right and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation. People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393, 401. There was nothing maritime about the claims of the intervenors, and the intervention was properly dismissed for want of jursidiction over the subject-matter.
The opinion of the supreme court of Dakota, by CHURCH, J., will be found reported in 30 N. W. Rep. 159, and deals with the facts in more detail than we have been at liberty to do. We agree with the results arrived at by that court, and its judgment is therefore affirmed.

References: § 702
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.