Case Name: THE BIG JIM. BAKER et al. v. THE BIG JIM
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1894-05-04
Citations: 61 F. 503
Docket Number: No. 60
Parties: THE BIG JIM. BAKER et al. v. THE BIG JIM.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 61
Pages: 503–503

Head Matter:
THE BIG JIM. BAKER et al. v. THE BIG JIM.
(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
May 4, 1894.)
No. 60.
Admthat.ty .Titrtsdtctior—Mature Pump.
A marine pump, which is weighted with heavy ballast, so as to rest on piles, but capable of floating and being towed from place to place, and which is used for sucking mud from beneath the water or from scows alongside,^ and forcing it by steam x>ower onto the adjacent land, is not a subject of admiralty jurisdiction.
This was a libel by Baker and others against the marine pump Big Jim to recover wages.
John Q. Lane, for libelants.
Henry It. Edmunds, for respondent.

Opinion:
BUTLER, District Judge.
The claim is for wages on the "Big Jim" a marine pump, resting on piles, driven in the ground under water at League Island. She was weighted with heavy ballast to keep her in place while at work. She was capable of being towed from place to place, where her services were needed, a.nd had been so towed. She was used to suck mud from the bottom of the water, or from scows alongside, and force it by steam power on the adjacent; land. A fuller description seems unnecessary. She had none of the characteristics, and was not capable of performing any of tbe services of a vessel. In my judgment admiralty has no jurisdiction of the libelants' claims. To extend it to such a case would carry it beyond proper limits. For a discussion of the general subject I refer to the cases cited in Evans v. The Starbuck (just decided by the court) [61 Fed. 502].