§ 62. State courts have no jurisdiction of civil suits in admiralty in rem, and such suits are not removable to a United States Circuit Court if begun therein; but suits at law or in equity closely allied to suits in admiralty are within the concurrent jurisdiction of the State courts and the Circuit Courts of the United States.-The United States District Courts have original jurisdiction of civil suits of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts is nearly, and that of the State courts is wholly excluded; "saving to suitors in all cases but is declared to have no application to the territories.

"The State, as parens patriæ, can and should protect all such charities by legislation and through the courts, as is the universal rule in civilized states." Sickles v. New Orleans, 52 U. S. App. 147, 26 C. C. A. 204, 80 Fed. 868.

The State courts of several of the United States have adjudged that they have no control over charities as parens patriæ.

Grimes v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 198, 9 Am. R. 690, and cases therein cited (as modified and restricted in Lagrange County v. Rogers, 55 Ind. 297; Erskine v. Whitehead, 84 Ind. 357);

New York v. Powers, 147 N. Y. 104, 41 N. E. 432, 35 L. R. A. 502.

In the Grimes case, it is said: "The American doctrine in relation to charities does not adopt the English doctrine of cy pres, only in a modified and very restricted form. It stops where prerogative under the English system begins. It is strictly judicial.

. Our courts have never permitted the doctrine to go so far as to act in the capacity of parens patriæ."

Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Church v. United States, 136 U S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 792, 34 L. 478. § 62.

1 Rev. St. U. S., § 563:

"The District Courts shall have jurisdiction as follows:

"Eighth. Of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and of all seizures on land and on waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. And such jurisdiction shall be exclusive, except in the particular cases where jurisdiction of such causes and seizures is given to the Circuit Courts."

2 Rev. St. U. S., § 563, cl. 8; § 629, cl. 4.

& Rev. St. U. S., § 711, cl. 3;

The Glide, 167 U. S. 606, 17 Sup. Ct. 930, 42 L. 296, reversing Atlantic Works v. The Glide, 157 Mass. 525, 33 N. E. 163, 34 Am. St. R. 305; s. c. 159 Mass. 60, 34 N. E. 258;

The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. 266, reversing Steamboat Belfast v. Boon, 41 Ala. 50;

The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 18 L. 397;

The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555,

In the territories, the United States has full power as parens | 18 L. 451, reversing Trevor v. The

patriæ.

Ad. Hine, 17 Iowa 349;

the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it." 4

Stewart v. Potomac Ferry Co., | proceedings under the State au

12 Fed. 296, 5 Hughes 372;

Ashbrook v. The Golden Gate, 2 Fed. Cas. 10, Newb. 296, 5 Am. Law Reg. 148, 36 Hunt Mer. Mag. 61; Jackson v. The Kinnie, 13 Fed. Cas. 217, 8 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 470;

thority were in the nature of proceedings in rem. And the right to maintain the jurisdiction, must attach to that tribunal which first exercises it, and takes possession of the thing in litigation."

4 Rev. St. U. S., § 563, cl. 8; § 711,

cl. 3.

The common law has a concurrent jurisdiction with admiralty in

Moir v. The Dubuque, 17 Fed. Cas. 569, 3 Chi. Leg. News 145, 4 Am. Law T. Rep. U. S. Cts. 84; The Norfolk, 18 Fed. Cas. 304, 2 all cases within the admiralty jurisHughes 123;

The Josephine, 39 N. Y. 19;

diction.

Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102

Brookman v. Hammill, 43 N. Y. U. S. 118, 26 L. 95, affirming Brown 554, 3 Am. R. 731;

Vose v. Cockcroft, 44 N. Y. 415; Campbell v. Sherman, 35 Wis. 103;

The Gen. Buel v. Long, 18 Ohio St. 521;

v. Gilmore, 92 Pa. St. 40;

Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 23 L. 819, affirming Sherlock v. Alling, 44 Ind. 184;

American Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 522, 21 L. 369, affirming

The Petrel v. Dumont, 28 Ohio Chase v. American Steamboat Co., 9 R. I. 419, 11 Am. R. 274;

St. 602.

Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185, 20 L. 74;

Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 56 N. Y. 1;

The decisions asserting the jurisdiction of the State courts under the water-craft acts of different States, are collected in the opinion of the supreme court of Iowa in Trevor v. The Ad. Hine, 17 Iowa, 58 N. E. 729. 349, supra.

In a case decided before the Supreme Court revolutionized the law,

The Robert Fulton, 20 Fed. Cas. 869, 1 Paine 620,

Justice Thompson said:

"If the local law gives a lien, it may be enforced in the District Court; otherwise not. . . . That the State tribunals had authority also to enforce the lien in the present case, is very certain from the express provisions of the law. There was then a concurrent jurisdiction in the two courts; and the

Duffy v. Gleason, Ind. App.

Therefore, a final judgment in an action at law is a bar to a libel in admiralty for the same cause of action.

Goodrich v. Chicago, 5 Wall. 566, 18 L. 511, affirming Goodrich v. Chicago, 10 Fed. Cas. 604, 4 Biss. 18. A court of law acts in personam. It cannot adopt the process in rem of a court of admiralty. It may give a common-law remedy; but there is no right to a remedy in admiralty in a common-law court.

Cases cited in preceding portion of this note.

It has been said that cases of

The question as to what causes are within, and what without the jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty, has given rise to much bitter litigation.5

Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129, 4 L. 169; 16 L. 294;

The Supreme Court of the United States, from time to

App. 261, 17 C. C. A. 1, 70 Fed. 113, 30 L. R. A. 336;

The Willamette, 44 U. S. App. 26, 18 C. C. A. 366, 70 Fed. 874, 31 L. R. A. 715;

Robinson v. Detroit & C. S. Nav. Co., 43 U. S. App, 190, 20 C. C. A. 86, 73 Fed. 883;

Humboldt

Lumber Manuf'g

Ass'n v. Christopherson, 44 U. S. App. 434, 19 C. C. A. 481, 73 Fed. 239, 46 L. R. A. 264;

Boutin v. Rudd, 53 U. S. App. 525, 27 C. C. A. 526, 82 Fed. 685; The Glendale, 42 U. S. App. 546, 26 C. C. A. 500, 81 Fed. 633;

The Marion S. Harris, 56 U. S. App. 98, 29 C. C. A. 428, 85 Fed. 798; The Harvey & Henry, 57 U. S. App. 41, 30 C. C. A. 330, 86 Fed. 656; The Eugene, 59 U. S. App. 513, 31 C. C. A. 345, 87 Fed. 1001;

Bolden v. Jensen, 70 Fed. 505; The H. N. Emilie, 70 Fed. 511; Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Moore, 70 Fed. 870;

The Willamette Valley, 71 Fed. 712;

The Lena Mowbray, 71 Fed. 720;
In re Whitelaw, 71 Fed. 733;
The City of Toledo, 73 Fed. 220;
The William Windom, 73 Fed.

496;

The Oregon, 73 Fed. 846;

The Eugene, 83 Fed. 222, reversed, s. C., supra;

The Humboldt, 86 Fed. 351;
The H. C. Grady, 87 Fed. 232;
The Crescent, 88 Fed. 298;
The Algonquin, 88 Fed. 318;
The Iris, 88 Fed. 902;
The Sappho, 89 Fed. 366;
The Del Norte, 90 Fed. 506;
The Robert R. Kirkland, 92 Fed.

The Scow No. 15, 35 C. C. A. 407; 149, 92 Fed. 1008;

The Iris, 40 C. C. A. 301, 100 Fed. 104;

Rundell v. La Campagnie Générale Transatlantique, 40 C. C. A. 625, 100 Fed. 655, affirming s. C., sub nom. Rundell v. La Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 94 Fed. 366;

The Allerton, 93 Fed. 219;
The New York, 93 Fed. 495;
The City of Clarksville, 94 Fed.
201;

Skinner v. Harris, 98 Fed. 442;
Delaware River Storage Co. v.
The Thomas, 7 Fed. Cas. 413, 15
Int. Rev. Rec. 147, 4 Chi. Leg.
News 218, 29 Leg. Int. 116, 6 Alb.

The H. E. Willard, 52 Fed. 387; Law J. 292, 6 Am. Law Rev. 765, s. c., 53 Fed. 599;

The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. 98; Williams v. Providence W. Ins. Co., 56 Fed. 159;

7 Am. Law Rev. 381, 20 Pittsb. Leg. J. 19, 20 Int. Rev. Rec. 175, 4 Leg. Gaz. 114, 9 Fhila. 364;

Eads v. The H. D. Bacon, 8 Fed.

Bain v. Sandusky Transp. Co., Cas. 224, Newb. 274; 60 Fed. 912;

The Alvira, 63 Fed. 144;

The Advance, 63 Fed. 704;

The Katie O'Neil, 65 Fed. 111;
The Sirius, 65 Fed. 226;

The Flora, 9 Fed. Cas. 291, 1 Biss. 29, 3 Chi. Leg. News 130;

Francis v. The Harrison, 9 Fed. Cas. 678, 1 Sawy. 353, 2 Abb. U. S. 74; The Globe, 10 Fed. Cas. 477, 2

Jervey v. The Carolina, 66 Fed. Blatchf. 427, 15 Law Rep. 421;

1013;

The Mary Washington, 16 Fed.

The William M. Hoag, 69 Fed. Cas. 1006, 1 Abb. U. S. 1, Chase 125, 5 Am Law Reg. (N. S.) 692;

742;

The question as to what causes are within, and what without the jurisdiction of Courts of Admiralty, has given rise to much bitter litigation.5

Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129, 4 L. 169; 16 L. 294;