admiralty exclusively; Seven Coal Barges, 2 Biss. 300, F. C. 12,677, holding District Court had jurisdiction of case of salvage on Ohio river; The Willamette Valley, 62 Fed. 296, holding steamer operated by receiver not exempt from maritime liens; Claimant, etc., Portland v. Lewis, 2 S. & R. 201, holding proceedings in attachment should be removed to District Court. Approved in Scott's Case, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 340, F. C. 12,522, holding State lien for supplies cannot relate back to take priority over mortgage; Francis v. The Harrison, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 77, 1 Sawy. 355, F. C. 5,038, holding materialman claiming lien under State law entitled to priority; Haslett v. The Enterprise, 11 Fed. Cas. 784, holding proceedings in rem may be used in admiralty to enforce State lien; Tug E. P. Dorr v. Waldron, 62 Ill. 226, 14 Am. Rep. 90, holding State court has jurisdiction to enforce lien against vessel for supplies; Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 559, 3 Am. Rep. 735, holding State court has jurisdiction over suit for wharfage. See valuable note discussing this subject in 13 Am. Dec. 567, 62 Am. Dec. 236, 242, and 32 Am. Dec. 68.

Distinguished in Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 102 U. S. 119, 26 L. 95, holding United States courts have not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam arising from collisions; The Arkansas, 5 McCrary, 373, 17 Fed. 389, holding damage done by vessel on flooded lands not within admiralty jurisdiction; Home Ins. Co. v. North, etc., Co., 32 Iowa, 243, 7 Am. Rep. 190, holding action upon bill of lading not within exclusive jurisdiction of Federal court.

Admiralty jurisdiction of District Courts over lakes and connecting waters is limited and governed by act of 1845, which makes jurisdiction concurrent with such remedies as are given by State laws, p. 570.

Cited and followed in Horn v. Schooner Trial, 22 Wis. 531, holding State court had jurisdiction to enforce service lien against vessel navigating Lake Michigan. Approved in Tug E. P. Dorr v. Waldron, 62 Ill. 225, 14 Am. Rep. 89, holding objection in Supreme Court that proceedings failed to show jurisdiction made too late; Dever v. Str. Hope, 42 Miss. 721, 2 Am. Rep. 646, holding State court without Jurisdiction to enforce lien by attachment.

Distinguished in The Belfast, 7 Wall. 641, 19 L. 271, holding jurisdiction exclusive to enforce shippers' lien for transportation between ports of same State; Bigley v. The Venture, 21 Fed. 880, holding trial by jury not incident in admiralty to navigation on public rivers.

Admiralty. State laws conferring jurisdiction to enforce maritime torts and contracts by proceeding strictly in rem, being in conflict with exclusive jurisdiction of District Courts, are void; such proceedings being in no sense common-law remedies within saving clause of ninth section of act of 1789, pp. 570, 571.

Cited and followed in The Glide, 167 U. S. 616, 617, 618, 42 L. 299, 300, 17 S. Ct. 933, 934, reviewing cases, and holding enforcement

In rem of lien created by State statutes belongs exclusively to admiralty; Surplus, etc. of Ship Edith, 5 Ben. 439, F. C. 4,282, S. C., 11 Blatchf. 453, 456, 465, F. C. 4,283, holding proceedings under State laws to enforce maritime liens void; The B. F. Woolsey, 18 Blatchf. 352, 4 Fed. 560, holding State court without jurisdiction to enforce lien for repairs; The Canada, 7 Sawy. 185, 7 Fed. 732, Jack son v. Kinnie, 13 Fed. Cas. 218, Moir v. The Dubuque, 17 Fed. Cas. 570, General Tompkins, 9 Fed. 621, and Weston v. Morse, 40 Wis. 461, all holding State court without jurisdiction to enforce liens given by State law by proceedings in rem; The Circassian, 11 Blatchf. 478, 5 Fed. Cas. 691, reviewing cases, and holding proceedings in rem will not lie to enforce alleged lien for supplies; Stewart v. Potomac, etc., Co., 5 Hughes, 376, 12 Fed. 299, holding State law enforcing lien by attachment before any service made, invalid; The William M. Hoag, 69 Fed. 745, holding State statute void which bars seamen's hien for wages after one year; Str. Mist v. Martin & Co., 41 Ala. 718, holding lien for supplies only enforceable by admiralty proceedings in Federal court; Str. Rio Grande v. Rawson, 42 Ala. 134, holding State court without jurisdiction of libel for work and labor performed; Murphy v. Mobile, etc. Co., 49 Ala. 438, and Crawford v. Bark Reed, 42 Cal. 473, both holding contract for supplies furnished vessel unenforceable by admiralty process in State courts; Ford v. Tuget, 29 Ind. 53, holding bond releasing boat seized under law for enforcement of liens without consideration; Walters v. Str. Mollie Dozier, 24 Iowa, 198, 199, 95 Am. Dec. 725, 726, holding State court without jurisdiction over proceedings in rem for damages due to collision; Young v. Ship Princess Royal, 22 La. Ann. 389, 2 Am. Rep. 732, dismissing suit where damages are sought for maritime tort by proceedings in rem; Southern, etc. Co. v. Steamboat J. D. Perry, 23 La. Ann. 40, 8 Am. Rep. 587, holding State court without jurisdiction to enforce lien for repairs by proceedings in rem; Haeberle v. Barringer, 29 La. Ann. 411, holding suit against ship without naming owners not within jurisdiction of State court; Hayford v. Cunningham, 72 Me. 133, holding enforcement of lien for repairing foreign vessel exclusively within Federal court's jurisdiction; Warren v. Kelley, 80 Me. 528, 529, 530, 15 Atl. 52, 53, holding State statute authorizing enforcement of lien for repairs unconstitutional; Griswold v. Str. Otter, 12 Minn. 467, 93 Am. Dec. 240, dismissing proceeding against vessel for breach of contract of affreightment; Dever v. Str. Hope, 42 Miss. 718, 724, 2 Am. Rep. 644, 649, holding State courts without jurisdiction to enforce by attachment demand for work done; In re Str. Josephine, 39 N. Y. 26, 27, holding State statute authorizing proceeding against steamer by name unconstitutional; Baird v. Daly, 57 N. Y. 247, 15 Am. Rep. 491, holding State Supreme Court had jurisdiction over action for damage for négligent towing; Str. General Buell v. Long, 18 Ohio St. 530, holding action for failure to transport passenger not enforceable under water

craft law; Str. Petrel v. Dumont, 28 Ohio St. 610, 614, 22 Am. Rep. 399, 402, holding State court without jurisdiction to enforce, by proceedings in rem, contract for repairs; Campbell v. Serman, 35 Wis. 107, holding proceeding against vessel to enforce pilots' wages not within State court's jurisdiction.

Approved in Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 531, 21 L. 371, holding State statute giving action on case for damages not interfering with admiralty; The Lotta wanna, 20 Wall. 218, 22 L. 262, holding material furnished vessel at home port does not create maritime lien; Comings v. The Ida Stockdale, 6 Fed. Cas. 206, granting leave to amend complaint where allegations sufficient to confer jurisdiction; United States v. Burlington, etc., Co., 21 Fed. 337, holding vessel plying between ports of same State guilty of maritime tort; The J. F. Warner, 22 Fed. 345, holding admiralty will enforce State lien attached to purely executory agreement of affreightment; The John C. Sweeney, 55 Fed. 543, holding admiralty without jurisdiction of libel for damage done to bridge by collision; in dissenting opinion in Str. Belfast v. Boon, 41 Ala. 74, majority distinguishing and holding State law giving and enforcing lien of affreightment by admiralty proceedings constitutional; Tug Montauk v. Walker, 47 Ill. 337, holding jurisdiction must affirmatively appear in proceedings in rem in State court; dissenting opinion in Atlantic Works v. Tug Glide, 157 Mass. 533, 33 N. E. 166, majority distinguishing and holding Superior Court had jurisdiction to enforce lien for repairs. See valuable notes discussing this subject in 32 Am. Dec. 68, 62 Am. Dec. 241, 13 Am. Rep. 275, and 34 Am. St. Rep. 310.

Distinguished in Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 556, 22 L. 492, The Selt, 3 Biss. 347, 349, F. C. 12,649, The Island City, 1 Low. 377, F. C. 7,109, Whittaker v. The J. A. Travis, 29 Fed. Cas. 1117, Sylvan Stream, 35 Fed. 315, Southern, etc. Co. v. Gibson, 22 La. Ann. 624, and Atlantic Works v. Tug Glide, 157 Mass. 525, 526, 34 Am. St. Rep. 305, 306, 33 N. E. 163, all holding State court had jurisdiction to enforce liens for repairs and materials furnished vessel; Norton v. Switzer, 93 U. S. 366, 23 L. 907, holding suit for services as master and superintendent cognizable in State courts; Johnson v. Chicago, etc., Co., 119 U. S. 397, 30 L. 450, 7 S. Ct. 258, holding suit in per sonam against owner of vessel properly cognizable in State court; The Unadilla, 8 Ben. 481, F. C. 14,332, enforcing llen given by State laws for supplies; Francis v. The Harrison, 2 Abb. 78, 1 Sawy. 356, F. C. 5,038, enforcing liens of materialmen against proceeds in registry; The Menominie, 36 Fed. 199, enforcing State lien for supplies, though remedy to enforce it void; Str. Belfast v. Boon, 41 Ala. 69, 70, 73, holding State statute, giving and enforcing lien for affreightment by admiralty proceedings valid; Easton v. Pennywit, 25 Ark. 148, holding in action for debt, boat may be seized on attachment; Davis v. Mason, 44 Ark. 554, holding contracts for ship building not maritime, and enforceable in State courts; People v.

(

Str. America, 34 Cal. 680, holding act giving harbor commissioners authority to proceed in rem for wharfage, valid; Williamson v. Hogan, 46 Ill. 514, restating propositions established in Moses Tày. lor, 4 Wall. 411, 18 L. 397, and holding actions may be maintained in State courts on contracts for supplies furnished at home port; Gindele v. Corrigan, 129 Ill. 586, 588, 16 Am. St. Rep. 293, 294, 22 N. E. 516, 517, sustaining jurisdiction of State court, where boat attached in action against owner; Sinton v. Str. R. R. Roberts, 34 Ind. 450, 7 Am. Rep. 230, and case of same name in 46 Ind. 479, holding within jurisdiction of State court to enforce llen for machinery furnished; Stewart v. Harry, 3 Bush, 443, holding State court had jurisdiction to try action against owners for damages; State v. Voorhies, 39 La. Ann. 502, 4 Am. St. Rep. 277, 2 So. 39, collecting cases and holding State court has jurisdiction of suit in personam, though coupled with sequestration; Marshall v. Curtis, 5 Bush, 611, 612, holding State statute, authorizing seizure of vessel without making owners parties, unconstitutional; John Spry Lumber Co. v. Steam Barge, 76 Mich. 328, 43 N. W. 578, holding State court had jurisdiction where vessel collided with log boom; Globe, etc., Co. v. Str. John B. Ketcham, 2d, 100 Mich. 588, 43 Am. St. Rep. 468, 59 N. W. 248, holding contracts for construction can, be fore vessel launched, be enforced in State court; Stapp v. Str. Clyde, 43 Minn. 194, 45 N. W. 430, holding suits enforcing llens against boats on inland lakes within State jurisdiction; Parisot v. Green, 46 Miss. 749, upholding judgment of State court against owners of steamboat for supplies furnished; Cavender v. Str. Fanny Barker, 40 Mo. 243, remedy given by State statute may be enforced against boat by name; Edwards v. Elliot, 34 N. J. L. 98, holding State statute constitutional giving remedy for enforcing construction lien; Brookman v. Hamill, 43 N. Y. 563, 3 Am. Rep. 738, holding State court has jurisdiction in suit for wharfage; Brown v. Gilmore, 92 Pa. St. 46, holding State court had jurisdiction of sult for negligent loss of barges; Chase v. American, etc., Co., 9 R. I. 432, 11 Am. Rep. 282, reviewing case and holding State court had jurisdiction over suit to recover for death of intestate; Waggoner v. St. John, 10 Heisk. 510, 513, holding State court had jurisdiction to enforce statutory lien.

Admiralty.-State courts under State laws are not prohibited by any act of Congress from seizing on attachment and selling upon execution the interest of any owner in vessel, where proceeding is against defendant by name, nor from maintaining actions in personam against defendant in the common-law courts, p. 571.

Cited and followed in Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 191, 20 L. 77, holding State court had jurisdiction over suit for mariners' wages in personam; Penny wit v. Eaton, 15 Wall. 384, 21 L. 114, holding sult in State court against owners instituted by attachment, not

admiralty proceeding; Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall 533, 21 L. 372, upholding action in State court against common carrier for damages for personal injuries; Johnson v. Chicago, etc., Co., 119 U. S. 399, 30 L. 451, 7 S. Ct. 259, holding State court had jurisdiction over action where boom of vessel damaged building; In re Surplus, etc. Ship Edith, 11 Blatchf. 466, F. C. 4,283, holding within jurisdiction of State court to enforce lien for materials furnished home vessel; Eaton v. Pennywit, 25 Ark. 148, holding in ordinary action for debt, boat may be seized on attachment; Walter v. Kierstead, 74 Ga. 24, upholding proceeding in State court by attachment against dredge; Gindele v. Corrigan, 129 Ill. 588, 16 Am. St. Rep. 294, 22 N. E. 517, holding State court had jurisdiction where boat was attached for maritime tort; Waggoner v. St. John, 10 Heisk. 511, holding State giving court jurisdiction to enforce lien on boats, constitutional. Approved in Thompson v. Robinson, 34 Ark. 54, holding sureties not relieved for failure to attach where no grounds existed.

Distinguished in Pelham v. The B. F. Woolsey, 3 Fed. 464, upholding jurisdiction of District Court over libel for wharfage.

Admiralty. Exemption clause of judiciary act saving to suitors In all cases of admiralty, such concurrent remedies as are given by common-law, does not give to suitors all such remedies as might afterwards be enacted by State statutes, pp. 571, 572.

Miscellaneous.-Apparently miscited in Ex parte Andrews and Mott, 40 Ala. 656, to matter of concurrent jurisdiction of State and Federal courts. Miscited in English v. Oliver, 28 Ark. 333, to point that State may limit its taxing power by contract.

4 Wall. 572-583, 18 L. 305, NEWELL v. NIXON.

Appeal and error.- On error to District Court in Louisiana, although there is no jury trial, rulings of court may be examined by Supreme Court by bill of exceptions, and revised upon facts found by court; but question presented and decided in lower court, must be clearly stated, p. 581.

Partnership. Though no partnership exists between two joint owners of vessel against which claim exists for non-delivery of cargo, if one party gives note for acknowledged amount of such claim in name of both, other party knowing consideration, and that note therefor is given, cannot after buying first party's interest and assuming liability for all debts against boat, repudiate such note, p. 581.

Carriers. Where suit is brought to recover sum acknowledged to be due for breach of contract of carriage, bill of lading need not be produced, p. 581.