James Kent's Commentaries: Of the District and Territorial Courts of the United States

LONANG Library

• Historic Reference

• Organic Documents

LONANG Commentaries

• Legal Foundations

• Constitutional Law

• LONANG Curriculum

Tribunal of Justice

LONANG Institute

• Search Our Site

• About Us

• Contact Us

• Home

*New!*
Reassert the Rule of Law
Reform Civil Government
Reclaim The Church

* NOW - Vols. 1 - 4 are available for purchase! Click here * Of the District and Territorial Courts of the United StatesNOTES
   1. Doug. 613. note.
   2. Ex parte Lynch, 1 Maddock's Rep. 15.
   3. 1 Peters' Adm. Rep. 5, 6.
   4. 1 Peters' Adm. Rep. 1.
   5. 3 Dallas, 6.
   6. 1 Gallison, 563.
   7. 1 Rob. 228.
   8. Lindo v. Rodney, Doug. 613, note.
   9. Ships taken at Genoa, 4 Rob. 388. Anthon v. Fisher, Doug. 649 note. Maisonnarie v. Keating, 3 Gallison, 325.
   10. 1 Gallison, 563.
   11. 1 Rob. 238.
   12. The Two Friends, 1 Rob. 237, 238.
   13. The Peacock, 4 Rob. 135.
   14. The Susannah, 6 Rob. 48.
   15. Vide supra, p. 98.
   16. The Falcon, 6 Rob. 194. The Pomona, 1 Dodson, 25. L'Eole, 6 Rob. 220. La Dame Cecile, 6 Rob. 257. The Arabella and Maderia, 2 Gallison, 368.
   17. Le Caux v. Eden, Doug 594. The Amiable Nancy, 1 Paine, 111, Chamberlain v Chandler, 3 Mason, 243, 244. Probable cause of seizure is a sufficient excuse in the cases of captures jure belli, and as to marine torts generally, or the exercise of belligerent rights to a limited extent under statute provisions. The Palmyra, 12 Wheaton, 1,
   18. The Johanna Tholon, 6 Rob. 72. Oswell v. Vigne, 15 East's Rep. 70.
   19. Case of the George, 1 Wheaton, 408. 2 Wheaton, 278.
   20. Act of September 24th, 1789, sec. 9 and 11. Du Ponceau on jurisdiction, p. 59-61. 4 Dallas, 426.
   21. 3 Wheaton, 336.
   22. 5 Wheaton, 76.
   23. 1 Gallison, 488.
   24. 1 Wheaton, 415.
   25. 3 Wheaton, 546. It was held in Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242, that the admiralty had jurisdiction of personal torts and wrongs committed on a passenger on the high seas, by the master of the ship, whether the torts were by direct force, as trespasses, or were consequential injuries.
   26. 4 Blacks. Com. 265.
   27. 4 Rob. Rep. 74. note.
   28. 2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law, appendix, No. 3. Opinion of Law Officers of the Crown, ibid.
   29. 4 Inst. 135.
   30. 9 Hale's P. C. ch. 3.
   31. 1 Blacks. Com. 110. Constable's case, 5 Co. 106, 7. 2 Lord Raym, 1452. 2 East's P. C. 303. 4 Blacks. Com. 268.
   32. Cited in Andrew's Rep. 232.
   33. King v. Soleguard, Andrew's Rep. 231. The resolution of the judges in 1632, cited in 2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law, 73. 4 Inst. 140. Hawkin's P. C. c. 9. sec. 14. 2 East's P. C. 804. 5 Wheaton's Rep. 106, note. Com. Dig. tit. Adm. E. 7. 14. Bacon's Abr. tit. Adm. A.
   34. 2 Leach's Crown Cases, 1093, case. 353. 4th edit.
   35. 2 Gallison, 398.
   36. 3 Dallas, 297.
   37. 2 Cranch, 406.
   38. 4 Cranch, 443.
   39. 1 Wheaton, 9.
   40. Ibid. 20.
   41. 8 Wheaten 391.
   42. Thompson, J. 1 Paine, 504.
   43. Attorney General v. Le Merchant, I Anst. 52.
   44. Bunb. 236.
   45. Harg. Law Tracts, 227.
   46. See the form of the commissions of these vices admiralty courts under the colonial establishments, in a note to the case of De Lovio v. Boit, and in Du Ponceau on Jurisdiction, p. 158.
   47. Journals of Congress, vol. 1. p. 22, 29, 39. Journals of the Assembly of the colony of New York, vol. 2. 795. 397. 800.
   48. It was held in the case of the Sloop Mary, I Paine, 673, that the District Courts had cognizance of all maritime contracts, and that a bottomry bond was one, and the jurisdiction applied equally whether it was given by the owner or master, and whether given in foreign or in our own ports. A similar decision was made in Wilmer v. The Smilax, 2 Peters' Rep. 295. But in Andrews and S. Essex F. and M. Ins. Co. 3 Mason, 16, 17, the admiralty jurisdiction over maritime contracts is confined to executed contracts, and not to contracts leading thereto, as a contract to build a ship, or sign a shipping paper, or execute a bottomry bond.
   49. Com. Dig. tit. Adm. E. 1. 7. 10. 12. F. 1, 2. 4, 5. 3 Black Com. 106, 107.
   50. 1 Salk. 34. 1 Lord Raym. 152.
   51. 3 Term Rep. 267.
   52. Com. Dig, tit. Adm. F. 6. 3 Blacks. Com. 108.
   53. 1 Salk. 34. Stir. 761. 937. 1 Lord Raym. 398. 3 Lev. 60. 4 Inst. 134, 142. Com. Dig. tit. Adm. E. 15.
   54. The General Smith, 4 Wheaton, 438. The Jerusalem, 2 Gallison, 345, The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine, 620. If materials for a vessel be furnished in a home port, and a note of hand given by the owner, a libel in the admiralty in personam will not lie. Ramsay v. Allegre, 12 Wheaton, 611. In this last case the extent of admiralty jurisdiction in personam was much discussed and questioned by Mr. Justice Johnson. But, in Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mason, 93, Mr. Justice Story considered it to be the settled jurisdiction of the admiralty, that the master could sue there in personam for his wages, and the seamen in rem, as well as in personam, for their wages. This appears to be a well established distinction.
   55. Judiciary Act of September, 1789, sec. 9.
   56. 9 Wheaton, 603.
   57. United States Law Journal, vol. 1. p. 15.
   58. 4 Johnson's Rep. 536.
   59. In Lucas v. Morris, 1 Paine, 396, it was held that the Circuit Courts of the United States had jurisdiction of matters arising under the bankrupt law, and that the District Courts had not exclusive jurisdiction over the entire execution of the bankrupt law; they could not remove the assignees, nor compel them to account.
   60. 2 Cranch, 415. 1 Wheaton, 91.
   61. 1 Cranch, 212. 3 Cranch, 159.
   62. Act of 3d March, 1805.