Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/403

 MAURY V. CDLLIFORD. 391 �The next objection is that the court is without juriadiction upon.a contract of aiireightment until there is a ship, a voyage, and an en- gagement for services, and cargo offered and aocepted ; and that ah admiralty court has no cognizance of damages for breaches of unex- ecuted eharter-parties. That where there is no freight offered and accepted there is no lien, is well settled. See leading case,- Vande- waterv. Mills, 19 How. 82. - �The real question to be determined is, is a maritime lien essential to give the courts of the United States admiralty jurisdiction ? �In Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 72, Mr. Justice Clifford quotes from 2 Story, Const. § 1666, approvingly, as follows : �"Admiralty jurisdiction enibraces all contracts, elaims, and services which are purely maritime, and which respect rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation." �And then Justice Clifford says : �"Maritime jurisdiction of the admiralty courts in cases of contracts depends chiefly uppn the nature of the service or engagement, aud is limited to such sul)jects as are purely maritime, and have respect to commerce and navigar tien." �In this case it was held that there was a maritime lien for 'wharf- age. The syllabus in Ins. Co. v. Danliuia, 11 Wall. 1, giving the point of the decision, is : �"As to contracts, the true criterion whether they are within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is their nature and subject-matter, as whether they are maritime contracts having reference to maritime service, maritime trans- actions, or maritime casualties, without regard to the place where they were made." �And Justice Bradley, organ of the court, in the same case, says, after reviewing all the authorities : �"It thus appears that in each case the decision of the court, and the rea- soning on which it was founded, have been based upon the f undamental in- quiry whether the contract was or was not a maritime contract. If it was, the jurisdiction was asserted; if it was not, the jurisdiction was denied. And whether maritime or not maritime depended not on the place where the con- tract was made, but on the subject-matter of the contract. If that was mar- itime, the contract was maritime. This may be regarded as the established doctrine of the court." �In this case it was decided that a contract of marine insurance ■was a maritime contract, and there was no contention for a maritime lien. �A number of cases from the various circuit oonrts of the country, ��� �