Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/61

 50  meant by high eas.—A road, haven, or even river, not within the body of the county, is high ea, in the idea of Civilians. Therefore, if the river Delaware is out of the body of any county, we think it clear, that it is within the Admiralty juridiction. And the Court would endeavour to enlarge its juridiction, rather than a place hould remain ubject to no control. The place when the fact was done which is complained of as an injury, is expresly alledged in the libel, to be within the juridiction of the Admiralty.—This is not contradicted in the anwer; and we mut take up the matter as it tands upon the libel, not on the evidence; becaue there is no opportunity to travere. On this point, therefore, we rather incline to ay, the juridiction is well laid.

But what we found our decree upon, is the other particular, the ubject matter.—It had been contended by the council for the repondents, that the Court of Admiralty cannot carry an agreement into pecific execution; and, alo, that this is never done, even in a Court of Chancery, for one party, unles they could do it for the other, in cae they wihed for a pecific performance. To this, it has been anwered, that otherwie there is no compleat remedy. It was oberved, by one of the council for the repondents, that it is difficult to know in what light to conider the application in the intance. It appears to us, however, that it can be conidered in no other light, than as an application to compel a pecial performance of an agreement: And to hew that this can be done by a Court of Admiralty, Vent. 32 was cited; where, it appears, that a mater of a veel in Spain, had been obliged to take on board his veel forty butts of wine. But the determination of the Admiralty in England eems to be rather out of repect to the foreign court, than from an opinion, that they could do this by virtue of their authority originally; for, it is introduced by aying, that the judgment of a foreign court ought to be upported, even as to what might not be cognizable originally there.

It has been aid that the Court of Admiralty acts in rem, that is, only to make the objects of dipute reponible. This, however, is a confidential trut, and we ee no intances of any uch juridiction. Does the mater hip himelf on the credit of the hip? No: It is no more than a contract. Whether the doctrine of mutuality of remedies be a fixed rule in the Court of Chancery, I am not altogether certain; but it is reaonable that the parties hould tand on an equal footing. No uch remedy could be obtained by the owners againt the captain. It is aid he might be attached if he failed of his duty;—o might the owners;—till the hip would be liable as againt the owners. Indeed, I know of no cae where an Attachment has iued, unles for ome contempt; nor does Carthew contradict this.

If the libel is conidered as complaining of a Trepas, intead of demanding performance of the agreement, I do not ee that this will help the Appellant; for, an Admiralty Court cannot give damages. This