Averill v. The Steamer Hartford
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. There were a number of intervening claims in this case, as exhibited by the record, which were referred to J. S. Hager, referee; whose report as regards the only point made in this Court, is as follows:— “The referee reports against the several claims of Thomas Stothard, William R. Greorge, Charles Frends, John Thomas, Greo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. There were a number of intervening claims in this case, as exhibited by the record, which were referred to J. S. Hager, referee; whose report as regards the only point made in this Court, is as follows:— “The referee reports against the several claims of Thomas Stothard, William R. Greorge, Charles Frends, John Thomas, Greo. W. Scriber, L. P. Brooks, and Oliver Montgomery, which are contained in the record and proceedings of the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District. “ The referee is of opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction of these…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Heydenfeldt, Justice.
The sixth chapter of the Practice Act, providing for actions against steamers, vessels, and boats, confers upon the District Courts admiralty jurisdiction pro tanto, and the proceedings in such actions must be governed by the principles and forms of admiralty Courts, except where otherwise controlled or directed by the act.
The rule in regard to actions in rem, in both admiralty and common law Courts, gives exclusive jurisdiction in a given case to that tribunal which has acquired it by a judicial seizure of the thing; and such…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mungia v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Taylor v. The Steamer ColumbiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Omwake v. Jackson, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1897
- Meiggs v. ScannellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Steam Vessel Moses Taylor v. HammonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1866