questions of equity according to the settled rules of equity.

§ 580. Suit in equity-How commenced-Pleadings. A suit in equity is commenced by filing a bill in which the plaintiff sets forth in detail, without repetition, the facts upon which he bases his claim for equitable relief. Upon the filing of the bill a subpoena, or summons, is issued, which is served as in actions at law. If the defendant does not appear, he is defaulted and a decree is taken against him by default. He usually appears by a solicitor when he desires to make a defense, and upon a day named, called a rule day, he is required to plead, answer or demur to the bill. A demurrer to a bill is based upon some alleged defect in its form or substance. If the demurrer is sustained the plaintiff can amend his bill; if it is overruled the defendant can plead to the bill or file an answer thereto. A plea to a bill is based upon some special matter of defense to the whole bill or a part of it, and if it is sustained the plaintiff may amend, if he can do so. amend so as to avoid the force of the plea, it will bar his recovery upon so much of the bill as is covered by the plea. If the plea is overruled the respondent must answer or a decree will go against him. answer in equity, like an answer in an action at law, may be in the form of a denial of the allegations of the bill, or a confession of the substance of them and the setting up of new matter which constitutes a defense thereto. If the defendant is not content with defeating the plaintiff, but claims that he has a right to some affirmative relief, he files what is known as a cross bill, in which the facts upon which he bases.

If he can not

An

his claim for relief are set out as fully as is required in the original bill, and to this cross bill there may be filed a demurrer, plea or answer. Following the answer is the general replication which puts the case at issue. Before filing a replication, an answer which is insufficient may be excepted to, and if the exceptions are sustained a further answer will be required.

§ 581. Evidence on hearing.-The case being at issue the parties proceed to the taking of the evidence which is in the form of depositions made before an examiner, commissioner or some other officer authorized by law. Sometimes to expedite the hearing of a cause the witnesses are allowed to appear in court and testify as in actions at law. Equity cases are ordinarily heard and decided by the judge without the intervention of a jury. Where the case seems to require it the court may frame an issue of fact to be tried by a jury, but this is an interlocutory proceeding to aid the court in making the final decree. The rules as to the competency of witnesses and the relevancy and admissibility of evidence are the same as in actions at law. The decree of the court is final as to the subject-matter and the parties before the court, and if a party is aggrieved thereby he has his remedy by appeal to a higher court, or by filing another bill in the same court in the nature of a bill of review, which is based upon alleged errors on the face of the record or the discovery of new and material evidence.

CHAPTER XLIII.

ADMIRALTY LAW AND PROCEDURE.

§ 582. Origin and history.-Admiralty law and procedure, as they formerly prevailed in England, were under the superintendency of the courts of common law, which had power to keep the courts of admiralty within their jurisdiction, and to restrain and prohibit any excess of power. The proceedings of the admiralty courts were according to the method of the civil law, and were formerly held before the lord high admiral of England and such tribunal was not a court of record. By parliamentary enactments the jurisdiction of these courts has been enlarged and their dignity elevated. They had civil and criminal jurisdiction. In them persons were tried for crimes committed on the high seas or on the coasts of England or its colonies, but as they proceeded without a jury, and the accused was liable to be tried and condemned upon the opinion of a single judge, parliament enacted, in the reign of Henry VIII, that these offenses should be tried by the admiralty court with the aid of three or four of the common law judges. An indictment was necessary, and the right to trial by jury according to the law of the land was secured to the prisoner.

The system as it prevailed in our colonies gave the vice-admirals a much larger jurisdiction than the

courts of admiralty in the mother country exercised at that time.

§ 583. Admiralty jurisdiction.-Article 3, section 3, of the constitution of the United States, confers admiralty jurisdiction upon the courts of the United States. These courts have declared as the settled doctrine under the constitutional grant of jurisdiction that it means the jurisdiction which had been and was exercised in admiralty in this country prior to and at the time the constitution was adopted, and not admiralty jurisdiction as it was understood in England or Continental Europe. This interpretation, first announced by Judge Story on the circuit, was combatted by other federal judges, but it is now settled law that the jurisdiction embraces the waterborne commerce of the United States conducted on its internal navigable waters as well as on the high seas, and has grown to include all maritime services. and contracts, and all injuries when inflicted upon such waters. For a time it was attempted to restrict the jurisdiction to such navigable waters only as were affected by the ebb and flow of the tide, but the supreme court has established the doctrine that the constitutional grant extends the jurisdiction not only to such waters, but over all the navigable waters, canals and rivers of the nation and wherever ships float and navigation successfully aids commerce, whether internal or external.

Admiralty jurisdiction as to torts is confined to wrongs committed on the water. It extends to matters happening during voyages between two ports in the same state and to matters happening in foreign waters. Jurisdiction does not depend on citizenship of the

parties, and where foreigners appeal to our admiralty courts, their controversies will be adjudicated. All ships are prima facie subject to admiralty jurisdiction, but there are exceptions as to foreign vessels of war belonging to friendly nations, and vessels engaged in the service of a city government. Generally stated, the subjects of maritime jurisdiction are maritime contracts, touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation, and also all torts or injuries of a civil nature committed on navigable waters. As to torts the test of jurisdiction is locality, as to contracts it depends on the subjectmatter. Contracts for building vessels and for labor and materials in their construction are not maritime contracts. As to torts, they must be torts for which the vessel is liable, and an assault by one passenger on another is not a subject of admiralty jurisdiction. It is otherwise where the wrong is committed by the officers or crew of the vessel. All prize cases and controversies about the distribution of prize money are for the admiralty courts. The jurisdiction of the United States courts in admiralty cases is exclusive, and it is lodged in the district courts. If the district court is improperly proceeding with a cause under claim of admiralty jurisdiction, the supreme court may issue its writ of prohibition to restrain it from going further.

§ 584. Admiralty procedure.-The forms of procedure in admiralty are prescribed by rules formulated by the supreme court of the United States. The pleadings are simple and the rules as to allowing amendments are very liberal. Whenever a vessel or cargo is seized it is common practice to release it if the