Summary

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field The Moses Taylor — Opinion of the Court

Under a sale, therefore, upon a judgment in a common law proceeding the title acquired can never be better than that possessed by the personal defendant. It is his title, and not the property itself, which is sold.
The statute of California, to the extent in which it authorizes actions in rem against vessels for causes of action cognizable in the admiralty, invests her courts with admiralty jurisdiction, and so the Supreme Court of that State has decided in several cases.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field The Moses Taylor — Opinion of the Court

The land carriage is a substantial part of the voyage. It obviates the necessity of a long and tedious voyage by water, and gives to that route its chief value. It is of no consequence whether the land transit between the two oceans be long or short. The court will not determine the question of jurisdiction, by a comparison of the distances by land and by water. If this contract is of admiralty cognizance, so is an agreement for the transportation of passengers from Liverpool to San Francisco, via New York, Chicago, and Salt Lake.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field The Moses Taylor — Opinion of the Court

As an original question, it is submitted that it has no foundation in principle. The origin of all the misunderstanding on the subject lies in the Judiciary Act. Congress, throughout that act, legislated upon the supposition, that whatever jurisdiction was by the Constitution vested in the Federal courts might be made exclusive. [10] And judges and commentators have not always been sufficiently alive to the distinction between an act of Congress and a constitutional grant; and have assumed the jurisdiction to be exclusive without inquiry, because Congress declared it so.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature