Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Archawski v. Hanioti — Opinion of the Court

A court that prevents a maritime contract from being exploited in that way does not reach beyond the domain of maritime affairs. We conclude that, so long as the claim asserted arises out of a maritime contract, the admiralty court has jurisdiction over it.
The philosophy of indebitatus assumpsit is, indeed, not wholly foreign to admiralty. Analogous conceptions of rights based on quasi-contract are found in admiralty. One who saves property at sea has the right to an award of salvage, regardless of any agreement between him and the owner.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Archawski v. Hanioti — Opinion of the Court

For the ancient admiralty teaching is that, 'The rules of pleading in the admiralty are exceedingly simple and free from technical requirements.' Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Vance, 19 How. 162, 171-172, 15 L.Ed. 584. And see 2 Benedict, American Admiralty (6th ed. 1940) , §§ 223, 237. Though these particular allegations of the libel sound in fraud or in the wrongful withholding of moneys, it is plain in the context that the obligation to pay the moneys arose because of a breach of the contract to transport passengers.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature