United States vs. Steam Boat Cora.
Appeal from Yankton County District Court.
This action is on the admiralty side of the U. S. Court. The District Court, Second Judicial District, Jupe Term, 1867, Bartlett, C. J., presiding, dismissed the complaint (libel) on the ground that the same did not show a seizure of the boat, by a proper officer, before it was filed. To which decision, he plaintiff excepted, and took an appeal to this court.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Geo. H. Hand, U. S. Attorney, for appellant.
Applying for and receiving property on bond is such an acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the court, as the claimant is not at liberty to controvert. (Conklin's Practice, 554.)
Wm. L. Joy, for appellee.
The grounds of jurisdiction must be stated in the libel.(Conklin's Treatise, 343 and 33.) Plaintiff must allege what it is necessary to prove to maintain his action. (Conklin's Treatise, 349.) The fact of seizure is one of the necessary averments in the libel. (Conklin's Treatise, 33; and see also form of libel, 516.) There must have been a valid subsisting seizure at the time the libel was filed, for upon this the jurisdiction of the court depends. (Conklin's Treatise, 457; The Ann, 9 Cranch, 289; also same case, 3 Curtis' U. S. Reports, 356; Conklin's Treatise, 353 and 547. See Lessee of Lanning v. Dolph, 354, Conklin's Treatise.) The seizure after the libel filed corferred no jurisdiction. (Brig Ann, 3 Curtis' U. S. Reports, 356.) The United States courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only exercise their powers in the mode prescribed by the statute. (Conklin's Treatise, 355.) The libel must show that the seizure was made by some person authorized to make the same by the statute under which this action is brought, and that it was made upon the grounds designated in the act and at the place where the offense was committed; and as none of these facts
