Baker v. The Big Jim

E.D. Pennsylvania

Baker v. The Big Jim

61 F. 503, 1894 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 4, 1894

DocketNo. 60

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 61 F. 503 (Baker v. The Big Jim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. The Big Jim, 61 F. 503, 1894 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21 (E.D. Pa. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

BUTLER, District Judge.

The claim is for wages on the “Big Jim” a marine pump, resting on piles, driven in the ground under water at League Island. She was weighted with heavy ballast to keep her in place while at work. She was capable of being towed from place to place, where her services were needed, a.nd had been so towed. She was used to suck mud from the bottom of the water, or from scows alongside, and force it by steam power on the adjacent; land. A fuller description seems unnecessary. She had none of the characteristics, and was not capable of performing any of tbe services of a vessel. In my judgment admiralty has no jurisdiction of the libelants’ claims. To extend it to such a case would carry it beyond proper limits. For a discussion of the general subject I refer to the cases cited in Evans v. The Starbuck (just decided by the court) [61 Fed. 502].

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUTLER, District Judge.

The claim is for wages on the “Big Jim” a marine pump, resting on piles, driven in the ground under water at League Island. She was weighted with heavy ballast to keep her in place while at work. She was capable of being towed from place to place, where her services were needed, a.nd had been so towed. She was used to suck mud from the bottom of the water, or from scows alongside, and force it by steam power on the adjacent; land. A fuller description seems unnecessary. She had none of the characteristics, and was not capable of performing any of tbe services of a vessel. In my judgment admiralty has no jurisdiction of the libelants’ claims. To extend it to such a case would carry it beyond proper limits. For a discussion of the general subject I refer to the cases cited in Evans v. The Starbuck (just decided by the court) [61 Fed. 502].

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F. 503, 1894 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-the-big-jim-paed-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack