Baker v. The Big Jim

61 F. 503, 1894 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided May 4, 1894·No. No. 60·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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

61 F. 503 (Baker v. The Big Jim) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bethlehem Steel Co. v. United States
54 Cust. Ct. 1 (U.S. Customs Court, 1964)
The Jim & Bill
4 F. Supp. 258 (E.D. New York, 1933)
Hitner Sons Co. v. United States
13 Ct. Cust. 216 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1922)
Charles Barnes Co. v. One Dredge Boat
169 F. 895 (E.D. Kentucky, 1909)
A. F. Bartlett & Co. v. Steam Dredge No. 14
64 N.W. 951 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)
Muellerweisse v. Pile Driver E. O. A.
69 F. 1005 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1894)