have the vessel seized upon the theory that the wrong was the act of the thing itself. The court may then proceed to condemn and sell the vessel, no matter who owns it, usually giving such notice to possible claimants of it as may be provided by statute or its own rules. This proceeding is one strictly in rem, treating the vessel seized as the offending thing, and only incidentally touching the interest or ownership of persons.

80

A third proceeding may be instituted by the owner of the offending vessel. If he conceives his vessel to have been in fault he may surrender it to the court having jurisdiction of the case, and escape all personal liability. This is called a suit to limit liability, and is one strictly in rem, because it concerns only the vessel. Familiar instances of the latter are the case of La Bourgogne, the French steamer sunk near Cape Sable some years ago, and the Titanic, sunk in April, 1912. In these cases the respective owners turned over everything left, including freight, passenger and mail moneys, and thus sought to limit their further liability.81 Since the proceedings deal with the property itself rather than the title, the judgment in a suit in rem binds all the world, not merely the parties, as in other cases.82 In the strict sense a proceeding in rem is one directly against property, without reference to the title of individual claimants. But in a more general sense the term is applied to actions between parties to reach and dis

so Benedict, Admiralty (3rd ed.), § 359.

81 Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. S. 185, 7 Sup. Ct. 165, 30 L. Ed. 372. 82 Brown, Jurisdiction (1st ed.), § 59.

pose of property owned by them, or of some interest in it.83

Seizures under revenue, food and drugs, animals and plants laws. Other instances of cases exclusively in rem are those brought to forfeit and either sell or destroy imports seized for default of duty, property seized for the failure to pay internal revenue taxes, impure or misbranded food or drugs, or infected cattle, plants, seeds, etc. In all these cases the proceedings are strictly against the offending thing, no matter who may claim ownership, and jurisdiction is obtained by the seizure alone.84

18. Proceedings affecting a subject matter or status. Proceedings of this kind are said to be in rem by many of the courts, but are one degree removed from those referred to in the preceding paragraphs. The probate of a will is said to be strictly in rem,85 because it is upon the will itself, no process being issued against any person. But the analogy fails if the estate or property affected did not belong to the testator. For instance, a partner's will affects only the equitable title to the partnership property, and the legal title remains in the surviving partner.86 Similar cases of status are proceedings for the custody of lunatics and infants.87 Condemnation of land for public purposes approaches very nearly to a proceeding strictly in rem, because the land itself

83 Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316, 10 Sup. Ct. 557, 33 L. Ed. 918. 84 Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45, 31 Sup. Ct, 364, 55 L. Ed. 364.

85 Woodruff v. Taylor, 20 Vt. 65.

86 Lindley, Partnership, p. 341.

87 Cross v. Armstrong, 44 Ohio St. 613.

88

is taken, not merely the interest of the owner." Bankruptcy is also said to be a proceeding in rem, because the court may sell the property free of all claims, and compel all owners and claimants to file against the proceeds; but the analogy fails as to property in the bankrupt's possession but owned by a third person. The proceeding is in rem because the debtor's status is determined and changed by the decree.89 Divorce is in rem because the status of one or both parties is thereby changed, and the judgment binds the world.90 Attachment and replevin are quasi in rem, because only ancillary to another suit, and not based on an allegation that the right of property is to be decided on."1 A proceeding to sell real estate of a decedent to pay debts is said to be strictly in rem.92

19. Territorial limits on jurisdiction.-Actions to recover possession or try title to land, or on contract depending on privity of estate, or founded on penal laws, are local, and the courts of the state or country where the land lies or the cause of action arises have exclusive jurisdiction.93 A court of law has no jurisdiction directly to decide the title to foreign land.9* A court of equity, however, acting in personam, may determine title to foreign land.95 Territorial juris

88 McIntyre v. Marine, 93 Ind. 193.

89 Cross v. Armstrong, 44 Ohio St. 613, 10 N. E. 160. 90 Bartero v. Real Estate Sav. Bank, 10 Mo. App. 76.

91 Woodruff v. Taylor, 20 Vt. 65.

92 McClay v. Foxworthy, 18 Neb. 295, 25 N. W. 86.

93 See the able article of Prof. Hepburn, 40 Cyc. 30.

94 British South Africa Co. v. Companhia, etc., 63 Law J. Q. B. 70 (Eng.). 95 Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch 148 (U. S.), 3 L. Ed. 181; Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. Jr. 444 (Eng.), (specific performance of a contract relating to lands in North America).

diction is coextensive with the geographical boundaries of the judicial district, and includes all property rights and interests whatever which are there located, no matter where the owner may be.96

20. Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction.Local actions, like ejectment and trespass on land, are exclusive of courts of other states, but concurrent between state and federal courts of the state or district where the land is situated.97 As a general rule, transitory actions, such as contract and tort actions, may be brought wherever the defendant may be found, unless the law of the foreign state where suit is brought be thereby violated, or its citizens thereby injured.98 The courts of one state will not enforce the penal laws of another, either laws for the punishment of crime, or imposing penalties or forfeitures as a punishment for some act. Within this rule a statute making corporate officers liable for all corporate debts, if they make a false certificate as to the amount paid in on the corporate capital, is not a penal one.99 Various suits, such as admiralty, suits for penalties, criminal proceedings, patents and copyrights, etc., are made exclusive in the United States district court by the federal law.1

21. Jurisdiction of subject matter and of the person. Jurisdiction of subject matter includes the nature of the cause and the relief sought, together

96 Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565.

97 Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332, 26 Sup. Ct. 478, 50 L. Ed. 776.

98 11 Cyc. 663, citing O'Reilly v. New York, etc., Co., 16 R. I. 388, Whitman v. Citizens' Bank, 110 Fed. 503, 49 C. C. A. 122, and other cases.

99 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 13 Sup. Ct. 224, 36 L. Ed. 1123. 1 Judicial Code, 1911, § 24.

4

with the power to determine cases falling within that class. It is "power to adjudge concerning the general question involved." Jurisdiction of the person can be obtained only by personal service of process on him within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or his voluntary appearance. Personal jurisdiction in criminal cases is obtained by arrest or voluntary recognizance (giving bond for appearance) in case of individuals, and by the service of a summons or voluntary appearance in case of corporations.5

Fraud or duress in obtaining personal jurisdiction. It is a general rule that jurisdiction of the person obtained by enticing one within the jurisdiction, or when he comes as a witness, or party to attend a suit, though valid if not objected to, will be discharged upon his reasonable application to the court.

22. Jurisdiction by consent.-Personal jurisdiction may be given by consent, but not jurisdiction of subject matter." Admissions of jurisdictional facts, however, may be made, such as the requisite amount in controversy, or citizenship or residence of parties. False allegations of jurisdictional facts relating to subject matter may be admitted either ex

8

2 Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308 (U. S.), 19 L. Ed. 931; Dumont v. Dumont, 45 Atl. 107 (N. J.).

3 Folger, J., in Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217, 28 Am. Rep. 129; Musick

v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 114 Mo. 309, 21 S. W. 491.

4 Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308 (U. S.); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565.

United States v. Standard Oil Co., 154 Fed. 728.

• Nichols v. Horton, 14 Fed. 327.

7 Davidsburg v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 526; Fleischman v.

Walker, 91 Ill. 318. There are one or two exceptions.

8 Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Pet. 413 (U. S.), 8 L. Ed. 731.