Admiralty has jurisdiction of a suit to recover damages for
injuries inflicted by merchant vessels on clusters of piles,
constituting no part or extension of the shore, driven into the
bottom of a river, in that way only attached to the land,
completely surrounded by navigable water, and used exclusively as
aids to navigation. P.
268 U. S.
34.
Reversed.
Appeals from decrees of the district court dismissing for want
of jurisdiction two libels brought against the United States, under
the Act of March 9, 190, to recover damages for injuries to piling
occasioned by its vessels.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The pleadings and proof in these causes are substantially
identical, except as to names of vessels, dates of accidents, and
damages claimed. Relying upon the Act of Congress approved March 9,
1920, c. 95, 41 Stat. 525, the appellant instituted proceedings in
admiralty to recover damages from the United States for injuries
inflicted by their merchant vessels, the
City of Elwood
and the
Galveston, upon clusters of piling standing in the
Mississippi River at New Orleans, 150 feet from low water mark. The
court below dismissed the
Page 268 U. S. 34
libels for want of jurisdiction, and that action is now
challenged.
We copy from the libels and accept the following description of
the injured structures:
"Said piling cluster consists of five wooden piles or timbers,
each of approximately 60 feet in length, firmly driven in and
attached to the bottom of the river, fastened and held together as
a unit having a diameter of not more than 4 feet, the depth of the
water surrounding them being at all times not less than 16 feet,
said pile cluster extending perpendicularly about 25 feet out of
and above the water. . . . That at no time has said pile cluster
any connections, either actual or anticipated, nor has it any
connections for any purpose whatever, with the shore of said river,
or with anything on said shores, either of a temporary,
prospective, or permanent character, and either actual or
anticipated, with any commerce on land, or anything connected with
land, or with the shores of said river. That libelant had and has
authority from the proper governmental authorities to erect,
maintain, and use said pile cluster for such marine purposes as
said cluster may be adapted and used. . . . That, at times of the
swift current of the Mississippi River and during bad weather, said
pile cluster is used by vessels to tie up to, so as to avoid anchor
dragging and likewise to lessen the dangers of collision with other
vessels whilst navigating in said river. . . . At no time do any
vessels use said pile cluster to load or unload cargo or
passengers, said pile cluster being incapable of so being used, and
incapable of being used for any commerce on land, and incapable of
being used for any purpose, except in the operation, maintenance,
and navigation of vessels in navigable water, and in aid of their
navigation or in aid of commerce on water, and having no relation
or connection with land or land commerce."
The damaged piles constituted no part or extension of the shore,
as wharves, bridges, and piers do. Although
Page 268 U. S. 35
driven into the bottom of the river, and attached in that way
only to the land, they were completely surrounded by navigable
water, and were used exclusively as aids to navigation. We think
injuries to them by a ship come fairly within the principle
approved by
The Blackheath, 195 U.
S. 361, and
The Raithmoor, 241 U.
S. 166.
See Hughes on Admiralty, 2d ed., ยง
100.
The district court erred in denying jurisdiction, and its decree
must be reversed.