THE IDA CAMPBELL.
(District Oourt. D. Minnesota.
March 9, 1888.)
ADMIRALTY-JumSDICTION-ToRTS-DEATlI BY WRONGFUL ACT.
Gen. St. Minn. p. 825, § 2, providing that. "when death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of any party, the personal representatives of the deceased may maintain an action, pe might have maintained an actjon had he lived, " etc., does not confer upon the United Stlltes district court jurisdiction of a libel in rem, filed by the administratrix of an injured person to enfroUl such a tort the action does not force a marine tort, as in case of survive in admiralty.
Edward H. for libelant. Warren H. Mead, for claimant.
NELSON, J, A libel in rem is filed by the administratrix of the deceased to enforce a marine tort. The remedy is. prosecuted under the statute of the state of Minnesota, (Gen. St. p. 825, § 2.) It reads as follows: "When death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of any party, the
personal ves of the may maintain an action, if he might have maintained" an action, had he lived, for an injury caused by the same act or omission," etc. .
An answer and claim are interposed, and it is insisted that the statute gives this court in admiralty no jurisdiction. It is true that a remedy can be enforced. in admiralty for a marine tort, if the injured party survived, but in case of death frotn such a tort the action does not survive in admiralty. It is therefore.a disputed and unsettled question whether or not a state statute, like the one cited, applicable in such case to authorize an action in admiralty by the representatives. Elaborate views pro and eon have been expressed by eminent judges. Without referring to them in extenso, I shall follow the expression of opinion denying the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty to .entertain such a.n action under the statute. Decree ordered dismiss:ng libel. In the admiralty suit in personam of Annie Olesoo, Adm'x, etc., v. Peter F. Ritchie, pwner of steam-boat Ida Campbell, a decree dismissing libel is also ordered.
MILLER-HAGEE, CO. fl..
(Oircuit OOU'I't, 8. D. Ohio,
February 29, 1888.)
COURTS-FEDERAL JURISDICTION-JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT-PATENTS FOR VENTIONS-AcTION FOR INFRINGEMENT.
N:either Rev. St. U. S. 711. vesting in the United States courts exclusive jurisdiction of patent ana copyright cases, nor section 699, providing for apto the sum in dispute, peals and writs of error in such cases, without was repealed by act Cong.March 3, 1875; .and neither cal). therefore be reo pealed by act March S. 1887, which only purports to amend the former act. Both acts merely refer to those cases where the state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
Where a bill shows on its face that defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein the suit is bronght, defenda'nt may assert his objection to beserved out of the district of his residence by demurrer as well as by motion to dismiss.
In Equity. On demurrer to bill., , JereF. Twohig and HowflO'/l &ma, for complainants. ParkinaDn Parkinaon. for defendant. JACB;sqN, J. The complainants, citizens of Ohio and Pennsylvania, as the present owner and licensees ofletters patent No. 281,101, for certain new and useful improvements in boqk bindinf!;, issued February 26, 1883, to Andrew J. Magee, instituted this suit. September 3, 1887, against the defendant, a citizen and resident of Covington, Ky., to restrain his use and infringement of said patent. Service of process was had upon the delEmdant atOincinnati, Ohio. In obedience to said pro-cess, defendnnt has appeared, and demurred to the jurisdiction of this court "foj.' thatitappears pysaid bill of complaint that this defendant is not an inhabitant of the district wherein this suit is brought, and for that it not appear by said bill of complaint that the amount in troversy is sufficient to give jurisdiction to this court." The bill makes no allegatil;m or averment as to the amount involved in the controversy; and the. second Kround of demurrer aRsumes that, under the act of March 3, 1887 ,it must appear upon the face of the bill, in patent cases as in other civil snits, that the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costa, the sum of $2,000, in order for this court to entertain jurisdiction. This position is not well taken. Under the statutes of the United jurisdiction of all cases arising unStates the cir<;mit court der the patent-right laws of the United States, without reference to the amount involved. The act of 1875 in no way changed or affected the jurisdiction. The act of March 3, 1887, is only amendatory of the act of March 3, 1875, and in respect to patent cases, leaves the jurisdiction of this court just ,as it stood prior to and after the passage of the act of 1875, so far as the amount involved is concerned.. Before the act of 1875, this court hlld jurisdiction in patent suits without reference to the amount involved. That act did not change this jurisdiction or introduce any requirement as to amount in dispute in patent cases; ,and in v.34F.no.6-28