Inferior Admirals not competent to causes purely mercantile.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Admiral-depute of Alloa having pronounced decree for the price of some Norway logs, the defender advocated the cause on the ground, that inferior Courts of Admiralty have no jurisdiction in causes purely mercantile.
Answered for the pursuer; The act 1592, c. 160. was only intended for repressing extraordinary and oppressive clauses in grants of Admiralty. The act 1681, c. 16. though it has been denominated the great charter of the Court of Admiralty, is not the measure of its jurisdiction. It relates only to the privative jurisdiction enjoyed by that Court in maritime causes. The connection of maritime and mercantile causes had naturally led the High Court of Admiralty to judge in both, long before that statute. That jurisdiction has been uniformly exercised, as far back as the practice can be traced, and it has been supported by several decisions.
If the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty extends to mercantile causes, that of inferior Admirals, derived from the same authority, though limited in territory, must be equally extensive in kind. And the decision 27th June 1759, Miller contra Sawyers, No 233. p. 7514. proceeded on the ground, that the defender did not live within the territory of the Admiral-depute, as fixed by his commission.
Replied, The jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty, derived from statute, relates to maritime causes only. Its jurisdiction in mercantile causes took its rise from custom, and cannot be carried farther than that custom has gone, or extended to inferior Admirals, who have not been in the practice of exercising it, as appears from the decision, Miller contra Sawyers, which shows, that, in 1759, it seemed a novelty to the Court, for an inferior Admiral to judge in causes not maritime.
For illustrating the point, the defender referred to Balfour; p. 629. c. 83. and 634. c. 100.—See Appendix.
'The Lords found, That the Admiral-depute had no jurisdiction in this case, and therefore sustained the declinature, assoilzied the defender, and found the pursuers liable in expenses.'
Reporter. Auchinleck.Act. Crosbie.Alt. Armstrong.
Fac. Col. No 73. p. 317.
