Greetings from the most High, his risen Son, and me.
OK so i've seen the phrase "saving to suitors" in several places on the Forum here and mentioned several times without definition (only a pointer to HJR-192, 1933)
But usage isn't definition.
So I went agoogling.
http://www.Law.Cornell.edu/supct--cg...c-cite/28-1333
LEWIS V. LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC., Nov. 29, 2001,
decided. 2001
In the first paragraph the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, 8TH CIR. said in part:
[quote=8th-Cir-quote]
[the District Court] ... also recognised that the statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime suits to federal courts *saves* (
reserves) to *suitors* "all other remedies to which ... they are entitled." 28 U.S.C. 1333.
Further the court wrote that "Section 1333's savings to suitors clause preserves common law remedies and
concurrent state court jurisdiction over some admiralty and maritime claims.
q.v. Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co. 264 US 109, 123-124.
this was a decided by a *unaminous* court!
But there is no definition that I'm looking for here, so I continue...
The next google anchor seems more relevent:
http://boards.lp.FindLaw.com/cgi-bin...c3@.ef25e6e/35
(sorry, crasy url for a BB, i'll test it)
In the reply of Morris Brown, it's the second reply down,
he writes
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MorrisBrown
...
First, "saving to suitor" is a right to a common law remedy (where the court is competent to give) and not access to a state or common law court.
Second, almost all admiralty actions begin with an in rem process against the res (or thing, [in] your case, a vessel) which is libeled.
Third, if you seek to defend the res you come into the court (in personam) personally, granted that you have title to the res.
Fourth, the libelant, in your case (I guess) the State of XXXX is making a claim in the state court against you (personam) with a higher and better claim die to a judgement (in personam) on your titled property, vessel, to compel appearance in their state court.
Fifth, States of the Union do have in rem process, which is similiar to admiralty and maritime jurisdiciton, but is used to compel the appearance and give jurisdiction to the state court over your person to satisfy a claim.
Sixth, while the similarity between the federal and state imn rem process is close, the principle difference is that the state cannot give a higher title to the property, res (vessel), than you had; [have] whereas the federal, true admiralty jurisdiction, can give free and clear title against all the world upon sale of the res to pay the debt. Big difference.
Seventh,if this is truly an admiralty matter and not just an action against you for debt or the like, it seems that you could remove the state case to the federal admiralty court and force the state to bring the claim there.
I hope this helps but [..]
Generally, in personam actions are rare in admiralty.
|
The thread from which the above quote was extracted continues for several screen pages; the thread is dated December 2000, to the next February.
I continue looking for a definition.
In re Tidewater Marine, Inc. (5th Cir. 2001)
At point II, after "See id."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tidewater
...
The saving to suitors clause [of sec. 1333] ... allows a claimant to seek common law remedies against a ship owner [!!!] in state court.
|
At
http://www.InvestorDictionary.com/definition/suitor.asp,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dictionary
a Suitor is used to describe a company seeking to buy another company.
|
In Concordia Co. v. Panek, 1997 June 4, 97-1798, the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIRCUIT said
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by court
Interpreting the "saving to suitors" clause to reserve Plaintiffs the right to common law remedy "in all cases where the common law is competent to give it," the Supreme court held that "the common law is as competent as the admiralty to give a remedy in all cases where the suit is in personam against the owner of the property." [N.B.] Leon v. Galceron, 78 US (11 Wall.) 185, 191 (1870) [!!!]
|
Ans aside: I think I read in the past day or two someone here wrote that we needed not to be studying the Rules of Admiralty court. I respectfully disagree given the above quotes and other texts which I've read during this post.
[update, later in the hour...] it was concerning the Tax Court Rules which someone said, I dont want to study them.
I think it makes his brain itch! 8-)~
sorry for the bad pseudo-quote
]]
We know that merchant/admiralty/equity/Law-of-Sea-and-Prize jurisdictions have been imposed and imputed upon us here, outside of The District of Congress in violation of our birth-right. This is as clear a reason to study the admiralty rules as any.
Summary:
a Suitor is one who wants to buy a company, or more generically, property owned by another.
the word `saving' means to reserve to someone.
What say you all?
