RECENT CASES 853 it does not follow that the absentee may not voluntarily assume such a status. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Johnson seems sound, and there is no sufficient basis for doubt that it will be followed in a case where in- formal marriages are not vaHd in the jurisdiction where the proposer is present.^ Applying the foregoing to our case of the American soldier abroad,^^ he should be able to enter into a valid marriage by mail, if the proposed wife to whom he addresses his. offer of marriage accepts it in a state — whether her domicile or not^^ which recognizes common-law marriages, and which does not require cohabitation as an essential element of the informal marriage. RECENT CASES Admiralty — Jurisdiction — Test of Jurisdiction over Contracts. — The plaintiff ship building company, in pursuance of an agreement made with the owners of the steamship Yucatan, towed the vessel to its shipyard, and, having hauled her out on land, repaired her. For a claim under the con- tract the plaintiff instituted a libel in personam. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction in admiralty. Held, that admiralty has jurisdiction. North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. b" Ship- building Co., U. S. Supreme Court, October Term, 1918, No. 53. In the fourteenth century the jurisdiction of admiralty, which until that time had been extended to all cases partaking of a maritime flavor, was greatly cur- tailed by successive enactments. Godolphin, A View of Admiralty Juris- diction, c. 12. See De Lovis v. Boit, 2 Gall. (C. C.) 398, 418. Thereafter the court could not take cognizance of a contract made on land, even if to be per- formed at sea. Susano v. Turner, Noy, 67; Craddock's Case, 2 Brownl. & Gold. 39. Nor if made at sea to be performed on land. Bridgeman's Case, Hobart 11. These restrictions upon admiralty jurisdiction were rejected in the United States from an early date. The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 558; Waring v, Clarke, 5 How. (U. S.) 441. The civil jurisdiction was made to depend, not as in matters of tort upon locality, but upon the subject matter of the contract, which must be essentially concerned with maritime services, transactions, or casualties. New England Marine Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. (U. S.) i. See Benedict, American Admiralty, § 256. Contracts for the building of vessels, not being maritime contracts, are not within the scope of admiralty. The Winnebago, 205 U. S. 354; Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. (U. S.) 129. But con- tracts for the repair of vessels, being maritime, are subject to maritime juris- diction. The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. i; Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 324. The element necessary to the distinction is not the locus of the work, but its reference to a vessel engaged in navigation and commerce. Tucker v. Alexan- ^ If it were thought preferable to adopt the rule that the place of celebration was the place where the acceptance was received, there would be no valid marriage, unless informal marriages were good in the jurisdiction where the proposer was present. But, then, the law of the acceptor's jurisdiction would be immaterial. Therefore, if either jurisdiction permitted informal marriages, that could be made sufficient in any given case, since the r61e of the respective parties could be interchanged accordingly. ^ The conclusions reached are based on the least favorable assumption as to the law of the jurisdiction in which the soldier is present; viz., that informal marriages are not there valid. ^ It would be sufficient if the woman was present within this jurisdiction only long enough to accept the offer. Of. Lorenzen, supra, 487, 488.
