Benedict on Admiralty is the most complete research tool in the field. All the materials you need to practice maritime law are in this one set, including:concise discussion of every current issueexplanations of court opinions and their implicationsreprints of hard-to-find primary source materialcharter parties and clausestreaties; admiralty rulesmarine insurance formspractice and procedure forms on a variety of maritime issuesBenedict on Admiralty provides indices, a comprehensive index to the entire set, detailed tables of contents, charts and tables ideally suited to admiralty law practice. You'll find all text discussion, cases and documents applicable to your case in one quick glance.
Text for law students and practitioners providing information about the nature and origins of admiralty jurisdiction, courts and jurisdiction, admiralty claims, practice, procedure and precedents. Includes table of cases, table of statutes, references, bibliography and index. The author is a senior lecturer in law at Deakin University.
The format of this book makes it attractive to both the general reader, interested in the bearing of the colonial period on the development of American law in the early years of the Republic, and the specialist, interested in how these courts worked, who used them and with what results. The main text describes how the unique features of the English admiralty appeared, or failed to appear, in colonial America and came to influence federal admiralty law and practice today.
Dr Wiswall examines the development of jurisdiction and practice in the field of Admiralty Law in England, with American comparisons, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; the work is largely organized around the Court of Admiralty from 1798 onwards. The judgeships of Lord Stowell, Dr Lushington, Sir Robert Phillimore and Sir Francis Jeune, in England, are considered in some detail, and also those of Mr Justice Story, Judge Ashur Ware and Judge Addison Brown in the United States. One chapter is devoted to an examination of the dissolution of Doctors' Commons (the unique body of English civil lawyers). Development through case law, statutes and rules is the technical side of this study - an exposition not so much of the development of legal principles themselves as of their application. 'The last chapter turns to a study of the evolution of the substantive law regarding personal liability in Admiralty actions in rem, illustrating the divergence between the English and American law, and the effect upon and repercussions in international maritime law.
Courts of Admiralty and the Common Law examines the origins of American admiralty jurisdiction. Drawing from a vast array of primary sources, ranging from Roman law to English records of the medieval and early modern periods, the author traces the development of English admiralty practice that provided the legal heritage of the new American nation. The book provides details of how the English High Court of Admiralty and its civil-law practitioners became embroiled in the struggle between Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century, losing much of their traditional jurisdiction to the courts of common law at a time when the American colonies were just beginning to establish specialized tribunals for hearing maritime cases. With maritime jurisdiction in flux in the mother country, the Americans were free to adopt ad hoc solutions to the problem of jurisdiction, creating a system in which both the colonial common-law courts and the newly established colonial vice admiralty courts had concurrent power to adjudicate a wide range of maritime claims. Courts of Admiralty and the Common Law also sheds fresh light on the origins of the federal judiciary, showing how the debate over maritime jurisdiction was instrumental both in shaping the language of Article III of the Constitution and later in determining the structure of the federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Building upon an assortment of materials from the Constitutional Convention, the states' ratifying conventions, and other contemporary sources, the author explores the pivotal role that the debate over maritime jurisdiction played in determining the structure of the federal courts and explains the reasons underlying the first Congress' decision to grant concurrent jurisdiction over some maritime cases to the states' courts of common law. When the first Congress incorporated concurrent state/federal jurisdiction over several classes of maritime claims into the Judiciary Act of 1789, the author argues, it had not created a novel jurisdictional system, but merely had preserved the status quo established long ago in the colonial era. Congress had disregarded the dangers usually associated with two separate sets of courts interpreting the same body of substantive law, assuming that the lex maritima, as part of the law of nations, would be applied uniformly in both state and federal courts. Soon, however, both new technology, such as the introduction of steam power in maritime commerce, and changing views regarding the law of nations would challenge that assumption. As the original reasons for granting concurrent jurisdiction unraveled, American judges in the early nineteenth century sought to make overlapping jurisdiction work in a changing world. Courts of Admiralty and the Common Law concludes with an assessment of whether concurrent state/federal maritime jurisdiction continues to serve a practical purpose in the twenty-first century, examining how tensions between conflicting state and federal substantive rules may serve the greater interests of federalism and commerce. "Through his thorough account of the shipping industry's rise and fall and of the challenges admiralty jurisdiction posed to ideas about federalism, Professor Snell shows how commerce influenced the development of our unique governmental structure." -- Harvard Law Review "For those with an interest in the development in American courts of a distinct jurisdiction in cases sufficiently related to waterborne transport, this book should fit neatly between that of Prichard and Yale on the one hand and Robertson on the other. It is more comprehensive in research and perspective, synthetic in process, and thematic in design than the former. It offers more evidence than the latter and it addresses controversies that have ripened since 1970." -- Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce
Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a constitution "requires that only its great outlines should be marked [and] its important objects designated." Ours is "intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." In recent years, Marshall's great truths have been challenged by proponents of originalism and strict construction. Such legal thinkers as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argue that the Constitution must be construed and applied as it was when the Framers wrote it. In Keeping Faith with the Constitution, three legal authorities make the case for Marshall's vision. They describe their approach as "constitutional fidelity"--not to how the Framers would have applied the Constitution, but to the text and principles of the Constitution itself. The original understanding of the text is one source of interpretation, but not the only one; to preserve the meaning and authority of the document, to keep it vital, applications of the Constitution must be shaped by precedent, historical experience, practical consequence, and societal change. The authors range across the history of constitutional interpretation to show how this approach has been the source of our greatest advances, from Brown v. Board of Education to the New Deal, from the Miranda decision to the expansion of women's rights. They delve into the complexities of voting rights, the malapportionment of legislative districts, speech freedoms, civil liberties and the War on Terror, and the evolution of checks and balances. The Constitution's framers could never have imagined DNA, global warming, or even women's equality. Yet these and many more realities shape our lives and outlook. Our Constitution will remain vital into our changing future, the authors write, if judges remain true to this rich tradition of adaptation and fidelity.
