6 F. Cas. 546 (No. 3,230) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1825)
The New Jersey legislature passed an act on June 9, 1820.1
This statute prohibited persons who were not actual inhabitants and residents of the state from gathering oysters in any of the rivers, bays, or waters in the state on board vessels not wholly owned by state residents.2 The act imposed a penalty of ten dollars and provided for the forfeiture of the vessel employed in the offense along with its oysters, rakes, and other equipment.3 Any person was authorized to seize such a vessel and to give information to two justices of the county where the seizure occurred.4 Those justices were then required to try the case and order a sale if condemnation resulted.5
Corfield owned the vessel known as the Hiram.6 He hired the vessel to Hand, who subsequently hired it to Keene for a period of one month at a rate of ten dollars per month.7 While Keene was in possession of the Hiram and engaged in dredging for oysters in Maurice River Cove, the vessel was seized by New Jersey officials acting under the authority of the 1820 statute.8 The seizure led to proceedings before two justices of Cumberland County, resulting in the condemnation and sale of the vessel.9
Corfield filed an action of trespass against Coryell in the United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey to recover damages for the seizure of the Hiram.10 At the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for five hundred sixty dollars, subject to the opinion of the court on the legal questions arising from the facts.11 The case was argued during the October term of 1824 and remained under advisement until the April term of 1825, when the court delivered its opinion.12
The events took place in Maurice River Cove, described as part of Delaware Bay.13 The defendant justified the seizure by reference to the state statute and the actions of the local magistrates in Cumberland County.
Whether the New Jersey act of June 9, 1820, regulating oyster gathering violates the Commerce Clause?14
The Commerce Clause grants Congress power to regulate commerce among the several states.15 This power encompasses free navigation of waters for purposes of trade.16 Yet it leaves intact the authority of states to enact legislation on matters of internal police.17 States may also regulate the use of their own common property such as fisheries and oyster beds.18 This is provided the state laws do not directly interfere with navigation or with valid congressional regulations on the same subject.19
No. The New Jersey act of June 9, 1820 forbids non-residents from gathering oysters in the rivers, bays, or waters of the state aboard vessels not wholly owned by state residents and prescribes forfeiture of the vessel and its equipment.20 This regulation addresses the common property of New Jersey citizens rather than commerce.21 The act leaves untouched the free navigation of state waters for commercial intercourse and does not prohibit the purchase or sale of oysters once they have been lawfully taken.22 The seizure of the Hiram occurred while the vessel was dredging in Maurice River Cove under the authority of the statute, yet no restraint was placed on navigation or on trade in oysters after gathering.23
Application of the principles from Gibbons v. Ogden confirms that the statute concerns internal property use and police regulation, not external commerce among the states.24
The New Jersey act of June 9, 1820 does not violate the Commerce Clause.25
Whether the act infringes the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying non-residents rights enjoyed by New Jersey citizens?26
The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects only those fundamental rights that belong to citizens of all free governments and that have been enjoyed by citizens of the several states since becoming free and independent.27 These include protection by government, enjoyment of life and liberty, acquisition of property, and the right to travel and maintain actions in state courts.28 The clause does not grant citizens of other states a co-tenancy or equal participation in the common property of any particular state such as its fisheries or oyster beds.29
No. The New Jersey act of June 9, 1820 denies non-residents the right to gather oysters in state waters on vessels not owned by state residents.30 This restriction regulates the common property of New Jersey citizens held as tenants in common, not a fundamental privilege of citizenship.31 Corfield, a non-resident owner, sought to participate through the Hiram in the oyster fishery of Maurice River Cove, a right reserved exclusively to actual inhabitants and residents of the state.32 The clause does not compel New Jersey to extend to citizens of other states the same advantages in the use of its common property that it secures to its own citizens.
Such property rights may be exhausted if opened without limitation.33
The act does not infringe the Privileges and Immunities Clause.34
Whether the act improperly assigns admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to state tribunals?35
The constitutional extension of federal judicial power to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction does not divest the states of their pre-existing exclusive authority to regulate fisheries within their territorial limits.36 States may punish violations of those regulations through state tribunals.37 The power to regulate fisheries was never surrendered to the United States by the mere grant of admiralty jurisdiction.38
No. The New Jersey act of June 9, 1820 authorizes two justices of the county where a seizure occurs to try violations and order sale of offending vessels.39 The proceedings against the Hiram took place before justices of Cumberland County after its seizure in Maurice River Cove while dredging oysters. Although the misdemeanors enumerated by Sir L. Jenkins were once cognizable in English admiralty, the power to regulate fisheries and punish related offenses remained vested in the states at the adoption of the Constitution and was not transferred by the admiralty clause.40
No federal legislation has occupied the field of state fishery regulation, so the state tribunals properly exercised jurisdiction.41
The act does not improperly assign admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to state tribunals.42
Whether Maurice River Cove lies within the territorial limits of New Jersey?43
The territorial limits of New Jersey are determined by the construction of the royal grants from Charles II to the Duke of York and subsequent conveyances.44 These grants on their face do not extend the western boundary below low water mark on Delaware Bay.45 Any claim to the bay must rest on subsequent appropriation and use rather than on the original grants themselves.46
No. The grants to the Duke of York dated March 12, 1663-4 and June 24, 1664 describe the western boundary of New Jersey as Delaware Bay or River without language extending title below low water mark.47 Maurice River Cove, the site of the Hiram seizure, lies within Delaware Bay.48 The original grants therefore do not support New Jersey title below low water mark, although later acts of appropriation and use by West Jersey inhabitants, confirmed by the treaty of peace, may have strengthened a claim to concurrent use.49 The court need not finally resolve the boundary because the action fails on other grounds.50
Maurice River Cove does not lie within the territorial limits of New Jersey under the original grants.51
Whether the locus in quo falls within the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Cumberland County?52
County jurisdiction depends on whether the place of seizure lies within the statutory boundaries of the county.53 When the western boundary of Cumberland County is described as extending to Delaware Bay, that description reaches only to low water mark under the same grant construction that limits state territory.54
No. The act creating Cumberland County bounds it by Cape May County to Delaware Bay and then up the bay.55 The seizure of the Hiram occurred in Maurice River Cove.56 Because the state boundary itself reaches only to low water mark, the county boundary likewise stops at that line, placing the locus in quo outside the magistrates' territorial jurisdiction.57 The court nevertheless refrains from a definitive ruling on this point because the form of the action provides a complete bar to recovery.58
The locus in quo does not fall within the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Cumberland County.59
Whether the owner of a vessel can maintain an action of trespass when the vessel was in the possession of a bailee under a hiring contract at the time of the seizure?60
To maintain an action of trespass for injury to a personal chattel, the plaintiff must possess either actual or constructive possession of the chattel together with a general or qualified property interest at the moment the injury occurs.61 When the general owner has parted with possession to a bailee under a contract that confers an interest for a limited term, the owner lacks constructive possession during that term. The owner may recover only through an action on the case for consequential damages.62
No. Corfield owned the Hiram yet hired the vessel to Hand, who in turn hired it to Keene for one month at ten dollars per month.63 At the time New Jersey officials seized the Hiram in Maurice River Cove while Keene was dredging oysters, Keene held lawful possession under the subsisting hiring contract.64 Because Corfield had surrendered possession and the right to immediate possession, he could not maintain trespass.65 His remedy, if any, lay in an action on the case.66
The jury verdict for Corfield in the amount of five hundred sixty dollars therefore cannot stand, and judgment must be entered for the defendant Coryell.67
The owner of a vessel cannot maintain an action of trespass when the vessel was in the possession of a bailee under a hiring contract at the time of the seizure.68