## Facts

- Hough & Kershaw owned a wharf on the Chicago River, along with large warehouses (packing houses) built on or alongside the wharf and filled with valuable goods.
- The *Falcon*, a steam propeller used in Great Lakes commerce, was anchored at the wharf on waters treated as admiralty waters.
- Through the negligence of the *Falcon*’s crew, a fire started aboard the vessel.
- The fire spread from the *Falcon* to the wharf, then to the warehouses and the goods stored there, destroying the structures and their contents.
- Hough & Kershaw filed a libel in federal district court seeking to proceed in admiralty against the owners of the *Falcon*.
- Because the *Falcon* was not seized, Hough & Kershaw attached a different vessel owned by the same owners, the *Plymouth* (a sister ship), as the res in the in rem admiralty action.
- The district court dismissed the libel for lack of admiralty jurisdiction; the circuit court affirmed; Hough & Kershaw sought review in the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Does federal admiralty jurisdiction cover a tort claim for damage to land-based property (a wharf, warehouses, and stored goods) caused by a fire that began on a vessel located on navigable waters?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal for want of admiralty jurisdiction.
- Admiralty tort jurisdiction depends on the place where the injury is completed.
- Because the damage complained of—the burning of the wharf, warehouses, and goods—occurred wholly on land, the case was not within admiralty, even though the fire began on the vessel.

## Legal Principles

- In tort cases, admiralty jurisdiction is determined by the locality of the injury, not the locality of the negligent act.
- When the injury or damage is done wholly upon land, the fact that the cause originated on waters within admiralty jurisdiction does not make the claim a maritime tort.
- The presence of a vessel as the instrument that started the harm does not supply admiralty jurisdiction if the damage is land-based.
- Statutes extending admiralty jurisdiction to Great Lakes waters expand the geographic reach of admiralty waters, but they do not convert purely land damage into an admiralty tort.
- A plaintiff cannot create admiralty jurisdiction by attaching a vessel in rem when the underlying tort, as measured by where the damage occurred, is not maritime.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal admiralty courts lacked jurisdiction over Hough & Kershaw’s claim because the injury they sued for was the destruction of land-based structures and goods; the fact that the fire began aboard the *Falcon* on navigable waters did not make the tort maritime, so the admiralty libel against the attached vessel *Plymouth* was properly dismissed.


Hough & Kershaw v. The Plymouth, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 20 (1865)