was lost. Immunity from a liability for a series of losses happening on different voyages cannot be had. The Alpena, 8 Fed. R. 280-283.

The measure of the owner's liability is the value of the ship immediately after the loss or damage complained of. Ib. 285.

Where petition for limitation of liability is filed after proceedings brought against the ship for loss, or damage, it must be filed in the same district where such suits are begun. Ib. 285.

On objection that one of the petitioners seeking to limit their liability reside in the district and that neither the ship nor any part of it nor the cargo are in the jurisdiction of the court, Held, that the court had jurisdiction where it had possession of a fund or where it had already taken jurisdiction of proceedings wherein a plain equity required that a final decree should be framed with reference to proceedings that might be had to limit the liabilities of the owner. In re Leonard, 14 Fed. R. 53-55.

Where a libel for damages was brought against a vessel in the eastern district and afterwards suit was brought in the State court for the southern district, Held, that the petition should be filed in the eastern district. In re The Lukenbach, 26 Fed. R. 870–871.

The words "May be libelled" in the rule construed to include cases in which a ship may have been libelled. Ib. 871.

In a collision between a vessel owned in New York and one owned in Massachusetts, Held, that the vessel not having been libelled to answer for the loss resulting from the collision, and no suit therefor having been commenced against her owners, proceedings to limit liability were properly instituted by the Massachusetts owners in the District Court in Massachusetts where the vessel was at the time proceedings were instituted. In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14-33, 37 L. ed. 60.

If the ship has been already libelled and sold, the proceeds represent the same under Rule 57. And if stipulation has been given, the stipulation is a substitute for the vessel. The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186-211, 39 L. ed. 943.

RULE LVIII

All the preceding rules and regulations for proceeding in cases where the owner or owners of a ship Cases in Circuit Courts

or vessel shall desire to claim the benefit

within act.

of limitation of liability provided for in the Act of Congress in that behalf, shall apply to the Circuit Courts of the United States where such cases are or shall be pending in said courts upon appeal from the District Courts.

Decisions

Proceedings for limitation of liability should originate in the District Court. The Mary Lord, 31 Fed. R. 416–417.

Vessels jointly

made to contribute in

collision.

RULE LIX

In a suit for damage by collision, if the claimant of any liable vessel proceeded against, or any resuits for damages by spondent proceeded against in personam, shall, by petition, on oath, presented before or at the time of answering the libel, or within such further time as the court may allow, and containing suitable allegations showing fault or negligence in any other vessel contributing to the same collision, and the particulars thereof, and that such other vessel or any other party ought to be proceeded against in the same suit for such damage, pray that process be issued against such vessel or party to that end, such process may be issued, and, if duly served, such suit shall proceed as if such vessel or party had been originally proceeded against; the other parties in the suit shall answer the petition; the claimant of such vessel or such new party shall answer the libel; and such further proceedings shall be had and decree rendered by the court in the suit as to law and justice shall appertain. But every Stipulation given such petitioner shall, upon filing his filing petition. petition, give a stipulation, with sufficient sureties, to pay to the libellant and to any claimant or new party brought in by virtue of such process, all such costs, damages, and expenses as shall be awarded against the petitioner by the court upon the final decree, whether rendered in the original or appellate court; and any such claimant or new party shall give the same bonds or stipulations which are required in like cases from parties brought in under process issued on the prayer of a libellant.

on

Decisions

A court of admiralty has jurisdiction of an independent suit to enforce contribution in cases of collision by one of two vessels against the other, contributors to a collision; but where there has been a final decree in which both vessels, contributors to the collision and all the parties in

interest are before the court, and that decree determines the facts as to the collision and apportions the damages between the two vessels, Held, that such decree is conclusive as to all persons touching the rights and liabilities of each of the vessels arising out of the collision and that an independent suit brought by one vessel against the other, to enforce contribution to cargo damages, refused in the original suit for lack of appropriate pleadings, cannot be maintained. Erie & W. Transp. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 142 Fed. R. 9-15, 73 C. C A. 195.

Where a decree in admiralty is rendered against the owner of a vessel and its surety upon a stipulation entered into under sec. 941, Rev. Stats., and the admiralty rules, for the release of a vessel libelled for damages caused by collision, it is not necessary for the surety to join in the appeal or to be severed, but the owner of the vessel alone may prosecute the appeal. The New York, 104 Fed. R. 561-563, 44 C. C. A. 38.

The doctrine of an equal division of damages in admiralty in the case of a collision between two vessels where both are guilty of fault contributive to the collision, first announced in 17 How. 170, has been applied where both vessels being in fault, only one of them was injured, as well as to cases where both were injured. In the first case the injured vessel recovering only one-half its damages, and in the second case the damages suffered by two vessels being added together and equally divided and the vessel whose damages exceeded such one-half recovering the excess against the other vessel. The Max Morris, 137 Fed. R. 1–8, 69 C. C. A. 1.

Cases recognizing the rule as to an equal division of the loss cited on page 9.

Rule 59 authorizes the claimant or respondent in suits for damages by collision to compel the libellant to bring in another vessel alleged to have been in fault. Ib. 11.

Where a libel in a collision suit was filed against a vessel chartered, where the charterer supplied its own officers and crew, under Rule 59 the court may entertain a petition by the owners and claimants of the vessel to call in the charterer to show cause why he should not be condemned for the damages resulting from the collision. The Barnstable, 181 U. S. 464-467, 45 L. ed. 954.

In a collision through negligence of the charterer the ship itself is treated in some sense as a principal and as liable for the negligence of those in possession of her. Ib. 467.

The liability of the vessel for the negligence of the charterers is fixed by Rev. Stats., sec. 4,286 (U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 2944). Ib. 468.

If there are no provisions to the contrary in the charter party, the charterers are liable for the consequence of their negligence in the navigation of the ship, and are bound to return her to the owners free from any lien caused by their own fault. Ib. 468.

Upon contracts of affreightment made by a charterer as a special owner, a decree for loss by negligence may be made against the ship, final, as between the libellant and the owners, and such decree need not provide that the libellant collect from the charterers in the first instance, and only the deficiency, if any, be collected from the ship. The Alert, 61 Fed. R. 113-115, 9 C. C. A. 390.

Where both the ship and charterers are charged with liability for breach of the same contract of affreightment, they may be joined to answer in the same proceeding and the question whether the liability ought to be borne by one rather than the other, or be shared, can be determined in the one suit. The Planet Venus, 113 Fed. R. 387–389.

In a suit for collision brought by the owner of one of two vessels in a collision cause, in which the owners of her cargo were joint libellants against another vessel, where the decree was that the two vessels were equally in fault and the recovery of the libellant vessel owner restricted to one-half of his loss, but full recovery decreed against the other vessel, for the losses sustained by the innocent cargo owners, although the libellant owner failed to avail himself of the remedy afforded by Rule 59, Held, he was not precluded from recouping from the amount awarded against his own vessel, in favor of the other vessel, one-half the loss which he was decreed to pay to the innocent cargo owners. The Livingston, 104 Fed. R. 918-927.

Rule 59 is remedial and should be liberally applied. The owners of a vessel libelled in rem in a collision cause may by petition bring into the suit other parties liable for the same collision with process in personam against them, and it is no objection that the proceedings thereafter are in rem and in personam in the same action. Joice v. Canal Boats, 32 Fed. R. 553-554.

While Rule 59 does not in terms provide for other than collision cases, the principle on which it is based may be applied by analogy to other cases to assist in the administration of justice requiring the appearance of any additional defendant who may be responsible for the claim in suit or any part thereof; applied in a suit for salvage where the libellee alleged that the vessel saved had been cast adrift by the negligence of other parties and asked that process be issued against them and that they be made respondents in the action. Dailey v. The City of New York, 119 Fed. R. 1,005.

RULES

OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RELATING TO

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

As adopted by the Supreme Court in 1886 and subsequently added to and amended

RULE I

In all cases hereafter decided in the Court of Claims, in which, by the Act of Congress, such Record on which apappeals are allowable, they shall be peals are heard in Suheard in the Supreme Court upon the 419; 116 U. S. 154, 402. following record, and none other:

preme Court. 9. Wall.

etc. 116 U. S. 402; 1

(1) A transcript of the pleadings in the case, of the final judgment or decree of the court, and of Transcript of pleadings, such interlocutory orders, rulings, judg- Wall. 102. ments, and decrees as may be necessary to a proper review of the case.1

Finding of fact and con

clusions of law. 17

(2) A finding by the Court of Claims of the facts in the case, established by the evidence, in the nature of a special verdict, but not the evidence establishing them; and a separate statement of the conclusions U.S. 154.

wall, 17; 5 Wall. 419; 609; 6 Wall. 101; 116

93 U. S. 605; 111 U. S.

of law upon said facts on which the court founds its judgment or decree. The finding of facts and conclusions of law to be certified to this court as part of the record.2

1 Rule 8, sec. 2, of the Supreme Court requires the clerk to annex to and transmit with the record a copy of the opinion or opinions filed in the case.

2 The following extract from the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Burr v. The Des Moines Railroad and Navigation Co., 1 Wall. 102, will explain what is necessary to be set out in the findings:

"The statement of facts on which this court will inquire if there is or is not error in the application of the law to them is a statement of the ultimate facts or proposi