admiralty :'heard"by,ine, when ,ldirst the oircuit .bench, iQ;', volved this 'question,- and the decl'eewas reversed and, the libel dismissed ,See PheFideliter ,v. U. 8., lSawy. 164, and cases cited; and the question of jurisdiction in that case, was not raised in the district court. See also The May, ,6 Biss. 243. The statute under which this pros6cutionds,had,as it did in the case· of ,The May, rec-: ognizes this order of proceeding-:-fi:rst a seizure,! and the,n the procedure against the: vessel. The .lanp;uage is, "and may be and proceeded against by way of libel in any district court of the United, States having jurisaootion of the, offense." Seotion 4:499, Section 4496 provides: "All collectors or other chief officers of the ctlstoma" and all inspectors within the several districtsahall enfor-eethe provisions of this title against all steamers.arriving and departing."'lThe firstthiI)g to be done, is for some of these ,officers to seize the vessel; as smuggled goods are seized,' thereby acqtliring jurisdiction. Having thuE\acqujrfld jurisdiction,by'seizuro"by the proper, officers, the prdceedings maybe hl,\p in the district court; to enforce thepenaltios arisi.ng under section 4499. As before reltmrked· .l regret:beimg obliged tod®jdl:l the case OIl this ground, but so the law appears to require. Let the decree be reversed, and the libel dismissed.
D.NeW<York. :March "i,1891.).
LIMITATION Oll' LUBILITy-VALUE Oll' OWNER'S INTEREST-SALE-AMOUNT Oll' BOND.
In proceedings to limit the liability ota ship-owDer, the price realized at a marshal's sale of the vesssel, flxingthe value foI' which, a bond will be required, is not concluslve, and the court, upon cause shown, may require a bond for the actual value, as proved.
SAME-WHAT OWNER MUST SURRENDER.
In order to obtain a limitation of liability with respeot t9 o'ait;ns arising upon a voyage subsequent to the accruing of pl"evious liens thesuip-owner must sur· render the vellsel, or her proceeds, free from such previous liens.
·In Admiralty. ,'Onipe,tition for limitation of liability. Carpenter & Mosher; for petitioners. A. B. Stewart and 'Alexander. & Aah, opposed.
BROWN, J. Prima facie the price realized on the marshal's sale is ·deemed to ba'the value of the' tug when sold; ,and the last clause in the 'fi.fty-'Seventh rule or the in admiralty permits the proceeds ofsuch a sale to" repre!l$nt the vessel' upon Rll 'application for a limitation ofliability.' It 'VaS oaJ:tsm]y nottheintention1oHhatrule, however; to
'! r F" '.:: by Edward G. Be!:ledlct,Esq.,of the New York bar.
NATIONAL BOARD ()FiM'ArirNE'ttNDERWRIT'RRS
eW;l,ble the ,the,tt1g; to, ()otAln aQy',,\lpfaltltq.vAntage in respect' to the amount for which, they be,accountable in limiting their lill.bility ,thilie.is any reason to suspect that the sale was greatly below' the n'\al'ket value of the vessel, or that the sale was made a mea.\1il,bywhich the former o,wners might reduce the amount for which they were responsible-, ,while they indirectly retained the benefit of the vessel, I have no doubt that the court toay relieve the parties interested by inquiring into the facts, and requiring a larger sum than the proceeds of the sale thus obtained. The libelant in the libel for repairs; 'linder whostHlecree the"vessel:wa,s 'sold, has an undoubted HElD upon the vessel and' heqJr0ceeds. 'There has not, as yet, bee,n any de-. cree in the damage suit, and there is nothing, therefore, to displace the repair lien. Accordingly" aslhave already held in Gokey v. Fort, 44 Fed. Rep. 364, thepetitionersiin order to limit their'liability with sptfutto claiIIls arising upon the third voyageafter the'repair lien accrued, must' surrender the vessel" or herproceed8, free from that lien. They must, therefore, in any event, as the Case now stands, give a bond for the whole amount in court,because that amount is less than the repair lien, and the amount now on deposit will, for aught yet known, be absorbed by that lien. As respects the damage claim not yet adjudicated, the libelants therein mlly, if desired, within five days take an order of reference to ascertain whether the E'ale by the marshal was for a sum greatly below the fair and reasonable value of the at such a sale, and whether the same was pUTdhased directly or indirectly for the benefit of the petitioners, or either of them; if so; what was the fair value of th/) vessel at the close of the voyage? such libelants j at the time of filing their order, to enter an appearance, and' give security for the payment of the costs of such reference, if the price realized at the marshal's is finally sustained for the purpose of the petitioners'application; ant' the determination of the amount of the bond to be given by the petition. ers is reserved until the coming in of said report, if such reference be taken. If not taken, a 'bond for the price realized at the marshal's sale will be approved.
(Di8trlet Court, E.]). Pennsylvania. January 6,1891.}
ADMIRALTy-RELEA.8E OF ATTACHED PROPERTY-ADDITION
07 PARTIES. Where a ,suit has 1;Ieen 1;Iroughtagainst one, of two ship-,owners. and propertyat.tached thereunder released before the name of the other owner is introduced, thlt suit must be regarded as ag8il1st the original respondent only:·
A part owner of a ve$llel is liable tn 8olido for a balance due on an average ad justment. " " ' . ' .
AnMIRALTy-JURISDICTION-RECOVIIRY ON AVlIRA6I1 AD.TUSTMIINT. A C9urt ill, has jprisdictio,n 1;Iy foreign
in a SUIt against a
oyvnel' 'lio -nlOo'ver a balance 'due on an average adJustmplil4i.
Mark Wukb., Collett,Esq., of the PhUadelphi& bar.