owners of the Morrisania to stay proceedings in said .suit, because of the pendency of the first suit in the Southern. district, to save two trials, it. is con· sented that the causes be heard together, and, when Judge BENEDICT is prepared to ijecide, that he decide both causes according to his opinion, and en· tel' the decrees in the separatedistricts. accordillg to the decisions respectively made." ' The trial was then proceeded with and concluded. A decree was made that the libelant ,recover its damages against. the Morrisania, which was followed by a final decree against the Morrisania on the 16th of January, 1888, for$527.60 damages and interest, and $252.50 costs. From that decree the' claimants appealed to. this court. . It is cOlltended by the appellants that, because of the prior proceed. 'lngs in the suit in the district .court for the .Southern district, the district court for the Eastern district had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit; and that the owners of the Alaska could prosecute their claim only by way of a cross-libel in the district court for the Southern district. But there is no principle or practice which .sustains these propositions. The filing of the libel in the district court for the Southern district gave to that court no jurisdiction over the Morrisania as a'TI18, or over the claim of her owners to damages. It was optional with them to file a crosslibel in the district court for the Southern district, or to proceed as they There is notlling in rule 53 of the rules in admiralty prescribed bytbe siipreine court which requires the filing of a cross-libel. Nor did the owners of the Alaska, in their answer filed on July U!, 1887, in the <3uitjnthe district court for the Southern district. claim to have their in that suit. The district court for the Eastern dig. trict had jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. The stipulation did not aidij8 jurisdiction of this suit. . Let the.t'e pe a decree for the libelant for $218.88, with interest from May 18,1887, and for $300, with interest from January 16,1888, and its costs in the district court as taxed, and for its costs in this court; to be taxed.
THE OSCEOLA. CoFFIN et
'11. THE OSCEOLA..
VESSEL-WANT OF SIGIULS-SHEER BY LEADING VES-
Where the steam-boat D., overtaking the S., collided with her, and, on suit brought, defended by alleging a sheer on the part of the S., but the e"idence showed that she had approached dangerously near the S.. without giving the signal required by the international rules. held that, if the S. made no sheer, the D. was in fault as the overtaking vessel; if the S. did sheer, the D. was atill in fault for her apProach without signals. Held, also, that, in the absence of signals from the 0., tho sheer of the 8. was not a fault. .
30 Fed. Rep. 383.
Edward H. Hobb8 and R. D. Benedict, for appellee.
Mosher, for appellant.'
BLATCHFORD, Justice. I concur with the district judge in his concluin this case, and in the grounds on which he disposed of it, both on the merits and on the exceptions to the commissioner's report. In holding that this is not a case for allowing anything for depreciation of, or permanent injuries to, the Spray, I do not decide whether, if it were such a case, the allowance could be made although the libelant has not appealed. Let there be a decree for the libelants for $1,570.62, with interest from January 28, 1885, and for $832.50, with interest thereon ·from November 29, 1887, and for their costs in the district court, taxed at $149.75, and for their bosts in this court, to be taxed.
THE ANNEX No.3. HOGG
THE PENNSYLVANIA ANNEX No.8.
July 5, 1888)
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D; Nf:UJ York.
COLLISION-FoG-IDENTITY OF VESSEL. ,
'. On the evening of February 6, 1884,.a vessel collided with the steamer West· ern Texas, which was lying at pier 9. East river; but, owing to the darkness and a thick fog which prevailed at the time, it wlts·.im:possible to distinguish the.boat which did the damage. At about that time, on the same evening. the Pennsylvania Annex No.3, on her waY-from Brooklyn to Jersey City, was in collision with some object in the vicinity of piers 2 or 3. Suit was brought against Annex No..3 forthe damage sustained by the Western Texas. The claimants denied the identity of the colliding vessel with the Annex .boat. Held, ou the evidence. that the libelant had not proved that the damage " in question was dOne by Annex No.3, and that the libel should be dismissed.
appeal irom district ·court.27 Fed. Rep. 516.
Evarts, Clwate& Beaman, (TreadweU Cleveland, ofcounsel,) for appellant. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, and R. D. Benedict, for appellee.
BLATCHFORD, Justice. In this case I find, as a fact, that the libelant has not established by sufficient proof the allegation of the libel that the steam-boat orferry-bO!lt known as the "Pennsylvania Annex Boat No.3," on the occasion in the lipeljran into Il-ud upon the steam-ship mentioned in the libel, and then called the " Western Texas," and caused damage and injury t6 her. On the foregoing fact I find, as a conclusion oflaW, that a decree must be entered dismissing the libel, with costs to the the district court, taxed at $401.82, and with costs to it in thiEl court, to be taxed. 'TM objections of the libelant to the attempt to show by the witness .:B.ose, on his cross-examination, statements alleged to have been made · by Rivers to Rose,and to the attempt to show by the witness Rose, on his cross-examination, that RiverS was untruthful, are sustained. All the objections ofthe claimant to the admission of evidence, set forth in ·the on his behalf to the court, are overruled.