injury to an employe on a steam-vessel, incurred while in the line of his employment, which was given or allowed by the general adriliralty law. See Brown v. The D. S. Cage, 1 Wood, 404. In addition, it appears. that the offending vessel is made subject to a lien by the local law "for damages or injuries done to person or property by such boat or vessel." Or. Laws, 656, § 17, subd. 4. But such lien is thereby postponed to the liens for wages, materials, wharfage, and towage. ld. 657, § 18.. But the conclusion reached upon the first exception at the former hearing must still prevail; for, as has been shown, under admiralty rule 15 the libellant cannot proceed in rem and in per80nam at the same time. But she may amend her libel by striking out the vessel or the owner and proceed against the other accordingly.
(Oircuit Court, 8.
n. New York.
BLATCHFORD, C. J. A careful examination of the evidence in this case leads me to the same conclusion as that arrived at by the district judge, and for the reasons stated by him. The libel must be dismissed, with costs to the claimants in the district court, at $92.20, and with their costs in this court, to be taxed. .'
THE WILLIE. t
(Oircuit Court, 8. D. New York. August 27,1881.)
BLATCHFORD, C. J. I have carefully examined the evidence in this case, in connection with the briefs of counsel, and am of opinion that the conclusions of fact and of law arrived at by the district judge were correct. The reasons therefor are so well and fully stated b, him in his decision that nothing need be said in addition. There must be a decree dismissing the libel, with costs to the claimant in the district court, as taxed, and costs to it in this court, to be taxed
.See 2 FED. REP. 821. tSee 2 FED. REp. 95.
KEOKUK NORTHERN LINE PACKET 00.
and another v. THE KEOKUK NORTHERN and others.
(Otrcuit Court, W. D. Wisconsin. 1881.)
Whet her or not a bill is' demurrable on the ground of multifariousness or misjoinder of causes of action will depend on the special circumstances, and what the due administration of justice demands, in each case.
SAME......STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-LACHES.
A -bill set out the facts that the complainants were judgment creditors, with returns of no property found, of an insolvent corporation; that the property of their common debtor was withdrawn from their reach by reason of transfers thcreof to the defendants, in pursuance of a scheme -to which they and the debtors were parties, though in different degrees, and, in some respects, bydif. ferent acts; and that such scheme was carried out by the parties thereto with intent fO hinder, delay, and defraud the complainants and other creditors. Held, that the bill was not demurrable on the ground of multifariousness or misjoinder of causes of action. Held, that, under the Wisconsin statutes,an action of this nature must be brought within six years after the fraud is dis· covered. Held, that the defence of the statute of limitations can be taken advantage of on demnrrer. Held, that it will not be inferred, in support of a demurrer setting up the statute of limitations, from the fact that the alleged fraud occurred more thall six years prior to the commencement of the suit, that the facts constituting the frauds were discovered before that period of six years also. Held, also, that a demurrer, insisting on lapse of time short of the -statutory period, will not be sustained, as the bill does not, upon its face and without resorting to inferences, make out a clear case of unreasonable delay on the part of the complainants after the discovery of the fraud. Query, whether the doctrine of laches or lapse of time can ever be invoked in a suit to which a statute of limitation applies.
In Equity. S. U. Pin /ley and F. J. Lamb, for com plainants. Sloan, Stevens et Morris and J. H. Davidson, for defendants. HARLAN, Justice. The defendants demur upon these grounds:
First, that the bill is multifarious, in that it seeks to enforce independent judgments in which the complainants have no joint interest, and also because it unites with the cause of action against the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company, in which the defendant Davidson has no interest, a cause of action against Da.vidson in which his co-defendant has no interest; second, that if complainants ever had any cause of .action against the defendants, or either of them, the delay which occurred without suit was so unreasonable as to deprive them of any right to relief in equity; third, that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations of Wisconsin. ;
The objection of multifariousness will be first considered. v.8,no.1l-49