576
FEDEBAL BEPOBTER.
THE BELGENLAND."
(Circuit Oourt. E. D. PennsylfJania. October 22, 1881.) 1. ADMIRALTy-JURISDICTION-COLLISION BETWEEN FOREIGN VESSELS.
The admiralty courts of the United States have jurisdiction of collision9 occurring on the high seas between foreign vessels.
Motion for Reargument. This case had been decided upon appeal from the district court, the opinion being reported in 9 FED. REP. 126. Subsequently the following order was
Henry Flanders and J. Langdon Ward, for libellant. Morton P. Henry and Henry R. Edmu.nds, for respondent. After argument the following opinion and decree were filed: McKENNAN, C. J. And now, October 22d, the above cause came on to be heard on the pleas to the jurisdiction, and was argued by ' And thereupon the following facts were found: That the collision in question occured between the Luna, a Norwegian bark, and the steam-ship Belgenland, which steam-ship was owned by the Societe Anonyme de Navigation Belge-Americaine, a Belgian corporation or association created by the laws of the kingdom of Belgium, and that the said steam-ship was a Belgian vessel in point of nationality, sailing under the Belgian flag; and that the collision occurred on the high seas, and not within the waters of the United States. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
That the admiralty courts of the United States have jurisdiction of collisions occurring on the high seas between vessels owned by foreigners and of different nationalities; and that the plea to the jurisdiction is overruled. And ordered that the within finding be added to the finding heretofore filed, and that the decree made in the case stand· · Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
COlT
v.
NORTH CAROLINA GOLD AMALGAMATING 00.
577
NORTH CAROLINA GOLD AMALGAMATING CO.-
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Penn8l1ZfJania.
July, 1881.)
J.
Oll' BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS.
The proper practice in equity, where, during the progress of the cause, either party desires information and use of the contents of books and' documents in the possession of the other, is for the party desiring such information to file an affidavit, designating the books and documents, and averring the materiality of their contents, whereupon the court will allow the other party to file acounter affidavit, if he desires.
In Equity. Motion for rule on defendant to show cause why he should not produce certain books and papers alleged to be in his possession. Complainant filed no affidavit in support of his motion. E. F. Hoffman and G. Hart, for motion. R. C. 21!cll1urtrie, contra. BUTLER, D. J., (orally.) The practice in equity formerly was to obtain information and use of the contents of books and documents in a party's possession, by bill of discovery, requiring the respondent to set out the contents at large in the answer; as this was found to be laborious, expensive, and tending to encumberthe records unnecessarily, it was so changed as to require simply an acknowledgment of the existence and possession of the document, and upon such acknowledgment to obtain their production by motion. Where such information and use were needed in trials at law, the practice was the same, until the more convenient one, provided by statute, was adopted,-wherein an affidavit designating the books or documents, and averring the materiality of their contents, is substituted for the bill, and the absence of a counter affidavit is treated as acquiescence in what is stated. All the purposes of a formal bill are thus effected without any of the cost, labor, and delay of the former practice. There is no good reason why this more convenient and expeditious method should not be applied in equity to cases such as that now before the court. If the plaintiff had foreseen the need of the books and papers required, had designated them in his bill, and obtained an acknowledgment of their existence and possession, in the answer, he would have required nothing more to support his motion for their production. As, however, he did not do so, and the existence of the books and papers, and the defendant's possession of them, must be established, '*'Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
v.O,no.l0-37