Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/235

THE STEÀM-SHIP ZODIAO. S23 �the action in its direction in personam, like proceedings niust be taken to bring home notice to him, as on an original insti- tution of a suit. After such steps have been taken, the court will hear and adjudicate the matter upon the proofs already before it, or upon the hearing of such further evidence as either party may be allowed, on motion or petition, to intro- duce." This passage is cited with approval by Mr. Benedict, — Ben. Adm. (2d Ed.) 647, — and the practice referred to is approved by Judge Curtis in The Enterprise, 2 Qur. G. Ç. 319. The relief asked in this case is virtually to treat the decree as a decree ira personam against Eaymond,,or, by an amend- ment of the decree, if that be neeessary, to make it a decree in personam against him on which execution may issue. There are, I think, two obvions and insuperable objections to this — First, that the record doea not clearly show that Eaymond is personally liable for the damages recovered; and, secondly,\i the record did show that, still the admiralty rules forbid the prosecution of a claim for collision in rem against the vessel and in personam against the owner in the same suit. As to the first objection, the fact that, when a vessel is sued for dam- ages by collision, a person appears and defends as owner, is merely an admission that he is the owner at the time of her arrest, and is no admission that he was the owner at the time of the collision, or in any way responsible personally for the acts or negligence of those in charge of her at the time of the collision. Consistently with the record, they may not have been his agents or servants. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider whether, consistently with the act limiting the lia- bility of ship-owners, the decree in rem can be taken to be conclusive as to a personal liability against the owners at the time of the collision. As to the second objection, the admi- ralty rules prescribed by the supreme court are imperative with respect to what modes of relief may be sought in one suit, and to permit now an amendment which will make the suit one in rem and in personam as effectually as if the suit had been begun in this form, would be a clcar violation of those rules. Adm. Eule 15. See, also, The Sabine, 101 U. S. 384. ����