Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/179

THE CliATSOP CHIEF. 166 �obligation of the debtor, and secured by a pledge oir mortgage of specifie properfcy. In modern procedure, at least; the remedy againist the per'son and the property is haid in one suit, wherein there is arst a judgment establishing the debt'iagainst. the debtor- and the liabiiity of the property, and that the iatter be sold to satisfy the debt, and that the remainder of the judgment, if aiiy, be enforced against the defendant personally. �But whatever might have been the correct practice before the adoption of the admiralty rules by the Bupreme dourt, (January term, .1845,) I think that the fifteenth of these rules, fairly construed, does prohibit the joinder of the proceeding for collision agaihst the vessel and the owner, when it provides that the libellant inay proceed against -the ship and master or the ship alone, or against the master or Owner alone. As Judge Conkling (2 Gonk. Adm. 43) says: "Such Would seem to be the reasonable and sound view of the subject." In 2 Par. S. & A. 378, it is said that under the rule "no suit -Will lie against an owner in personam jointly with a suit in rem against the vessel. " In Newell v. Norton et Ship, 3 Wall. 257, it appears to have beeri so held in the district and circuit courts for Louisiana and prac- tically affirmed in the supreme court, although Mr. Justice Grier, in delivering the opinion of the court, (page 266,) is erroneously made to say that a libel in rem and in personam against the owner was in eonformity with admiralty rule I^, and therefoire an objection in the lower courts that sueh libels "eannot be joined was properly over- ruled," when in fact it was sustained and the libel dismissed as to the owner, and the ruling affirmed in the supreme court. �In The Richard Doane, 2 Ben. 111, (1868,) it was held by Mr. Jus- tice Blatcbford that admiralty 15 excludes any other mode of pro- cedure, in suits for damage by collision, than that specified in and allowed by the rule ; and that therefore a suit for a collision canuot be maintained against a vessel in rem and her owner in personam unless her owner is also master. To the same effect is the ruling in The Zodiac, 5 Fed. Kbp. 223, and The Sabine, 101 U. S. 386. So far this exception bas been considered on the theory that this is a case of damage by collision within the purview of rule 15, and that the libellant has a lien for the claim, and may therefore sue in rem or in personam, and upon this assumption it was argued by counsel. But is this true? The claim of the libellant is to recover damages under section 367 of the Civil Code for the death of a human being, caused, it is alleged, by the mieconduct of the owner of the Chief. �By rule 16 a suit for a direct injury to the person — an assault or ��� �