Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/294

280 FEDERAL REPORTER. �dence of Moses T. Tallman goes to show that the well was not a driven well, and that there was not in ii any such process embodied as that of Green. The testimony of Abram Vandenburgh is not entitled to any more weight. On the other side, the evidence is overwhelming that there was and could have been no driven well at the tinae and place in question. �As to the driven well alleged to have, been put down at Independ- ence in April or May, 1861, it is quite clear that the witnesses who testify to that date are mistaken, and that the well in question was put down in May, 186€. The evidence to that effect is very com- plete and detailed and minute. ' �There must be the usual decree for the plaintiflfs, with costs. ���The AlI'bna. �{District Court, JV! D. Illinois. July 15, 1881.) �Limitation cw Liab/i-itt — Pbactice — tossBs Occdebing on Distinct' Trips — Cabgo— liBV. St. U 4283, 4284, and 4285— Admtbaltt Ruibs «4, 55, 56, �AND 57. �The steamer Alpena, while on a voyage from Grand Haven, in the state of Michigan, to Chicago, in the state of Illinois, foundered and sunk with all her cargo, passengers, etc., on board. Soon after, her owner flled a petition in this court, under sections 4283, 4284, and 4285 of the Revised Statutes, which pro- vide for the limitation of an owner's liability, etc., praying that upon comply- ing with the requirements of the statute he might be exonera ted from any liability not therein provided for, for loss of goods and for damages in con- sequence of loss of life on this last voyage, and also for damages alleged to have been sustained by a schooner in a collision with the steamer on a trip made some weeks previous. Upon flling this petition, an order was entered directing the petitioner to eonvey all its rights, etc. , in what remained of her and to freight pending at the time of her loss, to a trustee, following the provisions of the statute. Upon being informed that this had been done, the court ordered a monition to issue citing all persons having claims for damages against either the steamer or the company, as her owner, to appear and prove their claims. On or before the return-day of this monition a large number of claimants appeared specially and took exceptions, which resolve themselves into two questions : (1) Can the liability of the owner be limited under the statute as to any loss or damage except that occurring on the voyage last pre- ceding the filing of his petition, or on the voyage in which the steamer was losti and (2) whether, under Adrairalty Rulea 54, 65, 56, and 57, this court has juriadiction in the promises when the proceedings instituted under the statute by such an owner are not preceded by a suit brought at the instance of one of the losers. As to the flrst question, the court heid that an owner's liability can only be limited as to auch loss or damage as occurs on the last voyage preced- ing the flling of the petition, or on the voyage in which the vessel is lost. As to the second question, the court 7ield,further, that the admiralty rules referred to therein do not make the institution of sUch proceedings couditional upon the bringmg of a prior suit by one or more of the losers. ��� �