Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/642

628 IEUiSBAIi BEPOKTEii. ���The Boston.* (Œrcuit Court, W. D. Pennaylvania. 1881.) �1. Phebostal Judgmbnts — Peocebdings in Rem— Vendobs and Vbndhbs — �Liens. �A verdict and judgment against the owners of a vessel in a suit to charge them personally with fhe penalties incurred, under section 4465 of the Revised Statutes, for caming a greater number of passengers tlian was stated in the certificate of inspe t on, is not conclusive aga nst their vendees in a subsequent suit in rem in admirai y to enforce ai^ainst the vessel the lien of the penalties, under section 4469. �2. Bamb— Parties and Pb vies. �The title to the vesse' not being involved in the former suit, nor any question of lien, held, tha the new owners were not privies to the suit against their vendors, and they migh show in the suit in rem that the number of passengers illegally carried wns less than the jury found in the first suit. �In Admirai ty. Sur libel, answer, and proofs. �AcHESON, D. J. In overruling the motion to dismisa the libel, the court disposed of all the questions in this case save one, viz. : Are the present owners of t':e Boston eoncluded by the verdict and judgment in the former suit brought by this libellant against the then owners of the vessel personally to charge them with the penalties incurred, under section 4465 of the Revised Statutes, for carrying a greater number of passengers than was stated in the certificate of inspection ? The libellant contends that the defendants are so eoncluded, although they did not become purchasers of the boat until after the penalties were incurred. But the libellant did not stand upon the record of the former action, but went into original evidence to show the viola- tion of the statute. From this evidence it now very clearly appears that the number of passengers unlawfully carried was 130 only, and not 170, as the jury found in the former trial. By the libellant's own proofs, therefore, it is plain that the verdict was excessive to the extent of $404. Nevertheless, he claims a decree upon the basis of erroneous verdict and the judgment entered thereon. Must such injustice receive judicial sanction? Shall the libellant have a decree against his own proofs? �Upon what prineiple are the defendants eoncluded by the former suit? It was not a proceeding in rem against the vessel, but & Per- sonal action against the then defendants for penalties personally incurred by them. To that suit it is certain the present defendants were not parties. Were they privies, so as to be bound by the resuit ? I am of opinion that they were not. They were not personally liable �* Vide 3 Tbd. Rbp. 807. ��� �