Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/781

THE CLAT80E OHIBF. 767 �lawj but this case, as presented, does not call apon the oonrt to exer- ciez ftny suob power in behalf of the libellant. See Metealfev. Bri^ tonnia Iro» PForfo, L. E. 12^ B. D, 176. �The view already expressed renders it unneoessary to eonsider the serioqB question presented by the'fact that the quantity of potatoes sti^ied'by the bill of lading of the Porter to have been shipped on boajcd that vessel was never shipped or. delivered to the master for the purpose of shipment, and by the act of the master, in signing a billof lading known by himi to be false, Perkins '& Job hftd been in- duced to advance money to G. H. Harringtou & Go^ npon insufficient i^Curity* : >.. ■■: '■"- �There muat be a; decree dismissing the libel, and with costo.' ���The Clatsop Chief. (District Court, D: Oregdn. Septembcr 8, 1881.) �1. iNJtTRY TO EUCPLOTE ON BTEAM-VbSSEL. �, . , The remedy given by section 4493 for an injury to an employe on a steam- vessel is merely cumulative, and does not exclude the right to any other remedy . fof such ihjury which may be given by the general admiralty law. �Sidner/ D«W and TT. St'ott Be5ce, for libellant. �Z). P. Kennedy, for the owner and claimant. �Deady, D. J. On August 9, 1881, the opinion was delivered in this case to the effect that the libellant, Emma Kay, could not, under admiralty rule 15, maintain a proceeding in rem and in personam in one libel for damages for the dea^h of her husband by a collision, while serving as ^reman on the offending vcsse], — the Clatsop Chief. It was also then suggested whether the libellant could maintain a suit in rem at alij in vieW of the ruling of Chief Justice Chaae in The Highland Light, (Ghase'e Dec. 151,) inwhich it was held that by sec- tion 80 of the steam-boat act of 1852, (10 St. 72,) since become sec- tion 43 of the act of 1874, (16 St. 445,) and now section 4493 of the Bevised StatUtes, such remedy, in the case of an injury caused by a, neglect to coniply with the law governing the navigation of stflam-veBsels, '■viras confined to passengers, and that persona merely employed thereon were limited to the remedy in personam for such injuries. Upon further argument and reflection I think the bet- ter conclusion is that the provisions in section 4493 of the Hevised Statutes, concerning remedies, are only cumulative, and therefore do not take away or exclude any right to a proceeding in rem for an ��� �