Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/75

60 FBDEKAL EEPOBTEB. �adjudging the owner's compensation alone, and not providing for the officers or crew; nor could it be claimed that the latter eould in such a case demand contribution frona the owner instead of proceeding upon their own libel. An award and settlement thereon of the own- er's separate interest are equally effectuai ; and as no action or inac- tion of the libellants was induced by the former suit, and their rem- edies remain unimpaired, I do not perceive any ground for the claim of estoppel. The mere filing of a libel "in behalf of all entitled" does not increase the owner's legal authority, or of itself create any trust for other co-salTors, nor impose any additional obligations on the libellant in their behalf; it does not make others actual parties to the suit, nor prevent their filing supplementary libels of their own. If they desire, they may be allowed to come in on petition; but if they do not do 80, and the court should, from any cause, have entered a decree for the separate interest of some and not of all the co-salvors, the others mny still assert their separate remedies. The Aletheia, 13 Weekly Eep. 279. To avoid multiplicity of actions the better prac- tice is for all co-salvors to join in one action, (The Boston, 1 Sumn. 328 ; The Edward Howard, Newby, 522 ;) and the court would doubtless withhold costs in all unnecessary proceedings. And in a libel by one co-salvor it usually, for its own convenience as well as for the eonven- ienoe of others, enters a decree making provision for all. But this does not affect the several and independent legal rights of co-salvors among themselves, -or their right to make separate settlements of their own interests after suit commenced, though nominally for the benefit of all others interested, so long as no others have beeome actual parties. �Such is the established rule in equity. In suits for the adminis- tration of assets it is not uncommon for several actions to be brought by different creditors, all for the same common object, and each for the benefit of all others interested. These may all proeeed until a hearing in some one of them, when a decree will be made for the ben- efit of all. Until decree every such suit is entirely in the control of the actual parties to it, and may be settled at their own pleasure, without reference to others. Ross v. Crary, 1 Paige, 416; Handford V. Storie, 2 Sim. & S. 196; Pemberton v. Topham, 1 Beav. 316; Pax- ton\. Douglas, 8 Yes. 520; Story, Eq. PI. §§ 98-103; Goody. Blewiit, 13 Ves. 397; 19 Ves. 336; Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige, 19. �In Handford v. Storie, 2 Sim. & S. 196, a claim for contribution was made upon the precise grounds urged in this case, and overruled ��� �