States have concurrent jurisdiction, the mode of trial is to be regulated according to the law, usage, and practice of that court in which the suit may be instituted. Davis v. A New Brig, Gilp. 473.

16. Where a lien on a vessel is given by a state law, the District Court rightfully obtains jurisdiction, and may exercise it, not according to the provisions of the state law, but according to the mode of proceeding in the admiralty. Ib.

17. Workmen and material-men having a lien on a vessel, under the provisions of a state law, have their election to enforce it either in the District Court or a state court; but having made their election, the defendant must follow them into the court chosen, and submit to the mode of proceeding and trial used in that court. Ib.

18. (Nov., 1836.) Where a legal point arose and the counsel for one of the parties asked time for preparation to argue it, but it appeared that such counsel had previous notice that the point would then arise, the court refused the application. Greigg V. Reade, Crabbe, 64.

19. (May, 1841.) When a case comes rightfully into a court. of admiralty, it is to be conducted, tried, and decided according to the usage and practice of that court. Boon v. The Hornet, Crabbe, 426.

20. (1856.) A rule of practice established by virtue of an act of Congress has the force of a statute. Scott v. The Propeller Young America, Newb. Adm. 107.

In all suits in personam, where a simple warrant of arrest issues and is executed, bail shall be taken by the marshal and the court in those cases only in which it is required by the laws of the State where an arrest is made upon similar or analogous process issuing from the State

courts.

And imprisonment for debt, on process issuing out of the admiralty court, is abolished in all cases where, by the laws of the State in which the court is held, imprisonment for debt has been, or shall be hereafter, abolished, upon similar or analogous process issuing from a State court.

The twenty-seventh rule shall not apply to cases where the sum or value in dispute does not exceed fifty dollars, exclusive of costs, unless the District Court shall be of opinion that the proceedings prescribed by that rule are necessary for the purposes of justice in the case before the court.

All rules and parts of rules heretofore adopted, inconsistent with this order, are hereby repealed and annulled.

Further proof, taken in a Circuit Court upon an admiralty appeal, shall be by deposition, taken before some commissioner appointed by a Circuit Court, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf, or before some officer authorized to take depositions by the thirtieth section of the act of Congress of the 24th of September, 1789, upon an oral examination and cross-examination, unless the court in which such appeal shall be pending, or one of the judges thereof, shall, upon motion, allow a commission to issue to take such depositions upon written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories. When such deposition shall be taken by oral examination, a notification from the magistrate before whom it is to be taken, or from the clerk of the court in which such appeal shall be pending, to the adverse party, to be present at the taking of the same, and to put interrogatories, if he think fit, shall be served on the adverse party or his attorney, allowing time for their attendance after being notified not less than twenty-four hours, and, in addition thereto, one day, Sundays exclusive, for every twenty miles' travel; provided, that the court in which such appeal may be pending, or either of the judges thereof, may, upon motion, increase or diminish the length of notice above required.

1. (1805.) New evidence is admissible on appeal, and time. given to produce it, on proof that appellant was chargeable with no laches in not producing it in the court below. Rose v. Himely, Bee, Adm. 313.

Rule 50. Evidence transmitted to Circuit Court.

When oral evidence shall be taken down by the clerk of the District Court, pursuant to the above-mentioned section of the act of Congress,

and shall be transmitted to the Circuit Court, the same may be used in evidence on the appeal, saving to each party the right to take the depositions of the same witnesses, or either of them, if he should so elect.

When the defendant, in his answer, alleges new facts, these shall be considered as denied by the libellant, and no replication, general or special, shall be allowed. But within such time after the answer is filed as shall be fixed by the District Court, either by general rule or by special order, the libellant may amend his libel so as to confess and avoid, or explain or add to, the new matters set forth in the answer; and within such time as may be fixed, in like manner, the defendant shall answer such amendments.

1. (May, 1835.) In admiralty pleadings, the better practice is, to present new facts, when necessary, by an amendment to the libel and answer, as in chancery, and not by way of replication and rejoinder. Brig Sarah Ann, 2 Sumn. 206.

2. (May, 1844.) A special replication by the libellant, under oath, is not admissible, unless it be demanded by the respondents, or ordered by the court; and then it is in the nature of a crossbill or reconventio of the Civil Law. Coffin v. Jenkins, 3 Story, 109.

3. (March, 1844.) Where the libellant intends merely to deny the truth of the allegations in the answer, a supplemental libel in replication is not necessary. But when the allegations of the answer are intended to be avoided by new facts, the matter in avoidance should be put upon the record. Gladding v. Constant, 1 Sprague, 73.

4. (Jan., 1856.) A replication merely denying the truth of the answer is not required in this district; but where the libellant relies on new matter in avoidance, he should put it on the record by a supplemental libel, to which the respondents should answer. Taber v. Jenny, 1 Sprague, 315.

5. (Sept., 1833.) In admiralty practice, in the absence of any specific rule regulating the proceeding, a replication 1 is necessary to put in issue the facts set up by a sworn answer. The Mary Jane, 1 Blatchf. & H. Adm. 390.

1 See Rule 51.

6. If no replication 1 is filed, the libellant will be taken to have admitted the truth of the answer. Ib.

7. The method of procedure in the English admiralty, in matters of practice, and its origin and forms, considered. Ib. 8. New rule promulgated in regard to replications.1 Ib.

Rule 52. Record on Appeal.

The clerks of the District Courts shall make up the records to be transmitted to the Circuit Courts on appeals, so that the same shall contain the following:

1. The style of the court.

2. The names of the parties, setting forth the original parties, and those who have become parties before the appeal, if any change has taken place.

3. If bail was taken, or property was attached or arrested, the process of the arrest or attachment and the service thereof; all bail and stipulations; and, if any sale has been made, the orders, warrants, and reports relating thereto.

4. The libel, with exhibits annexed thereto.

5. The pleadings of the defendant, with the exhibits annexed thereto. 6. The testimony on the part of the libellant, and any exhibits not annexed to the libel.

7. The testimony on the part of the defendant, and any exhibits not annexed to his pleadings.

8. Any order of the court to which exception was made.

9. Any report of an assessor or assessors, if excepted to, with the orders of the court respecting the same, and the exceptions to the report. If the report was not excepted to, only the fact that a reference was made, and so much of the report as shows what results were arrived at by the assessor, are to be stated.

10. The final decree.

11. The prayer for an appeal, and the action of the District Court thereon; and no reasons of appeal shall be filed or inserted in the transcript.

The following shall be omitted:

1. The continuances.

2. All motions, rules, and orders not excepted to which are merely preparatory for trial.

3. The commissions to take depositions, notices therefor, their captions, and certificates of their being sworn to, unless some exception

1 See Rule 51.

to a deposition in the District Court was founded on some one or more of these; in which case, so much of either of them as may be involved in the exception shall be set out. In all other cases it shall be sufficient to give the name of the witness, and to copy the interrogatories and answers, and to state the name of the commissioner, and the place where and the date when the deposition was sworn to; and, in copying all depositions taken on interrogatories, the answer shall be inserted immediately following the question.

The clerk of the District Court shall page the copy of the record thus made up, and shall make an index thereto, and he shall certify the entire document, at the end thereof, under the seal of the court, to be a transcript of the record of the District Court in the cause named at the beginning of the copy made up pursuant to this rule; and no other certificate of the record shall be needful or inserted.

4. Hereafter, in making up the record to be transmitted to the Circuit Court on appeal, the clerk of the District Court shall omit therefrom any of the pleading, testimony, or exhibits which the parties by their proctors shall by written stipulation agree may be omitted; and such stipulation shall be certified up with the record.

Whenever a cross-libel is filed upon any counter-claim, arising out of the same cause of action for which the original libel was filed, the respondents in the cross-libel shall give security in the usual amount and form, to respond in damages, as claimed in said cross-libel, unless the court, on cause shown, shall otherwise direct; and all proceedings upon the original libel shall be stayed until such security shall be given.

1. (Dec., 1858.) Where a libel was filed by the owners of a steamer, against the owners of a propeller, for a collision, and there was an agreement between the parties in the court below, that the answer of the respondents should operate as a crosslibel, the mode of proceeding does not meet the approval of this court, and ought not to be drawn into precedent. The respondents should file their cross-libel, take out process, and have it served in the usual way. Ward v. Chamberlain, 21 How. 572.

2. (Oct., 1853.) The defendants in an admiralty suit, who have suffered from a collision and are in no fault themselves, may, by a cross-libel, set up the damage they have sustained,