eral issue. But it seems otherwise if they had pleaded a joint justification. Thomas v. Lane, 2 Sum., C. C., 1.

The admiralty jurisdiction as to torts depends on locality, and is limited to torts committed on the high seas, or at farthest, committed on waters within the ebb and flow of the tide. Id.

Every libel for a tort must contain on its face sufficient averments as to place to show that it is within the admiralty jurisdiction. Otherwise it must be dismissed. Id.

The admiralty has jurisdiction of personal torts or wrongs committed on passengers, on the high seas by the master of the ship. And it is immaterial whether such torts be by direct force as trespasses or consequental injuries. Chamberlain et al. v. Chandler, 3 Mason, C. C., 242.

A voyage being ended, the captain might have discharged an offending seaman, but having taken him again on board was not justified in assaulting and beating him without any new offense. Roberts v. Dallas, Bee's Adm., 239.

Rule No. 17.

Hypothecation, suits for.-In all suits against the ship or freight, founded upon a mere maritime hypothecation, either express or implied, of the master, for moneys taken up in a foreign port for supplies or repairs or other necessaries for the voyage, without any claim of marine interest, the libelant may proceed either in rem, or against the master or the owner alone in personam.

A hypothecation of the ship by the master is void, unless it is shown by the creditor that the advances were necessary to effectuate the object of the voyage or the safety of the ship, and the surplus could not be procured on the owner's credit or within his funds at the place. The Aurora, 1 Wh., 96.

To support hypothecation by bottomry, evidence of actual necessity for repairs and supplies is required, and if the fact of such necessity be left unproved, evidence is required of due inquiry and of reasonable grounds of belief that the necessity was real and exigent. The Grapeshot, 9 Wall., 129.

Liens for repairs and supplies, whether express or implied, can be enforced in admiralty only upon proof made by the creditor that the repairs or supplies were necessary, or believed upon due inquiry and credible representation to be necessary in a foreign port. Id. See, also, The Lulu, 10 Wall., 192; The Patapsco, 13 Id., 329; The Neversink, 5 Blatchf., 539.

A vessel belonging to the port of Richmond, Virginia, may be hypothecated in the port of New York by the master for necessary repairs, if the owner has no agent in New York. But the money for which the bottomry bond is given must be advanced on the faith of the bottom, and must be necessary to enable the vessel to prosecute her voyage. Sheldon v. Henderson et al., 1 Brock., C. C., 396.

An instrument claimed to be an hypothecation of a vessel, is not such if it was given to the consignee when he had funds in his hands to secure the advances made by him for the vessel. The consignee cannot, under such circumstances, enter into a maritime contract with the master of the vessel so as to bind him to pay maritime interest. Hurry v. The Ship John & Alice et al., 1 Wash., C. C., 293.

The master of a vessel in an enemy's country may hypothecate the vessel for money advanced to return to the United States, though the original voyage was broken up by capture and the compulsory sale of the cargo. Crawford et al. v. The William Penn, 3 Wash., C. C., 484.

Hypothecation of the vessel can only be made in a foreign port; but in the jurisprudence of the United States all maritime ports, other than those where the vessel belongs, are foreign to the vessel. Burk v. The Brig M. P. Rich, 1 Cliff., C. C., 308.

Rule No. 18.

Actions on bottomry bonds, in rem and in personam.In all suits on bottomry bonds, properly so called, the suit shall be in rem only against the property hypothecated, or the proceeds of the property, in whosesoever hands the same may be found, unless the master has, without authority, given the bottomry bond, or by his fraud or misconduct has avoided the same, or has subtracted the property, or unless the owner has, by his own misconduct or wrong, lost or subtracted the property, in which latter cases the suit may be in personam against the wrong-doer.

The admiralty courts of the United States will entertain jurisdiction in rem to enforce a bottomry bond executed in a foreign country, between subjects of a foreign country, when the ship is within the territory of the United States. The Jerusalem, 2 Gall., C. C., 190; The Packet, 3 Mason, 255.

A valid bottomry bond may be made by the owners of a vessel, in a foreign or home port. The Draco, 2 Sum., C. C., 157.

Although the assignee of a bottomry bond may maintain a suit in admiralty in his own name, yet he may also sue in the name of the assignor. Burk v. The Brig M. P. Rich et al., 1 Cliff., C. C., 308.

A case of necessity alone authorizes a master to pledge his vessel by giving a bottomry bond. He cannot thus pledge the vessel for repairs, when the owners of the vessel are present at the place where the repairs are made, or when he has funds of the owners, which he has not used, for the purpose. Patton et al. v. The Randolph, Gilp., 457.

One part owner cannot take from the master a bottomry bond on the share of another part owner, for repairs done to the vessel. Id.

Nor, it seems, has a part owner of a vessel a lien on the share of another part owner, for a balance which may be due to him. Id.

Rule No. 19.

Salvage, actions for.-In all suits for salvage the suit may be in rem against the property saved, or the proceeds thereof, or in personam against the party at whose request and for whose benefit the salvage service has been performed.

A libel for salvage may be filed in the name of the master and owners of the salving vessel, although the master may make no claim in his own behalf, but, contrarywise, may disclaim. The Blackwell, 10 Wall., i.

A tug towing, under the direction of the fire department of a city, fire engines commonly used on land, from a wharf into a harbor where a vessel is on fire, and laying alongside of a burning vessel while the engines throw water upon her, is entitled to salvage, the fire being extinguished. Id.

The owners of the tug will not be deprived of salvage, in such a case, because the representatives of the fire department have not made a claim as co-laborers. Id.

A vessel owned by a corporation may be entitled to salvage, as if owned by natural persons, the vessel being otherwise a salvor. Id. Following, The Comanche, 8 Wall., 448.

Personal property of the United States on board of a vessel, for transportation from one point to another, is liable to a lien for salvage services rendered in saving the property. Such lien, however, cannot be enforced by the courts by a suit against the United States; nor by a proceeding in rem. when the possession of the property can only be had by taking it out of the actual possession of the officers or agents of the government charged therewith. But it may be enforced in rem where the process of the court can be enforced without disturbing the possession of the government, which being compelled to appear in the court to assert its claim, must discharge the lien before the property will be delivered to it. The Davis, 10 Wall., 15.

A lien exists for salvage services upon the property saved. Possession is not necessary to give validity to the lien. It requires the most unequivocal acts, on the part of the salvors, to show that they intend to abandon their lien, and resort to the owners for payment. Eads et al. v. The Steamboat H. D. Bacon, 1 Newb. Adm., 274.

Admiralty courts have never put the compensation for salvage services upon the basis of pay for work and labor; but have ever considered that it was for the interest of commerce and navigation that a liberal compensation should be allowed, and in proportion to the benefit received by the owners. Id,

Salvage contracts will be presumed prima facie fair, but if proven to be unconscionable, a court of admiralty, like a court of equity in similar cases, will refuse to enforce them. Id.

Where an American ship was captured by a French privateer, and eight days afterward rescued by the libelants and carried into a port of the United States, the vessel and cargo were sold and a claim on the ship and cargo for salvage was allowed by the court. Brevoor et al. v. The Fair American et al., 1 Pet., Adm., 87;

Salvors cannot in the same libel proceed in rem against a vessel and in personam against the consignors of her cargo. The Sabine, 101 U. S., 384.

Rule No. 20.

On petitory and possessory actions.-In all petitory and possessory suits between part owners or adverse proprietors, or by the owners of a ship, or the majority thereof, against the master of a ship, for the ascertainment of the title and delivery of the possession, or for the possession only, or by one or more part owners against the others to obtain security for the return of the ship from any voyage undertaken without their consent, or by one or more part owners against the others to obtain possession of the ship for any voyage, upon giving security for the safe return thereof, the process shall be by an arrest of the ship, and by a monition to the adverse party or parties to appear and make answer to the suit.

E. F., a part owner of a vessel, known to be so by the other owners, not having, when he became a part owner, complied with the acts of congress, such omission not being for the purposes of fraud or concealment, and one of the other owners having obtained an enrollment of the vessel, swearing that he and some others, omitting E. F., were sole owners: E. F. held entitled to ask the court for security from the other owners for the safety of the vessel on the voyage not approved by him. Fox v. The Lodernia et al., Crabbe, 271. Where the owner of one-fourth of a whale-ship, before any preparation had been made for a new voyage, gave notice to the owners of the majority part that he would not pay anything toward outfits or expenses for a new voyage, but did not say, in terms, that he should not dissent from the voyage, or apply for security of the return of his quarter part until the vessel was nearly ready for sea; but it did not appear that the major part owners had been misled, or subjected to any loss by such delay: Held, that the libelant was entitled to security by stipulation for the return of the vessel, and that such return should be to the port of New Bedford, to which the vessel belonged. The Marengo, 1 Sprague, 506.

Where two persons are joint and equal owners of a vessel, and one of them, while in possession as ship's husband, improperly left her in an unsafe condition, with no person on board, and the other half owner took possession, the court refused to interfere with such possession. The Ocean, Id., 535.

Rule No. 21.

Decrees-how enforced.-In all cases of a final decree for the payment of money, the libelant shall have a writ of execution, in the nature of a fieri facias, commanding the marshal

or his deputy to levy and collect the amount thereof out of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements, or other real estate of the defendant or stipulators.

Amended December term, 1861. 1 Black, 6.

Under the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, execution properly issues against stipulations summarily upon the decree rendered against their principals; the giving the stipulation being regarded as a submission by the stipulator to such decree as may be rendered against the party for whom he is bound. Gaines v. Travis, Abbott's Adm., 422.

There is no rule of practice governing proceedings in admiralty suits in the district court which requires either party to give the other notice of a final decree otherwise than by adopting the proper means for enforcing it. Id.

The respondent in a suit in admiralty appealed to the circuit court from the decree of the district court in favor of the libelant, and, after a trial, an order was entered in the circuit court affirming the decree of the district court, with costs: Held, that no execution could issue from the circuit court until the entry of a formal decree awarding a recovery to the libelant. Harris v. Wheeler, 8 Blatchf., 81.

The mode of enforcing a final decree for the payment of money, in a suit in admiralty, is that prescribed in rule 21, by execution. The Blanch Page, 16 Blatchf., 1.

A court of admiralty has no power to enforce such a decree against sureties by sequestration according to the practice of courts of equity, nor to punish for contempt for not performing stipulations, or failing to comply with the provisions of the decree. Id.

A stipulation filed to obtain the release of a tug is not a waiver of the question as to the original liability of the tug. The Fidelity, 16 Blatchf., 569.

Rule No. 22.

Seizures, informations and libels on.-All informations and libels of information upon seizures for any breach of the revenue, or navigation, or other laws of the United States, shall state the place of seizure, whether it be on land or on the high seas, or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and the district within which the property is brought, and where it then is. The information or libel of information shall also propound in distinct articles the matters relied on as grounds or causes of forfeiture, and aver the same to be contrary to the form of the statute or statutes of the United States in such case provided,