"57. The said libel or petition shall be filed, and the said proceedings had, in any district court of the United States in which said ship or vessel may be libeled to answer for any such embezzlement, loss, destruction, damage, or injury; or, if the said ship or vessel be not libeled, then in the district court for any district in which the said owner or owners may be sued in that behalf. If the ship have already been libeled and sold, the proceeds shall represent the same for the purposes of these rules." There is nothing in any of these rules which purports to enlarge the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States as to subject-matter. On the contrary, they exclude any such construction, and leave that jurisdiction in admiralty within the bounds set for it by the constitution and statutes, and the judicial decisions under them. Rule 54 provides that when a vessel is libeled, or her owner is sued, he may file a libel or petition for a limitation of liability "in the proper district court of the United States, as hereinafter specified. Rule 56 provides that in the proceeding the owner may contest his liability, or that of the vessel, independently of the limitation of liability claimed, and that the opposing party may contest the right of the owner either to an exemption from liability or to a limitation of liability. What is the "proper district court" referred to in rule 54 and contemplated by rule 56? It is the court, and only the court, mentioned in rule 57, namely, the district court in which the vessel is libeled, or, if she is not libeled, then the districte court for any district in which the owner "may be sued in that behalf." "There is nothing in these rules which sanctions the taking of jurisdiction by a district court on a petition under the rules, where that court could not have had original cognizance in admiralty of a suit in rem or in personam to recover for the loss or damage involved. Nor do we find anything in any of the decisions of this court on the subject of the limitation of liability which supports the view that a district court can take jurisdiction in admiralty of a petition for a limitation of liability where it would not have had cognizance in admiralty originally of the cause of action involved. In Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, the case which furnished the occasion for the making of the rules, and which came before this court again in The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468, S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1150, the damage was occasioned by a collision on navigable water between two vessels, and a fire resulting from it on board of one of them. In all the other cases in which this court has upheld proceedings for limitation in a district court, there was original admiralty jurisdiction of the cause of action. In The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239, the cause of damage was a collision on the high seas, and the petition for limitation was filed in the same district court in which the offending vessel was libeled. In The Scotland, 105 U. S. 25, S. C. 118 U. S. 507, and 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1174, there was a like cause of action, and the limitation was claimed by an answer to a libel in personam in a district court. In Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451, the petition for limitation was filed in a district court, by the owner of a vessel which had foundered, to limit his liability for the loss of goods carried, and for damage to another vessel by a prior collision, he not having been first sued. He transferred to a trustee appointed by the court his interest in the vessel, and in the freight pending. See The Alpena, 10 Biss. 436.1 This court, being applied to for a writ of prohibition, refused to grant it. It held that the owner of a vessel may, before be is sued, institute appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain a limitation of liability; that the words “any court," in section 4284, mean "any court of competent jurisdiction;" and that as the transfer had been made and the freight money paid over to the trustee, the district court had jurisdiction to apportion the fund. But it is to be noted that the causes of action were in fact of admiralty jurisdiction. In Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Manuf'g Co., 109 U. S. 578, S. C. 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379, 617, the cause of action was a loss, by the burning of a vessel, of goods 18 Fed. Rep. 280. carried by her, and the petition for limation was filed in th district court of the district where the fire occurred. and where the remnants of the vessel remained, and the contract of affreightment was of admiralty cognizance. In The Great Western. 118 U. S. 520, S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1172, the cause of damage was a collision on the high seas, and the claim of limitation was made in the answer in a suit in personam in a district court in admiralty to recover for the damage. We are brought, therefore, to the conclusion that there is nothing in the admiralty rules prescribed by this court which warrants the jurisdiction of the district court in the present case. Our decision against the jurisdiction of the district court is made without deciding whether or not the statutory limitation of liability extends to the damages sustained by the fire in question so as to be enforceable in an appropriate court of competent jurisdiction. The decision of that question is unnecessary for the disposition of this case. It is contended that the mistake of the district court must be corrected by appeal, and that the case is not one for a writ of prohibition. Where the case is within admiralty cognizance, the district court may decide whether the party is entitled to the benefit of the statute, and a writ of prohibition will not lie. But where, as here, the tort is not a maritime tort, there can be no jurisdiction in the admiralty to determine the issue of liability, or that of limitation of liability. This court refused a writ of prohibition where a suit in rem was brought against a vessel, in admiralty, in a district court, to enforce an alleged lien for wharfage, on the ground that a contract for the use of a wharf by a vessel was a maritime contract, and cognizable in the admiralty, and that, as a lien arose in certain cases, the admiralty court was competent to decide in the given case whether there was a lien. Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68. So also, a writ of prohibition was refused where a suit in admiralty was brought, in a district court, to recover damages for the loss of life by a collision between two vessels, on the ground that damages from collision were within admiralty jurisdiction, and the admiralty court could, therefore, lawfully decide whether such damages embraced damages for the loss of life. Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515. But in the present case the district court is called upon by the petition of the owner of the vessel, to first determine the question of any liability when it has no jurisdiction of the cause of action, and then to determine whether the statute covers the case. The case is clearly one for a writ of prohibition, as the want of jurisdiction appears on the face of the proceedings. U. 8. v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121. A writ of prohibition will issue. (118 U. S. 596) LITTLE and others v. GILES and others.1 1. REMOVAL OF CAUSE--CO-CONSPIRATORS-SEVERANCE AS GROUND OF REMOVAL. 2. SAME-COLLUSIVE CONVEYANCE TO GIVE JURISDICTION-SUPP. REV. ST. U. S. 175. Where a firm of attorneys, who had received a deed to certain valuable property from parties desiring to contest the title of other claimants thereto, in turn conveyed the same to the father-in-law of one of the members of the firm, a poor farmer living in another state, who knew nothing about the property, and who afterwards, as defendant in a suit to quiet title to it, had the cause removed to the S. C. 13 Fed. Rep. 100. 979. United States court on the ground of his citizenship in such other state, and it ap peared, upon all the evidence, that the conveyance was made to him collusively, for the mere purpose of giving the United States circuit court jurisdiction, held, that that court should refuse to entertain jurisdiction under the act of 1875 (Supp. Rev. St. S. 175) authorizing the dismissal or removal of cases not really and substantially involving a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said court. 3. COURTS-APPEAL TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT-STIPULATION AS TO DECISION OF ISSUE OF ANOTHER CASE-QUESTION REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL. A stipulation that the decision of an issue in a case pending at law shall be taken and entered of record as the decision of the same issue in a suit in equity in the United States circuit court involving the same question makes the decision in the law case equivalent to the decree of the United States circuit court, and nothing more; and, the evidence taken on the trial of the issue being incorporated in the record on appeal to the United States supreme court, the question can be reviewed there. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nobraska. Suit to quiet title. Decree for defendants below. Complainants appealed. Nathan S. Harwood, John H. Ames, Turner M. Marquette, and Walter J. Lamb, for appellants. J. M. Woolworth, for appellees. *BRADLEY, J. The original bill in this case was filed in January, 1882, in the district court of Lancaster county, in the state of Nebraska, to quiet the title of the complainants, some 70 in number, to certain lots of land in and about the town of Lincoln, in that state, severally owned by them, (as they allege,) and derived under conveyances in fee from one Edith J. Dawson. The bill alleges that Jacob Dawson died seized of the lands in 1869, and by his will, dated June 15 of that year, gave to his wife, the said Edith, all his real and personal estate, to be and remain hers, with full power, right, and authority to dispose of the same as to her should seem meet and proper, so long as she should remain his widow, upon the express condition that if she should marry again then that all the estate, or whatever might remain, should go to the testator's surviving children, share and share alike, and appointed his wife executrix; that she duly proved the will, and afterwards, in order to raise money to pay the debts of her deceased husband, and advance her children, made the conveyances referred to, pretending to be, and the defendants represented that she was, authorized by the power given her in the will to convey the property in fee. The bill states these conveyances, and alleges that the complainants, or their grantors, had severally erected expensive build. ings and made valuable improvements on the lands. The bill further states that the said Edith afterwards, on the fifteenth of November, 1879, was reputed to have intermarried with one Pickering, and that upon this marriage the children and heirs of the said Jacob Dawson, namely, William R. Dawson, Albert L. Dawson, and others named in the bill, claimed to be seized in fee under the said will, and fraudulently conspired with one Highland H. Wheeler and one Lionel C. Burr, attorneys, to cloud and incumber the titles of the complainants by various suits at law, and to extort money from them, and that for this purpose the said heirs, without any consideration, but for the pretended consideration of $75,000, executed and delivered to said Wheeler and Burr a pretended deed or deeds for said lands, in consideration whereof it was agreed that the latter should pay and deliver to said heirs one-fourth part of whatever they could extort from the complainants, and retain the balance for themselves: and that further to carry out this fraudulent scheme Wheeler and Burr, on the twenty-seventh of April, 1880, for the purpose of prosecuting complainants in the United States courts, and for no other consideration whatever, executed a pretended deed for said lands to one Ezekiel Giles, father-in-law of said Burr, a man of no property or means, who resided in Iowa; and that they have already commenced several vexatious suits in v.7s.c.-3 ejectment in said courts against the complainants, and threaten to commence others. The bill makes Giles, Wheeler, and Burr and the Dawson heirs defendants, and prays against all of them an injunction, a decree to quiet title, and to cancel the fraudulent conveyances made by Dawson's heirs to Wheeler and Burr, and by Wheeler and Burr to Giles, to establish the complainants' title, and for further relief. Wheeler and Burr and three of the heirs of Dawson, namely, Albert L. Dawson, M. S. Dawson, and Melita C. D. Tillman, filed a disclaimer of any right, title, or interest in the property; and affidavits were filed by 31 of the co-complainants denying that they had authorized their names to be used in the bill, and repudiating all connection with it. Giles then, on the twenty-eighth of February, 1882, presented a petition to remove the cause, as against him, to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska, alleging that he was and is a citizen of Iowa, and that the complainants (those of them who had not repudiated the proceedins) were citizens of Nebraska and other states; that there were as many different controversies as there were complainants, each claiming a separate parcel of the land, and that the several controversies were wholly between each individual plaintiff and himself, and were capable of being fully determined between them without the others being parties; that the several matters in dispute exceed the value of $500, etc. An order to remove the cause was made accordingly. On the first of March, 1882, a motion was made by the complainants in the circuit court to remand the cause, on the ground, among other things, that it appeared by the pleadings that Giles is not the real party in interest, but that Wheeler and Burr and the heirs of Jacob Dawson are the really interested parties, and that the action is brought in this court (the circuit court) for their benefit; that all these parties are residents of Nebraska, except Giles, who is a mere nominal defendant. The motion to remand was not granted, although no action of the court on the subject at this time appears in the record; but it does appear afterwards, as will be shown hereafter, that the motion to remand was refused. On the fifth of April, 1882, Giles filed his answer and a cross-bill. The answer denies the charge of fraud, but admits that the only consideration of the deed from Dawson's heirs to Wheeler and Burr was $200, and an agreement to pay the heirs one-third of the proceeds which Wheeler and Burr might recover. It denies that the deed to Giles was made for the purpose of suing in the courts of the United States. It states the marriage of the widow, Edith, and insists that her deeds conveyed only an estate during her widowhood; and that the title derived by Giles from the heirs of Jacob Dawson is valid. It sets out the proceedings in various suits brought against some of the complainants, particularly one in which the judgment was brought to this court, by which the will of Dawson was construed in favor of Giles and against the title of complainants. Giles v. Little, 104 U. S. 291. The cross-bill is filed against all the complainants who did not repudiate the uit. It describes the different tracts held by the several complainants; alleges that they took with full knowledge of the will; that they have received large amounts of rents and profits; that their pretensions are a cloud on Giles' title; and prays for a construction of the will, a decree to quiet title, an account of rents and profits, an injunction, a receiver, etc. The complainants answered the cross-bill, among other things denying that Giles had any real interest, and again raising the question of jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to notice the other pleadings in the cause. The parties went to proofs, and on the final hearing the original bill was dismissed in June, 1888, and an account of the improvements erected by the complainants, and of the rents and profits received by them, was ordered to be taken under the crossbill, and in September, 1884, a decree was rendered in favor of Giles direct 662 ing a surrender of the property held by the complainants, respectively, on payment of the difference, in each case, between the value of the improvements erected and the rents and profits received. An appeal was taken from each of these decrees. The first question to be considered is the jurisdiction of the circuit court to hear and determine the case. The complainants contested that jurisdiction from the time of the filing of the petition of removal, and a great deal of evidence was taken in reference to the charge that the deed to Giles was collusively made for the purpose of making a case for the federal courts. But, before examining that matter, there is another aspect of the question which presents itself on the face of the pleadings as they stood when the petition for removal was filed. The bill charged the defendants as co-conspirators in a scheme to raise a cloud on the title of the complainants, and to defraud them of their property. According to the allegations of the bill, the deed to Giles was a link in the chain of fraudulent acts charged. We have repeatedly held that a suit brought against several defendants, some of whom are citizens of the same state with the plaintiff, charging them all as joint contractors or joint trespassers, cannot be removed into the United States court by those who are citizens of another state, although they allege in their petition for removal that they are not jointly interested or liable with the other defendants, and that their controversy with the plaintiff is a separate one. We think that the present case is one of that kind. The bill, as we have said, charges, the defendants jointly. Giles could not, by merely making contrary aver-8 ments in his petition for removal, and setting up a case inconsistent with the* allegations of the bill, segregate himself from the other defendants, and thus entitle himself to remove the case into the United States court. This matter has been fully considered in the following cases: Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 735; Farmington v. Pillsbury, 114 U. S. 138; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 807; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1034, 1161; Crump v. Thurber, 115 U. S. 56; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1154; Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 248; S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28; Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 278; S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730; Insurance Co. v. Huntington, 117 U. S. 280; S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 733; Core v. Vinal, 117 U. S. 347; S. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 67; Mining Co. v. Canal Co., 118 U. S. 264; 8. C. 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1034. In Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ide, the suit was originally brought by Ide in the supreme court of New York against several railroad companies forming a continuous line, including the plaintiff in error, to recover damages for the loss of cotton shipped at one end of the line and destined to the other. The Louisville & Nashville Company separated in pleading, and denied that the loss had occurred on its road, and removed the case, as to itself, to the circuit court of the United States, alleging in the petition for removal that the controversy with it was a separate one. The circuit court remanded the case, and on a writ of error we affirmed the order to remand. In delivering the opinion of the court the chief justice said: "The claim of right to a removal is based entirely on the fact that the Louisville & Nashville Company, the petitioning defendant, has presented a separate defense to the joint action by filing a separate answer tendering separate issues for trial. This, it has been frequently decided, is not enough to introduce a separate controversy into the suit within the meaning of the statute. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407; Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187, 192; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90. Separate answers by the several defendants sued on joint causes of action may present different questions for determination, but they do not necessarily divide the suit into separate controversies. A defendant has no right to say that an action shall be several which a plaintiff elects to make joint. Smith v. Rines, 2 Sum. 348. A separate defense may defeat a joint recovery, but it cannot deprive a plaintiff of his right to prosecute his own suit to final determination |