personam, it must set forth the names, occupations, and places of residence of the parties. In its substantial, as distinguished from formal, allegations the libel follows the analogies of equity. It should "propound and articulate in distinct articles. the various allegations of fact upon which the libelant relies in support of his suit, so that the defendant may be enabled to answer distinctly and separately the several matters contained in each article." The prayer for relief should specify the form to constitute a waiver of a similar objection. The Willamette (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 874. A court of admiralty may, in its discretion, refuse to entertain a suit between foreigners where the cause of action arose elsewhere. Neptune S. Nav. Co. v. Sullivan Timber Co., 37 Fed. R. 159. Thus, it may refuse to take jurisdiction of a suit for wages by foreign seamen against a foreign ship when the result would be a detention of the vessel and the sailors' employment has not terminated. Slocum v. Western Assurance Co., 42 Fed. R. 235. A District Court has, however, taken jurisdiction of a suit against a foreign vessel by a foreigner to recover for a tort committed upon the high seas. The Noddleburn, 28 Fed. R. 855; s. c., 30 Fed. R. 142. And of a suit by a nonresident citizen of the United States to recover upon a policy of marine insurance executed in a foreign country by an alien corporation. Slocum v. Western Assur. Co., 42 Fed. R. 235. As to jurisdiction of suits for negligence which caused the death of the libelant's testator or intestate, see The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199; The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201; The Car Float (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R. 364; The Glendale v. Evich (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R. 633; The Willamette (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 874; The E. B. Ward, 17 Fed. R. 456; The Wydale, 37 Fed. R. 716; Humboldt L. Mfg. Ass'n v. Christopherson (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R. 239; The City of Norwalk, 55 Fed. R. 98; Jef fries v. De Hart (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 765; Rundell v. La Compaigne Generale (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R. 655. As to the boundaries of the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey, see In re Devoe Mfg. Co., 108 U. S. 401; The Sarah E. Kennedy, 25 Fed. R. 569; The Norma, 32 Fed. R. 411. As to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Virginia, see Aitcheson v. The Endless Chain Dredge, 40 Fed. R. 253. Admiralty Rule 23. See infra, § 438. Adm. Rule 23. Naming the libelant by the initials of his Christian name was held not to be a defect in the libel. Hardy v. Moore, 4 Fed. R. 843. Where a party is a corporation, that fact should be stated in the libel. Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mississippi V. Tr. Co., 14 Fed. R. 699. Where the cause of action arises from a written contract it has been said that the contract should be annexed to the libel or a legal excuse given for its omission. Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mississippi V. Tr. Co., 14 Fed. R. 699; Card v. Hines, 33 Fed. R. 189. But see Chamberlain v. The Torgorm, 46 Fed. R. 202. A libel in personam, for a collision or other tort, should state specifically that the respondent was the owner or in control of the vessel at the time when the libelant was injured. The Corsair, 145 U. S. 335; Danace v. The Magnolia, 37 Fed. R. 367. As to what is a sufficient allegation of negligence of process sought. The libel should be verified. If the libelant is absent from the district, his agent or attorney may verify it. In suits brought in behalf of the United States, the United States attorney files a libel of information, or, as it is usually termed, an information, which is subject to the same rules as a libel. It need not, however, be verified. § 395. Security for libelant's costs. The Supreme Court Rules do not expressly require any security to be given by the libelant for costs; but in many of the districts process will not issue until the libelant has filed with the clerk a stipulation for costs. This is conditioned to pay all costs and expenses which shall be awarded against the libelant by the court, or, in case of an appeal, by the appellate court. In the New York districts and in New Jersey the stipulation is for $250 in suits by the master, see The Anaces, 93 recover for services as salvors or Fea. R. 240. As to the insufficiency of allegations showing that the libelant had an interest in the property injured which entitled him to recover, see Minturn v. Alexandre, 5 Fed. R. 117. For what is required to identify goods that have been damaged, see The Anchoria, 9 Fed. R. 840. A libel for damages because of a breach of a contract should point out the manner in which any special damages that are claimed arose. The Oscoda, 66 Fed. R. 347. But ordinarily there is no objection to the recovery by the libelant of more damages than his libel claims. The Gazelle, 128 U. S. 474. And under a libel in rem upon a contract of affreightment to recover for a cargo destroyed in extinguishing a fire, the libelant was allowed to shift his claim to a demand for general average. Deming v. The Rapid Transit, 52 Fed. R. 320, citing Dupont de Nemours v. Vance, 19 How. 162. But it has been held: that there can be no recovery for tort upon a libel which sets up an express contract only. Hays v. Pittsburgh G. & B. Packet Co., 33 Fed. R. 552. That upon a libel in rem by laborers claiming wages they cannot lightermen. The Sarah E. Kennedy, 29 Fed. R. 264. That unless the libel is amended wages cannot be recovered for services performed at a date prior to that alleged in the libel. Pinkham v, Rutan, 31 Fed. R. 496. That demurrage for detention subsequent to the filing of the original libel may in a proper case be recovered under a supplemental libel. Eight Hundred and Forty-one Tons of Ore, 25 Fed. R. 864. And that when a penalty is demanded against a vessel upon grounds not set forth in the libel, the demand will be ignored. The Pope Catlin, 31 Fed. R. 408. 6 Adm. Rule 23. 7 But see Tibbol v. The Marion, 79 Fed. R. 104. As to signature by the libelant or his attorney, see Hardy v. Moore, 4 Fed. R. 843. 8 Adm. Rule 22. § 395. See Raymond v. La Compagnie Generale, 90 Fed. R. 105; Rawson v. Lyon, 15 Fed. R. 831. As to an increase of the security see The Brig Harriet, Fed. Cas. 6,096; The Bark Laurens, Abb. Adm. 302. An informer who is not suing in discharge of his duty as a public officer must give security for costs. The Steamboat Planter, Newb. Adm. 262. in rem, and for $100 in suits in personam. In Connecticut the stipulation is for $150 in all cases. Stipulations are executed by the libelant and one surety, who must reside in the State within which the district is situated. If, however, the libelant is a non-resident, he must, at least in the Southern District of New York, furnish two sureties. Seamen suing for wages for services on board American vessels, and salvors coming into port in possession of the property libeled, are not required to give security in the first instance, but may be required to do so for adequate cause after the arrest of the property. No security is required of the United States in its proceedings, as costs are not allowed against the government. Suits may be ́brought in forma pauperis upon application to the court. $396. Parties.- Persons entitled to participate in the recovery, but not made parties in the original libel, may, upon petition, be allowed to join in a suit as co-libelants on such terms as the court deems reasonable. Seamen claiming wages for the same voyage are not permitted to prosecute separate suits. Those not included in the original libel should petition to be made co-libelants. If they file a second libel, they will be denied costs in case of recovery, and suits so brought will be consolidated, on motion. So, suits for salvage arising out of services participated in by several vessels will be consolidated in one suit. A libel may be filed against more than one vessel. Thus, in a cause of collision, the owner of the damaged vessel might properly proceed against the tug which had it in tow and a third vessel. So, different interests may be proceeded against in the same suit, as, for example, in a cause of salvage, the vessel salved, her cargo, and her freight moneys.1 § 397. Mesne process-Joinder of process in rem and in personam. The process issued in pursuance of the prayer of the libel is either in rem or in personam. A joinder of the two forms of proceeding is sometimes permitted, as in a cause of 2S. D. N. Y., Rule 25. 3S. D. N. Y., Rule 8. The Antelope, 12 Wheat. 546. $396. A libel was sustained when filed under a bill of lading against the charterer and another to whom a bill of lading had been transferred, to recover freight earned thereunder, and seeking recovery in the alternative against one or the other of them, stating that the libelant was unable to determine which is liable. Neall v. Curran, 93 Fed. R. 831. collision against a ship and her master. The decisions of the several districts are not uniform on this question. In some it is held that the Rules of the Supreme Court (12 to 19) which prescribe the form of proceeding in certain specified cases are exclusive, so that where a joinder is not expressly permitted by the rules it cannot be had. In other districts, a joinder has been sustained in cases not provided for by the Supreme Court Rules.2 § 398. Process in rem.- If process in rem is prayed for, the clerk issues a monition, returnable on a day named, which recites the filing of the libel and its prayer for relief, and directs the marshal to arrest the property proceeded against, describing it, and cites all persons interested therein to appear on the return day1 and answer the libel. The monition should be delivered to the marshal, who must thereupon arrest and take the ship, goods, or other thing into his possession for safe custody, and cause public notice thereof, and of the time assigned for the return of process, to be given in the newspaper within the district designated by the court. By the notice all persons claiming any interest in the property attached are notified that they must present their claims on the return day, or their default will be taken and the property condemned.' § 399. Cases in which the res cannot be arrested. The public vessels or other property of the United States' or of a foreign sovereignty are exempt from seizure in admiralty;2 § 397. 1 The Alida (C. C. E. D. Pa.), York the notice is published by the 12 Fed. R. 343. marshal every day except Sunday for fourteen days prior to the return of process, unless the claim is for less than $50, in which case only three days' publication is necessary. 2 The Monte A. (S. D. N. Y.), 12 Fed. R. 331. Where a libel against the vessel and owner contained no prayer for monition and personal judgment and no service of monition or attachment of the property was made upon the owner, it was held that his ap pearance to answer the libel in rem gave the court no authority to enter personal judgment against him. The Ethel (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 340. § 398. In the Southern District of New York, Tuesday is the return day; in the Eastern District it is Wednesday; in New Jersey, Monday. 2 Adm. Rule 9. 3 In the Southern District of New Rules 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 direct when libels shall be in rem and when they shall be in personam. It has been held that a libel cannot be sustained in rem for an injury which resulted in a loss of life, when the law of the State where the injury occurred authorized such a suit at common law, but did not provide for a lien. The Corsair, 145 U. S. 335. $399. The Fidelity (Waite, C. J.), 16 Blatchf. 569. 2 At least if in the care of such for also vessels which are the property of a State or municipal corporation, or a department thereof, and are devoted to public uses.3 Where property is in the possession of the United States government, as, for example, in bonded warehouse or elsewhere in the custody, actual or constructive, of the collector of customs, it is irrepleviable, and subject only to the orders and decrees of the Federal courts. The marshal is permitted to make the attachment without taking the property into his custody by leaving with the collector or person in charge of the property a copy of the monition, and also a notice requiring such person to detain the property in custody until the further order of the court. He cannot take actual possession of the property without the express order of the court." Property actually in the custody of a sheriff cannot be attached by the marshal.' But the possession of a sheriff will not defeat the operation of the laws of the United States imposing forfeiture for the wrongful act of the owner or person in charge of a vessel.8 9 Canal boats cannot be libeled for wages. But whatever the form of a vessel may be, if she is not engaged in navigating canals she is not a canal boat within the meaning of the statute.10 § 400. Process in personam.-In suits in personam, the process issued is either a simple citation,' which is in the nature of a summons to appear and answer, or a citation with clause of foreign attachment. The latter directs the marshal to cite the party proceeded against to appear on the return day, and, if he cannot be found, to attach his goods and chattels, describ eign government. Long v. The Tampico & Progresso, 16 Fed. R. 491. 'The Protector, 20 Fed. R. 207; The F. C. Latrobe, 28 Fed. R. 377. 4U. S. R. S., § 934; The Conqueror, 49 Fed. R. 99; In re Fassett, 142 U. S. 479. U. S. v. One Case of Silk, 4 Ben. 526. Contra, Op. of Atty. Gen., Feb. 24, 1888, vol. xix, p. 101. The Conqueror, 49 Fed. R. 99. "Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583; supra, § 7. U. S. v. The Reindeer, 2 Cliff. 57. 9U. S. R. S., § 4251. 10 Smith v. Canal Boat Wm. L. Norman, 49 Fed. R. 285. § 400. The words "citation" and "monition " are used in the Supreme Court Rules interchangeably, but it is usual to confine citation to process in personam, and monition to process in rem. 2 In the New York districts, process in personam may be served at any time not less than three days before the return day. |