73e FEDERAL REPORTER. �pro forma in the district court, it being tbought more conven- ient for the parties that I should decide it, as I tried the casa when district judge. �The owners of the cargo could bave proceeded against either vessel ; but one having been destroyed, the liability of the owners of that vessel, the Helen Mar, was limited to her value. Eev. St. § 4283. They therefore brought their libel against the C. H. Foster, and have recovered a decree for tbeir whole damage. �In the two cases between the vessels a balance is struck, and there is found due to the owners of the Helen Mar a sum, not very large, but somewhat more than balf as much as the C. H. Foster bas been decreed to pay to the owners of cargo. �Under these circumstances, the owners of the C. H. Foster represent that they ought not to be obliged to pay the whole sum decreed to the owners of the Helen Mar, when they will bave a right to recover against them one-half of the damages paid on the cargo, which is nearly as large, and these owners are not within tbis jurisdiction. The first question, tben, ia whetber the owners of the Helen Mar are bound, as between tbemselves and the owners of the C. H. Foster, to contribute for the cargo out of the damages due them for the loss of their vessel. �It seems to me that this question must be answered in the affirmative. As between these parties the damages represent the vessel, and it i* a question how much eaeh ougbt to con- tribute. It is upon tbis principle that a cross-libel is brought in such cases against thô owners of the lost vessel, not that the libellants expect to recover personal damage, but that the amount may be properly adjusted between the two vessels, so that tbeir own liability may be diminished. Such were the facts in another case, where one of the vessels, wbich happens to bave the same name as the vessel lost here, was a total loss, but it was taken for granted that sbe was to contribute. The Ontario v. Helen Mar, 2 Lowell, 40 ; 1 Holmes 467. I bave seen a copy of an able opinion of Judge Choate to the same effect. Leonard v. Whitwill, December 12, 1879. �The arguments turned ebiefly upon the point of pleading whetber there is any mode by which the owners of the 0. H. ��� �
