Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/410

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

398 FBDEBAL BEPOBT£R. �now, over one year from the injury, there is not complete recovery. I find no evidence in the record on this subject, and therefore oan not consider it. �The demahd for interest on account of delay through the appeal is better founded. Five per cent, may be allowed, the legal rate in this state. No appeal should have been taken on the evidence sub- mitted below. �Let a decree be entered for $162.50, with interest at 5 per cent, from January 10, 1880, and for costs in favor of libellant, and against respondents and eureties. ���The Gband Eepoblic. �{District Court, 8. B. New York. January 28, 1882.) �i. Collision— MoRTGAGEE as Co-Libkllant— Mai Repkesent Intbkbst ov Insubbrb. �The mortgagee of a vessel sunk by a collision is entitled, for the protection of his mortgage interest, to come in on petition as co-libellant in a libel flled by the owners against the offending vessel. He may also represent in such petition the interest of insurers, by their consent, who have paid a part of the loss.

2. ADMIKAI.TY JnRiBDicTioN—MARiNB Torts.

�In such cases the juriadiction rests upon the maritime tort. The injury to the inortgagee's interest by the destruction of the vessel is an injury recogniza- ble in admiralty ; and the marine tort entitles him to relief here, since he could maintain an action of trespass on the case at common law for a similar injury on land. �In Admiralty. Petition for leave to become co-libellants. �Stapler e Wood, for petitioners. �W, H. McDougall, for Martin & Kaskell. �D. dt T. McMahon, for the Grand Eepublic. �Brown, T>. J. On the twenty-second of June, 1880, a libel was filed in the above case by the libellants, as owners of the steam-boat Adelaide, for damages from her being sunk in a collision with the 'Grand Eepublic, on the nineteenth oi June, through the allegedfault of the liatter. At the time of the loss of the Adelaiae the present petitioners, the Harlan & Hollingsworth Company, held a mortgage upon the Adelaide, on which the sum of $20,000 -was owing. A portion of the loss bas been paid to the mortgagees by certain insur- ance companies, in whose behalf also, as well as for themselves, the ��� �