220 ÏEDSlRAIi BePOBTEB. �the government, involve the danger of conflicting rights and claims, and the practical inconveniences pointed out in that case. While I entertain some doubt on the question, I am of opinion that the court bas acquired jurisdiction, and can order the cargo to be sold, subjeet to the claims of the United States, for duties and expenses. See, also, U. S. v. One Case of Silk, 4 Ben, 526; Opin. of Taney, Att'y Gen, 2 Opin. Att'ys Gen. 477, e9 6. Unless the jurisdiction exista, the ship-owneris practically remediless. He cannot compel a sale of the gooda for dnties, and, in most cases like the present, if he cannot libel them he must stand by and see their whole value absorbed in storage and other charges before they will be sold by the oollector. ���Thb Steam-Ship Zodiao. �: District Court, S. D. NewTorh. January 3, 1881.) �1. Collision — Final Dbcreb in Revc— Stipulation fob Value— De- CKBB IN Pbrsonam AaAiNST Claimant not SiQNiNa— Elkvenïh �AND FlFTEENTH AdMERALTY RulES. �Where one of two part owners, who appeared as claimants by differ- ent proctors, a libel in rem for collision baving been filed, executed a BtipulatloE for value, with sureties approved by the libellants, for the release of the vessel, and conditioned to pay the amount that might be awarded on final decree on notice thereof to its proctors, and tho other claimant dld not unite in the stipulation, and a final decree for damages was thereafter rendered, and the libellants, being unable to collect their decree from the claimant (stipulator) or his sureties, moved that execution issue against the other claimant : �Held, that the appearance of the other claimant as part owner of the vessel was not an admission of such ownership at the time of the collision, or of personal responsibility for the negligence of those then in charge of her. �That to permit an araendment in effect making the suit in rem a suit in personam, would be a clear violation of the fifteenth admiralty rule, forbidding the joinder of a claim in rem with one in penonam in the same suit for collision. �That the libellants, if they have any claim for damages against the owners personally, must resort to another suit in personam to enforce it ; and the libellant's motion must be denied. �Also held, the contents of the stipulation and its approval show- ����
