S7e 7EDBBAL BEPOBTBB. �which said property is now subject." August 16, 1867, and after the making of this agreement, the liquidators delivered to the defendant elght steam-ships, including the Pennsylvania, belonging to the Nav- igation Company, and the defendant thereafter dealt with said ships as its own property, but no formai written transfer or bill of sale of the vessels was made at the time, other than said written agreement. October 24, 1867, the plaintifiE's intestate was liilled by a collision between a canal-boat on which he was and tho steam-ship Pennsyl- Tania. October 31, 1867, the plaintiC brought suit against the Navi- gation Company for damages, and recovered judgment, upon w;hich execution was issued and returned unsatlsaed August 25, 1868 ; the defendant in the present suit having interposed its claim as owner of the said steamsbip. The plainti&'s intestate was part owner of the canal-boat, which became a total loss by the collision, and in No- vember, 1867, the plaintilC flled a libel in admiralty, in rem, against the steam-ship Pennsylvania, claiming damages for the loss alleged to have occurred through the negligence of the persons navigating her, to which the defendant in the present suit flled an answer aver- ring ownership of the vessel, and raising an issue as to the negligence alleged. The case was tried on its merits, and on April 26, 1869, the court dismissed the libel with costs. A bill in equity against the defendant being flled, praying for a sale of so much of the property ■of the Navigation Company transferied to defendant as might be necessary to pay the judgment recovered against the Navigation Company, it was hdd : �(1) That the instrument of August 16, 1867, accompanied by a de- livery of the ships, was a sufflcient transfer of the title of the shipa to the defendant, so far as any cause of action growing out of said collision was concerned. �(2) That whether the legistered title to the steam-ship Pennsylva- nia was altered to the defendant before or after August 25, 1868, when the execution was issuedj was of no importance in thjsqas», the plaintifl having persisted in the suit against the Navigation. Com- pany after full record notice, f rom the defendant's answer in the suit in admiralty, that the defendant and not the Navigation Company was the owner. of thts vessel at the time of the collision. �(3) That under the «.gyoement of August 16, 1867, the defendant •was under no liabiljty to pay this judgment. It was not a lijabiljty of the Navigation Company on that day, nor is it founded on any lia- bility which then exiated or had accT^ed. �(4) That there was, no identity between the two companies for the purpose of the equitable satisfaction .by the new comp^ny of the judgment against the pld cpmpany. As to causes of action arising after August 16, 1867, the defendant took the property, not as, trustee for the Navigation Company, but as its own, and became liable to lespond pnly in suits dirwtly against itself. �(5) That the judgment against the Navigation Company, though involving the question as to whether the Pennsylvania belonged to that Company at the time of the coIH.sion, is uot res adjudieata as ��� �
