The rule indicates clearly that the libelant is entitled to proceed either in rem or in personam at his election.15 § 1243. in suits for damages by collision. In all suits for damage by collision, the libelant may proceed against the ship and master, or against the ship alone, or against the master or owner alone in personam. Fifteenth Admiralty Rule, promulgated December term, 1844. The rule permits libel in rem against the vessel and in personam against the master.17 though the master may be owner as well; but it does not permit such joint suits against vessel and an owner who is not also master.18 But libelant may proceed successively in each way till the demand is satisfied.19 However under the 59th rule20 the owner of a vessel libeled for collision may by process in personam bring in other parties without infringing this rule.1 The rule by implication prohibits only the joinder, in a collision cause, of the vessel and her owners, so other parties not owners and alleged to be liable for the same collision may be joined with the vessel as co-defendants.2 § 1244. Right to implead other persons or vessels in collision cases. Under the 59th admiralty rule, promulgated in 1883, it is now competent for a respondent in libel in personam for collision, or for claimant in libel in rem to have other parties or vessels brought in by petition.* Author's section. § 1245. Suits for assault in personam only. In all suits for an assault or beating on the high seas, or elsewhere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, the suit shall be in personam only. Sixteenth Admiralty Rule, promulgated, December term, 1844. The jurisdiction of admiralty in cases of tort has been discussed in an early chapter. Some torts give rise to a maritime lien, and as in the case 15 The William Law, 14 Fed. 796. 1: Ward v. Ogdensburg, 1 Newb. 139, Fed. Cas. No. 17,158. 18 Newell v. Norton, 3 Wall. 266, 18 L. ed. 271, as explained in The Corsair, 145 U. S. 342, 36 L. ed. 729, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 950; The Clatsop Chief, Fed. 165, 7 Sawy. 274; S. S. Zodiac, 5 Fed. 220; Richard Doane, 2 Ben. 112, Fed. Cas. No. 11,765. 19 Ward v. Ogdensburg, 5 McLean, 622. Fed. Cas. No. 17,158. 20 Post, 1273. 1.Joice v. Canal Boats, 32 Fed. 553, see The Hudson, 15 Fed. 172. 2Joice v. Canal Boats, 32 Fed. 553. But if of other liens the remedy of the injured party may be in rem.7 there is no lien libel in rem will not lie.8 This rule, as well the general principles of admiralty law, forbid proceedings in rem in cases of assault. Libel may be brought, under this rule against an officer for an assault on a seaman, or on a passenger.10 And the master may be held for such assault if done under his authority or knowledge.11 But in no case can a suit for assault be maintained in rem.12 § 1246. Choice of remedies in suits for maritime hypohtecation. In all suits against the ship or freight, founded upon a mere maritime hypothecation, either express or implied, of the master, for moneys taken up in a foreign port for supplies or repairs or other necessaries for the voyage, without any claim of marine interest, the libelant may proceed either in rem or against the master or the cwner alone in personam. Seventeenth Admiralty Rule promulgated December Term, 1844. § 1247. Suits on bottomry bonds generally in rem only. In all suits on bottomry bonds, properly so called, the suit shall be in rem only against the property hypothecated, or the proceeds of the property, in whosesoever hands the same may be found, unless the master has, without authority, given the bottomry bond, or by his fraud or misconduct has avoided the same, or has subtracted the property, or unless the owner has, by his own misconduct or wrong, lost or subtracted the property, in which latter cases the suit may be in personam against the wrong-doer. Eighteenth Admiralty Rule, promulgated December Term, 1844. § 1248. Salvage suits in rem or in personam. In all suits for salvage, the suit may be in rem against the property saved, or the proceeds thereof, or in personam against the party at whose request and for whose benefit the salvage service has been performed. Nineteenth Admiralty Rule, promulgated December term, 1844. The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 215, 18 L. ed. 753. See The Panama, 101 U. S. 462, 25 L. ed. 1061. 8The New World v. King, 16 How. 472-477, 14 L. ed. 1019; The A. Heaton, 43 Fed. 595; The Anaces, 93 Fed. 242; The Marion Chilcott, 95 Fed. 689; The City of Brussels, 6 Ben. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 2,745; The Corsair, 145 U. S. 343, 36 L. ed. 727, 12 Sup. Ct. 9 Forbes v. Parsons, Crabbe, 283, Fed. Cas. No. 4,929; Roberts v. Dallas, Bee, 239, Fed. Cas. No. 11,898. 10 Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mason, 242, Fed. Cas. No. 2,575. 11 Hanson v. Fowle, 1 Sawy. 539, Fed. Cas. No. 6,042. 12The Lyman D. Foster, 85 Fed. 987. It is settled that this rule does not permit a joinder of libel in rem with one in personam;15 though it does not prohibit a party from pursuing the two remedies severally.16 The usual course of voluntary salvors is to proceed in rem; and of hired salvors in personam.17 Not only is the legal owner, liable in personam under this rule, but also another having a direct pecuniary interest in the property e. g. the United States when in possession through its revenue officers.18 15 Bondies v. Sherwood, 22 How. 217, 16 L. ed. 238; The Sabine, 101 U. S. 384, 25 L. ed. 982; Nott v. The Sabine, 2 Woods, 212, Fed. Cas. No. 10,366; The Zodiac, 5 Fed. 223. 16 Brevoor v. The Fair American, Pet. Adm. 87, Fed. Cas. No. 1,847; Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Alexandre, 16 Fed. 280; Providence Ins. Co. v. Wager, 35 Fed. 364. 17The Sabine, 101 U. S. 384, 25 L. ed. 982. 18 United States v. Cornell, 202 U. S. 184, 50 L. ed. 987, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648. CHAPTER 38. CLAIM, ANSWER, INTERVENTION, DISMISSAL AND CROSS LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY. § 1262. § 1263. § 1264. How further answer compelled where exception allowed. § 1265. Interrogatories in answer-effect of libelants failure to respond. § 1266. Result where absence or disability prevents answer to interrogatories. § 1267. New matter in answer deemed traversed without replication—libelant may amend. § 1268. Intervenors-other parties may be required to answer. § 1269. Default and setting aside before final decree. § 1270. § 1271. Default decree may be rescinded and rehearing granted. § 1273. Right of claimant or respondent in collision case to implead new parties or vessels. § 1258. Form and verification of claim in suits in rem. In suits in rem, the party claiming the property shall verify his claim on oath or solemn affirmation, stating that the claimant by whom or on whose behalf the claim is made is the true and bona fide owner, and that no other person is the owner thereof. And, where the claim is put in by an agent or consignee, he shall also make oath that he is duly authorized thereto by the owner; or, if the property be, at the time of the arrest, in the possession of the master of a ship, that he is the lawful bailee thereof for the owner. Part of Twenty-sixth Admiralty Rule, promulgated December term, 1844. The remainder of the rule requires of claimant a stipulation for costs and is given elsewhere.1 A claimant under the above rule is one who as 1 Ante, § 1228. sumes the position of a defendant and demands the redelivery of the vessel to him. Such claimant must put his claim upon oath positively averring his proprietary interest therein and a refusal to do so is sufficient reason for rejecting it. So also when the claim is made by an agent he must make oath that he is duly authorized. When the claimant has failed to show any right to the property, on delivery to him he cannot avoid his stipulation by pleading such failure. Following the rules of the southern district of New York, verification of the amended libel has been held unnecessary in the northern district of California, when the res has been released on stipulation and libelants are out of the jurisdiction.7 § 1259. Answer to be on oath, full and explicit. In all libels in causes of civil and maritime jurisdiction, whether in rem or in personam, the answer of the defendant to the allegations in the libel shall be on oath or solemn affirmation; and the answer shall be full and explicit and distinct to each separate article and separate allegation in the libel, in the same order as numbered in the libel, and shall also answer in like manner each interrogatory propounded at the close of the libel. Twenty-seventh Admiralty Rule, promulgated December Term, 1844. The answer must be on oath of the defendant himself and not another for him.10 The libelant is entitled to a distinct admission or denial of the allegations in the libel,11 and a general denial has been held insufficient.12 But the failure to notice an allegation does not admit it.13 A general averment in the answer in an action for salvage that other parties were insurers, is insufficient, in the absence of an averment that their names were unknown.14 But a statement that the respondent was "ignorant" of a matter in the libel is not a sufficient answer.15 A denial of an anticipatory averment in the libel is held equivalent to an averment to the contrary.16 A plea to the jurisdiction may be embraced in an answer to the merits.17 2The Two Marys, 12 Fed. 152. ..United States v. Four Hundred, etc. Casks of Wine, 1 Pet. 549, 7 L. ed. 257. See also. Steamer Spark v. Lee Choi Chum, 1 Sawy. 718, Fed. Cas. No. 13,206. 4United States v. Four Hundred, etc. Casks of Wine, 1 Pet. 549, 7 L. ed. 257; The R. W. Skillinger, 1 Flipp. 437, Fed. Cas. No. 12.181; United States v. Twenty-five Barrels of Alcohol. 10 Int. Rev. Rec. 17 Fed. Cas. No. 16.562. See also The Two Marys, 12 Fed. 152. Todd v. Bark Tulchen. 2 Fed. 604. 9Gammell v. Skinner, 2 Gall. 45, Fed. Cas. No. 5,210. 10 Teasdale v. The Rambler, Bee Adm. 9, Fed. Cas. No. 13,815. 11The Dictator, 30 Fed. 699; Todd v. Bark Tulchin, 2 Fed. 605. 12 Virginia Home Ins. Co. v. Sundberg, 54 Fed. 389. 13The Dictator, 30 Fed. 699. 14 Morgan, etc. S. S. Co. v. De Arrotegui, 25 Fed. 624. 15 The City of Salem, 10 Fed. 843, 17 Sawy. 477. 16 Burrill v. Crossman, 69 Fed. 747, 16 C. C. A. 381. 17Inman v. Lindrup, 70 Fed. 718. |