entered against the claimant and his sureties.1 In a case of bail bonds for stipulations 2 or stipulations or bonds to release property which has been attached, such a summary process of execution may be issued against the principal and sureties.

Where a stipulation for value has been given, the final decree provides that, unless the decree be satisfied or proceedings thereon be stayed on appeal within the time and in the manner prescribed by the rules and practice of the court, the stipulators for costs and value cause the engagements of their stipulations to be performed, or show cause within a time fixed by the rules,* or on the first day of jurisdiction thereafter, why execution should not issue against their property to enforce satisfaction of the decree. At the expiration of the time provided by the rules of the several districts and on proof of service of a copy of the decree on the proctors for the unsuccessful party, the court will grant an order to show cause why execution should not issue against the stipulators.

In suits in rem, the final decree always provides for the condemnation and sale of the res; but this provision is not carried out by an actual sale if the res has been bonded. The bond or stipulation takes the place of the res, which once released cannot be reached again by process, unless it be subject to execution as the property of one of the stipulators or bondsmen. In suits in personam, the decree follows the form of an ordinary decree in equity containing, however, a provision for judgment against the stipulators for costs similar to that contained in a decree against stipulators for value. A decree in personam cannot be entered in a suit in rem.6

Where two vessels are proceeded against and both are adjudged in fault, the decree should be against the two vessels and

$585. 1 U. S. R. S., § 941; Comp. St. 1567; Johnson v. Chicago & Pac. Elev. Co., 119 U. S. 388, 30 L. ed. 447. In the New York districts, four days.

2 Adm. Rule 4.

8 Adm. Rule 5.

4 See Adm. Rule 5.

5 The Union, 4 Blatchf. 90; The Thales, 3 Ben. 327; Johnson v. The Hattie Belle, 65 Fed. 119.

6 The Zodiac, 5 Fed. 220. It has been held that summary proceedings are not maintainable in admiralty to set aside or satisfy a decree previously entered, where the controversy either arises collaterally between the parties or involves an adjudication between strangers to the original litigation. Carroll et al. v. Davidson, C. C. A., 152 Fed. 424.

their respective stipulators severally, each for one moiety of the entire damage, interest, and costs, so far as the stipulated value of each vessel extends and should provide that any balance of such moiety over and above such stipulated value of either vessel, or which the libelant shall be unable to collect or enforce, be paid by the other vessel or its stipulators to the extent of the stipulated value thereof beyond the moiety due from said vessels. Where both the libelant's and the claimant's vessels are in fault, the damage done to both vessels is added together in one mass or sum and divided equally, and a decree is pronounced in favor of the vessel which has suffered the most against the other vessel for half the difference between the amounts of their respective losses.8

§ 586. Sales. In suits in rem, where a default has been taken, or where, although a defense has been interposed, the res has not been bonded, the final decree orders the clerk to issue a writ of venditioni exponas to the marshal, directing him to sell the property in his custody at public auction. Such a sale gives the purchaser an absolute title, good as against all the world, if the proceedings have been duly taken. Sales under a fieri

7 The Alabama and Gamecock, 92 U. S. 695, 23 L. ed. 763; The City of Erie, 250 Fed. 259. In Federal Ins. Co. v. Detroit Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 202 Fed. 648, where the libel in such suit was filed by the owner of the vessel, in its own behalf and as representing the insurers, for an amount exceeding the insurance, but, owing to a division of damages, the recovery was less than the insured value, the libellant held the entire sum as trustee for the benefit of all the insurers ratably, and not of those only who gave their assent to the suit, and that each, whether assenting or nonassenting, was allowed to its share thereof after deducting the costs and expenses of suit.

8 The North Star, 106 U. S. 17, 28, 27 L. ed. 91, 95. The court may in a proper case consolidate two li

bels, try them together and enter a single decree. The North Star and The Ellen Warley, 106 U. S. 17, 27 L. ed. 91; The Eliza Lines, 61 Fed. 308; The Sarah E. Kennedy, 25 Fed. 672; supra, § 575. Or it may sever the claims in the same libel and render a decree in one before it disposes of the other. Larrinaga v. Two Thousand Bags of Sugar, 40 Fed. 507.

§ 586. 1 By Adm. Rule 29, S. D. N. Y., "Notice of sale of property after condemnation in suits in rem (except under the Revenue Laws and on seizure by the United States), shall be daily for at least six days before sale unless otherwise directed in the decree; and shall be published in the manner directed by § 939, U. S. Rev. Stat." 2 The Trenton, 4 Fed. 657; The Adeline, 252 Fed. 953.

facias, on the other hand, convey only the defendant's interest in the property sold. "Where any ship shall be arrested, the same shall, on the application of the claimant, be delivered to him either on a due appraisement, to be had under the direction of the court, or on his filing an agreement in writing to that effect signed by the parties or their proctors of record, and on the claimant's depositing in court so much money as the court shall order, or on his giving a stipulation for like amount, with sufficient sureties, or an approved corporate surety, conditioned as provided in the foregoing rule; and if the claimant shall un reasonably neglect to make any such application, then the court may, on the application of either party, on due cause shown, order a sale of such ship, and require the proceeds thereof to be brought into court or otherwise disposed of." Where the part owner of a boat seeks to employ it in a dangerous and hazardous enterprise without the consent of the owner of the other part and against the latter's objection the court upon the latter's application may order the vessel sold and the proceeds distributed unless security against loss is given."

"All sales of property under any decree of admiralty shall be made by the marshal or his deputy, or other proper officer assigned by the court, where the marshal is a party in interest, in pursuance of the orders of the court; and the proceeds thereof, when sold, shall be forthwith paid into the registry of the court by the officer making the sale, to be disposed of by the court according to law." In no case should a sale be permitted in a proceeding in rem by default or by consent of parties unless publication has been duly made; but where the claimant had actual notice and took no action until after the distribution of the proceeds of the sale and expenditures upon the boat by the purchaser, the court refused to set the sale aside. The sale should be made in the county where the boat is located; but this requirement is not essential to jurisdiction.10

8 Milwaukee & M. R. R. Co. v. James, 6 Wall. 750, 18 L. ed. 854, 17 Cyc. 1289.

4 Adm. Rule 12.

5 The Ellenora, 252 Fed. 209; supra, § 560a.

6 Adm. Rule 40.

9

7 27 St. at L. 751, supra, § 565. 8 The Earl K, 215 Fed. 613.

9 27 St. at L. 751, supra, § 394.

10 The Earl K, 215 Fed. 613.

Where a court of admiralty ordered the sale of a libeled vessel by a marshal at public auction, it was held to be without authority to accept in open court a private bid or to authorize the marshal to accept the same; 11 but where a decree for a private sale was reversed after its confirmation and the buyers had resold the ship to persons outside of the district, who bought it in good faith and removed it therefrom, it was held that the vessel should not be recovered from the second purchasers, nor ordered resold, it appearing that in all probability the amount that would be realized after the payment of the costs would be less than was paid at the original sale.12 A sale may be set aside for the inadequacy of the price.13

§ 587. Sales as perishable. "In all cases where any goods or other things are arrested, if the expense of keeping the same is excessive or disproportionate, or if the same are perishable, or are liable to deterioration, decay, or injury, by being detained in custody pending the suit, the court may; on the application of either party, order the same or any portion thereof to be sold; and the proceeds, or so much thereof as shall be full security to satisfy any decree, to be brought into court to abide the event of the suit; or the court may, on the application of the claimant, order a delivery thereof to him, either on the filing of a written agreement of the parties or their proctors of record to that effect, or on a due appraisement, to be had under its direction, unless the value has been agreed to in writing by the parties or their proctors of record, on the claimant's depositing in court 80 much money as the court shall order, or on his giving a stipula tion, with sufficient sureties or an approved corporate surety, in such sum as the court shall direct or as shall be agreed upon in writing by the parties or their proctors of record, conditioned to abide by and pay the money awarded by the final decree rendered by the court, or any appellate court, if any appeal intervenes, not to exceed however in any event such agreed or appraised value with interest at six per cent per annum and costs, as the one or the other course shall be ordered by the court." A sale will not be allowed merely on the ground that

11 Lambert's Point Towboat Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 182 Fed. 388. 12 The John Twohy, Jr., 189 Fed. 965.

13 Lambert's Point Towboat Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 182 Fed. 388. See 394d, supra. § 587. 1 Adm.

Rule 11.

See

the expenses of custody pending the suit may be a burden to the owners of property. Such a sale confers a good title to the purchaser free of all common law or statutory liens and without regard to the title or interest of the respondent.2

§ 588. Intervenors. In suits in rem third persons often desire to intervene for their own interest or protection, as, for example, where there are many claims against a vessel, and one libelant contests the claim of another, either on the merits or on the question of amount due. Such a contestant is permitted to intervene in a suit and file an answer or petition upon giving security for costs. In a suit in admiralty to recover a vessel which has been seized by State officers for violation of a State fishery law, and is held by respondents merely as their custodians, such officers or other representatives of the State may appear and answer without giving the stipulation with sureties for the payment of costs and damages.2

"If any third person shall intervene in any cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in rem for his own interest, and he is entitled, according to the course of admiralty proceedings, to be heard therein, he shall propound the matter in suitable allegations, to which, if admitted by the court, the other party or parties in the suit may be required, by order of the court, to make due answer; and such further proceedings shall be had and decree rendered by the court therein as to law and justice shall appertain. But every such intervenor shall be required, on filing his allegations, to give a stipulation with sufficient sureties or an approved corporate surety to abide by the final,

Jones v. Springer, 226 U. S. 148, 57 L. ed. -; § 394, supra.

2 The Adeline, 252 Fed. 953. § 588. 1 Adm. Rule 34. See The Ethelwold, 165 Fed. 806; §§ 258261, supra.

2 The W. J. Hingston, 144 Fed. 560. Where, in a creditor's suit against a corporation ship owner, in which defendant's vessels had been taken possession of through a receiver, claimants of maritime liens on such vessels intervened, asserting their liens and asking their ad

judication and payment, their right to such liens was tried and determined adversely to them, both by the Circuit Court and on appeal. It was held that such adjudication was conclusive, and the interveners could not thereafter maintain a suit in rem in a court of admiralty to establish and enforce the same liens against the vessels in the hands of a purchaser under the equity decree. The J. R. Langdon, 145 Fed. 64.