vessel and freight, to a trustee to be appointed by the court under the fourth section of said act." It has been said that an appraisement is not required when the allegations in the libel or petition show the amount for which the vessel sold that the deductions claimed by the owner should not be allowed.2 The practice upon appraisements and the rules régulating stipulations for value are ordinarily like the general practice in admiralty proceedings in these respects. It is the better practice to serve notice of the hearing upon the appraisal, upon the parties liability to whom is sought to be limited; but an appraisement ex parte is not void.5 The vessel is valued as of the date of the termination of the voyage upon which the loss occurred.6 When the vessel is sunk, the voyage terminates. If the vessel has deteriorated in value, while used by the owner for a considerable time after the claims arose, the owner is responsible for the reasonable value of the vessel when the liability was incurred.8 Deductions from her present value on account of additions made since an accident occurred should be made at their value at the time of the appraisal, not at their cost.9 Where a bond for value is given by the petitioner it must cover the value of the vessel at the time she ended her voyage.10 There can be no deduction because of freight then pending or unadjudicated claims for salvage or for general average, although these claims might be entitled to precedence over thereof into court whenever the same shall be ordered; or, if other claimants; for such other claimants have the right to contest the same.11 The question of interest is in the discretion of the court.12 When a bond or stipulation for value is given, interest runs $ 598. 1 Adm. Rule 51. 2 The Ethelstan, 246 Fed. 187. 3 Supra, §§ 571, 573. 4 The George L. Garlick, C. C. A., 107 Fed. 542. 5 The Abbie C. Stubbs, 28 Fed. 719; The George L. Garlick, C. C. A., 107 Fed. 542. 6 Re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14, 34, 37 L. ed. 60, 67. Fed. Prac. Vol. III-65 7 Ibid.; The H. F. Dimock, 52 Fed. 598. 8 The Passaic, 190 Fed. 644; 'supra, § 584. 9 The Captain Jack, 162 Fed. 808. 10 The H. F. Dimock, 186 Fed. 662; supra, § 571. 11 Ibid. 12 The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507, 30 L. ed. 153. from the date of the same 18 which should provide therefor.14 Where the ship-owner sets up the statutory limitation by an answer without surrendering the vessel or giving a bond; interest is charged on the value of the vessel from the date of the injury.15 Otherwise, except under extraordinary circumstances, interest against the owner is charged only from the date of the decree.16 § 599. Injunctions in proceedings to limit liability. When proceedings for the limitation of liability are instituted, the court has the power to enjoin all proceedings against the vessel in any other court, even when the same have been already instituted.2 Such an injunction, however, is not necessary, since the issue of the monition has the effect of a statutory injunction at least to the extent of superseding such proceedings in the State courts should those in the Federal court be finally sustained. The Federal court has allowed an action in the State court to be begun pending the proceedings to limit the owner's liability in order to stop the running of the State Statute of Limitations. Where a verdict had been obtained prior to the institution of the proceedings for limitation of liability, the court of admiralty gave leave to the plaintiff to enter judgment thereupon, for the purpose of liquidating his claim. It was held that this judgment, though not conclusive, should be accepted as determining the amount of the plaintiff's claim, unless the court was satisfied that it was excessive. It was held subse 18 Smith v. Booth, 112 Fed. 553; The George W. Roby, C. C. A., 111 Fed. 601. 14 Re Harris, C. C. A., 57 Fed. 243. 15 Smith v. Booth, 112 Fed. 553. 16 The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97, 30 L. ed. 1095, 7 Sup. Ct. 1158; The Jose E. More, 37 Fed. 122. $599. 1 The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 26 L. ed. 1001; Re Morrison, 147 U. S, 14, 35; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256, 270, 38 L. ed. 981, 985; The San Pedro, 223 U. S. 365, 372, 56 L. ed. 473, 474. 2 Ibid.; The Revere, 191 Fed. 253. 8 Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 600, 27 L. ed. 1038, 1046; The San Pedro, 223 U. S. 365, 372, 56 L. ed. 473, 474. 4 Re Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., C. C. A., 204 Fed. 260, reversing The Titanic, 204 Fed. 295. 5 Davenport v. Winnisimmet Co., C. C. A., 162 Fed. 862; reversing The City of Boston, 159 Fed. 257; s. c., The City of Boston, 182 Fed. 174. 6 The City of Boston, 182 Fed. quently however, that, where the action in the State court had not been tried, a court of admiralty had no power to allow the question of liability to be there litigated and determined against the petitioner's objections." Attachments cannot be levied after the Federal proceedings have begun. When judgment is recovered in the State court, the amount paid cannot exceed the value of the vessel if limitation is allowed. The injunction does not prevent a claimant from withdrawing his claim irrespective of what future acts he may contemplate.10 No injunction will run against materialmen,11 nor against others, 12 who have repaired a vessel upon the security of the owner, so as to forbid a suit in personam. It has been held that the effect of such an injunction upon pending suits in a State court is to remove them into the Federal court of admiralty where, for the purposes of the Statute of Limitations, they are to be considered as continued.18 § 600. Monition. Upon the payment into court of the value ascertained, or the giving of a stipulation therefor, or the transfer to a trustee, as the case may be, the court must issue a monition against all persons claiming damages for the loss on account of which limitation of liability is sought, citing them to appear and file their claims at or before a certain time to be named in the writ, not less than thirty days from the issuing of the same. Public notice of the monition must be given as in other cases, and notice must also be served through the postoffice or otherwise as the court may direct; and on the application of the owners the court will make an order restraining the further prosecution of all suits against said owners in respect of any such claims. Such an order is a bar to a subsequent suit 174. See Re P. Sanford Ross, 196 7 The Revere, 191 Fed. 253. Co., C. C. A., 204 Fed. 260. 9 Re P. Sanford Ross, 196 Fed. 921. 10 The Titanic, C. C. A., 225 Fed. 747. 11 The Leonard Richards, 41 Fed. 818, 822.. 12 Gokey v. Fort, 44 Fed. 364, 366. 13 Union Steamboat Co. v. Chaffin's Adm'rs, C. C. A., 204 Fed. 412. § 600. 1 Adm. Rule 51, Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 592, 27 L. ed. 1038, 1043. on a claim in another court, although brought by an administrator who had not at that time been appointed.2 § 601. Proof of claims in proceedings for limitation of lia bility. "Proof of all claims which shall be filed in pursuance of said monition shall thereafter be made before a commissioner to be designated by the court, or before the court as the court may determine, subject to the right of any person interested to question or controvert the same; and on the completion of said proofs, the commissioner shall make report, or the court its finding on the claims so proven, and on confirmation of said commissioner's report, after hearing any exceptions thereto, or on such finding by the court, the moneys paid or secured to be paid into court as aforesaid, or the proceeds of said ship or vessel and freight (after payment of costs and expense) shall be divided pro rata amongst the several claimants in proportion to the amount of their respective claims, duly proved and confirmed as aforesaid, saving, however, to all parties any priority to which they may be legally entitled."'1 In a proper case the claim may be amended. The time to file a claim may be extended after the expiration of the term fixed in the monition, before, but not, it has been held, after the final decree. Upon confirmation of the commissioner's report, after hearing any exceptions thereto, the moneys paid or secured to be paid into court, or the proceeds of the ship and freight, after payment of costs and expenses, are divided pro rata among the several claimants in proportion to the amount of their respective claims proved and confirmed, saving to all parties any priority to which they may be legally entitled.' Holders of maritime liens of the same class, which have not been forfeited, are entitled to a distribution in equal propor 2 Seese's Adm'x v. Monongahela River Consol. C. & C. Co., 155 Fed. 507. § 601. 1 Adm. Rule 52. The form of the proof and proceedings upon the same is regulated by S. D. N. Y., Adm. Rule 58. See supra, § 589. Re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 250 Fed. 916. 3 The City of Boston, 159 Fed. 257. See Union Steamboat Co. v. Chaffin's Adm'rs, C. C. A., 204 Fed. 412. 4 Dowdell v. United States District Court for Northern District of California, 139 Fed. 444. 5 Adm. Rule 55. tons, irrespective of the date when they issued process or obtained decrees.6 In case of a collision, the fund is distributed among the parties thereby injured, without reference to liens previously accruing. Where there has been a collision, the owner of a vessel which was not in fault can share pro rata in the fund with the other claimants; but where such vessel was partly at fault, it will be awarded no share of the fund until the claims of passengers and owners of cargo have been satisfied." The owner of a boat sunk in a collision cannot prove, in addition to the value thereof, his loss of earnings under an unexpired charter for the season.10 He can recover for her "freight pending." 11 Where the vessel has not been totally destroyed, he can prove all the loss due to the detention for repairs, which may include the profits of a charter, the terms of which has not yet begun.12 Claims for salvage 13 for personal injuries and death claims are barred by the proceedings and may be proved where a liability exists.14 The right of a claimant to invoke a foreign statute cannot be raised by a motion to direct the commissioner to make findings as to matters irrelevant under the law of the United States; but must be raised by proper plea.15 Where without any apparent reason the commissioner's report was not filed for more than three years after notice of its completion had been given, interest was allowed on all claims from the date of such completion.16 Laches in their part of the proceedings may be sufficient reason for the disallowance of 6 The Battler, 67 Fed. 251; supra, § 590. 7 The Maria and Elizabeth, 12 Fed. 627, 630. 8 Norwich & New York Transp. Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 122, 20 L. ed. 585; The George W. Roby, C. C. A., 111 Fed. 601, 615. 9 The George W. Roby, C. C. A., 111 Fed. 601, 615. C. A, 54 L.R.A. 700, 110 Fed. 452; 13 The San Pedro, 223 U. S. 365, 56 L. ed. 473. 14 Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 592, 27 L. ed. 1038, 1043; Butler v. Boston & Savannah S. S. Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. ed. 1017; La 10 The George W. Roby, C. C. A.,. Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. ed. 111 Fed. 601, 615. 11 Ibid. 12 The Umbria, 166 U. S. 404, 421, 17 Sup. Ct. 610, 41 L. ed. 1053; Mason v. Marine Ins. Co., C. 973; supra, § 560. 15 The Titanic, 204 Fed. 298. 16 Union Steamboat Co. v. Chaffin's Adm'rs, C. C. A., 204 Fed. 412. |