Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 181 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 181 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


firmed in 210 U. S. 95. 52 L. Ed. 973. 28 ^ised Statutes/' Oregon R., etc., Co. v.
S. Ct. 664. Balfour, 179 U. S. 55, 45 L. Ed. 82, 21

61. Jurisdiction, venue and courts. — In S. Ct. 28.

re Morrison. 147 U. S. 14, 37 L. Ed. 60, 63. Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. S.), 13

13 S. Ct. 246; Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585; Providence, etc,

S.), 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585; The Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co.. 109 U.

Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239, 26 L. Ed. 351; S. 578, 27 L. Ed. 1038. 3 S. Ct. 379, 617.



4073



LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY,



§ 4550



The state courts have not tlie requisite jurisdiction.*'^ The value and effic-
iency of the law would be greatly diminished, if not entirely destroyed, by
allowing- its administration to be hampered and interfered with by various and
conflicting jurisdictions.*'-^

Venue. — The district court of the district in which the vessel is libeled*''' or
in which the owner is sued ^" was designated as the proper court in which to
institute the proceedings for obtaining a decree of limited liability ; and the
presence of the vessel within the district is not essential to the court's juris-
diction.^s When cases arise in which the vessel and freight have been totally
lost, and no district court has, or can have, possession of any fund to distrib-
ute, resort may probably be had with propriety to the district court of the dis-
trict in which the owners reside, or where the vessel perished.*^^ Also juris-
diction accrues to the district court of the district comprising the port to which
the vessel was bound, although she had been sunk in the lake and only a few
fragments were washed ashore, the proceeds of which, however, amounting
to a trifling sum, were deposited in the court."^*^

Divestiture of Jurisdiction. — The filing of the libel and petition of
the owner of the vessel at fault in a collision with the ofifer to give a stipula-
tion, conferred jurisdiction upon the court, and no subsequent irregularity in
procedure could take away such jurisdiction.'^^

Effect of Limited Liability Act. — Whether or not Employer's Liability Act
April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat, 65 (U. S. Comp. St., Supp., 1909, p. 1171), by
implication repeals the statutory provisions permitting shipowners to limit_ their
liability in so far as they might be used by a railroad company engaged in in-
terstate commerce to limit its liability for injuries to employees on its vessels
used in such commerce, it does not deprive a court of admiralty of the general
jurisdiction over limitation of liability because such a claim is involved, nor
of jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim on its merits therein with the
consent of the claimant, or where the proceeding was begun beforfe the passage
of the statute and where any objection to jurisdiction on such ground had been
waived." -



64. Norwich Co. r. Wright (U. S.), 13
Wall. ]04, 20 L. Ed. 5S5; Providence, etc.,
Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S.
578, 27 L. Ed. 1038, 3 S.. Ct. 379, 617.

65. La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L.
Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664, following Provi-
dence, etc., Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg.
Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct.
379, 617.

66. Venue. — Providence, etc., Steamship
Co. V. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L.
Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617.

67. A proceeding by a shipowner for
limitation of liability under Rev. St., §
4283 et seq., as amended by 24 Stat., c.
421, and under the admiralty rules, may
be brought in the district court for any
district in which said owner may be sued
in that behalf, on payment into court of,
or stipulation to pay, the appraised value
of the vessel, or upon the transfer of his
interest to a trustee. Glcason v. Duffy,
116 Fed. 298, 54 C. C. A. 100.

68. Gleason v. Duffy, 116 Fed. 298, 54
C. C. A. 100.

69. Providence, etc.. Steamship Co. v.
Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed.
1038, 3 S. Ct. 379. 617.

In The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239, 26 L.



Ed. 351, the cause of damage was a col-
lision on the high seas, and the peti-
tion for limitation was filed in the same
district court in which the offending ves-
sel was libeled. In The Scotland, 105 U.
S. 24, 36 L. Ed. 1001, and S. C, 118 U. S.
507. 30 L. Ed. 153, 6 S. Ct. 1174, there was
a like course of action, and the limitation
was claimed by an answer to a libel in
personam in a district court. Ex parte
Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610, 30 L. Ed.
274, 7 S. Ct. 25.

Total loss. — In Providence, etc., Steam-
ship Co. V. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578,
27 L. Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617, the pe-
tition for limitation was filed in the dis-
trict court of the district where the fire
occurred and where the remnants of the
vessel remained. Ex parte Phenix Ins.
Co., 118 U. S. 610, 30 L. Ed. 274, 7 S.
Ct. 25.

70. Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451, 26
L. Ed. 1066; Providence, etc.. Steamship
Co. V. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L.
Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617.

71. Divestiture of jurisdiction. — In re
Morrison, 147 U. S. 14. 37 L. Ed. 60, 13
S. Ct. 246.

72. Effect of Limited Liability Act.—
The Passaic, 190 Fed. 644.



g§ 4551_4552 carriers. 4074

§ 4551. Time of Taking Proceedings and Laches.— Institution of
Proceedings before Suit. — The owner of a vessel may, before he is sued,
institute appropriate proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, to ob-
tain a Hmited liabiUty, without waiting for suit to be begun against him or his
vessel for the loss out of which liability arises.'' ^

Claiming Benefit after Trial of the Merits.— A shipowner may claim the
benefit of a limited liability after a trial of the cause of collision.'^'*

Estoppel by Judgment in Personam in State Courts.— A shipowner is
not estopped by a judgment in personam rendered against him by a state court
for damages sustained in a collision from thereafter instituting proceedings in
a court of admiralty for a limitation of his liability in respect to such damages
under the statutes of the United States, although in such proceeding the fact
of liability and the amount of damages sustained by the injured party are mat-
ters rendered res judicata by the former judgment."^^

Laches. — Proceedings for a limitation of liability must be taken within a rea-
sonable time.'^e The doctrine of laches, as applied in admiralty courts, is ap-
plicable to such a case.' ' The shipowner is not debarred by laches from main-
taining such proceeding because the same was not instituted until after he had
prosecuted an appeal from the judgment for damages, and the same had been
affirmed, nor by the fact that he gave a supersedeas bond, as required by stat-
ute, to enable him to safelv present his contention to the appellate court.' ^

Failure to Claims in Re'ference to Particular Party.— But the ommission
to take the benefit of the law in reference to a particular party ought not to
preclude the owners of a ship from claiming its benefit as against other parties
suffering loss by the same collision^"

Conditions to Granting Relief— Payment of Costs in Previous Proceed-
ing in State Court.— Relief under the Limited Liability Act should not be
granted where the claimant delays to claim its benefits till after the other party
has instituted proceedings to enforce his liability, except upon condition of
compensating the other party for any costs and expenses he may have incurred
by reason of the delay in claiming the benefit of the law.^o Where a ship-
owner who has prosecuted an appeal from a judgment in personam rendered
against him by state court for damages sustained in a collision, thereafter in-
stitutes proceedings in a court of admiraltv for a limitation of his liability m
respect to such damages, under the statutes of the United States; he should
be required as a condition to the granting of the relief sought, to pay the
costs adjudged against him in the state court, which might have been, to a
large extent, avoided by his more timely action.si

§ 4552. Time for Filing Claims.— Effect of Injunctional Order as Sus-
pending Running of Statute of Limitations.— An injunction granted m pro-
ceedings for limitation of liabilitv restraining the further prosecution of pend-
ing actions for damages is in fact a removal of such actions into the admiralty
court, where they are to be considered as continued for all purposes of the

73. Institution of proceedings before 77. The Benefactor. 103 U. S. 239. 26 L.
suit.— Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451, €6 Ed. 351.

L Ed. 1066; Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., 73. Prosecuting appeal from judgment

118 U. S. 610, 30 L. Ed. 274. 7 S. Ct. 25. of state court— Supersedeas.— Gleason v.

So held notwithstanding admiralty Duffy. 116 Fed. 29S, 54 C. C. A. 100.

rules Nos. 54. 55, 56, and 57. Ex parte .-g pajiure to claim in reference to par-

Slayton. 105 U. S. 451. 26 L. Ed. 1066. ticular party.— The Benefactor. 103 U. S.

74. Claiming benefit after trial of the ^^9 00 l Ed 351

merits^The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239. ^ gO.^ Conditions to granting relief-Pay-

26 L. Ed. col. ment of costs in previous proceeding in

_ 75. Estoppe by ludgment ^ Personam me t ^^^^_^^^^ ^Benefactor, 103 U. S.

m state courts. — Gleason v. Dutty, lib ^^^ ^^, ^ ^^ ^^^

^'7! Laches.-The'^Benefactor, 103 U. S. "^81." Gleason" r. Duffy. 116 Fed. 298, 54
239, 26 L. Ed. 351. C. C. A. 100.



4075



LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITV



§§ 4552-4555



statute of limitation. In other words, such restraining order suspends the
running of the statute.^^ And the dismissal of such suits for want of prosecu-
tion after the entry of the restraining order by the several courts in which they
were pending, works no prejudice to the plaintiff therein. ^^

Laches of Claimant. — A libelant who delayed filing a petition for limitation
of liability for nearly three years and did not commence taking testimony for
nine years thereafter, is not in position to charge damage claimants, who were
enjoined from prosecuting pending actions, with laches for not proving their
claims until later, where no order was made requiring it.-^-*

§ 4553. Modes in Which Limited Liability May Be Claimed. —

Limited liability may be claimed, first, merely by the way of defense to an
action ; ^^ and may be set up by plea or answer ; ^^ or, second, by surrendering
the ship or paying her value into court. The latter method is only necessary
when the shipowner desires to bring all the creditors claiming damage into con-
course for distribution.^"

§§ 4554-4556. Scope of Remedy — § 4554. Ascertainment of Co-
Existing Claims. — The shiijowner must either admit the claims for damage
which he sets up, against libelants or must ask the court to have them adjudicated.
It is, at least, necessary that proceedings should be instituted for ascertaining
the coexisting claims which are to antagonize and operate as a means of re-
ducing the claim of the libelants. ^^

§ 4555. Contesting- All Liability. — A shipowner seeking the benefit of the
Limited Liability Act is accorded the privilege not only of seeking the benefit
of the act, but also of contesting his liability in any sum whatever.'^^ The



82. Effect of injunctional order as sus-
pending running of statute of limitations.

— Union Steamboat Co. i'. Ghaffin, 122 C.
C. A. 598, 204 Fed. 412; Richmond v.
Irons. 121 U. S. 27, 7 S. Ct. 788, 30 L.
Ed. 864.

83. Union Steamboat Co. v. Chaffin, 122
C. C. A. 598, 204 Fed. 412.

84. Laches of claimant. — Union Steam-
boat Co. V. Chaffin, 122 C. C. A. 598, 204
Fed. 412.

85. Modes in which limited liability
may be claimed. — The Great Western. 118
U. S. 520, 30 L. Ed. 156, 6 S. Ct. 1172;
Providence, etc.. Steamship Co. v. Hill
Mf,?. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed. 1038,
3 S. Ct. 379, 617.

The limitation of shipowner's liability
to value of his interest in the vessel (Acts
Cong. March 3. 1851, § 3 [9 Stat. 635; Rev.
St. 1878, § 4283]. and June 26, 1884, § 18
[23 Stat. 57; 1 Supp. Rev. St. (Ed. 1891)
p. 443]) may be set up as a defense in
an action in a state court, bein,^ general
and absolute, and there being no re-
striction as to how it may be availed of.
Loughin V. McCaulley, 40 Atl. 1020, 186
Pa. 517, 48 L. R. A. 33, 65 Am. St. Rep.
872.

Ship lost. — Sliipowners can avail them-
selves of those l)enefits, l)y way of de-
fense alone, where both ship and freight
are totally lost, so that the owners are
relieved from all liability whatever. Prov-
idence, etc., vSteamship Co. v. Hill Mfg.
Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed. 1038, 3 S.



Ct. 379, 617. See ante, "Loss of Ship,"
IX. D, 1, i, (7).

86. May be set up by plea or answer. —
Shipowners maj' avail themselves of the
defense of limited responsiblity by an-
swer of plea. The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24,
26 L. Ed. 1001. See, also. Ex parte
Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610, 30 L. Ed.
274, 7 S. Ct. 25; The Scotland, 118 U. S.
507, 30 L. Ed. 153, 6 S. Ct. 1174.

It is not necessary that shipowners
should surrender and transfer the ship in
order to claim the benefit of the law.
That is only one mode of relief. They
may plead their immunity, and, if found
in, or confessing, fault, may abide a de-
cree against them for the value of ship
and freight as found by the proofs. The
Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 26 L. Ed. 1001.

87. The Great Western, 118 U. S. 520,
30 L. Ed. 156, 6 S. Ct. 1172. See, also,
Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. S.), 13 Wall.
104. 20 L.' Ed. 585; Providence, etc..
Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.
S. 578, 27 L. Ed. ions, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617.

88. Ascertainment of coexisting claims.
—Norwich Co,, v. Wright (U. S.), 13
Wall. 104. 20 L. Ed. 585.

89. Contesting all liability. — "Strictly
si)eaking, tlie applicatiun for a limitation
of liability is in effect a concession that
lial)ility exists, but, because of the ab-
sence of privity or knowledge, the benefits
of the statute should be awarded. It is true
that, under the rules promulgated by the
supreme court, the petitioner is accorded



§§ 4555-4559 carriers. 4076

fifty-sixth admiralty rule declares that in proceedings to obtain a decree for a
limited liability, the owners may contest all liability on their part or that of
their vessel, as well as claim a limitation of liabilit)- under the statute ; pro-
vided, that in their libel or petition they shall state the facts and circumstances
by reason of which exemption from liability is claimed. ^*^ This does not, how-
ever, change the essential nature of the proceeding. As the petitioner called
the various claimants into a court of admiralty of the United States, to test
whether, in virtue of the laws of the United States, it should be relieved, in
part, at least, of liability from the consequences of the acts of its agents, and
as the international rules have the force of a statute, the issues presented of
such a character as to render it essential that the right to exemption should be
tested by the law as administered in the courts of the United States, and not
otherwise. ^^

§ 4556. Claims Provable in Proceedings to Limit. — Where the vessel
owner has, under the statutes of the United States, transferred its liability to
a fund and to the exclusive jurisdiction of the admiralty, and that fund is be-
ing distributed, all claims to which the admiralty does not deny, existence must
be recognized, whether admiralty liens or not. This is not only a general
principle ^^ but is the result of the statute which provides for, as well as lim-
its, the liability, and allows it to be proved against the fund.'^^

§ 4557. Process to Bring Vessel into Court. — It is not material in limited
liabilitv proceedings, where the vessel has been brought into court, and her
owner has stipulated to pay her appraised value, whether or not she was brought
in by the appropriate process.'^'*

Power of Court to Seize Vessel Which Was Not Surrendered. — Where
shipowners have invoked the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty by a petition to
limit their liability, under Rev. St., §§ 4283, 4284, and, having thereby secured
the stay of proceedings by libelants, surrender but one of two vessels held by
the court to be liable, the court, having full equitable powers to adjust the
rights of all parties interested, is not bound to dismiss the proceedings for that
reason, but mav by its own process, or its own order, seize the other vessel,
and make distribution of the entire fund which it was the duty of the peti-
tioners to tender by their petition; and such is the proper, and only equitable,
course, where, by reason of the proceedings, suits by libelants have been de-
layed for a number of years, during which the shipowners have become insol-

§^45 58. Power of Court to Shape Course of Proceedings.— See ante,
"Abandonment to Underwriters," § 4512; post, "Evidence," §§ 4567-4570.

§ 4559. Consolidation of Suits.— The act of congress of July 22, 1813, c.
14, Rev. Stat., § 921, authorizing the consolidation of certain causes "when it

the privile!?e not onl^ of seeking the bene- L. Ed. 345, 13 S. Ct. 498; admiralty rule

fits of the statute, but also of contesting 43: The Galam, 2 Moore, P. C. C. N. S.

its liability in any sum whatever. La 216, 236.

Bourgogne 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 93. The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 52 L.

28 S Ct 664 Ed. 264, 28 S. Ct. 133, citing The Albert

90.' The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239, 26 Dumois. 177 U. S. 240, 44 L. Ed. 751, 20

L Ed 351 S. Ct. 595, and Workman v. New York,

'91. La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. 179 U. S. 552, 45 L. Ed. 314. 21 S. Ct. 212.

Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664. 94. Process to bring vessel into court.

92. claims provable in proceedings to — Oregon R., etc., Co. v. Balfour, 90 Fed.

limit.— The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398. 52 295, 33 C. C. A. 57. _

L. Ed. 264. 28 S. Ct. 133, citing Andrews 95. Power of court to seize vessel which

V. Wall (U. S.), 3 How. 568, 11 L. Ed. was not surrendered.— Oregon R., etc.,

729; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 37 Co. v. Balfour, 90 Fed. 295, 33 C. C. A. 57.



4077 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. §§ 4559-4560

appears reasonable to do so," applies to proceedings under the Limited Liabil-
ity Act."«

§§ 4560-4565. Effect of Institution of Proceedings— § 4560. Su-
perseding Other Actions. — Proceedings in the district court of the United
States to limit the liability of shipowners for loss or damage supersede all
other actions and suits for the same loss or damage in the state or federal
courts, upon the matter being properly pleaded therein.^"

Nonmaritime Torts. — If thus the owner's liability for a tort permitted or in-
curred through the master or crew, although nonmaritime, because due to a
collision between the ship and a structure upon land, be one in respect to which
his liability is limited, and he applies for the benefit of such limitation to the
proper district court of the United States, "all proceedings," by the express
terms of § 4285, Rev. Stat., "against the owner, shall cease." The procedure
in any such case is prescribed by the 54th and 55th rules in admiralty, where
it is said that the court shall, "on application of the said owner or owners,
make an order to restrain the further prosecution of all and any suit or suits
against said owner or owners in respect of any such claim or claims." ^^

Liabilities Not Affected by Proceeding. — Formerly the pendency of a pe-
tition to obtain the benefits of the limitation under the statute providing for a
limited liability does not operate to draw into such a proceeding an action for
a liability which could in no wise be afifected by it.^^ And so it still is, except
as amended bv the Act of June 26, 1884 (23 Stat., 55, c. 121), which amended
§§ 4283. 4284, Rev. Stat., U. S., so as to include "any and all debts and lia-
bilities" of the o^^'ner incurred on account of the ship without his privitv or
fault.i

Libel by Salvage Claimants. — All further proceedings on a libel instituted
by salvage claimants, who towed to port a vessel disabled in a collision, must
stop upon pleading the pendency in the same court of a separate proceeding
bv the owners of the vessel, claiming the benefits of the limited liabilitv pro-
visions of U. S. Rev. Stat., §§ 4283-4285, U. S. Comp. Stat.. 1901, pp.' 2493,
2944, as amended by the Act of June 26, 1884 (23 Stat, at L. 57, chap. 121,
U. S. Comp. Stat., 1901, p. 2945), § 18, in which, conformably to admiralty
rule 54, there has been an appraisement of the vessel and her pending freight,

96. Consolidation of suits. — The North perceiving that after proceeding-s have
Star. 106 U. S. 17, 27 L. Ed. 91, 1 S. been commenced in the proper district
Ct. 41. court in pursuance thereof, the prosecu-

97. Superseding other actions. — Provi- tion pari passu of distinct suits in dif-
dence, etc., Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co.. ferent courts, or even in the same court
109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed. 103S. 3 S. Ct. 379, by separate claimants, against the ship-
617; Butler v. Boston, etc., Steamship owners, is, and must necessarily be, ut-
Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed. 1017, 9 S. terly repugnant to such proceedings, and
Ct. 612. subversive of their object and purpose."

The case of Providence, etc.. Steamship The San Pedro, 223 U. S. 365, 56 L. Ed.

Co. V. Hill Mfg. Co.. 109 U. S. 578, 27 473. 32 S. Ct. 275. Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1221.

L. Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617, w^as a suit 98. Nonmaritime torts. — Providence,

in a state court against the owner of a etc.. Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109

steamship to recover for goods lost by U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed. 1038. 3 S. Ct. 379,

the burning of a steamer. After a con- 617: Butler v. Boston, etc.. Steamship Co..

sideration of the meaning and purpose of 130 U. S. 527. 32 L. Ed. 1017, 9 S. Ct. 612;

the Limited Liability Act of 1851 (9 Stat. Richardson v. Harmnn, 222 U. S. 06. 56

at L. 635, chap. 43, U. S. Comp. Stat., 1901, L. Ed. 110. 32 S. Ct. 27.

pp. 2943, 2944). §§ 4283. 4284, 4285, Rev. 99. Liabilities not affected by proceed-

Stat., and of admiralty rule 54, the court ing. — -Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U.

said: "We have deemed it proper to ex- S. 610. 30 L. Ed. 274, 7 S. Ct. 25; Rich-

amine thus fully the foundation on which ardson v. Harmon, 222 U. S. 96, 56 L. Ed.

the rules adopted in December term, 1871, 110, 32 S. Ct. 27.

were based, because, if those rules are 1. Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U. S. 96,

valid and binding (as we deem them to 56 L. Ed. 110. 32 S. Ct. 27; The San Pedro,

be), it is hardly possible to read them in 223 U. S. 365. 32 S. Ct. 275, 56 L. Ed. 473,

connection with the Act of 1851 without Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1221.



§§ 4560-4562 carriers. 4078

and a stipulation entered into for the payment of the appraised value into
court, and a monition duly issued, requiring all persons to present their claims
and make proof. -

§ 4561. Duty of Other Courts to Suspend Proceeding-s. — Proceedings
under the act having been duly instituted the court acquired full jurisdiction
of the subject matter; and having taken such jurisdiction, and procured con-
trol of the vessel and freight (or their value), constituting the fund to be
distributed, and issued its monition to all parties to appear and present their
claims, it became the duty of all courts before which any of such claims were
prosecuted, upon being properly certified of the proceedings, to suspend fur-
ther action upon said claims.-" When the procedure provided by rule 54 has
been followed and a monition has issued "against all persons claiming dam-
ages * * * citing them to appear before said court and make proof of
their respective claims," etc., it is the duty of every other court, when the
pendency of such a liability petition is pleaded, to stop.^ The operation of the
act, in this behalf, can not be regarded as confined to cases of actual "trans-
fer" (which is merely allowed as a sufficient compliance with the law), but
when its reason and equity and the whole scope of its provisions is considered,
it must be regarded as extending to cases in which w4iat is required and done
is tantamount to such transfer; as where the value of the owner's interest is
paid into court, or secured by stipulation and placed under its control, for
the benefit of the parties interested.'"'

§ 4562. Staying or Eestraining Proceedings in Other Courts. — Where
a petition seeking a limitation of the owners' liability to the value of the ship
and freight is filed, the libelants and interveners should be restrained, by or-
der of the court, from collecting or attempting to collect or enforce their re-
spective decrees, whether obtained in that court or in the court of appeal, in
any other manner than by the pro rata distribution of the fund standing by



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 181 of 214)