In the Matter of Morris Reiman and Albert Friedlander, alleged Bankrupts.
every man that he meets? Assuming, as I do, perfect good faith and reasonable intelligence, I hold that a statement made under these circumstances was not invalid because it omitted a reference to the New Orleans and Mississippi property.
Upon the whole case, I am of the opinion, that the decree confirming the composition was right, and that the review asked for should be denied.
Rule of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, adopted since the publication of the eleventh volume of these Reports.
For the purpose of carrying out more efficiently the provisions of the recent Act of Congress, (Act of February 16th, 1875, § 1, 18 U. S. Stat. at Large, 315,) after it shall take effect, in regard to the finding of facts and of conclusions of law by the Circuit Court, in cases in Admiralty, on appeal, each party to an appeal shall furnish to the Court, at the commencement of the hearing, and shall serve on the proctor for each of the other parties to the appeal, five days before the hearing, a printed finding of facts and conclusions of law, as proposed, printed on writing paper, on only one side. If this be not done, the party in default will not be heard on the appeal, and, if the party in default be the appellant, his appeal will be dismissed.
1. A collision occurred between two
vessels, the M. and the E. The li-
bellants, as owners of the M., brought
this suit, in personam, in the District
Court for this District, against the
owners of the E., to recover for dam.
ages caused by such collision, claim-
ing $2,100. The owners of the E.
sued the M., in rem, in the District
Court for the Southern District of
New York, claiming to recover $3,-
489 37, as damages caused by the
collision. Both suits were tried to-
gether, on the same proofs, before
the same Judge, in the District
Court. In this suit, the libellants
had a decree for $1,695 92. The li-
bel in the other suit was dismissed.
The owners of the E. appealed to
Circuit Court, in each suit. The de-
cree in the suit in the Southern Dis-
trict was directed to be affirmed in
November, 1870, and the formal de-
cree of affirmance was entered in
February, 1871. In the latter month
the owners of the E. appealed from
that decree to the Supreme Court.
In November, 1871, the appeal in
this suit was heard by the Circuit
Court, and, on the 8th of March,
1872, the libellants had a decree
therein, in this Court, for $1,292 81.
In the latter month, the owners of
the E. appealed from that decrce to
the Supreme Court. That Court
dismissed the appeal for want of ju-
risdiction. Afterwards, that Court,
In a case of collision, this Court de-
creed for the libellant. The Supreme
Court, on appeal, held that both ves-
sels were guilty of fault which con-
tributed to the collision. The claim-
ant, not having alleged, in his an-
swer, that he had sustained any dam-
ages by the collision, moved, on the
presentation of the mandate from the
Supreme Court, that he be allowed
to amend his answer in that respect:
Held, that the motion ought to be
granted, and such damages ascer-
tained by a reference, and then
brought into an apportionment with
the amount of damages already
found to have been sustained by the
libellant. The Pennsylvania,
See INTEREST, 1.
COLLISION,
|