be pending in said courts on appeal from the District Courts.

Promulgated March 30, 1881. 103 U. S. XIII. (59) In a suit for damage by collision, if the claimant of any vessel proceeded against, or any respondent proceeded against in personam, shall, by petition, on oath, presented before or at the time of answering the libel, or within such further time as the court may allow, and containing suitable allegations showing fault or negligence in any other vessel contributing to the same collision, and the particulars thereof, and that such other vessel or any other party ought to be proceeded against in the same suit for such damage, pray that process be issued against such vessel or party to that end, such process may be issued, and if duly served, such suit shall proceed as if such vessel or party had been originally proceeded against; the other parties in the suit shall answer the petition; the claimant of such vessel or such new party shall answer the libel; and such further proceedings shall be had and decree rendered by the court in the suit as to law and justice shall appertain. But every such petitioner shall upon filing his petition, give a stipulation, with sufficient sureties, to pay to the libellant and to any claimant or new party brought in by virtue of such process, all such costs, damages, and expenses as shall be awarded against the petitioner by the court upon the final decree, whether rendered in the original or appellate court; and any such claimant or new party shall give the same bonds or stipulations which are required in like cases from parties brought in under process issued on the prayer of a libellant.

Promulgated March 26, 1883. 112 U. S. 743.

and against all persons lawfully intervening for their interest therein, in a case of..... ..civil and maritime.

And thereupon, the said libelant.. do.. allege and articulately propound as follows, to wit:

FIRST. THAT your libelant..

at the time of the.....

the owner.. and proprietor.. of. said.....

hereinafter mentioned..

.which

. is a vessel of more than Twenty Tons Burden, and at the time when the. ....hereinafter stated and set forth arose, was enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and employed in the business of commerce and navigation between ports and places in different States and Territories of the United States, upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes.

SECOND. THAT the said....

.now lying at

....in the District aforesaid, is a vessel of more than Twenty Tons Burden, and at the time when the cause of action hereinafter stated and set forth arose, was enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and employed in the business of commerce and navigation between ports and places in different States and Territories of the United States, upon the lakes and navigable waters connecting said lakes.

THAT the said libelant.. ha.. applied to the owner.. of said..

......

....and requested... ...to settle with th.. libelant.. for the ....sustained as above mentioned by......

THAT the said..

..but

....refuse.. to pay the same, or any part thereof. now lying in the port of .and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

THAT all and singular the premises are true, and within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and of this Honorable Court. WHEREFORE, the said libelant.. pray.. that a.

in due form of law, according to the course of this Honorable Court in cases admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, may issue against the said...

......and that all persons having any interest therein, may be cited to appear and answer, on oath, all and singular the matters aforesaid, and that this Honorable Court would be pleased to decree the payment of the.... .as aforesaid, to wit: the sum of

.may be condemned

with interest and costs, and that the said. and sold to pay the same, and that the libelant.. may have such other and further relief as in law and justice.. he.. may be entitled to receive.

Proctor.. for Libelant..

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DISTRICT OF.

SS.

Libelant..

the libelant.. whose name..

being duly sworn, says that.

... subscribed to the foregoing libel; that .he. ha.. read said libel and know.. the contents thereof, and that the same is true of...... own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated to be on information and belief, and that as to those matters.... believe.. it to be true.

TABLE OF CASES.

CASES CITED IN THIRTY-FOURTH SUBJECT-COMMON

LAW PLEADING.

Bailey vs. Joy (132 Mass., 356), 63.

Baird vs. Mayor (74 N. Y., 382), 62.
Bethel vs. Matthews (13 Wall., 11), 73.
Biggs vs. Lloyd (11 Pac. Rep., 831), 63.
Blakeley vs. Ruedell (Hemst., 18), 73.
Bradstreet vs. Huntington (5 Pet., 402), 72.

Carter vs. Arbuthnot (62 Mo., 582), 61.
Caston vs. McGuire (23 Ind., 356), 75.
Cibel vs. Hill (1 Leon, 110), 26.
Claggett vs. Simes (31 N. Y., 29), 71.
Cook vs. Scott (1 Gilm. (Ill.), 393), 38.
Coons vs. Gallagher (15 Pet., 18), 72.
Course vs. Stead (4 Dall, 72), 73.

Cox vs. People (19 Hun. (N. Y.), 430), 65.
Cross vs. State (78 Ala., 430), 63.
Cunyus vs. Guenther (96 Ala., 564), 42.

Cutter vs. Powell (2 Smith Ld. Cases, 61), 31.

Day vs. Essex County Bank (13 Vt., 97), 42.
Dennehey vs. Woodsum (100 Mass., 198), 46.

Desche vs. Gies (56 Md., 135), 63.

Dickman vs. Planter's Bank (16 Wall., 250), 73.
Doty vs. Strong (Burn., 158), 73.

Edson vs. Weston (7 Cow. (N. Y.), 278), 41.
Elliott vs. Jackson (3 Wis., 649), 60.

Ellis vs. State (3 Iowa, 217), 74.

Ferris vs. People (35 N. Y., 125), 65.
Finley vs. Woodruff (8 Ark., 328), 42.
Forsythe vs. State (6 Oh., 19), 64.

Gaffney vs. People (50 N. Y., 416), 71.
Gallagher vs. State (17 Fla., 379), 75.
Garth vs. Caldwell (72 Mo., 630), 65.
Gladden vs. State (13 Fla., 623), 64.
Grant vs. Reese (72 N. C., 72), 62.
Greenleaf vs. Egan (30 Minn., 316), 63.
Gregory vs. Lincoln (13 Neb., 352), 63.
Guild vs. Frontin (18 How., 135), 73.
Gurland vs. Davis (4 How., 131), 72.

Haney vs. Clark Burn. (Wis., 142), 72.
Harris vs. Cole (2 Fla., 400), 71.
Harrow vs. Lyon (3 Greene, 157), 61.
Hartley vs. Chidester (36 Kan., 363), 70.

Heacock vs. Lubukee (108 Ill., 641), 63.

Hill vs. Mendenhall (21 Wallace, 455), 37.

Hubbard vs. Mutual Reserve Fund L. Asso. (80 Fed. Rep., 684), 42.

Insurance Company vs. Folson (18 Wall., 237), 73.

James vs. Black (7 Wall, 692), 73.

Kearney vs. Denn (15 Wall., 51), 73.

Lanier vs. Grant (Hard (Ky.), 450), 61.
Lathrop vs. Juden (19 How., 66), 73.
Leahy vs. Dunlap (6 Colo., 552), 63.

Leland vs. Wilkinson (6 Pet., 317), 73.

Liegears vs. McCracken (10 Fed. Rep., 664), 46.

Little York Gold Washing, etc., Co. vs. Keyes (96 U. S., 202), 37.

Louisville, etc., R. Co. vs. Trammell (93 Ala., 352), 40.

Love vs. Hall (76 Ind., 326), 63.

Luc's vs. Brooks (18 Wall., 436), 73.

Maxwell vs. Dow (176 U. S., 586), 63.

Mossman vs. Higginson (4 Dall., 12), 73.

Nisqually Mill Co. vs. Tayloe (1 Wash. T., 3), 73.

Ohio vs. Macy (18 Wall., 532), 73.

Osborn vs. Lovell (36 Mich., 250), 40.

People vs. Ryder (12 N. Y., 433), 39.

Pettes vs. Com. (126 Mass., 242), 71.
Prentice vs. Zane (8 How., 470), 72.

Rafe vs. State (20 Ga., 64), 65.

Read vs. Kirkwood (19 Ark., 332), 61.

Rex. vs. Whittaker (Cowp., 752), 64.

Robertson vs. Roberts (1 A. K. Marsh (Ky.), 247), 61.

Rogers vs. Burlington (3 Wall., 564), 73.

Ryan vs. Kock (17 Wall., 19), 73.

Scott vs. Cook (1 Ore., 24), 73.

Shirley vs. Owners of Steamer (5 La. Ann., 250), 60.

Snydam vs. Higgeford (23 Pick., 465), 61.

Speake vs. Richards (Hob. 206, Pl. 260), 26.

State vs. Chrisman (2 Ind., 130), 42.

State vs. Touchet (33 La. Am., 1154), 63.
Stevens vs. Gladding (19 How., 64), 73.
Suydam vs. Williamson (20 How., 427), 72.