Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/486

 478 FEDERAL REPORTES. �pire Pr. Co. 18 Albany L. J. 313; S. C. 6 Eep. 673; Wilson Paciang Co. v. Hunier, 7 Eep. 455. �Upon the admitted facts of this case service upon the auditor "was good Personal service on the company, and it must ap- pear, or suffer a judgment by default. �Demurrer Bustained. ���MoCarthy V. Eggers. ���{Circuit Court, JE. D. New York. February 18, 1880.) �OwNBKSHTp OF Vessbl — ACTION IN Pbesonam fok Repatbb. — Where B., a married woman, furniahed money to a flrm of ship-brokers for the purcltaae of a vessel, under an agreement that they were to manage and charter her, and if the money was not repaid at a cartain time the vessel was to be the property of E., and a carpenter brought suit in per- sonam against B. for a bill of repairs made upon order of the brokers, without any knowiedge by him at the time that they were not the legal and sole owners, and the district court had held that the agreement was not proved so as to make the brokers liable as owners, upon appeal to the circuit court and further evidence taken, hdd, that the defence set up was established, and the brokers were the owners prohae vice. �edw. G. S. Hubhe, for plaintiff. �Henry D. Hotchkiss, for defendant. �Blatchfoed, J. Th'e district court rendered a decree in favor of the libellant on the ground that he -was entitled to a decree unless the respondent had proved the defence set up, •which defence that court stated to be that the vessel, at the time of the repairs, was under charter to Dill & Eadman, by virtue of an agreement between that firm and the respondent whereby Dill & Eadman became owners pro hac vice, and, therefore, alone responsible for the repairs sued for. The district court came to the conclusion that, as matter of fact, the respondent had failed to establish such defence. �On the evidence below, in connection with the further evi- dence taken in this court on the part of the respondent, I am of the opinion that the agreement set up in the answer ia proved, and the defence is established. �The libel must be dismissed, with costs to the respondent in both courts. ��� �