Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/817

 810 FKDEBAL BEPOBTSB. �supra. In this last-cited case it was conteuded ihat thefe must be a previous prosecution of the master to recover p«E- alties for importing goods not included in the manifest befcre a suit in rem against the vessel could be instituted. But the court held this was not essential. So here, while it may not have been necessary to pursue the master and owners per- sonally before proceeding against the vessel, the f act that such course was adopted will not, I think, defeat the present suit in rem. The penaltiea bave not been paid, and therefore the lien still remains. �'3. It is alleged that the claimants of the Boston are hona Jide purchasers for value, and that they bougbt the boat from her former ownera since the penalties in question were in- curred, and without notice thereof. These allegations are not fully admitted, but if the facta be as alleged they afford no ground for dismissing this libel. A lien for a marine tort is not divested by a sale to a lona fide purchaser. The Avon, 1 Brown's Adm. Eep. 170, 178. It travels with the thing wherever it goes, and into whosesoever hands it may pass. The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213, 215; Cutler v. iîae, 7 How. 729. �4. It is further contended that the libellant, not having proceeded originally against the vessel, bas been guilty of 8uch laches, as respects the present owners, as should operate as a bar to this suit. But thia libel was filed immediately after the violation of the law was established, by the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court, in the personal action against the master and owners. Moreover, by section 1047 of the Eevised Statutes, five years from the time "when the penalty or forfeiture accrued" is the limitation for such suits or prosecutions, and this whether the action is in personam or in rem. �5. Again, it is contended that an attaehment or seizure of the steam-boat Boston should bave preceded the filing.of the libel, and to support this view the court is referred. to sec- tions 923, 925, and 926 of the Eevised Statates. But, man- if estly, these, sections do not apply to the present case. Ordinarily, indeed, in cases of penalties against vessels, a ����