Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/300

 288 FEDERAL REPORTER. �against the Steam-ship Company the suit in personam which was broTight against the Navigation Company. It was suffi- cient to warrant the Steam-ship Company in asserting, in its claim in the suit in admiralty, filed November 29, 1867, that it was then the owner of the Pennsylvania, and in asserting, in its answer in the suit in admiralty, December 31, 1867, that it was the owner of the Pennsylvania when the collision occurred on Oetober 24, 1867. It thereby gave full notice to tho plaintiff of its ownership of the vessel at the time of the coillision. This notice was notice that the Navigation Com- pany was not the owner of the vessel at the time of the col- lision. The complaint in the suit in the superior court, ver- iaed Oetober 30, 1867, had alleged that the Pennsylvania belonged to the Navigation Company at the time of the col- lision. The answer in that suit, verified December 16, 1867, by its general deniai, in connection with its simple admission that the Navigation Company was created a British corpora- tion, was not only consistent with the claim in the admiralty suit bef ore put in, but with the answer in the latter suit after- wards put in. With these facts before it, that the Navigation Company was not claiming that it owned the vessel at the time of the collision, and that the Steam-ship Company was claiming that it owned the vessel at that time; ' and that the Steam-ship Company was not a party to the suit iu the superior court, the plaintiff went on with that suit to judgmeut, thus making the suit not only, in the language of the general term in the Miller suit, one improperly brought' against the Navigation Company after it "had ceased to do business and was existing only in the process of winding up its affairs," but one persisted in not by mistake, but after full record notice that another corporation, and not the one sued, owned, at the time of the disaster, the vessel which caused it. �The plaintiff sued the Navigation Company, in the superior court, as having owned the vessel at the time of the collision. There was never, in that suit, any allegation as to any iden- tity between the two companies, or any continuance of the one under the name of the other. The Miller suit, as tried, was tried on an allegation in the complaint that the two com- ��� �