Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/304

 292 FSDBBAI' BEiPOBTEB. �133 the liquidators, who were appointee! by the resolution of July 9, 1867, took the place of the directors, and all the power of the directors ceased after the fifteenth of August, 1867. Therefore, although the Navigation Company continued to be a corporation after August 15, 1867, neither its directors nor any agent could, after that date, represent it by any act, in any suit, in respect of a cause of action which acerued after that date, especially one arising after it had parted with all its property, including the vessel out of whose navigation the cause of action arose. �There was, therefore, no identity between the two companies for the purpose of the equitable satisfaction by the new eom- pany of the judgment against the old company. In respect to causes of action arising after August 15, 1867, the defend- ant did not take the property as trustee for the old company, or for persons who might have such causes of action, but took it as its own, liable to respond itself in suits directly against itself, and only in such suits for such causes of action. Identity of business, and adoption of individual offi- cers and officiais, and the use of the old property, and the action of Mr. Hurst in calling himself, on December 16, 1867, the "only managing agent in the United States" of the Navigation Company, cannot vary the case. As has already appeared, the ownership of the vessels was not vested in the Navigation Company when the plaintifif's judgment was re- covered or when her cause of action acerued. �On the foregoing premises it is not true, as is contended by the plaintifi, that the judgment against the Navigation Company, though involving the question as to whether the Pennsylvania belonged to that company at the time of the collision, is res adjudicata as against the Steam-ship Com- pany. The fact that the latter company was transferee of the Pennsylvania did not make it either a party or a privy to the suit, or a trustee for the old company in respect of the cause of action, the suit being one in personam. The Steam- ship Company had no right to defend the suit or to control its proceedings. The Pennsylvania was not seized in the suit. When, after the judgment, its property was sought to ��� �