Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/305

 GRAT V. NATIONAL STEAM-SHIP CO. ���293 ���Le taken on the execution, it interposed its claim of owner- ship. It had asserted its ownership of the Pennsylvania in the admiralty suit, as was necessary, because the suit was in rem. It was not a party to the in personam suit, and in that suit the Navigation Company had denied that the Pennsylva- nia was owned by that company. There was nothing in the in personam suit, before execution, which could affect thetitle of the Steam-ship Company to any of the property it had received. It had no interest in the resuit of the suit, and the facts that Mr. Hurst had notice of the suit, and that the same attorney who appeared for the claimant in the admiralty suit appeared for the defendant in the in personam suit, are of no legal importance. The fact that Mr. Hurst or the attorney did not set forth specifically in the answer, in the in personam suit, that the vessel was the property of the Steam-ship Com- pany at the time of the collision, cannot aflfect the defendant in this suit. Mr. Hurst denied in the answer that the vessel belonged to the Navigation Company at the time of the collis- ion. In the suit in admiralty he had given the plaintiff full notice of record, 17 days before the answer in the in perso- nam suit was put in, that the vessel belonged then to the Steam-ship Company, and, 15 days after that answer was put in, he gave her notice of record, in the suit in admiralty, that the Steam-ship Company owned the vessel at the time of the collision. �The view is presented by the plaintifi that section 133 of the companies' act, 1862, provides that the liquidators shall pay the debts of the company; that this debt became a debt of the company by judgment before the final winding up in 1870, and that before the dissolution of the corporation; and that the property of the old company, placed by the liquidatorp in the hands of the new company, must be regarded as held by it in trust to pay all debts which should become such against the old company before its final dissolution. The answer to this view is that this claim cannot be properly considered a debt of the old company to be paid by the liquidators, merely be- cause the claim went into judgment against the old company. In view of all the facts, there never was any cause of action ��� �