, 1859-04-22
lhe p.rsonal ereli. Of Hunt and

II
DOnahO could not have supposed that he
had any security in the ship, for we find
the money Is shortly>after paid over By
PIT under an arrangement with Scrantoa.
We cannot therefore, see how this would
give Price. Green & %. the right to inter.
Vene.
It is claimed that the def7ts are estopped
By their own silence at the time these mon
els we're advanced Il docs not appear
thai ahy knowledge was brought home to
Mensesheimer and Lghtner, or that they
made-any representations whatever, calcu-
lated to mislead or deceive any one acting
with ordinary precantion. No application
was made 70 them--the registry stood in
the name Of knight, 1t does not appear
that any application was made to the ad.
ministrator Of the estate Of Knight, or
that any application was made to the Pa.
eife Mail Steamship Company, the ocsiai
qua trust; or that On inquiry was Instituted
IN any quarter, II indeed the plaintiffs in
teRdsd relying upoa the steamship as secu-
rity.s
This ship Is found Ike waif upon the
waters in the ports Of California. The
owner, 50 far as indicated by the register,
dead for years; q party assuming to oct
% master, who, as alledged, had 90 person
q credit, aided BY another in contracting
liabilities similarly situated, pecnniarialIy
-rapd Jet no inqniries--none Of the ordi-
nary precautions or Safeguards resorted 10,
which the circumstances Of the case we're
sAlcplated to suggest, and which are prac-
tised and so well understood By fnaRsiers
.po0 this coast. We are satisfied that
there was nothing in the conduct Of Men
sesheimer and Lghtner which would give
TO these plaintiffs the right TO recover upon
this ground. ga- .san s35
The plaintiffs claim that courts Of admi-
rally are the chancery courts of the Sea,
and an governed by equitable rules; and
that sHTplHs fpads, when IN the registry,
will be distributed under an application Of
these rules Id The Sarah Anh-2 Sum-
206, And that in this way, courts pay
ogt Of the surplus funds, persons who have
ne len,-,those who have bad lien and
waived. it,--those having common law
ispsr-and parties having a right of action
ID admiralty against the owners; and there
fore claim that. although they may have 10
tight 70 proceed inrem 10 enforce part Of
their bill yet that being in this court as
= Euitors IN rem they have q rightfto he con-
sidered as petitioners ,qSqsi an rem against
sprplusI proceeds The authorities are
Numerous in which such equities have been
recognized aud enforced. ~ iilsr,,g .sram
Tho Stephen Allen atehford,' It's. 4.
The John, 8 Rob ad't, Cited lin 4 Wash.
ington, G. CIR. 45o, 460,t--Abbot, 49,
star page,s Santa Anna Blaichford, 70.
tWashington, Q. O. r., 49, 2 Wood
bury & Minot, 90. s.nJ.ysa III al 59..f
There Is an authority in | Cauklins U.
8, Adm1ly, page 6S which arose under the
local law Of Pennsylvania, adverse to the
rnllHg in many Of, the cases cited, and il
applied 70 the peculiar state Of facts which
arc proven 70 exist ia, this case, would ex-
clnde an appropriation Of any part OF this
surplus fund 70 thePlaintids bin. Looking
upen this case aslyei do, il is Dot necessary
that We should express an opinion upon the
Shtng in the case cited, d9p. od issa yod
The general principle Upon which this
Aplhority ia exercised by the courts Of ad-
miraltg, has been mnch qualified from timo
u time in the various dsfulings npon the sub.
jert.,o From many ofaths authorities, the
prineipls evolved smould seem to be that
courts have. assumed o qaasi chancery au-
thority To- dispose Of such hSsnrplus accord
iugto jus,icn, andto'haSe supposed that
this anamol0ns control oydrl the Surplus
fundaBas called for from tile Necessity oil
the case and to prevent palpable injus tiee
'7ItEOnldbappear that the claim should
he something more than d claim or a mere
personal nature That II should baftake
Of . maritime character, although not act.
ual cause for maritime lien: aud another
principle which would seem to pervade tile
rulings is, that they have relations to- sub,
ject and % parfies a9 SeitAin he iaTisdictiOa
ofdths court. There is another principle
which We think underlies this superstruc
ture, and thatis that there shah be nc
Gdrssss intsTests in Third persons +ShicA oppos
Il. Wash, c. g. r., 45s. We thinE
thAt inithis case there are adverse interest,"
vested IN third parties which woold exclude
the plaintiffs from any participation in ihii
surpluso fund The evidence shows thai
Frankel.is now one Of the owners by virtue
" rAt " 9Aic iiOtu 1AShocblclu1ert knuL NJ
has interests which are adverse and which
il this application is allowed on the part o.
the plaintiffs. mast work great injustice tc
him. In addition to this, we can know
nothing Of the equities whichmay exist be
tween Frankel and Lightner. We art
therefore Of the opinion that npon thi,
branch of the case the plaintiffs are not en-
titled 70 recover. tTatF .o.a ...a.
There is one item in the bill of the plain
tits to which we have uot ndverted, viz:-
Faetorage, brokerage, commission, expen
sssin unloading and in the re-loading anc
storage, amounting in the adjustment o.
general average to $s4S 40, which Is {
charge, and for which the ship is response
BILE; and as this money was collected by tht
ship and went into the pockets of the own
ers, We think it is legitimate charge ant
shaald be paid ont Of this fund. Abbot