The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-11-08
UNITED STATES DISTRICT couaI-sAsTEm DISTRICT.
a Collision Case-A Double Claim for Damages.
Before Judge Benedict.

A Collision Cnse-A Double Claim for Damages.
Before Judge Benedict.
Henry n. Simmons ct al the seamer city Of Paris
This before the upon petition presented
under the following circumstances The libel was hcd
by Henry p Simmons and other Of the schooner
Percy Hener TO OF the Of tho steamer
City OF Paris the damages arising out Of collision
which occurred in this harbor the l4th day Of April
1866 and AYERS that is fled behalf OF the libel
and all parties having common right Of action
arising OF the collision hereinafter mentioned who
may intervene colibellants or otherwise" II also
sets out the and value OF the cargo board tho
schooner, and AYERS that the same was being trans
por,ed by tho schooner as . common carrier. and
prsys that the libellau.s may recover the value
or the cargo. freight and vessel the damages sus
tanned by OF the collision. Upon this libel ana
denying these ayerments the cause went -
o hearing upon the merits other person having ap-
piled 10 DO ao colibelants other
wise. Upon the hearing an nterio,utory decree was
made in favor OF the beans and referee ordered 70
ascertain report tho OF damages sustained
BY the nbeants 10 the collision in question. Pending
the reference the Delaware and Mutual Safety lnsur-
ance companies appear before tho coirt, and pct
ton Joined coibeants In the action upon the
ground the insurers Of the cargo board
The schooner and az such paid the cargo
OF their insurance upon said coal or for total
loss whereby they claim they became sunstusd N sns
Of the City Of PARIS the value thereof Judge Benedics
on rendering his decision said:-ln actons Of damage
cargo usual and heretofore generally
sdered the better practice has been to bring separate
actions IN behalf OF various parties entitled 10
VIII ich actions directed head together
upon the question Of liability for tho collision, separate
DEGREES bong rendered and In Of recovery seps
rate references ordered sncn also The pracice IN
the English Admiralty, although there IL Is usual 70
formally consolidate the actions for the purpcee OF the
main hearing and discover them before proceeding with
the reference Loundss Adj law Of collisions At sea, page
2o9 Coots page 26 single action the name OF the
owners OF the vessel owners carriers OF tho
cargo in this country aso OF frequent occurrence,
nd know OF no case where Unjust CO or
hauf alln deith nj me mods ~
practice proposed In this case seems 10 DO consd
cred DO nov necessary by reason Of the decision Of the
Superior Court the Of the Commander in-Chef
but do understand that dec sion to compel any
change the pracice That decides that causes
parties 0eants, the Of the injured ship will be
allowed recover for injury both TO the ship and
carried TO decree IN rem Tor The injury
10 as well as vessel Upon seizure Of The vesse
the Of tho admiralty, court OF admiralty via
entertain the second action In behalf OF the owners
Of the CARGO bu, necessary ior the purpose Of justice,
will protect the interests OF such ~ the dstrbu
ton OF proceeds OF the decree rendered. IN the suit
OF the OF the ship This seems 10 me the extent
OF decision, and, construed. Its correctness
cannot well be doubted tSse Iros Swabey, 1907
But while do understand tho effect OF this decision
TO DO compel jonder Of all parties injured by COLI
parties libeants Ia action, the remarks Of
the clearly indicate opinion that such joindsr
mted 10 the present case though confess that | do
not tho necessity advantage OF tho proceeding.
According 70 the opinion 10 the case OF The
inChef the interests OF the petitioner In any amount
which may recovered by OF the schooner
for cargo board be protected IN the distribution Of
the proceeds Of the stipulation gwen or nasmuch as the
action Of the OF The soho has peen conducted
without publication OF the usual notice OF seizure. and
has proceeded further than inerlocutory decree
action for loss to the cargo might nj this
stage be instituted in tho names OF the petitioners
There may, however be- reasons which are not die
closed which render the practice proposed desirable in
this Gaze, aud injustice will be caused 10 the
claimants by allowing IL, an order may DO
entered Join the petitioners coibeiants according
to Their prayer but must be accompanied by special
order OF reference directing the Commissioner before
reference Is pending to lake and report to tho
court with his opinion thereon, lawful evidence
the petitioners snail produce 10 establish right TO
partcp pate In the decree, together any evidence
which claimants may produce by way Of defence TO
the demand.