530 7EDEBA.L BBFOBTSB. �upon which sucha proceeding mustrest, in an action broiight to reoover damages for breach of eontract, and which must also be applied to a case like the present, if it can be made applicable at ail, the distinction sought to be drawn between the two classes of cases is too insnbstantial to be recognized. It is always the aim of a court of admiralty, as it is of a court of equity, so to deal with a controversy before it as to do justice between the parties to the extent that justice can be attained. Of course, there can be no dispute that, if the respondents were seeking to reeover damages in excess of those sustained by the libellants, no decree for such affirm- ative damages could be granted, except upon a cross libel ; but where ail that is desired is to partially reduce or wholly extinguish libellant's claim, and to go no further, I can see no good reason why that may not be done by way of recoup - ment, under the issues formed by libel and answer, and with- out the intervention of a cross libel; and I amof opinion, and upon the strength of the cases cited I shall hold, that, although no cross libel bas been filed in the case at bar, the respond- ents should bave the right, under suitable allegations in their answer, to show the damages, if any, sustained by the Doud in this collision, and by way of recoupment to apply such damages in reduction of libellant's claim. �As is apparent from what is remarked by the supreme court in the case of The Sapphire, it is probably necessary that re- spondent's answer should allege the injuries which the Doud sustained, and that there should be an appropriate prayer for relief. The present answer is def ective in that respect. I think it q^uite evident, from the opinion of the court in the case of The Sapphir e,tha,t even after that case went downfrom the supreme court it would not bave been too late for the respondents in that case to have asked the court below for leave to amend their answer, and for such an order of reference as would have per- mitted an ascertainment of the damages sustained by both vessels. In the case at bar there has been an interlocutory decrea adjudging both vessela in fault, and from the terms of the order of reference it may bave been supposed that only the damages sustained by the. Arab were to be taken into ����
