HARDY ». MOOBB. 8e8 �that eacli tug is in fault. The gravamen of the libel ia that both tugs were to blame, and of course that showing one in fault will not show the other to be free from fault. �Not only did the libellant introduce no evidence in the dis- trict court, but he has introduced none in this court, although the appeal states that he intends to bave the case heard in this court on proofs and testimony. As no case of negligence is made out against any one of the three vessels sued, the libel must be dismissed as to each. ���Habdy V. MOOBE. [IHtPrîet Court, S. D. Nea Torh. November, 1880.) �1, Praotiob. — Where an alia» process was issued pursuant to an order of the court, on proof by aflSdavit that it acquired no jurisdiction under the original process, hdd, that this, in efifect, vacated an interlocutory degree granted in proceedingg under the original process to which a return had been made, -which, if true, showed that the court had ac- quired jurisdiction ; that, although the entering of an order vacating the decree would have been more regular, f allure to do so did not ren- der the alias process void. �S, SiGNiNa LiBBL. — Process issued on a libel sworn to by one of the proc- tors as attorney in fact, but unsigned except by the proctors by their flrm name, is not void. The failure of the libellant or his agent to sign is, in such case, a defect amendable, but until amendment has been allowed the libel must be considered as still unsigned, though the proctor who swore to it as attorney in fact afterwards, but with- out leave of the court-, signed the same. �After judgment the court is bound to overlook this defect. �Rev. St. § 3954. �3. Namb of Libellant. — Naming the libellant by the initiais of his Chris- tian name does not prejudice the defendant and is immaterial, though it seems so to name the defendant, in publication under au order of attachment, would vitiate the attachment, Frank v. Levie, 5 Rob. 599. �In Admiralty. Order to show cause. �On September 29, 1880, a libel was filed with prayer for process in personam and clause of foreign attachment. The process was accordingly issued, and on October 5th was re- ����
