286 FEDERAL REPORTER. �cbanged the names. It denies that the transfer was in fraud of the plain- tifl's riglits. It avers that, before the said Judgment was recovered, the Navigation Company had aold and delivered to defendant, by good and Rufflcient instruments, all of the said steamships, and ceased to own «ither of them, and the defendant became sole owner of each of them; that in the Miller suit the merits were tried; that by the judgmentg therein the cause of action set forth in the bill herein was flnally and ab- solutely disposed of, and is res adjudicata as between the plaintili and the defendant; that the said order of discontinuance in no way affects the fluality of said judgments; that the plaintifC has no rigbt to have her original judgment paid by the defendant, or ont of any property sold or delivered to it by the Navigation Company; that the collision set up as the cause of action in the suit in admiralty was the identical collision set forth in the complaint in the suit in the superior court as the foundation thereof; that the defendant, as owner of the Pennsylvania, appeared and claimed and bonded and answered in the suit in admiralty, and had a decree in its favor, after a trial on the merits, and a like decree in thia court, on appeal; and that said decree still stands. �The bill in this suit proceeds upon the allegation and the ground that after August 25, 1868, the property of the Navi- gation Company was transferred to the defendant, and that when the execution was returned, on August 25, 1868, the Navigation Company owned the eight ships, because no change of ownership or sale of them li ad been before that made by bill of sale according to British law, or otherwise lawfully. The only transfer shown is the transfer by deliv- ery on the sixteenth of August, 1867, and the instrument of that date. The bill does not allege that no transfer was ever made, but that a transfer was made after the execution was retumed. The transaction thus alluded to in the bill as a transfer can, according to the proofs, mean only the alterci- tion of the registered ownership of the vessels in April, 1869. The instrument of sale and delivery referred to in the answer, as made before the judgment was recovered, must mean the instrument of August 16, 1867. The Miller suit was tried on the averment, in the amended complaint therein, that the two companies were distinct corporations, and that the Steam- ship Company accepted the property of the Navigation Com- pany with a distinct agreement to pay its debts; and that the property was handed over about the time the execution was issued. The questions arise, therefore, whether the change of registry was the first transfer of title to the ships, as be- ��� �
