880 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �fade he was agent of the owners, with authority to bind them for repairs, and that any restriction of this implied authority must be proved by the owners to have been known to th^ oreditor. Maclachlan, 108; Bevem v. Lewis, 2 Paine, 202. - �There is, however, a defence set up of a technieal charac- ter which I have not feit at liberty to disregard, and which �1 h^ve not been able satisfactorily to answer. It is the objection that in no suit (except in equity) can the same person be one of the plaintiff s and , at the samQ time one of thei defendants. I do not see that in this case the objection could be cured by amendment. The suit is based and the libel is framed uppn the liability of all the, owners to respond tp the crediter jointly and in 9olido. In suc h a suit the fail- ure to join all the owners as defendants could be objected to by plea in abatement. Maclachlg,n, 117 ; 2 Conkling's Adm. 23; Benedict's Adm. § 387; 1 Parsons, Ship. and Adm.118. �The defendants, who have paid their share, are still liable under this libel for the residue, (1 Parsons, Ship. and Adm. 102,) and the deorce would Ije a deoree in favor of Samuel T^ Beacham and against Samuel T. Beacham, and could not be a decree against any of the defendant 's separa tely, Jenks ' ■V. Lewis, 1 Ware, 51; Thomas ¥. Lane, 2 Sumner, 1. �Courts of admiralty have no general jurisdiction to admin- igter relief as courts of equity, and will not assume jurisdic- tion iu matters of account between part owners. The Larchy �2 Curtis, 434; Davis v. Child,l Davis, 80; Andrews v. Ins. Go. 3 Mason, 16; Ward v. Thompson, 22 H. 330; Orleans v. Phœhis, 11 Pet. 175; 1 Parsons, Ship. and Adm. 116. �I am constrained to think that the libel must be dismissed. ��� �
