THE GRAND KEPOBLIO. 399 �petitioners now ask lea.ve to 1)6001116 co-libellants to recover for the injury to their interest as mortgagees of the vessel sunk by the col- lision. �The tenth rule of this court provides that "in case of salvage and other causes, civil and maritime, persons entitled to participate in the recovery, but not made parties in the original libel, niay, upon petition, be admitted to prosecute as co-libellants, on such terms as the court may deena reasonable." �It is clear that the petitioners, as mortgagees, would be entitled "to participate in the recovery" for the destruction of their interest as mortgagees through the loss of the Adelaide. Admiralty courts have jurisdiction in all cases of maritime torts connected with navigation, and this jurisdiction is exercised in favor of all persons ■yvho would have a remedy at common law for similar injuries by an action on the case. Philadelphia W. e B. Co. v. Philadelphia e H. De G. Go. 23 How. 209, 215. A mortgcigee at common law can maintain an action of trespass, or of trespasa upon the case, fyr any injury to his interest as mortgagee, {Van Pelt y. McGraw, 4 N. Y. 110; Manning v. Mon- aghan, 23.N. Y. 539;) and wheneyer such an injury arises through a marine tort, he has, therefore, upon the general principles of admi- ralty jurisdiction, a right to relief in this court. �"AU persons interested in the cause of action may be joined- as libellants; in a collision, for instance, the owners of the ship which is injured, the shippers of the goods, and all persons affected by the injujry :whicb is the subjectot the suit." Dunlap,.Adm. Pr.,85. The most proper course is to join all such persons in one suit, that the rights of all may be determined in one trial and in one judgment. The petitioners are, therefore, within the provisions of rule 10, above quoted, and the general principles governing the joinder of parties. �There is some ambiguity in the language of the libel, so that it is not certain whether the libellants seek to recover the entire value of the vessel sunk, or only their own interest therein. A special reason, therefore, exists in this case for the joinder of the petitioners for the recovery of the damage to their interest as mortgagees through the same collision. �Objections have been made to the petitioners' right to become co- libellants, upon the ground that admiralty has no jurisdiction to enforce a mortgage lien or to give a mortgagee possession. Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. 3i)9 ; Schuchardt v. The Angelique, 19 How. 239 ; The Sailor Prince, 1 Ben. 461 ; Morgan v. Tapscott, 5 Ben. 252. These cases, how- ever, are all cases of actions by the mortgagee for the enforcement of his ��� �
