400 PBDEEAL BEPOBTBR. �rights of contract under the mortgage directly against the mortgaged vessel. But it being held that the mortgage of a vassal is not a mari- time contract, no other ground of admiralty jurisdiction in these cases existed. The claim of the present petitioners is wholly different. It is for an injury to the petitioners' interest in one vessel inflicted through a marine tort by another vessel. In such cases tha admiralty bas juris- diction in favor of the injured party against the offending vessel by reason of the maritime tort ; and the petitioners have an interest in the vessel injured whieh is perfectly recognizable in admiralty, and which is therefore sufficicnt to entitle them to seek relief for that tort in this tribunal. Where jurisdiction of the res in admiralty bas aiready. been otherwise acquired in direct proceedings against the mortgaged vessel itself the mortgagee's interest in the res is recog- nized, and he may intervene for the protection of his interest either before or after the sale. The Old Concord, 1 Brown, Adm. 270 ; Schu- chardt v. The Angelique, 19 How. 239, 241. �The petition shows that the petitioners represent the insurance companies and act by their authority, and they may therefore prose- cute in behalf of the insurers, as well as of themselves, for the full amount of the mortgage interest. Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466, Monti- cello V. Mollison, 17 How. 152, 155; Garrison v. Memphis Ins. Co. 19 How. 312; Hall v. Railroad Cos. 13 Wall. 367; Campbell v. The Ancho- ria, 9 Fed. Ebp. 840. �The prayer of the petition is therefore granted, and the petitioners may corne in as co-libellants upou the usual stipulation for costs. ��� �
