600 FEDERAL REPORTER. �ToDD V. The Bark Tulchen. �(Disfrid Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. May 24, 1880.) �ABMIRAIiTT — JimiSniCTION — LIBBI, in RBM BY WORKMAN in J0RBD WHtLB REPAIRING VbSSEL — NEGLIGENCE. — Wllile & VeSSel WilS at a �wharf its master contractee! with a firm of carpeiilers to work upun it and this firm emplcj-ed a journeyman. Wliile the journeyman was at wurk the master witiiout his knowledge or consent took the yessel away fromthe wharf and proceeded towards another )anding but on the way owing to the master's negligence the vessel was capsized and the jour- neyman was injured. Rdd that the iatter might proceed ia adiniralty by an action in rem against the vessel Qerrity v. The Kate Cann, 2 Fed. Rep. 241, followed. �SAME — PRACTICE — RbLEASE OF VeSSKL Ul'ON Stipolation withotjt FORMAI ClAIM — NBGLBCT TO NAMB OWNKKS — IjIABIUTÏ OF STirU- LATORS — SUÎ'FICIENCT OP ANSWERS — AUTUORITr OF CONSIUSEE OR �Agent. — After the vessel was attaciied one C without flling any formai claim entered stipulation on behalf of the owners and received the ves- sel but the owners were not named in the stipulation. Afterwards O flled an answer by which it appeared that he was merely a consignee. Afterwards one J flled an answer alleging that before the attachraent he had as agent for one D received a bill of sale of the vessel and that he adopted C's answer. Upon exceptions to these answers held that under a rule providing that an answer muat be made by tiie party or by an attorney in fact specially iastructed, these answers were insufBcient. Held, further, that the stipulators could not take advantage of the neg- lect to file a formai claim or to name the owners in the bond and that a decree pro confessa could be entered against them. �In Admiralty. �Exceptions to answers and motion for decree pro confessa. This was a libel by James H. Todd against the bark Tulclien in rem flled September 26, 1879, setting forth that while the vessel was lying at a wharf on the Delaware river at Philadelphia her master employed a lirm of ship carpenters to line the vessel for grain who in turn employed libellant as a journeyman to assist in the work. That while libellant was on board the vessel engaged in the woi-k the master without libellant's knowledge or consent took the vessel away from the wharf and proceeded down the Delaware river intending to go to Girard Point on the Schuylkill river. That owning to the negligence of the master the vessel, on the ����
