606 PEDEBAL EBPOKTEB. �judicial notice of a question of jurisdietion not suggested by the record ; ) (2) that such a decree is properly entered against the stipulators and claimant, and (3) that the owners of the bark should not have further time to place themselves on the record. [Note. And if they. should do thia they could, in view of the delay, be put under such terms as would clear away ail questions in reference to the record, to-wit, file on oath a proper claim and give stipulation.] �The question of jurisdietion, I leave. �By the authority of the twenty-ninth and thirtieth rulea (supreme court, in admiralty) there can be very little ques- tion as to the second point. They must be interpreted to mean that the libellant is entitled to a decree against the owners, claimants and stipulators of and for the vessel; and the stipulators having agreed by their bond that they would answer for the default of the owners, they must be held now to their bond. �The fact that the owners are not specially named in the bond ought not to avail the stipulators. The true owners were known to them only and they knew when they signed the bond and received the vessel, that the owners were not joined in the bond. I am aware that there are decisions and one quite �recently, Johnson v. Township of Kimball, 39 Mich. , which �say that a bond not signed by the principal is uncollectible against the sureties, but these are cases where it was intended and expected that the principal should join. In the present case the sureties gave the bond knowing that the principal would not sign, and it was so taken to oblige them. ����
