224 FBDEEAL EEPOBTEB. �The passage above quoted from Betts' Admiralty showB clearly that it is only by amending the pleadings and decree that suoh relief as is now asked can be given, and none of tho authorities cited by the libellant's counsel conflict with this view. If, then, the libellant still bas a claim for these dam- ages against the owners personally, he must resort to another suit to enforce it. That was the suggestion of Mr. Justice Curtis in a similar case. The Enterprise, ut supra. �The other ground on which the relief is asked, that Eay- mond should .have signed the stipulation, is sufficiently an- swered by the recitals and form of the stipulation iteelf, and its approval by the libellant's proctors. It appears very clearly from the stipulation that the libellant understood and consented to the New York & Newbern Steam-^hip Company, and it alone, being treated as claimant for the purpose of the bonding and delivery of the vessel on bail. Eaymond was not treated as a claimant to whom the vessel was to be de- livered. He appeared, not by the proctors named in the stip- ulation as claimant's proctor, but by another proctor. The reason why the corporation alone was thus treated as claim- ant who was to take possession of the vessel when released on bail, may bave been because it was the owner of a major- ity interest. But, whatever may have been the reason, the libellant consented to the giving of the stipulation in the form in which it was given, and cannot now complain that Eay- mond did not join in it. The omission to have Eaymond join appears to have been intentional. There is no evidence of mistake which would justify a reformation of the contract, and nothing in the eleventh admiralty rule which would jus- tify the court in treating Eaymond as a stipulator, or in now directing that he join in the stipulation. �Motion denied. ����
