THE ANCHOBIA. 841 �Bkown, D. J. The libel in this case was filed by Thomas C. Camp- bell, "for himself and for the use and benefit of the Ulster Marine Insurance Company, (limited,) his insurers," against the steamers Anohoria and the Queen. The libel sets forth a collision in mid- ocean between the two steamers on June 13, 1880, whereby goods of the libellant on board of the Anchoria were injured or destroyed to the extent of about $5,000, and that the goods were partially insured by the Ulster Marine Insurance Company, (limited,) whiph had paid to him on account of the insurance the sum of |2,576.18. The libellant seeks to recover the whole amount of damage to the goods, for the use of the insurance company to the extent of the amount paid by it, atid the residue of the damage for the benefit of the libellant himself.' The first exception to the libella that the libellant, Campbell, is not entitled to maintain this action and recover for the use and benefit of the insur- ance company as claimed. �It is not denied that all persons entitled on the same state of faots to participate in the same relief may join as libellants, (Ben. Adm. Pr. § 380,) but it is claimed that in this case the insurance compjiny is not joined as libellant, and that the practice is not allowed of one person suing for the use of another. The claims here represented, it will be observed, grow out of the same transaction, and the righfcs of the insurance company arise by subrogation to a part of the rights of the libellant. This objection now made seems to be answered by the decision in the case of Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466. In that case a flat-boat belonging to Bull & Co., the libellants, had been lost by a collision, as well as goods of the libellants loaded upon it. An insur- ance company had paid to Bull & Co. the whole value of the goods, but the boat was not insured. The libellants thereupon brought their libel precisely in the form of the libel in this case, to recover for themselves the value of the boat, and, for the use of the insurance company, the value of the goods. The same objection now urged was taken ; and the court, Wayne, J., held that "the parties named in the libel have respectively an interest, which is covered by the principle just stated, that the same state of facts which will give relief to one will permit others to be joined as libellants. It is no sub- stantial objection, " then, say the court, "that the suit has been brought in the name of Bull & Co. for the use of the Firemen's Insurance Com- pany." The Monticello v. Mollison, 17 How. 152, 155; Garrison v. Memphis Ins. Co. 19 How. 312; Hall v. Bailroad Cos. 13 Wall. 367. �The verification of the libel made by the attorney states that his information is derived in part from the representatives of the insur- ��� �
