Opinion of the Court. notice of some kind, and opportunity to be heard, not only as a requisite, but as a prerequisite; that the rights of the damage claimants had never been submitted or subjected in any form to the Massachusetts Court; that proceedings in court, of which the persons whose rights purported to be affected thereby had no actual or constructive notice, and in which they had no opportunity to be heard, were ineffective and were not judicial proceedings; that it could not be said that an opportunity to be heard would necessarily, and as matter of law, have been of no advantage to the damage claimants, for they might have convinced the court (1) that the appraisement ought to have been made on sworn testimony, with an opportunity to both sides to produce and cross-examine witnesses; or (2) that the experts selected were not competent or were not impartial; or (3) that the appraisers' report ought to have been rejected, because it did not show the plans on which they proceeded, or as of what time the value of the Dimock was taken, or because the appraisers did not personally examine her; or (4) that the stipulation should have been broad enough to cover not merely what the appraisers estimated to be the value of the company's interest in the Dimock and her freight, but also what the damage claimants asserted the value of such interest to be, so that, if, on final hearing, the issue tendered in the company's libel and petition as to such value was determined in favor of the damage claimants, the court would have some means of compelling the company to pay the adjudicated value into court for distribution; or (5) that the sureties on the stipulation were insufficient; or (6) the court might have been convinced that, for the reasons above stated, no injunction ought to issue, or else, only on condition that the company bound itself with sureties, to pay into court the value of its vessel and freight, as finally adjudicated, or that the rights of the parties could be more conveniently and justly determined by permitting the damage claimants to assert their claims in their own way, and allowing the steamship company to set up the apportionment proceedings as a plea, or that no injunction ought to issue until the value of the vessel and freight had been adjudicated, and paid into court, or secured to be paid. Opinion of the Court. It is further urged, that the proceedings in Massachusetts were not, as matter of law, equivalent to a transfer of the Dimock and her freight by the company to a trustee under § 4285 of the Revised Statutes; that they were very far from being an equivalent in fact; that there is nothing in the statute which authorizes the owner of a vessel, at his option, either to transfer his interest in the vessel and freight to a trustee, or to pay into court the value thereof as determined by an ex parte appraisement, or which declares that it shall be a sufficient compliance with the statute on the part of the owner if he pays or secures to be paid into court the value so appraised, or which provides that, after such payment all suits and proceedings against the owner shall cease; and that the act leaves the creation of a substitute in lieu of a transfer to a trustee, to a court which proceeds judicially. It is further contended, that the rights of the damage claimants against the company and the Dimock, arising out of the collision, remained precisely as they were before the company filed its libel and petition in Massachusetts; that those rights were never transferred from the company and the vessel to the fund represented by the stipulation; that said fund cannot be regarded as the fund to be apportioned among the damage claimants, as it had never been adjudicated or judicially estab lished to be such; that, if Morrison's right to proceed against the company and the vessel in the Southern District of New York had been taken away or suspended by the proceeding in Massachusetts, it must be for some other reason than (1) that the court in Massachusetts had adjudicated that damage claimants ought to be enjoined from proceeding in any other court; or (2) that such claimants had been incapacitated or rendered personally incompetent to sue; or (3) that the company and the Dimock had been released and discharged from liability to be sued; and that the only other way in which Morrison's right to proceed in New York could have been affected was that the jurisdiction of the court in Massachusetts over the subjectmatter had somehow become exclusive, so that Morrison could proceed against the company and the vessel only in that forum. It is also contended, that the court in Massachusetts was not Opinion of the Court. competent to adjudicate the question whether or not the collision was caused by fault on the part of the Dimock, because it did not acquire personal jurisdiction of one or more of the damage claimants or jurisdiction in rem of the Dimock; that the fund represented by the stipulation had not been judicially substituted for the Dimock, and she had not been discharged from liability for the collision; that, as she still remained liable for it, nothing but possession and control of her would authorize any court to pronounce a judgment in rem as to her liability; that the court in Massachusetts had never actually assumed possession and control of her by the officers of the court, by seizure or otherwise, or jurisdiction of her; that, whatever jurisdiction that court acquired of her by her having been within the district when the company's libel and petition was filed, was lost, and all the rights of the company arising therefrom were abandoned by the company's having taken the Dimock, before the return day of the monition, out of the district, to the port of New York, without leave of the court or procuring any release or discharge of her, or entering into any obligation to bring her back; that the court in Massachusetts never acquired personal jurisdiction over Morrison or any other damage claimant; that, there having been no voluntary appearance of any damage claimant, service of process within the Massachusetts district was essential; and that no process had been served on Morrison or Vanderbilt within that district. It is further contended, that the court in Massachusetts did not acquire jurisdiction to determine any of the other questions presented by the two libels; that what the steamship company ought to have done was to make in its libel an unconditional offer, substantially in the terms of the statute, to pay into court for partition among the damage sufferers whatever the court should determine was the value of the company's interest in the Dimock and her freight; that the only offer which could be implied from the libel was one to pay or secure to be paid the amount at which the court might cause the value of the vessel and her freight to be duly appraised; that such offer was insufficient, because it did not mean the amount which the court should adjudicate, after hearing the parties adversely Opinion of the Court. interested, to be such value; that such offer of the company having been complied with to the expressed satisfaction of the court, no power was left to that court to compel the company to pay anything more than the appraised amount, even if the court should find, on the proofs, that the value of the Dimock and her freight was greater; that, as the vessel had been taken out of the Massachusetts district, there was nothing left within the reach or control of the Massachusetts court, except the stipulation for an amount which Morrison and Vanderbilt allege was less than one-half the true amount; and that, even if they should appear in the Massachusetts court and establish by proof that the liability of the company was not less than $200,000, that court could do nothing against the will of the company. We are of opinion that none of the views above stated are sufficient to show that this is a proper case for a writ of prohibition. The only question involved is that of the jurisdiction of the District Court of Massachusetts. Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515; Ex parte Ferry Company, 104 U. S. 519; Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167; In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495. Under Rule 57 in admiralty, prescribed by this court, (130 U. S. 705,) the Dimock not having been libelled to answer for the loss resulting from the collision, and no suit therefor having been commenced against her owner, the proceedings were instituted lawfully in the District Court in Massachusetts, that being the district in which the vessel was at the time the proceedings were instituted, and she being at that time subject to the control of that court for the purposes of the case, as provided by Rule 54, 137 U. S. 711, and Rules 55 and 56, 13 Wall. 13. As to the contention that, in order to retain jurisdiction, the Massachusetts court should have kept possession of the Dimock until Morrison or Vanderbilt, or both of them, should have chosen to appear in the cause, and that, by allowing her to go to New York, in the ordinary course of her business, after the stipulation had been given, the District Court in VOL. CXLVII-3 Opinion of the Court. Massachusetts lost such jurisdiction as it had acquired, there are several sufficient answers: (1) The proceeding to limit liability is not an action against the vessel and her freight, except when they are surrendered to a trustee, but is an equitable action. (2) It was not necessary, in order to sustain the proceeding for limiting liability, that Morrison or Vanderbilt should have been personally served with notice thereof within the district of Massachusetts, or that the Dimock should have been taken and held by the court. The decisions of this court have established the power of Congress to pass the statute, and of the courts of admiralty jurisdiction to enforce it; and its enforcement would be impracticable under the restrictions. which Morrison seeks to impose. Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104; The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239; Providence and New York Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578; The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468; The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507; Butler v. Boston and Savannah Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527. (3) The filing of the libel and petition of the steamship company, with the offer to give a stipulation, conferred jurisdiction upon the court, and no subsequent irregularity in procedure could take away such jurisdiction. (4) Although some prior notice of the holding of the appraisement might very well have been served upon Vanderbilt, even if he was out of the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts court, he having been named in the libel and petition as a respondent, yet the appraisement ex parte was not void, because Rule 54 does not require prior notice of the appraisement to be given to any one, and only requires a monition to be issued after a stipulation has been given or a transfer has been made to a trustee. (5) The making of the appraisement ex parte, and the taking of the stipulation thereupon, were, at most, an irregularity which the District Court could correct. The Thales, 3 Benedict, 327, 330, and 10 Blatchford, 203; The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239, 247. The stipulation stands in the place of the vessel and her freight, leaving to the court its usual power to act, on proper application, in respect to giving a new or further |