Court stated in the Gordon case (p. 37): "A receivership is only a means to reach some legitimate end sought through the exercise of the power of a court of equity. It is not an end in itself." Receiverships for conservation of property "are to be watched with jealous eyes lest their function be perverted." Michigan v. Michigan Trust Co., 286 U. S. 334, 345. This Court has frequently admonished that a federal court of equity should not appoint a receiver where the appointment is not a remedy auxiliary to some primary relief which is sought and which equity may appropriately grant. Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322, 331; Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen, 261 U. S. 491; Gordon v. Washington, supra. And the reasons for such restraint are reinforced where the rights to the property sought to be conserved by a receivership are being litigated in a state court. Cf. Penn General Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U. S. 189; Pennsylvania v. Williams, supra. There was here no accrued right of the surety as respects the enforcement of which the receivership was an ancillary remedy, its right to exoneration being wholly contingent. The existence of any right to exoneration was dependent on the outcome of the action which was pending in the Oklahoma court. In view of those circumstances, equity practice does not sanction the use of a conservation receivership to protect such a claim. Furthermore, from all that appears, the surety could be adequately protected in the cause pending in the Oklahoma court by provisional remedies or otherwise.

Respondent-surety contends that under Oklahoma statutes a surety may obtain indemnity against his prin

'Cf. Glades County v. Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co., 57 F. 2d 449, 452; Morley Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 90 F. 2d 976; Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Wells, 217 F. 294; Central Surety & Ins. Corp. v. Bagley, 44 F. 2d 808; Arant, Suretyship (1931) pp. 318-321.

cipal even before the debt is due and receive the protection of various provisional remedies. Even so, a "remedial right to proceed in a federal court sitting in equity cannot be enlarged by a state statute." Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen, supra, p. 497.

For these reasons, the appointment of the receiver was an abuse of discretion.

Since respondent-surety had no present claim to relief on its own behalf in the federal court, that court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the fullbloods and the half-bloods. Even if, on this record, the presence of respondent-surety would support a claim to diversity of citizenship, that diversity was lacking as between the other parties. Hence once the bill of complaint were dismissed, no jurisdiction would remain for any grant of relief under the cross-petition. See Kromer v. Everett Imp. Co., 110 F. 22. And even if the bill be construed as drawing in issue the merits of the controversy between the heirs which the federal court had jurisdiction to adjudicate within the rule of Arrowsmith v. Gleason, 129 U. S. 86, and Sutton v. English, 246 U. S. 199, 205, that court could not with propriety proceed. A case involving that very controversy was pending in the Oklahoma court. That case did not involve simply an in personam action. Cf. Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226. It involved an adjudication of rights to specific property distributed pursuant to a probate decree. Cf. Penn General Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania, supra, at p. 195. The federal court therefore should not have asserted its authority. In such a case it is "in the public interest that federal courts of equity should exercise their discretionary power with proper regard for the rightful independence of state governments in carrying out their domestic policy." Pennsylvania v. Williams, supra, p. 185.

Reversed.

Statement of the Case.

JUST ET AL. v. CHAMBERS, EXECUTRIX.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

No. 373. Argued February 5, 6, 1941-Decided March 3, 1941.

1. The court accepts concurrent findings by two courts below on matters of fact. P. 385.

2. By the law of Florida, a cause of action for personal injury due to another's negligence survives the death of the tort-feasor. P. 385.

3. Federal statutory provision for limitation of liability embraces claims for damages against the vessel-owner for personal injuries suffered on board through his negligence. P. 385.

4. When the jurisdiction of the court of admiralty has attached through a petition for limitation, the jurisdiction to determine claims is not lost merely because the shipowner fails to establish his right to limitation. Claimants will be furnished a complete remedy by distribution of the res and by judgments in personam for deficiencies against the owner. P. 386.

5. A cause of action against the owner of the vessel for personal injuries suffered aboard on navigable waters within the boundary of a State, and which under the state law survives his death, survives also in admiralty against his estate and against the vessel. P. 391.

With respect to maritime torts, a State may modify or supplement the maritime law by creating liability which a court of admiralty will recognize and enforce when the state action is not hostile to the characteristic features of the maritime law or inconsistent with federal legislation.

113 F. 2d 105, reversed.

CERTIORARI, 311 U. S. 634, to review a decree which in part affirmed and in part reversed an interlocutory decree of the District Court sitting in admiralty in a proceeding begun by a petition for limitation of liability. The District Court had held that certain claims for personal injuries suffered through the negligence of the vessel-owner, who afterwards had died, were enforcible against his estate as well as the vessel. The Circuit Court

of Appeals decided that the liability in personam did not survive the death and that recovery was therefore limited to the value of the ship.

Mr. W. O. Mehrtens, with whom Messrs. Samuel W. Fordyce, Walter R. Mayne, and M. L. Mershon were on the brief, for petitioners.

Mr. Raymond Parmer, with whom Mr. Vernon S. Jones was on the brief, for respondent.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent, as executrix of the estate of Henry C. Yeiser, Jr., owner of the yacht "Friendship II," brought this proceeding in admiralty for limitation of liability. 46 U. S. C. 183. Petitioners presented claims for damages for personal injuries due to carbon monoxide gas poisoning alleged to have occurred on board the vessel. It was cruising at the time within the territorial limits of the State of Florida and petitioners were guests of the owner. On the owner's death, petitioners' claims were filed against his estate.

Upon the facts the District Court found liability to the claimants and denied limitation upon the ground of neglect of duty by the owner. The court held that under a statute of Florida the claimants' causes of action survived the owner's death.

Upon appeal from the interlocutory decree (28 U. S. C. 227) the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that all the findings of fact made by the District Judge were supported by the evidence; that, as the injuries thus proved were not occasioned without the knowledge or privity of the shipowner, respondent could not have limitation; that as the ship was at fault as well as the owner the causes of action in rem survived the owner's death and the claimants on that ground might recover up to

383

Opinion of the Court.

the value of the ship, but that under the governing principles of admiralty law the personal liability of the owner did not survive. 113 F. 2d 105. Because of the importance of the question as to the enforceability in admiralty of the claims for personal injuries against the estate of the deceased tortfeasor, we granted certiorari, 311 U. S. 634.

In support of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, respondent asks us to review the evidence with respect to the cause of the claimants' injuries and the breach of duty by the shipowner, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings. Applying the well-established rule, we accept the concurrent findings of the courts below upon these matters (Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, 558) and we confine our attention to the question of the survival of the causes of action.

There is no question that there was a maritime tort. There is also no question that the injury occurred within the territorial limits of Florida and that under the local statute, as construed by the Supreme Court of the State, the causes of action survived against the wrongdoer's estate. This was recognized by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 113 F. 2d p. 107. Compiled General Laws of Florida (1927), § 4211; Waller v. First Savings & Trust Co., 103 Fla. 1025, 1047, 1049; 138 So. 780; Granat v. Biscayne Trust Co., 109 Fla. 485, 488; 147 So. 850; State ex rel. Wolfe Construction Co. v. Parks, 129 Fla. 50, 56, 57; 175 So. 786.

The statutory provision for limitation of liability, enacted in the light of the maritime law of modern Europe and of legislation in England, has been broadly and liberally construed in order to achieve its purpose to encourage investments in shipbuilding and to afford an opportunity for the determination of claims against the vessel and its owner. Norwich Company v. Wright, 13

301335°-41-25