Opinion of the Court. But we are of opinion that her identity was not lost. She was still a vessel. She had lost her own power of locomotion, but she was capable of being towed as a vessel, and was so towed for 22 hours, and until she had accomplished a large portion of her voyage. She was officered and manned, and had on board a cargo. If, during the 22 hours, through the negligence of those on board of her and in charge of her, she had done damage by coming into collision with another vessel and survived, she could have been libelled as a vessel; and she could have been libelled for salvage. She was in the same condition as any vessel which at sea loses her means of propulsion and has to be towed into port. The fact that, as between her former owner and the insurance company, she had been abandoned as a total loss, does not affect the question. She was abandoned as a total loss to her owner for the purposes of the policy of insurance, but, as in numerous other cases of abandonment, she was abandoned with the privilege to the insurance company of treating her as a vessel and repairing her if it could. Her ownership by the insurance company, resulting from the abandonment, was of the same character as would have been her ownership by any person who had purchased her in her then condition from the former owner. After her abandonment, she entered upon a new career and a new voyage, and § 4283 applies to the liability of the owner of her on such voyage, for damages for the death of Carbry. It was held by this court, in Butler v. Boston & Savannah Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, that the provision of § 4283 applies to cases of personal injury and death, as well as to cases of loss of, or injury to, property. Whatever liability there was on the part of the defendant, was extinguished by the loss of the Enterprise, and the extinguishment of such liability may be availed of in this suit, as matter of law, on the facts of the case. The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24; Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 594. The restriction of the statute by § 4289 to vessels not "used in rivers or inland navigation," does not apply to the Enterprise, because she was used on the Great Lakes. American Opinion of the Court. Trans. Co. v. Moore, 5 Michigan, 368; Moore v. American Trans. Co., 24 How. 1. The only question remaining is as to whether the loss of Carbry's life occurred with the privity or knowledge of the insurance company, it being contended that the knowledge and privity of Reardon were those of the company. But it was held by this court, in Walker v. Transportation Company, 3 Wall. 150, in regard to the statute (Act of March 3, 1851, § 1, 9 Stat. 635, now § 4282 of the Revised Statutes) which provides as follows: "No owner of any vessel shall be liable to answer for or make good to any person any loss or damage which may happen to any merchandise whatsoever, which shall be shipped, taken in or put on board any such vessel, by reason or by means of any fire happening to or on board the vessel, unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of such owner," that, in order to make the owner of a vessel, in case of loss by fire, liable for negligence, it must appear that the owner had directly participated in the negligence. It was there said, that, as the object of the act was "to limit the liability of owners of vessels," and the excep tion was not, in terms, of negligence generally, but only of negligence of the owners, it would be a wrong construction of the act to hold that the exception extended "to the officers and crews of the vessels, as representing the owners;" that $6 of the act (now & 4287 of the Revised Statutes) showed that it was the purpose of the preceding sections to release. the owner from some liability for the negligence and fraud of the master and other agents of the owner, for which those persons were themselves liable and were to remain so; and that, in reference to fires occurring on the vessels to which the statute applied, the owner was "not liable for the misconduct of the officers and mariners of the vessel, in which he does not participate personally." The same rule is applicable to the words "privity or knowledge" in § 4283. When the owner is a corporation, the privity or knowledge must be that of the managing officers of the corporation. In Hill Manufacturing Co. v. Providence & New York Steamship Co., 113 Mass. 495, 499, 500, it was said that the object Opinion of the Court. of the statute was to exempt the owners of ships from the onerous liability to which they were held by the common law as common carriers or otherwise, for the acts or neglect of their servants or agents, or of third persons, without their own knowledge or concurrence; not to diminish their responsibility for their own wilful or negligent acts; and it was added: “If a loss by fire is caused either by the design or by the neglect of the owners of a ship, the first section of the statute does not limit or take away their common law liability. If the owners are a corporation, the president and directors are not merely the agents or servants, but the representatives of the corporation, and the acts, intentions and neglects of such officers are those of the corporation itself." The corporation, in the present case, was protected by the statute from loss or damage arising from the fault or negligence of the mate or any of the crew or other employés who were on board of the Enterprise; and a fortiori it was protected from loss or damage arising from the fault or negligence of Reardon. The only negligence alleged in the case is that of Reardon, in attempting to tow the Enterprise, in the condition in which she was, to Detroit. But he was not an officer of the corporation, or employed directly by it, but was employed by Dimock, or Crosby & Dimock, the agents at Buffalo. He was at most a mere employé of the corporation. He was not its general agent, nor, so far as appears, had it any knowledge of his appointment. If he was an agent at all, his powers were no greater than those of the master of a vessel, for whose negligence the owner is not liable, even though the privity or knowledge of the master exists. The knowledge of Reardon was not the private knowledge of the corporation. It is unnecessary to consider any of the other questions discussed at the bar, and the judgment is Affirmed. Statement of the Case. ERROR ΤΟ THE THOMPSON v. BAKER. CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. No. 72. Submitted November 4, 1891. — Decided November 16, 1891. A conveyance by a debtor in Texas of his real estate there, made with intent to delay, hinder or defraud his creditors, being void as to the latter under the statutes of that State, a judgment sale and transfer of such property, in an action commenced by the levy of an attachment upon it as the property of the debtor, made after the fraudulent sale, is upheld in this case as against a bona fide purchaser from the fraudulent grantee, taking title after the levy of the attachment. THIS was an action of trespass to try the title to a tract of land in Clay County, Texas, containing seventeen hundred and twenty-nine acres, more or less. The dispute was between Thompson, who was the plaintiff below, and Schuler. Each party claimed under Baker. Schuler pleaded not guilty, alleging, by way of reconvention, that he was the owner in fee and entitled to a judgment for the land, with damages, and writ of restitution. The court tried the case, making a special finding of facts, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, upon which judgment was entered in favor of Schuler. The history of the title, as shown by that finding, was as follows: Baker, August 30, 1884, conveyed the land, with general warranty, to one Ledbetter, the deed reciting a consideration of $8225 evidenced by three promissory notes, each for one-third of that sum, and due, respectively, on the first days of September, 1885, 1886 and 1887. The grantee was a nephew of Baker, and a single man, living on the land with his uncle, and having there 40 head of cattle. After the deed, he continued to live with Baker, who had 300 head of cattle on the land. But their value is not stated; nor does it appear to what extent Baker was indebted, or what other property, if any, he had in the State subject to execution. The deed of August 30, 1884, was made to defraud the creditors of the grantor, particularly Schuler, who, at its date, Statement of the Case. held the note of Baker and others for $10,000. It was never delivered to Ledbetter, but was put on record by Baker, September 29, 1884. A few days before that deed was recorded, namely, on the 24th day of September, 1884, Schuler instituted suit on his demand of $10,000 against Baker and others in the District Court of Clay County, Texas, and, on the same day, sued out an attachment, which was levied upon the land in controversy as the property of Baker. That suit, on Schuler's application, was removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas, in which court the transcript was filed December 4, 1884. On the next day, December 5, 1884, Schuler sued out in that court another writ of attachment, which was levied the same day on the land in dispute as the property of Baker. On May 9, 1885, Ledbetter made and delivered to J. N. Israel a general warranty deed, conveying the land to the latter, and reciting a consideration of $10,000 cash. On the same day, Baker executed a release of his vendor's lien. The deed and release were both acknowledged on the day last named. Two days later, May 11, 1885, Baker executed to Israel a quit-claim deed for the land. No consideration was paid by Israel to Baker or to Ledbetter for their respective conveyances, which were recorded May 14, 1885. On the 1st day of August, 1885, Thompson loaned to Israel the sum of $5000, for which the latter executed his note secured by mortgage on this land. Default in performing the stipulations of the mortgage having occurred, Thompson brought suit against Israel in the court below to foreclose it. The finding does not show when that suit was instituted, but it was commenced after Schuler's action was brought. In Schuler's suit, the court below rendered judgment, January 12, 1886, against Baker and others for the debt sued on, "with foreclosure of the attachment lien." The judgment recites that "the attachment lien, as it existed December 5, 1884, is foreclosed;" the writ issued in the state court not being mentioned in it. Upon the above judgment an order of sale was issued. The sale took place June 1, 1886, Schuler |