Walters

The appellee filed two libels in rem in the Southern Division of the District Court of the United States for the Northern .District of California against two barges, the property of the appellant, to recover for labor and materials furnished in repairing each. The barges were seized while in the Northern Division of said district. Decree by default was rendered in each case. As the records in the two cases are identical, it will be necessary on the appeals to discuss in but one of them the points involved in both.

A motion is made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no actual controversy exists, since before the appeal was taken the judgment, with the appellant’s consent, was fully paid and satisfied. The motion is denied. Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222 , 5 S. Ct. 428 , 22 L. Ed. 981 ; Hoogendorn v. Daniel, 202 F. 431 , 120 C. C. A. 537 ; Josevig-Kennecott Copper Co. v. James F. Howarth Co. (C. C. A.) 261 F. 567 .

The appellant contends that the denial of his application to open the default decree in the court below was abuse of discretion. The default was entered on August 19, 1925. On October 23, 1925, the appellant gave the appellee notice of his application to…