Paul M. Goldstein, Esquire, contends as follows:
At the time he filed a proof of claim on behalf of Josephine Tribble in this limitation action, said Josephine Tribble was the Administratrix of the Estate of Henry Tribble, Deceased, having been adjudged so by the Texas State Court. The claim was not necessarily for the benefit of Josephine Tribble but for the benefit of any and all persons who would be entitled to any and all funds which would be created as a result of the claims under the Pennsylvania Survival and Wrongful Death Acts on account of the death of Henry Tribble. At the time the representatives of the Insurance Company of North America, insurance carrier for Bave, located Henrietta Tribble in Chicago, Illinois, and brought her to Galveston, Texas, and succeeded in having the Texas State Court declare her the widow of Henry Tribble and appoint her Administratrix of his Estate, they should not have obtained from her a release in the sum of $ 2,000.00 but they should have brought her to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where this Court is located, and given her the opportunity to be substituted as the proper party in these proceedings because they knew that she would be the primary beneficiary of any fund resulting from the claim being prosecuted by Josephine Tribble and because they knew that the work and labor of Paul M. Goldstein, Esquire, had enhanced the value of said claim far beyond the sum of $ 2,000.00 paid in settlement to Henrietta Tribble. Their failure to give Henrietta Tribble the opportunity to be substituted as the proper party in these proceedings and to benefit from the efforts of Paul M. Goldstein, Esquire, constitutes a fraud not only on Henrietta Tribble but also on Paul M. Goldstein, Esquire, and such fraud will deprive said Paul M. Goldstein, Esquire, of his costs and compensation unless he is granted leave to prosecute to judgment this limitation action in his own behalf for the recovery of same.
Under the foregoing circumstances, we think that the petitioner, Paul M. Goldstein, Esquire, is entitled to an order permitting him to prosecute to judgment this limitation action in his own behalf for the recovery of his costs and compensation, with an opportunity first to prove the allegations in his petition and if the allegations are sustained, to prove his costs and the value of his services. See opinion by the late Judge Bard in Bennett v. Sinclair Navigation Company, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 14.
We think that this Court has the inherent power to enter the aforesaid order because it has jurisdiction over these limitation proceedings and, such jurisdiction is not ousted by the facts on which the motion of Bave for leave to discontinue these proceedings is based.
We think too that the power of this Court to enter the aforesaid order is unaffected by the holding in Romero v. International Terminal Operating Company, 358 U.S. 354, 79 S. Ct. 468, 3 L. Ed. 2d 368.
If the petitioner, Paul M. Goldstein, Esquire, will prepare an order in accordance with the foregoing opinion and submit it to opposing counsel, it will be entered.