PER CURIAM.
In this libel, filed in 1957, after a trial before Judge Murphy on the issue of liability, 189 F. Supp. 955, an appeal to this Court from the interlocutory decree, 285 F.2d 368, 86 A.L.R.2d 1227, and proceedings before a commissioner to fix damages, appellant tug-owner has made what it regards as the discovery that the courts have lacked "jurisdiction" in admiralty from the outset because libelant tug-owner was suing on a claim for damages suffered by its tow which had been assigned to it. Apart from all other considerations, we find no support for the contention that admiralty will not entertain a suit by an assignee; the contrary sensible rule seems well-established. Cobb v. Howard, 5 Fed.Cas.No. 1133, No. 2924 (S.D.N.Y. 1856); Henry Admiralty Jurisdiction and Procedure (1885), § 108; American Steel Barge Co. v. Chesapeake Ohio Coal Agency Co., 115 F. 669, 673-674 (1 Cir. 1902); The Mandu, 102 F.2d 459, 461-462 (2 Cir. 1939). We affirm the judgment in open court.