part-owner sues for his own interest, the defendant can no longer avail himself of the objection, because the party to the first suit has no longer any matter of complaint (p). In the case of the death of any partowner after an injury received, the right of action survives in general to the surviving part-owners, who must afterwards pay to the personal representatives of the deceased the value of his share.

In the case, however, of an action for the freight of goods conveyed in a general ship, all the part-owners ought to join, or if they do not, the defendant may avail himself of the objection by evidence at the trial, and without plea in abatement, according to the general rule of law, and the distinction between contracts and wrongs (q), unless, perhaps, some one should have received his own share or have released his claim to it. The necessity of all the part-owners joining as plaintiffs in the suit in this case is founded upon the consideration, that all of them are partners with respect to the concerns of the ship; and, upon this consideration Lord Chancellor Eldon, in a case of bankruptcy, wherein it appeared that the owners of a ship, upon a settlement of accounts with the master, who had become a bankrupt, were indebted to him, and that, on the other hand, he also was indebted to some of them severally upon separate and distinct concerns, refused to allow the latter to set off their respective demands against the claim of his assignees for their shares of the general debt (r). And although the share of each part-owner be his separate property, yet, where A., B., and C. were owners of a vessel, and B. and C. employed D. to sell it for them, which he did, and paid over their proportion of the purchasemoney to B. and C., but refused to pay A. his proportion of the proceeds of the sale of the vessel, and A. alone sued him for the amount, it was held he could not recover; for here was a joint-contract, and persons having separate interests in a ship may jointly agree to authorize another to sell the entirety for them (8). But if several partowners allow one of their number to deal with their joint property as his own, and he lend the proceeds of it and receive credit for them in account in his own name, although the property was joint, his contract with the borrower may have been separate, and they must show that it was not so, if they would sue upon it (t). So where the master was part-owner, but had the entire controul and management of the ship, paying to his co-owner a third of the net profits, it was held that he might sue in his own name for a breach by the consignor of his contract in the bill of lading (u).

(p) Sedgworth v. Overend, 7 Term Rep. in K. B. 279. In this case, the plaintiff was the only remaining part-owner; but the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Lawrence is an authority for the text.

(4) There is a loose note in 3 Keble, 444, Stanley v. Ayles, of a dictum of Chief Justice Hale at Nisi Prius, to the contrary of what is here advanced in the text; but the reporter adds, that the cause went off to a reference.

(r) Ex parte Christie, 10 Ves. jun. 105. (8) Hatsell v. Griffith, 2 C. & M. 679. See also Brown v. Bradford, 2 Moo. & Rob. p. 413, and see Walshe v. Provan, 8 Exch. 843, in which it was held that a ship-agent,

who, having been directed by the ship's husband and part-owner of a ship to charter her, did so, making the freight payable to himself, could not retain the freight received by him under the charter-party against a debt due to him by the ship's husband; and that the plaintiffs, who were the owners of the ship, were entitled to recover the amount, either on a special count for wrongfully making it payable to himself, or as money had and received by him to the plaintiffs' use.

(t) Sims v. Bond, 5 B. & Ad. 389. Ex parte Gribble, Deacon and Chitty, 339. (u) Cawthron v. Trickett, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 754.

On the other hand, if an action is to be brought against the partowners upon any contract relating to the ship, although regularly such action should be brought against all jointly, yet if all are not sued, the defendants can only avail themselves of the objection by plea in abatement; and if they omit to plead such plea, the plaintiff will recover his whole demand, and the defendants must afterwards call upon the others for contribution. Where the declaration, assuming the form of an action ex delicto, alleges a breach of duty and not a breach of promise, it has been much questioned whether one part-owner who is sued alone can avail himself of this plea, and also whether, if the action be brought against more persons than appear at the trial to be partowners, the plaintiff can sustain his suit against those who appear to be so, or must fail altogether. In a case of a similar nature, the Court of King's Bench decided that the plea was not admissible (u); but in another case, the Court of Common Pleas afterwards held it to be admissible (x), and following up its own judgment, decided in a third case that the plaintiff who had failed in proving all the defendants to be part-owners must fail altogether (y). A writ of error was brought on this latter judgment, which was argued before the twelve judges, and it was understood that much difference of opinion existed among them, but the cause was decided on a different ground (z). In a fourth case of a similar nature, wherein the declaration expressly alleged a bargain, and complained of a deceitful warranty in the nature of a wrong; the action being against two persons, and the plaintiff proving a sale by one alone, the Court of King's Bench held that he could not succeed against that one, but must wholly fail (a). These are mere points of form, and it will be sufficient to have noticed them thus shortly, in order to put the professional reader upon his guard. If a ship is held by its owners as partners, all are jointly liable on the contract of one of them made as their agent in the name of and for the purposes of the partnership. It is assumed in that case that a partner acts as agent for his co-partners; otherwise as respects part-owners, each of whom is bound only by his own act or the act of his agent, duly authorized by him. Between part-owners agency must be proved; between partners it is implied by law (b).

8. Extent of Liability of each Part-owner for Supplies

and Repairs.

If a tradesman who has repaired a ship take from some of the partowners sums equivalent to their shares, they still remain responsible for the residue, if not paid by the others, unless at the time of the payment the tradesman specially agree to discharge them from all further demand, upon some good consideration inducing him so to do, such as payment before the expiration of the usual credit, or release

(u) Govett v. Radnidge, 3 East, 62.
(x) Powell v. Layton, 2 New Rep. 365.
(y) Max v. Roberts, 2 New Rep. 450.
(z) Max v. Roberts, in Error, 12 East, 89.
(a) Weal v. King, 12 East, 452.
(b) Brodie v. Howard, 17 C. B. 109.

Mitcheson v. Oliver, 5 E. & B. 419. Helme v. Smith, 7 Bing. 709. Young v. Brandon, 8 East, 10. Briggs v. Wilkinson, 7 B. & C. Ex parte Harrison, 2 Rose, 76. Frost v. Oliver, per Erle, J., 2 E. & B. 301.

33.

them by deed (c), which no prudent man will do without some very strong inducement. In this respect the law of England differs from the civil law, which gives an action against any one part-owner upon a contract made by the master to the full extent of the demand, but in the case of contracts made by the part-owners themselves, holds each to be chargeable only in proportion to his own share of the ship (d). By the law of Holland, the several part-owners are, in all cases, chargeable only according to their respective interests in the ship (e).

(c) Pasmore v. Bousfield, 1 Starkie, 296. Bac. Ab. Merchant, D. Teed and another V. Baring and others, before Lord Ellenborough, Ch. J., at Guildhall, 1806. The receipt given by one of the plaintiffs was as follows: "Received, 30th of May, 1804, from Messrs. B. M. & Co., one-fourth owner of the ship William, Captain James Thompson, the sum of 4501., being the amount of their proportion of the said ship's repairs lately

done at Plymouth, we having settled with the other owners respectively, John Teed & Co." Messrs. Baring & Co. knew that the proportions had been adjusted, but not paid. See Fitch v. Sutton, 5 East, 230. Wright v. Hunter, 1 East, 20.

(d) Dig. 14, 1, 1, 25 and 14, 1, 2, 3, and 4.

(e) Vinnius in Peckium, p. 155.

PART THE SECOND.

OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

SECT. 1. Its General Functions in relation to the Mercantile Marine, p. 90. 2. Local Marine Boards, p. 91.

3. Duties of Shipping Offices established under its Authority, p. 92.

1. Of the Board of Trade; its General Functions in relation to the Mercantile Marine.

THE general superintendence of matters relating to merchant ships and seamen is committed, by the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, to the Board of Trade, which is authorized to carry into execution the provisions of that Act, and of all other acts relating to merchant ships and seamen, and not relating to the revenue (a).

It is empowered from time to time to prepare and sanction forms of the various books, instruments, and papers required by the Act (with the exception of those relative to the registry of ships, of which it prescribes the forms), and to make such alterations therein as it deems requisite. These forms are to be sealed with the seal of the board, or marked with some other distinguishing mark; they are to be supplied at the custom-houses and shipping-offices of the United Kingdom free of charge, or at moderate prices to be fixed by the board, which may license persons to print and sell them; and no such book, instrument, or paper, unless made in such form, is admissible in evidence in any civil proceeding on the part of any owner or master of any ship (b).

All documents whatever, purporting to be sealed by the board or signed by its secretaries, and all certificates issued by the board and sealed with its seal, or signed by an officer of its marine department (c), are to be received in evidence and taken without further proof, unless the contrary be shown, for such documents as they purport to be (d).

All consular officers, officers of customs abroad, local marine boards, and shipping masters, are to make such reports and returns, and all shipping masters are to produce to the board such official log-books and other documents delivered to them in pursuance of this Act, as the board may require (e).

Every officer of the board (ƒ), if he has reason to suspect that the provisions of the laws relating to merchant seamen and navigation have not been complied with, may require the owner, master, or any of the crew of any British ship, to produce any official log-books, lists of persons on board his ship, or other documents relating to such crew, and take copies of them. He may muster the crew of any ship, and summon the master to appear and give any explanation concerning such ship or her crew, or such log-books and documents.

Any person who refuses to obey such requisition, or impedes such master, or refuses or misleads any person authorized to demand such explanation, is liable to a penalty of 20l. (g).

The board is also empowered from time to time to appoint inspectors to report to it on the nature and causes of any accident or damages which any ship has or is alleged to have sustained; whether the provisions of the Act, or regulations made under them, have been observed; and whether the hull and machinery of any steamship are in good and sufficient order (h).

The inspectors so appointed are empowered to go on board and inspect every part of such ship, and everything contained in or connected with it, to which the Act applies; and any premises which he may think requisite to enter, for the purpose of the report he is to make. He may summon before him all persons whom he may think fit to examine, require answers or returns to any inquiries he thinks fit to make, and enforce the production of all books, papers, or documents, which he considers important for his purpose. He may administer oaths, or require every person examined before him to make and subscribe a declaration of the truth of the statements made by him in his examination (i). Witnesses summoned before him are to be allowed their expenses; and all persons who, after tender of such expenses, refuse to attend, or to make any answer, or give any return, or produce any documents, or make or subscribe any declarations which such inspector is empowered to require, is liable to a penalty of 101. (k). The like penalty is incurred by any person who obstructs an inspector in the execution of his duty, who is empowered to seize and detain such person until he can be taken before some justice of the peace, or other person having proper jurisdiction (7).

2. Local Marine Boards.

By the Mercantile Marine Act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 93, and the Mercantile Marine Amendment Act, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 96, the Board of Trade was authorized to establish local marine boards at such of