Слике страница



§ 6. The property in every British ship is considered to be shares in divided into sixty-four parts ; and no person can be British ships. registered as owner of any part, not being a sixtyfourth (a).

Not more than sixty-four persons can be registered as the legal owners of a ship. Further, no person can be registered as owner of any fractional part of a share of a ship. However, any number of persons, not exceeding five, can be registered as joint owners of a ship, or of any share or number of shares in it; but then they cannot dispose in severalty of their respective interests in the vessel (a).

No trust can be entered on the register (6).

A purchaser under a judicial sale of a beneficial interest in a British ship is not entitled to be registered as owner thereof (c).

A corporation owning a British ship may be registered as owner by its corporate name (d).

$ 7. Each part owner of a ship is liable, just as a partner, Rights and

liabilities of for the full amount of the expenses incurred on its ac

part owners. count (e), unless he can show that such expenses were not

(a) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 37 ; as amended by 43 & 44 Vict. c. 18.

(6) Ib. s. 43; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 3.

(c) Chasteauneuf v. Capeyron, 7

App. Cas. 127 ; 51 L. J., P. C. 37.

(d) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 37.

(e) Pasmore v. Bousfield, 1 Stark. 296; Ex parte Bland, 2 Rose, 91; Preston v. Tamplin, 2 H. & N. 684.

incurred on his own credit (f); co-owners have, however, as between themselves, a right to contribution (g).

A part owner is not liable for any admission () or act of his co-owners to which he was not a party or which he did not authorize. And the mere fact of a person being registered as a co-owner under a bill of sale, given to secure advances, will not give his co-owners authority to pledge his credit for even necessary repairs (i).

Where some of the co-owners pay a tradesman employed to repair their vessel a certain part of the cost corresponding to their shares, they will still be liable for the remainder of the cost ; unless the tradesman release them on some valuable consideration being given, or by deed:(;).

Co-owners of a ship in fault for a collision are severally liable for the damage occasioned thereby (k). If one of them has been forced to pay the full claim for damages, he will be entitled to contribution from his co-owners. On the other hand, co-owners of a damaged ship are severally entitled to sue for damages, subject to the power of the court to consolidate the action (1).

If one of the co-owners of a vessel own the cargo, or even certain articles on board her, and such cargo or articles be condemned as contraband, the condemnation will involve the forfeiture of his share and interest in the

But the shares of the other co-owners will not be confiscated, unless they knew of the contraband goods being placed on board (m). In former times, however, the contraband cargo would have entailed the condemnation of the ship (n).

(f) Chappell v. Bray, 6 H. & N. (1) Bacon's Ab. Merchant, D. ; 145 ; see “Case" (2) at end of Passmore v. Bous field, 1 Stark. 296. this s.

(k) Mitchell v. Tarbutt, 5 T.R. 649. (9) Speerman v. Degrare, 2 Vern. (1) Addison v. Overend, 6 T. R. 643.

766 ; Sedgworth v. Overend, 7 T. R. (h) Jaggers v. Binnings, 1 Stark. 64. 279; The Jacob Landstrom, 4 P. D.

191. (i) Hackwood v. Lyall, 17 C. B. (m) The Jonge Tobias, 1 Rob. 329 ; 124; The Innisfallen, L. R., 1 A. “Cases" (1) at end of this g. & E. 72.

(n) Ib., per Sir Wm. Scott.




CASES. 1. A ship was captured in 1799 when proceeding from Bremen to Rochelle laden with tar. The tar was not claimed, but appeared by the ship's papers to belong to one of the co-owners. The tar being contraband, the share in the ship belonging to its owner was declared to be forfeited (o).

2. The plaintiff, a part owner and ship's husband of a vessel, was authorized by the other part owners, including the defendant, to repair and lengthen the ship. He accordingly directed a shipbuilder to do so. Afterwards the defendant gave the plaintiff notice that he would not be liable for any of the alterations. The work was completed and paid for by the plaintiff. Held, that the defendant was liable for a proportionate share of the cost, as he had not revoked the authority he had given before the work had been commenced (p).

$ 8. In cases where a vessel belongs to several co-owners, Ship’s husthey generally elect one of their number to manage it band. exclusively. The owner so elected is termed the ship’s husband or managing owner. The name and address of a ship's husband or managing owner must be registered at the custom house of the ship's port of registry (a).

The powers of the ship's husband are generally determined by a special agreement made between him and the other co-owners.

In the absence of any such agreement, the ship's husband must perform the duties usually incident to the office of a managing owner of a ship. Thus, he must see that the vessel is properly equipped, procure freights or charterparties, adjust freights and averages, disburse and receive moneys on account of the ship, and keep the necessary books and accounts.

The acts of a ship's husband, within the scope of his authority, will bind all the co-owners (r); but not other

(6) The Jonge Tobias, 1 Rob. 329.

(P) Chappell v. Bray, 6 H. & N. 145.

(q) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80. 8. 36; Frazer v. Cuthbertson, 6 Q. B. D.

93; 50 L. J., Q. B. 277.

(r) Whitwell v. Perrin, 4 C. B., N. S. 412; Barker v. Highley, 15 C. B., N. S. 27; Sims v. Brittain, 4 B. & Ad. 375.

wise, even for necessaries (s). Thus, he cannot validly cancel a charter-party (t), or bring an action so as to bind his co-owners (u), or incur extraordinary expenses without their assent, e. g., for extensive structural alterations in the ship (w).

If there be a special agreement, and under it the ship’s husband has authority to do certain specific acts, he must not exceed his authority. Accordingly where the ship's husband has the authority of the owners to make a charter-party, and makes one conformably thereto, he will have no power without their express sanction to cancel it, though such cancellation be beneficial to the owners (t).

The ship’s husband has a right of action against each co-owner for a proportionate part of the costs incurred by him on account of the vessel (y); and he can retain the amount of such costs out of freight he receives (3).

Though the ship's husband has a lien on the freight for his disbursements on the ship's account, he has not a charge on it (a). Therefore, if he is removed from his office by the owners before he is in a position to receive the freight, an assignee of his interest in the freight cannot claim it as against the owners.

CASE. In August, 1876, R. was acting as ship’s husband of a vessel, and was also mortgagor of certain shares in her. The defendants had chartered her for the voyage on which she was then employed. R. obtained from the plaintiffs a loan of 2001., and by a letter of 30th August requested the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the freight due on the charter. On the 20th September, the mortgagees of R.'s shares, and the owners of the other shares, appointed E. as ship's husband, in place of R. Two days afterwards, the

(8) Frazer v. Cuthbertson, 6 Q. B. D. 93; 50 L. J., Q. B. 277; 29 W. R. 396.

(1) Thomas v. Lewis, 4 Ex. D. 18.

(2) French v. Backhouse, 5 Burr. 2728; Bell v. Humphries, 2 Stark. 346.

(2x) Steele g. Co. v. Dixon, 3 Sess. Cas. (4th Series), 1003.

(y) Helme v. Smith, 7 Bing. 709; Vanner v. Frost, 39 L. J., Ch. 626.

(z) Beynon v. Godden, 3 Ex. D. 263 ; see “ Case" at end of this g.

(a) Io.

vessel having completed her voyage and commenced discharging, the defendants sent the plaintiffs à cheque for 2001., which was dishonoured, E. having claimed the amount of the ght. Held, that the plaintiffs could not recover the amount of the cheque (b).

$9. In cases where the co-owners cannot agree in the Disputes as to appointment of a ship's husband, the Admiralty Court of vessel.

management will arrest the vessel if the majority of the co-owners determine to send it abroad, contrary to the will of the other co-owners, and so prevent its sailing (c).

If, however, the majority of the co-owners give security in an amount corresponding to the value of the shares of the minority, either to bring back the vessel in safety, or to pay the minority the value of their shares, the court will allow the vessel to be employed by the majority.

Supposing such security be given, and the vessel be sent abroad, the members of the minority will neither be entitled to any share in the profits of the venture, nor liable to make good any losses incurred (d).

In the case of the co-owners being equally divided, either party may ask the court to interfere in the mode above indicated.

Sometimes the court will order the vessel to be sold at the suit of the minority when obviously for the benefit of

all (e).

The court has jurisdiction to arrest, in an action of restraint, a vessel at the suit of one part owner, holding a minority of shares, even though the majority of the part owners approve of the proposed voyage, and though she be employed under a charter, entered into by the ship’s husband, appointed on behalf of all the owners (f).

(6) Beynon v. Godden, 3 Ex. D. 263.

(c) In re Blanshard, 2 B. & C. 244 ; The Apollo, i Hagg. 306.

(d) Davis v. Johnson, 4 Sim. 539; see “ Case" at end of this g. Ab

bott on Shipping, pt. i. c. 3.

(e) The Nelly Schneider, 3 P. D. 152.

(f) The Talca, 5 P. D. 169; 29 W. R. 123.

« ПретходнаНастави »