The majority in value of the owners of a vessel being authorised by the English law to employ the ship "upon any probable design," are only entitled to do so upon giving security to the minority in a sum equal in value to the united shares of the latter. The mode of obtain ing this security is by procuring a warrant from the court of admiralty for the arrest of the ship. After the security has been given, the minority do nut share either in the expenses or profits of the adven ture. If no application of this kind is made to the court, the minority ought expressly to give notice of their dissent both to their co-owners and all other parties engaged in the proceedings, and they will then be relieved from the necessity of contributing in case of a loss. If they take no steps of the kind, their co-owners, as in the case of any other chattel possessed in common, will not be responsible to them for any consequences short of an absolute destruction by their means of the ship. The same proceedings are proper to be taken where the co owners are equally divided in opinion, or the minority have obtained possession of the ship. The application for the arrest should be made at the earliest stage of the proceedings, because otherwise the applicant will be held liable to contribute to the previous expenses although he will receive no part of the profits, or even have his application to the court altogether refused.
Agents of the Owners.—For the purpose of managing the ship it is very usual for the owners to concur in appointing an agent who is known to the world thereafter as ships husband. His powers are very large, considered in the light of the duty for which he is appointed, which is to attend to all matters connected with the outfit and freight ing of the ship. It is not, however, within the limits of his authority to effect an insurance. If he make any advances, he can sue those part-owners on whose behalf the advances are made for what is due to him. In case of disagreement among the part-owners as to the settle ment of accounts concerning the expenses and earnings of a ship, the ordinary remedy is by a suit iu equity.
Another agent who is endowed with very extensive power under certain circumstances to bind the owners by his contract, is the master of the ship. He has power to bind the owners by entering into engagements with third parties relative to the employment of the ship. Such engagements are of two kinds :-1. A contract by which the whole ship is let to hire during an entire voyage, which may be accom plished by a charter-party under seal, or by memorandum of charter party not under seal. 2. A contract with distinct persons to couvey the goods of each, in which case the ship is called a general ship. Such contracts made by the master, being within the lawful scope of his employment, are legally considered to be made by the owners who employ him; and in either case they or the master are liable in respect of these contracts. If the charter-party is made under seal and in the
name of the master only, it will not support a direct action upon it against the owners. Still if the contract is duly made, that is, within the usual employment of the master, and under such circumstances as afford either direct proof of authority or evidence from which such authority may be inferred, the owners may be made responsible either by a special action on the arse or by a suit in equity. But the waster cannot be assumed to have a power to annul an express contract entered into by the owners themselves and to form a fresh contract with other parties.
Besides this power which the master has to bind the owners by his contracts relative to the lading of the ship, he has also authority to render them liable for repairs done and provisions and other things furnished for her use, or for the money which lie has expended for such purposes, if they were necessary. In this case also the remedy of the creditor is against the unless by express contract he be exempted, and also against the owners. If the contract is made by the owners themselves, they alone are liable. The English law does not follow the rule of the civil law, by which a party who had repaired or furnished a ship had a claim on the ship itself in preference to all other creditors. A party who has done repairs upon a ship has a right to retain the possession of it until his demands are paid ; but if he gives up possession, be is on the same footing as other creditors. Where repairs have been done, or necessaries supplied to a ship, the legal owners, although there be proof of their title to the ship, are not on that ground presumed to be liable. There is no presumption of law upon the subject ; the matter is altogether a question of evidence ; and tiro question to be decided, iu order to determine the liability, is upon whose credit the work was done or the necessaries supplied. If a ship is let out for hire, the owners are no more liable for the work done by order of the hirers, than a landlord of a house would be for work done by order of his tenant. Analogous observations are applicable with respect to the liability of mortgagees and charterers. Where there is an actual letting of the whole ship,. and the lessee has the entire control and management of her, the master and mariners being subject to his orders, the lessee becomes for the time invested with the cha racter of owner. But where by the terms of the contract the master and mariners continue subject to the :owner, and be through them retains the control and management of the ship, the contract is merely for carrying the lessee's goods.