457 Watson v. Ship Rose 477 Thompson v. Taylor v. Rowcraft S60 372 Thorne v. White 191, 193, 525, 527 Weeks v. Catherina Maria v. Collins Thurston v. Col. Ins. Comp. 527 Wheelwright v. Depeyster 16, 18 272 Whitton v. The Commerce 497 Weiberg v. The St. Oloff 474 The Werldborgaren 352 525 The Tobago The Twilling Riget U. United States v. Peters v. Grundy Maugin 181 White 3221 v. Baring 151, 283 540 Wilkinson v. Frazier 462 v. Ship Anthony Williams v. Smith 75, 129 Willings v. Blight United States v. Willings, &c. 78 Williams v. Brig Hope v. Magill 192 Wilmer v. The Smilax United Ins. Comp. v. Robinson 34 Wolf v. Brig Oder v. Scott 34, 92, Worth v. Viner 121, 149, 178 v. Lenox 337,375' 337 111 466 166, 180 527 491 481 OWNERS OF SHIPS. In Page 11. Sect. 5. A bonâ fide sale of a ship and cargo at sea is valid against all the world, provided the vendee use reasonable on the return thereof to take possession. Portland Bank v. Stacey, 4 Mass. Rep. 661. If a ship be wrecked in a foreign port and abandoned, and afterwards sold by the government of that country, according to the laws thereof, the purchaser acquires a good title against all the world. Grant v. M'Lachlin, 4 John. Rep. 34. GENERAL AVERAGE. After note 1. p. 383. The doctrines here stated, seem fully supported by a recent decision in Massachusetts, in which the court held, that upon an involuntary stranding, where the ship was abandoned and a part of the cargo was saved in the ship's boat, the owners of the cargo abandoned were not entitled to a general average. And in the same case, a part of the goods saved in the boat, having been thrown overboard to save the lives of the crew; they further held that the owners of the goods thrown overboard were not entitled to a general average. Wittredge v. Norris. Essex, November Term, S. J. C. 1809. MSS. After note 1. p. 386. The wages and provisions of the crew, during a detention to repair at a port of necessity, were adjudged a general average in Padleford v. Boardman, 4 Mass. Rep. 548. LOSS AND FORFEITURE OF WAGES. After note 1. p. 510. The principle of this decision was admitted in its fullest extent by Judge Davis, in a recent case. A ship was captured and recaptured, and a seaman taken out—not being able to rejoin the ship, after he was released, he returned to the United States, and the ship having in the mean time completed her voyage, brought his libel for full wages. It appearing that he had not earned wages in any other employment, the learned Judge, after argument, and taking time to consider, decreed to the seman full wages up to the time of his return to the United States, deducting therefrom his proportion of the salvage paid to the recaptors. Williams v. The BrigMarch T. 1809. District Court of Massachusetts. MSS. ERRATA. The following are the most material to be corrected. IN page 311, note 1. line 7, dele] In p. 510. note 1. 1. 3 and 4. the the words "in the case which is next words "which was approved by the mentioned from Johnson's reports," Court in Beale v Thompson, 4 East. and insert instead thereof " in Wat-1560," should be inclosed in a parenson v. Duykinck, 3 Johns. Rep. 335, thesis. hereinafter cited." In the same note, l. 10, dele "but" and insert "and." In p. 370, bottom of note, add "S. P. 4 Mass. 672." In p. 526. the first line of the note should be transferred to the bottom of the note of the preceding page. In p. 541. note, 1. 4, after "in" In p. 480 note, 1. 22. add "Natterstrom v. The Ship Hazard. Dis-add "Johnson." trict Court, A. D. 1809." PART THE FIRST. CHAPTER THE FIRST. OF THE OWNERS OF SHIPS, IN GENERAL. ONE or more persons may acquire the property of a Ship by building it at their expense, or by purchasing it of another, who has authority to dispose of it. Upon the death of the owner, his interest devolves upon his executors or administrators, his personal representatives. In the case of purchase, however, it is necessary that the person, who takes upon him to sell, should have power to do so; for although a sale of other goods by the person, who is in possession of them, does in many cases vest the property in the buyer, even when the seller himself has neither property in them, nor authority to dispose of them, the same cannot take place with respect to ships, as there is no open market for the sale of them. Indeed this species of property appears from very early times to have been evidenced by written documents, and at present always is so, which other move E able goods rarely are; and therefore the buyer has in this instance the means of ascertaining the title [2] of any person, who offers to sell, and can seldom be deceived, except by his own fault (1). 2. The master of a ship possesses, as more fully appears in different parts of this treatise, every power nec (1) The words of Sir W. Scott, in a case of possession of a foreign ship before him, are too remarkable to be here omitted. "It has been contended in argument that the effect of a bill of “sale alone would not be material, because this was a foreign "ship, in respect to which it might not be requisite that it "should pass by a bill of sale. It is said that the agreement "to be found in these letters (i. e. in that case) and the actual delivery under it, would be sufficient to establish the equitable title; and a reference has been made on this subject to some opinions at common law, which are said to have been given "in favour of such a title. The opinions of gentlemen at that "bar must undoubtedly be entitled to entire respect on a ques"tion of municipal law. But this is a question of a more gen“eral nature, arising out of a system of more general law-out "of the universal maritime law, which constitutes a part of the "professional learning of this court and its practisers. Ac"cording to the ideas which I have always entertained on this "question, a bill of sale is the proper title to which the mari"time courts of all countries would look. It is the universal "instrument of transfers of ships in the usage of all maritime "countries, and in no degree a peculiar title, deed, or convey"ance known only to the law of England, It is what the "maritime law expects, what the Court of Admiralty would in "its ordinary practice require; and what the legislature of this "country has now made absolutely necessary with regard to "British subjects by the regulations of the statute law." The Sisters. 5 Rob. Adm. Rep. 155. [138]. |