are vested in individual Americans. To enable a corporate-owned vessel to engage in the coasting trade, 75 per cent of the interest in the corporation must be American owned.

4. Majority Interest.— The majority interest will usually control, whether the title is in a corporation or individuals. Thus the majority may direct or change the employment of the vessel, pledge her for supplies or repairs, and employ or dismiss the master and crew. If the master be also a part-owner, the majority still has the right to remove him, unless there is a valid written agreement to the contrary. In the Orleans v. Phœbus, II Peters, (U. S.) 175, it appeared that Phoebus was master and owner of one-sixth of the steamboat Orleans. He alleged that he had been dispossessed by the owners of the other five sixths, who were operating the vessel against his wishes. Speaking for the Supreme Court, Justice Story said:

The majority of the owners have a right to employ the ship in such voyages as they may please; giving a stipulation to the dissenting owners for the safe return of the ship, if the latter, upon a proper libel filed in the admiralty, require it. And the minority of the owners may employ the ship in the like manner, if the majority decline to employ her at all.

Similarly Justice Clifford, in The Wm. Bagaley, 5 Wall. 377:

Even where the part owners of a ship are tenants in common, the majority in interest appoint the master and control the ship, unless they have surrendered that right by agreeing in the choice of the ship's husband as managing owner.

If the owner be a corporation, the control of the vessel is usually directed by the Board of Directors, as in the case of other corporate enterprises, though the holders of a majority of the capital stock may determine the disposition of the vessel and all matters relating to her, by voting their stock at regular or special stockholders' meetings, called in accordance with the company's charter and by-laws and the laws of the state in which the company is incorporated.

5. Minority Interest.— The minority interest, where the majority sends out the ship against its wishes, may compel the majority to give a bond for its safe return or the payment of the value of its interest. This may be obtained through a court of admiralty. When such security is given the dissenting owners, they are not

entitled to compensation for the use of their shares or to any portion of the profits. In the same way, a minority, desiring to use the ship against the majority who prefer to lay her up, may obtain her. The rule was thus laid down by Justice Clifford in The Wm. Bagaley, 5 Wall. 377, heretofore cited:

Admiralty, however, in certain cases, if no ship's husband has been appointed, will interfere to prevent the majority from employing the ship against the will of the minority without first entering into a stipulation to bring back the ship or pay the value of their shares. But the dissenting owners in such a case, bear no part of the expenses of the voyage objected to, and are entitled to no part of the profits. ... Unless the coöwners agree in the choice of a managing owner or the dissenting minority go into admiralty, the majority in interest control the employment of the ship and appoint the master.

The admiralty practice is governed by the old maxim that "ships were made to plow the ocean, and not to rot by the wall." So, if the owners be evenly divided in opinion, the party desiring to employ the ship will prevail, on giving security to the other. In Willings v. Blight, 2 Pet. Adm. 288; 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17765, decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1800, the court quaintly expressed the law as follows:

66

It is a principle discernible in all maritime codes, that every encouragement and assistance should be afforded to those who are ready to give their ships constant employment; and this not only for the particular profit of owners, but for the general interests and prosperity of commerce. If agriculture be, according to the happy allusion of the great Sully, one of the breasts from which the State must draw its nourishment," commerce is certainly the other. The earth, parent of both, is the immediate foundation and support of the one, and ships are the moving powers, instruments and facilities of the other. Both must be rendered productive by industry and ingenuity. The interests and comforts of the community will droop and finally perish if either be permitted to remain entirely at rest. The former will less ruinously bear neglect, and throw up spontaneous products; but the latter require unremitted employment, attention and enterprise, to insure utility and product. A privation of freight, the fruit of the crop of shipping, seems therefore to be an appropriate mulct on indolent, perverse or negligent part owners. The drones ought not to share in the stores acquired and accumulated by the labor, activity, foresight and management of the bees. Although the hive may be common property, it is destructively useless to all, if not furnished with means of profit and support by industry and

exertion; which should be jointly applied by all before they participate in beneficial results. Nor should the idle and incompetent be permitted to hold it vacant and useless to the injury and ruin of the industrious and active.

6. Suits between Part-Owners.- The admiralty will sometimes entertain a suit for partition between owners who can not agree and sell the ship for the purpose of dividing the proceeds. Generally it will only recognize legal titles, that is, those shown by bills of sale or matters of record, and not merely equitable claims of ownership. Part-owners have no lien against each other where one has paid more than his share of the debts or expenses and therefore can not proceed against the ship directly. They can, however, have an accounting in equity on other proceeding in state courts for the purpose of adjusting the matter. One may sue the other for the loss of the vessel by negligence. A partowner may have a lien upon the ship for wages or other maritime services, subordinate, however, to the liens of strangers to the title. Each is bound to pay to the others his own share of the expenses of the ship and, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, the law will imply a promise to repay an excess advanced by one over his share on which an ordinary action may be brought (Sheehan v. Dalrymple, 19 Mich. 239).

7. Authority of Owner. As between the owner and the master, the former is supreme. The relation is one of agency or employment and the master must obey. The owner has the legal right to take his ship from the custody and control of the master, at any time, and in whatever place. He may remove him at pleasure, and without assigning any cause, subject only to the ordinary responsibility for breach of contract if a contract be broken. This is because the owner is very deeply concerned in who is master of his ship and is so highly chargeable with his conduct that it is deemed proper that he should be permitted to dismiss him at any time. The relation is a confidential one and can not be forced to continue when confidence ceases.

8. Obligation of Owner.- The owner is bound to provide a seaworthy ship. While the maritime law, in order to encourage investments of capital, endeavors to provide certain limitations of liability, the obligation of seaworthiness is supreme up to, at least, the amount invested in the ship. Subject only to a possible limitation of liability, the owner is absolutely bound to furnish and

maintain a seaworthy ship; this obligation is analogous to that of an employer on land to furnish a safe place for his employees or of a carrier to furnish safe and roadworthy means of transport.

Seaworthiness is a relative term. The ship must be fit in design, structure, condition and equipment to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage. She must have a competent master and a sufficient crew. Absolute perfection, of course, is not required; the real test is that the ship shall have that degree of fitness which the ordinary careful and prudent owner requires of his vessel at the commencement of the voyage in view of all the circumstances which may attend it.

The law does not insist that the shipowner shall in person attend to all his duties in respect of the ship. It recognizes that most of these must be met by agents. It contemplates that shipowners may avail themselves of the facilities common to business men and be relieved whenever they have properly employed competent agents to supervise the ship at sea and in port. In most instances where the maritime law may be applied the owner will not be responsible beyond his interest in the ship, for the acts or omissions of agents whom he has selected with due care.

9. Liability of Owner. The owner is liable for all the contracts and negligence of the master up to, at least, the value of his interest in the ship. In most cases, he may limit his liability to such value by abandoning the ship to the creditors. This is an underlying doctrine of the general maritime law and generally carried forward into the statutes of all maritime countries. There is a general exception, however, in regard to sailors' wages. The owner remains absolutely liable for these and cannot limit against them. He is also liable for all his personal contracts in regard to the ship as well as for his personal negligence. He will not be liable for the contracts or torts of the master outside of the scope of his employment, as on a bill-of-lading for cargo never received on board or an unauthorized assault on a passenger.

An illustration of the liability of the owner for contract of the master within the scope of his employment is to be found in a case in which the master contracted for extra pilotage. As the United States District Court remarked in the Cervantes, 135 Fed. 573, "In pilotage cases resort may be had to the vessel or the owner or the master."

The case of Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 548, illustrates

the liability of an owner for the tort of the master. It grew out of a collision in Lake Erie and was an action in admiralty brought in personam by the owners of one of the vessels against the owners of the other for damages, alleging the negligent operation of the respondents' vessel. The Supreme Court (Clifford, J.) held:

Owners of vessels, and especially those who own and employ steamships, whether propellers or sidewheel steamers, must see to it that the master and other officers intrusted with their control and management are skillful and competent to the discharge of their duties, as, in case of a disaster like the present, both the owners and the vessels are responsible for their acts, and must answer for the consequence of their want of skill and negligence; and this remark is just as applicable to the under officers, whether mate or second mate, as to the master, during all the time they have charge of the deck. That the mate in this case was substantially without experience in navigating steamers, and utterly destitute of the requisite information to fit him to determine the proper courses of the voyage, are facts so fully proved that it is difficult to regard them as the proper subjects for dispute; and what is more, the master knew his unfitness when he started on the voyage, and stated before the vessel left Cleveland, to the effect that he was afraid he was going to be sick, and that he had no confidence in the mate. Some of the owners also distrusted his fitness when they employed him, and made an effort to engage another person in his stead; and one of them, after having heard of the disaster, expressed his regret that the person to whom he first applied had not taken his place.

The case of Hough v. Western Trans. Co., 3 Wall. 20, was a libel in personam against the owners of the steamer Falcon. The vessel, while made fast to libellant's wharf, took fire through the negligence of the master and crew. The fire communicated to the wharf, which was destroyed with the buildings on it and those adjacent. While the court held that the tort was committed on land and, not being maritime, the admiralty court was without jurisdiction, it upheld the principle of the liability of owrers for the negligence of the master and crew as follows:

The owner of a vessel is liable for injuries done to third persons or property by the negligence or malfeasance of the master and crew while in the discharge of their duties and acting within the scope of their authority. It is upon this principle that the defendants are liable, if at all, to the libellants for the damages sustained. The circumstance that the agents were in the employment of the owners on board the vessel, and that the negligence occurred while so em