Page images
PDF
EPUB

Act, before registry be made, except that instead of the names and descriptions of the owners, they shall state the name and description of the company to which the ship shall belong (ƒ). (1)

The Act also requires the property to be considered as divided into sixty-four parts, and the proportion held by each owner to be described in the registry, as being a certain number of sixty-fourth parts; and no person is entitled to be registered as an owner of any proportion not being an integral

sixty-fourth part ; but as it might happen that existing [† 67] property could not be reduced tby divisions into any number of integral sixty-fourth parts, the owners of other fractional parts are allowed to transfer their shares without stamp duty, and their right to such fractional parts is not to be affected by reason of their shares not having been registered; and any number of owners named and described in the registry, being partners in any house or co-partnership, actually carrying on trade in any part of his Majesty's dominions, may hold any ship or share thereof, in the name of their house or co-partnership, as joint owners thereof, without distinguishing the proportionate interest of each of such owners; and such ship or share thereof so held in co-partnership, shall be deemed to be partnership property, and shall be governed by the same rules, both in law and equity, as relate to and govern all other partnership property (g). (2)

The language of the 13th section, before quoted, is not precisely the same as that of the old statute, the words of

(f) 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 55, s. 33.

(g) 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 55, s. 32.

(1) There is no correspondent provision in our Laws as to the number of owners. (2) There is no correspondent provision in our laws, as to ships owned in partnership. It has, however, been decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, that where a ship belongs to a partnership, and constitutes a part of partnership property, each partner is competent to sell it, as he may any other partnership property, and give a good title accordingly. And a bill of sale by him in the name of all the partners under seal will be valid. Lamb v. Durant, 12 Mass. R. 54. It does not certainly appear by the Report, but there can be no doubt, that the vessel in question was registered in the name of all the partners at the time of the sale. This case appears to be in conflict with the case of The King v. Collector of Customs, 2 Maule & Selw. 223. The provision in the § 32 of the British Act, in the text, seems founded upon the notion, that antecedently ships belonging to partnerships were deemed to belong to the partners as tenants in common. Watson on Part. ch. 2, p. 91; Ex Parte Young, 2 Ves. & B. 242, are to the same effect. In Nicoll v. Mumford, (4 John. Ch. R. 522) Mr. Chancellor Kent acted upon the like doctrine. That case was indeed overturned in the Court of Errors in 20 John. R. 611; but all the learned Judges admitted the distinction between partnership property, and the ownership of vessels, considering the part-owners as tenants in common. See also the learned note of the Reporter. Ibid. 615, (a). In these latter cases, the power of one partner to sell the whole ship does not appear to have been in question.

which are, "no subject of his Majesty, whose usual residence is in any country not under the dominion of his Majesty, shall be deemed or entitled, during the time he shall continue so to reside, to be the owner, in whole or in part, of any British ship authorized to be registered by that Act, unless, &c." (h). Under that statute it was held, that an occasional residence for the purpose of obtaining a colorable qualification would not give a title; that no person was entitled who had not his usual residence in Great Britain or in the dominions belonging to the crown, unless he was within some of the exceptions; that if a man went to another country, and there had a more usual residence than in this, he was no longer entitled to the same privileges, and that a person who was continually shifting his residence between the British dominions and the American states, so as not to have what under any extension could be deemed an usual residence in the British dominions, did not come within the description of the statute (i). (1)

It will be observed, that the 33d section before quoted, contains a proviso in favor of the equitable title of the persons, and under the circumstances therein mentioned. Under the former statutes, Lord Chancellor Eldon took notice. of the difference between an equitable title set up under the act of contract of parties and trusts arising by operation of law, or the act of God. The latter the con- [† 68] sidered as being out of the operation of the statute, the former as being restrained by it (k). (2)

The 32d section, before quoted, contains a provision re

(h) 26 Geo. 3, c. 60, s. 8.

(i) By Lord Stowell, in the case of the Eleanor, Hall, 1 Edwards, 135.

(1) See next note above. >

(k) See 6 Vesey, jun. 739; 15 Vesey, jun. 68.

(2) There is nothing in our Ship Registry Acts, which prevents one citizen from being the legal owner, and taking the usual oath, and there being a good subsisting equitable title in another citizen. The oath required by our Act to be taken by the owner respects only the legal ownership; and does not require a disclosure of any equitable interests vested in other citizens, but only a denial, that any foreigner is directly or indirectly interested by way of trust, confidence or otherwise, in the ship or in the profits or issues thereof. Hence a mortgagee may take out a register in his own name, notwithstanding the equity of the mortgagor. Weston v. Penniman, (1 Mason, R. 306.) See also, that conveyances may pass title by operation of Law, but not by acts of the parties, though not according to the British Registry Acts, Robinson v. McDonnell, (5 M. & Selw. 223.) In causes of possession the Courts of Admiralty will look to the legal title, and who is the legal owner in possession of the bill of sale, in opposition to any asserted equitable interest in other persons. The Sisters, 5 Rob. R. 155; S. C. 4 Rob. R. 275; The New Draper, 4 Rob. 287, 291. See also Curtis v. Perry, 6 Ves. jr. 739.

garding partners in trade, allowing them to be joint owners, and making their property partnership property, both at law and in equity; and it seems that such partners are to be considered as one person only, in estimating the number of thirtytwo persons, mentioned in the 33d section, which speaks of tenants in common; probably, also, the name of each partner must be mentioned and described in the registry; the safer mode certainly will be to name them all in the registry, and this will be the most effectual mode of showing that the whole interest is British. Under the former statutes, it was held, that property in a ship, although bought with partnership money, if registered in the names of one or more only of the partners, must be considered, both at law and in equity, as being the property of those only who were named in the registry (1). And accordingly, in cases of bankruptcy, the value of such property was distributed among the separate creditors of the person named in the registry, and not among the joint creditors of the whole partnership; and the same law must, as I apprehend, still prevail, unless partnership property be duly registered according to the requisites of the new Act. (1)

3. By what Officers Registry is to be made.

The persons authorized and required to make registry and grant certificates, in respect of ships, to be registered in the following countries, &c., are,

The collector and comptroller of his Majesty's customs in any port in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in the Isle of Man, respectively, in respect of ships there to be registered.

The principal officers of his Majesty's customs in the island of Guernsey or Jersey, together with the governor, lieutenant-governor, or commander-in-chief of those islands respectively, in respect of ships to be there registered.

'The collector and comptroller of his Majesty's cus[† 69] toms of any port in the British possessions in Asia, Africa, and America; or the collector of any such port at which no appointment of a comptroller has been made, in respect of ships to be there registered.

(1) See the case of Camden v. Anderson, 5 Term Reports, 709; Curtis and Perry, 6 Vesey, jun. 739; Yallop ex parte, 15 Vesey, jun. 60; Houghton ex parte,

and Gribble ex parte, 17 Vesey, jun. 251;
Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Vesey, 625, 642;
Speldt v. Lechmere, 13 Vesey, 588;
Brewster v. Clarke, 2 Mer. 75.

(1) See Ante, 67, note (2). >

The collector of duties at any port in the territories under the government of the East India Company, within the limits of the charter of the said company, or any person of the rank, in the said company's service, of senior merchant, or of six years' standing in the said service, being respectively appointed to act in the execution of this Act, by any of the governments of the said company, in respect of ships or vessels to be there registered. The collector of duties at any British possession within the said limits, and not under the government of the said company, and at which a custom-house is not established; together with the governor, lieutenant-governor, or commander-in-chief of such possession, in respect of ships to be there registered.

The governor, lieutenant-governor, or commander-in-chief of Malta, Gibraltar, Heligoland, and Cape of Good Hope (m) respectively, in respect of ships there to be registered.

Provided always, that no ship or vessel be registered at Heligoland except such as is wholly of the built of that place; and that ships or vessels, after having been registered at Malta, Gibraltar, or Heligoland, shall not be registered elsewhere; and that ships or vessels registered at Malta, Gibraltar, or Heligoland, shall not be entitled to the privileges and advantages of British ships in any trade between the said United Kingdom and any of the British possessions in America.

Provided also, that wherever in and by this Act it is directed or provided that any act, matter, or thing, shall and may be done or performed by, to, or with any collector or comptroller of his Majesty's customs, the same shall or may be done or performed by, to, or with the several persons respectively herein before authorized and required to make registry, and to grant certificates of registry as aforesaid, and according as the same act, matter or thing is to be done or performed at the said several and respective places, and within the jurisdiction of the said several persons respectively.

†Provided also, that wherever in and by this Act it [† 70] is directed or provided that any act, matter, or

thing shall or may be done or performed by, to, or with the commissioners of his Majesty's customs, the same

(m) A collector of customs having been appointed at the Cape, the authority of the governor to make registry of vessels,

and grant certificates thereof has been repealed. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 113, s. 15.

shall or may be done or performed by, to, or with the governor, lieutenant-governor, or commander-in-chief of any place where any ship or vessel may be registered under the authority of this Act, so far as such act, matter, or thing can be applicable to the registering of any ship or vessel at such place (n).

The old Register Acts contained no provision for registering ships in the territories under the government of the East India Company; and there being no officers of his Majesty's customs in those territories, there was no person who could make registry there. This omission appears to have been first supplied by the 55 Geo. 3, c. 116. Before the passing of that statute, a person, for whom a ship was building in India, invited another to take one-sixteenth share, who consented to do so, and paid a large sum of money toward the price thereof, which however was never finally ascertained. The ship afterwards came to England, and was there registered by the person for whom she was built, in the names of himself and another, omitting the name of the person who had agreed to take the sixteenth. Upon a question afterwards arising between this person and the executors of the other, it was held, that he had no legal interest in the ship (o). (1)

The Registry of Indian ships is now regulated by the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 56, and by the Proclamation of the Governor-General in Council made in pursuance of that Act (oo).

4. At what place Registry is to be made.

Ships built at Malta, Gibraltar, or Heligoland, are to be respectively registered at those places (p). No registry shall be made, or certificate thereof granted, in any other port or place than that to which the ship shall properly belong, except so far as relates to such ships as shall be condemned as prizes in any of the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, or Man, which ships shall in future be registered in manner after mentioned; but that every registry and certificate granted in any port or place to which any such ship does not properly belong, shall be

(n) 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 55, s. 3.

(0) Stringer v. Murray and others, 2 B. & A. 248.

(00) See Wilkinson on Ship. p. 240. (p) 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 55, s. 3.

(1) The only officer authorized by our laws to register any ship or vessel is the Collector of the Port, to which such ship or vessel belongs, with the exception of a ship or vessel sold while lying in another district, in which case she may be registered there, as will be hereafter more fully stated. Act of 1792, ch. 45, § 3, § 11.

« EelmineJätka »