such a duty as comes within the terms of his employment as managing owner, in respect of which he is not entitled to debit the ship with a commission. He is an agent appointed by the other owners to do what is necessary to enable the ship to prosecute her voyage and earn freight; thus he has power to bind his co-owner, as his agent, to release the vessel from an arrest in the Admiralty Court in a suit for collision, by procuring bail for damages and costs in such suit; he has also to superintend the papers of the ship.2 "As managing owner he would, as between himself and the lender, have a right to borrow money, if it was borrowed for the necessary purposes of the ship." He may also grant bills for furnishings, stores, repairs, and the necessary engagements, which will bind the owners, although he may have received money wherewith to pay them. He may receive the freight, but is not entitled to take bills instead of it, giving up the lien by which it is secured. As the expenses of the voyage have usually been incurred by the managing owner or ship's husband, it 4 may generally be said that he is the person to whom the freight ought to be paid. He has not, however, any charge upon it; but only a right to retain his advances on the ship's account out of it, when it comes to his hands. So that he cannot 1 Williamson v. Hine, L. R. (1891) 1 Ch. 390; 6 Asp. M. L. C. 559. Barker v. Highley, 32 L. J. C. P. 270. The Faust, 6 Asp. Mar. L. C. 126. * Rich v. Coe, Cowp. 639; Whitwell v. Perrin, 4 C. B. N. S. 412. make a valid assignment of the freight, although the ship be indebted to him at the time.' He has no power to insure without the owner's special authority.2 Circumstances may arise under which in the interests of the owners, and the ordinary and proper course of business, he may borrow money, and delegate his authority to another; if so his co-owners will be bound by his acts.3 A ship's husband, as such, has no authority to bind the ship-owner to pay money to the charterer in consideration of the cancellation of the charterparty.4 Owing to the changes which have of recent years taken place, it is not unusual to find many vessels owned by limited companies, and in such cases the articles of association generally contain suitable provisions regulating the appointment and duties of the managing owner. In accordance with the provisions of 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80 s. 36, W. in 1877, being the registered owner of certain shares in a ship, caused himself to be entered as managing owner. Subsequently, in 1879, the defendant became registered owner of certain other shares in the same ship, and agreed to sell them to W. for cash, informing W. that he 1 Beynon v. Codden, L. R. 3 Ex. D. 263; Guion v. Trask, 29 L. J. Ch. 337. 2 Abbott on Sh. 100; Story on Agency, s. 35. had no intention of navigating the ship, and would not take any part in her management. W. thereupon agreed that the vessel should not leave port till the cash was paid. Shortly after, W., without the defendant's knowledge, ordered necessaries for the ship from the plaintiff's, and sent the ship to sea. The defendant had no interest in the adventure, of which he knew nothing, nor was he aware of the entry in the register of W. as managing owner, which still remained uncancelled. The plaintiff's had inspected the register before supplying the necessaries, and found the defendant's name as partowner. W. shortly after went into liquidation. In an action brought to recover the price of necessaries from the defendant,-It was held, that W. had not in fact authority to bind the defendant, and the fact of the entry on the register of W. as managing owner remaining uncancelled, was not a holding out by the defendant of W. as his managing owner, or as clothed with authority to bind any other owners than those who had in fact entrusted to him the management of the ship.1 The name and address of the managing owner for the time being, of every British ship registered at any port or place in the United Kingdom, shall be registered at the custom-house of the ship's port of registry. 1 Frazer v. Cuthbertson, L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 93; 50 L. J. Q. B. 277. Where there is not a managing owner, there shall be so registered the name of the ship's husband, or other person to whom the management of the ship is entrusted by or on behalf of the owner; and any person whose name is so registered shall, for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1851 to 1876, be under the same obligations, and subject to the same liabilities, as if he were the managing owner.1 A ship's husband being the servant of the shipowners, holding an important office, and open to the vigilant superintendence of his employers, it is prima facie a breach of trust in any director of a company established for the purpose of acquiring and working of vessels, especially where the directors have the exclusive management of the concern, to take upon himself the duties of ship's husband. Where, therefore, in a company so constituted, one of the directors with the consent of others forming with himself a board of directors, undertook the office of ship's husband, and in that character received out of the funds of the company such sums for commision and brokerage as are usually allowed to the ship's husband:-Held, that he must refund those monies; and, semble, that the other members of the board of directors were similarly responsible in the event of any inability in the principal party to refund.2 139 & 40 Vict. c. 80. s. 36. Benson v. Heathorn, 1 Y. & C. Ch. Cas. 326. A ship broker, who is also managing owner of a ship and receiving a fixed sum as remuneration for his services as such, is not entitled to make an extra profit for himself by commission or brokerage for procuring charters and freights, it being one of the duties of a "managing owner" to procure charters and freights.1 powers of. Where a ship is away from her home port, where Master, her business is managed, the master generally carries the owner's authority, and ordinarily he has power to enter into engagements, on their behalf, for carrying goods in the ship, or for letting her services; provided those engagements are consistent with the usual manner of employing her adopted by the owners." When the ship has been chartered by the owners, the master has not authority to cancel the charter-party, or to alter its terms. He is the owner's agent for the voyage defined by the charter-party, and has not authority unless expressly granted to change it for another. Thus, he cannot validly agree to change her destination,3 nor can he alter the amount of freight to be paid, or the manner of paying it.* But the stipulations in a charter-party may be varied by subsequent instructions, which may amount to a new contract pro tanto and an Williamson v. Hine, L. R. (1891) 1 Ch.390; 6Asp. Mar. L. C. N. S. 559. › Burgon v. Sharpe, 2 Camp. 529; Capper v. Wallace, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 166. * Pearson v. Goschen, 33 L.J.C.P. 265; Reynolds v. Jex, 34 L.J.Q.B. 251. |