goods on board the ship, as a general ship, upon the faith of a bill of lading signed by a person whom the owner has allowed to bear the character of master, would be entitled to 'receive his goods at the end of the voyage upon payment of the freight reserved by the bill of lading, may be readily admitted as well upon the reasonableness of the proposition itself, as upon the authority of the decided cases. No question, however, arises in this case, as to goods the property of third persons, originally loaded by them on board the ship; all such goods having been duly delivered, so far as appears, to the consignees, or the indorsees of the bills of lading. But the present case is reduced to the single inquiry, whether, under the circumstances stated in the special case, the rights of the plaintiff's, with respect to these goods are the same, (as contended for them), as the rights of an indorsee for a valuable consideration of a bill of lading given to a shipper, who has loaded his goods on board the ship, as a general ship, and without notice of any agreements between the charterer and the owner of the ship: and we are of opinion that the rights of the plaintiffs are not the same with the rights of shippers under the circumstances above supposed. In the present case the rice and saltpetre were purchased by Wilkinson, the master of the ship, and shipped by him as dead freight on his own account. From the moment these articles were loaded on board, the lien of the defendant attached upon them for the freight and other payments, duc When shipper has no notice to him under the express contract contained in the charter-party. If the master had sold this cargo of rice and saltpetre to a third person, but still retained it in his possession on board the ship, to be carried to London, it is difficult to state the principle upon which this lien, once vested in the shipowner, should have become divested from him by such sale. Where goods are put on board a general ship under a bill of lading, and the owner of the ship has by the charter-party reserved to himself a lien upon the goods laden on board the ship, for his freight due under the charter-party, he has such lien to the extent of the freight due for these particular goods under the bill of lading, whether the goods remain the property of the same person during the voyage, or are sold before delivery to a stranger, or, in other words, the extent of the shipowner's lien remains unaltered, whether the bill of lading is indorsed to a third person for a valuable consideration or the goods are deliverable to the original consignee, and upon the same principle it would seem to follow that if the lading of the ship belongs to the charterer, and such lading is subject to the shipowner's lien for the freight reserved by the charter-party, such lading if it be sold by the charterers after it is put on board, would pass to the purchaser, subject to the lien which the shipowner had before the sale." It is the duty of the master to give notice of the of the Charter charter-party at the time of signing the bill of lading, and the master is justified in refusing to sign the bills of lading otherwise than in accordance party. WHEN SHIPPER HAS NO NOTICE OF THE CHARTER. with the charter-party. Until the shipper is either In a case where a Norwegian vessel was advertised as a general ship, by Messrs. C. and Co., an English firm, described in the advertisement as brokers, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Messrs. C. and Co. for the carriage of certain goods at a stipulated rate of freight, and placed the goods on board before they had notice of any charterparty affecting the ship. It was afterwards proved that Messrs. C. and Co., were charterers of the vessel under a charter-party, which provided that the owner should have a lien for freight, dead freight, and demurrage. The Captain refused to sign bills of lading, except subject to the charterparty, or to return the goods to the plaintiffs. It was held that the owners of the ship were not entitled to retain the goods in satisfaction of their claims under the charter-party, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the goods delivered to them free of any claim by the owners.1 1 Peek v. Larsen, L. R. 12 Eq. 378. 129 1 This case was followed in "The Stornoway," where it was held that when a person without notice. of a charter-party between the shipowner and the charterer, ships goods on board a vessel which is advertised as a general ship by the charterer only, such goods are not subject to a lien which may be reserved by the charter-party to the shipowner in respect of overdue freight, and that under such circumstances an intending shipper is not bound to inquire as to the existence of a charter-party. A person who ships goods on board a vessel and is unaware that she has been chartered, is warranted in assuming that the master is acting by virtue of his ordinary authority, and, therefore, for the shipowners in signing bills of lading. It may be that as between the shipowners, the master and the charterer, the authority of the master is to sign bills of lading on behalf of the charterer only, and not on behalf of the shipowner. But this altered state of the master's authority will not relieve the owner from liability, as the master still continues to be the servant of the owner, and as such is clothed with a character to which the authority to bind such owner by signing bills of lading attaches by virtue of his office. Until the fact that such authority of the master has been put an end to is brought to the knowledge of a shipper of goods, the latter has a right to look to the shipowner as the principal with whom the contract is made.2 151 L. J. Ad. 27. St. Cloud, 8 L. T. N. S. 51; Sandeman v. Scurr, L. R. 2 Q. B. 86. So when a master puts up a ship as a general ship and the shippers have no knowledge of the existence of a charter-party, the contract in the bill of lading is between the shippers and the shipowner, and not between the shippers and charterers; for having delivered their goods to be carried in ignorance of the vessel being chartered, and having dealt with the master as clothed with the ordinary authority of a master to receive goods and give bills of lading on behalf of his owners, they are entitled to look to the owners as responsible for the safe carriage of the goods. Thus where wine was shipped on board at Oporto, and bills of lading were signed by the master in the common form without reference to the charterparty, and on the arrival of the vessel at London, it was found that the wine had leaked from improper stowage. In an action against the owners for the loss, it was held that the shipper was entitled to look to the owners as responsible for the safe carriage of the wine, inasmuch as he had delivered it to be carried in the ship in ignorance that she was chartered.1 So where 1,000 barrels of oilcake were shipped at New York, the vessel being at the time under a charter-party, of which the shippers were ignorant, the master having put up the ship as a general ship: in an action by the assignees of the bills of lading against the shipowner for damage suffered by the oilcake on the voyage, in consequence of its 1 Sandeman v. Scurr, L.R.2Q.B. 86; Hayn v. Culliford, L. R. 4 C.P.D. 182. |