Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/936

 924 FEDERAL REPORTEP.. �51 N. Y. 454; 1 Pars. Shipp. & Adm. 101;) and any circumstance.? which can be seized upon as importing or involving any ratification by the other owners of the work or supplies previously furuisbed upon the order of one, will also make the others liable; such as participating in subsequent profits of the voyage, or taking a bond for the return of the vessel in an amount including the value of the repairs, (Davis v. Johnson, 4 Sim. 539, 543 ;) otherwise, if the amount of the bond does not include such repairs, (Brodie v. Howard, 17 G. B. 109.) �If repairs are absolutely necessary to a voyage the majority in interest may cause them to be made ; and if the other owners dissent, they cannot share in the future earnings of the ship without allow- ing for the expense of the repairs, although their value is not ex- hausted in the voyage. Green v. Briggs, 6 Hare, 395 ; Maclac. Shipp. 105. Thus, except in case of the loss of the vessel, dissentient part owners are praetically compelled ultimateiy either to oontribute to necessary repairs or else to abandon their interest in the use of the vessel to the other part owners. �There is no question, however, that the implied authority to bind other part owners does not extend beyond necessary and reasonable repairs, (1 Pars. Shipp. & Adm. 100 ;) and in this case the length- ening and substantial rebuilding of the Two Marys was in exeess of any authority which could be implied as against other owners even in a ship's husband or master, or a managing owner ; and as Wheaton, the owner of one-sixteenth, gave written notice of his dissent to the repairs, which I think is sufficiently proved to have come to Hawkins' knowledge, and as that dissent has never been waived, and the re- pairs were beyond the limit of any reasonable necessity, Wheaton's interest cannot be here considered as in any manner bound by Haw- kins' claim. �But I do not percoive anything either incongruous in itself, or im- practicable in its results, in holding that a common-law lien might be created upon the shares of the libellant and Crowley, the owners of fifteen-sixteenths, who authorized the repairs to be made. As they might sell their interests separately and deliver possession of the vessel, so they might equally create any charge upon their interests recogniz- able by law. They could mortgage their shares and deliver posses- sion to the mortgagee ; and they might employ Hawkins to repair, and deliver possession of the vessel to him for that purpose in the ordinary way, so as to create a lieu valid in my judgment against ��� �