Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/420

 408 FEDERAL REPORTER. �ers, when the sliip was at home, no lien can be implied, Every ciroumstance necessary to the implication would be wanting- This was decided in The Golden Gate, 1 Newb, Adm. 308. In the absence of authority, however, I think it could net be doubted. Did the charter-party constitute Mur- ray, Perris & Co. such owners ? In other words, did it, in efifect, transf er the control and possession of the ship to them ? They obtained the entire use and enjoyment, and bound themselves to furnish men and supplies, at their own ex- pense. It is not important that the language is "to pay for manning, victualing," etc. The effect is as stated. That the parties so understood, is shown by Mnrray, Perris & Co.'s purchase of supplies, instead of looking to the general owners for them. The latter stipulated for the privilege of naming the captain and engineers; and the libellants con- sider this an indication that they retained control of the ship. On the other hand, I think it tends to show an understanding that the ship and her control, were to pass to Murray, Per- ris & Co. Otherwise why insert such a provision ? If she was not thus to pass, there oould be no question of the gen- erai owner's right to appoint these ojfficers, as well as the entire crew. The provision was, doubtess, intended to secure to these offices men in whose skill and care the general own- ers had confidence. I do not, however, deem it necessary to decide this question, of ownership. There is another ground on which the ease may, I believe, be rested with entire safety. If the ship remained in the possession and control of the general owners, (as libellants assert,) no one but her master had authority to represent them. Murray, Perris & Co. were not their agents, and could not by any act, or contract, bind them or their property. It would not be suggested that they could pledge the ship for supplies. How then can a pledge be implied from their purchase ? Their relation to the ship, (if libellants' view be aceepted,) was simply that of freight- ers. The fact that they were to furnish supplies in part pay- ment, is unimportant. And it is equally unimportant that the libellants may have trusted the ship. If they did, it waa simply an act of f oUy, unwarrant«d and without effect. They ��� �