Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/367

 OLOVEB V. AMES. 353 �selling the vessel as the property of the plaintiff and William H. purchasing the same at such sale, ratified and conarmed the sale, if they are to he deemed cognizant of the fact that the plaintiff was himself the purchaser. The statements of each of these parties is that, while he understood that the plaintiff had purchased the vessel and sent her to Eockland as his individual property, he did not know that the pla,intiff purchased her himself at the auction, but under- stood She was purchased by some third party, from whom the plain- tiff afterwards obtained his title, and that such purchaser, having by his purchase in his own behalf obtained a valid title at the auc- tion sale, could afterwards convey such title to the plaintiff, �It appears from the testimony of both E. K. and W. H, Glover that Parker, the mate, on his return in the vessel, informed him of the sale. E. K. says Parker told him "Charles had bought her; she was sold at auction, and a friend had bought her for him, and Charles had got her from him. " W. H. Glover's statement is similar to E. K. 's, with the addition "that he thinks Parker said that the purchaser bought her in for Charles.'' From their testimony the court enter- tains no doubt that both these witnesses understood that the pur- chaser at the auction sale was acting in behalf of Charles, and for his benefit, and that Charles thus, through the intervention of a friend, became at the sale the purchaser of the brig. Such a course is as clearly inoperative to divest the title of the original owners as a direct and open purchase by the master. He cannot indirectly thus accomplish that which the law forbids his doing directly, and E. K. and William H. Glover, therefore, are chargeable with knowledge of the invalidity of plaintiff's title, and they must be held to have volunta- rily assented to and confirmed it, knowing it was thus invalid. It is quite probable that at the time they thus ratified the sale they believed the plaintiff had purchased the vessel through a third party as his agent, and did not suppose that he himself was the purchaser ; but whether the purchase was by the plaintiff himself, or through a third party, is of no consequence. In either case it was of no valid- ity against the prior owners unless it was afterwards sanctioned by them. �E. K. and W. H. Glover, after they were informed that the plaintiff had illegally purchased the vessel, might ratify the sale, if they chose so to do, and their subsequent dealings with her as solely the property of the plaintiff must debar them from ever after asserting any inter- est in her. �v.8,no.5— 28 ��� �