Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/373

 GLOVEE V. AMES. 859 �orders. On the contrary, she was to be kept until the plaintiff 're- turned— was not to be sold from under him — and the place and man- ner of keeping her were distinctly stated both to the agent and th©: purchaser. Eeceiving the vessel under these instructions the agient was bound in law to conform to them. Whatever previous authority he had as to the sale of the vessel was modified and limited by these instructions, and if the agent thought it to be for the best interest of hifi principal to dispose of her, he could only do so upon advising him of his opinion and obtaining his assent to her sale. The general authority bestowed by the power of attorney to dispose of property of the plaintiff was not wholly canoelled and revoked, but all control over this brig was restricted by this letter to the purposes and object therein stated, and it was as clear a revocation of any authority to dispose of her as if contained in a formai power of attorney. Will- iam H. G-lover was cognizant of the extent of the power of attorney, and also of this letter of the plaintiff of the twenty-ninth Septem- ber, directed to his "dear brothers," and he could not have acquired a valid title to the vessel by any sale made after the reception of this letter by E. K. Glover, as attorney for the plaintiff. , �On the return of the plaintiff to Eockland, in May, 1879, he immediately repudiated the sale and insisted on his title, but Will- iam remained in possession of the brig until she was sold by him at public auction in May, 1880, to the defendant, who was present at the sale, and heard the plaintiff forbid the sale and claim that «he was his property. The defendant, therefore, can have no better right than William to the brig, and William's title having been proved in- valid, the defendant by his purchase acquired no title to her. The defendant further insists that, under the direction of William, he made same repairs on the vessel, and that after his purchase up to the time of the replevin he was repairing her on his own account, and that for these repairs, as well as for dockage of the brig, he held a lien upon her which will defeat this suit. In making these repairs by order of William the defendant was a trespasser. William had no interest in the vessel, and could. not authorize the defendant to make these repairs so as to affect the interest of the plaintiff. By such repairs the defendant acquired no lien upon the vessel, either for those done by William's order or for those made by himself as her owner, the latter being made by him not for any other party, but under a claim of sole ownership as upon his own property, and no lien could arise therefrom. The claim to a lien for dockage is also liable to the same objection. William had no authority from the ��� �