Generally speaking, the part-owners of a ship occupy the legal status of tenants in common. They may, of course, become partners and subject to the legal incidents of partnership. If they so agree, or if they act in such a manner, they assume the attributes of partnership, one of the chief of which is the liability of each individual partner for the entire indebtedness of the firm (The Wm. Bagaley, 5 Wall. 377).

The Daniel Kaine, 35 Fed. 785, was a contest over the surplus remaining in the registry of the court from the sale of a tow-boat. This had been allotted to the several part-owners in proportion to their shares, but the master, who was one of the owners, claimed a lien against the entire fund for advances made by him on the theory that the owners held the vessel in partnership and not merely as individual coÖwners. The Court said:

It is unlawful, without obtaining permission of the Shipping Board, to place under foreign registry, a vessel owned wholly or in part by an American corporation or to transfer such vessel to any person other than a citizen (Merchant Marine Act, 1920. See Appendix), and within the meaning of that act no corporation is deemed a citizen unless the stock control and management are vested in individual Americans. To enable a corporate-owned vessel to engage in the coasting trade, 75 per cent of the interest in the corporation must be American owned.

The majority of the owners have a right to employ the ship in such voyages as they may please; giving a stipulation to the dissenting owners for the safe return of the ship, if the latter, upon a proper libel filed in the admiralty, require it. And the minority of the owners may employ the ship in the like manner, if the majority decline to employ her at all.

Similarly Justice Clifford, in The Wm. Bagaley, 5 Wall. 377:

Even where the part owners of a ship are tenants in common, the majority in interest appoint the master and control the ship, unless they have surrendered that right by agreeing in the choice of the ship's husband as managing owner.

If the owner be a corporation, the control of the vessel is usually directed by the Board of Directors, as in the case of other corporate enterprises, though the holders of a majority of the capital stock may determine the disposition of the vessel and all matters relating to her, by voting their stock at regular or special stockholders' meetings, called in accordance with the company's charter and by-laws and the laws of the state in which the company is incorporated.

Admiralty, however, in certain cases, if no ship's husband has been appointed, will interfere to prevent the majority from employing the ship against the will of the minority without first entering into a stipulation to bring back the ship or pay the value of their shares. But the dissenting owners in such a case, bear no part of the expenses of the voyage objected to, and are entitled to no part of the profits.... Unless the coÖwners agree in the choice of a managing owner or the dissenting minority go into admiralty, the majority in interest control the employment of the ship and appoint the master.

The admiralty practice is governed by the old maxim that "ships were made to plow the ocean, and not to rot by the wall." So, if the owners be evenly divided in opinion, the party desiring to employ the ship will prevail, on giving security to the other. In Willings v. Blight, 2 Pet. Adm. 288; 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17765, decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 1800, the court quaintly expressed the law as follows:

It is a principle discernible in all maritime codes, that every encouragement and assistance should be afforded to those who are ready to give their ships constant employment; and this not only for the particular profit of owners, but for the general interests and prosperity of commerce. If agriculture be, according to the happy allusion of the great Sully, "one of the breasts from which the State must draw its nourishment," commerce is certainly the other. The earth, parent of both, is the immediate foundation and support of the one, and ships are the moving powers, instruments and facilities of the other. Both must be rendered productive by industry and ingenuity. The interests and comforts of the community will droop and finally perish if either be permitted to remain entirely at rest. The former will less ruinously bear neglect, and throw up spontaneous products; but the latter require unremitted employment, attention and enterprise, to insure utility and product. A privation of freight, the fruit of the crop of shipping, seems therefore to be an appropriate mulct on indolent, perverse or negligent part owners. The drones ought not to share in the stores acquired and accumulated by the labor, activity, foresight and management of the bees. Although the hive may be common property, it is destructively useless to all, if not furnished with means of profit and support by industry and exertion; which should be jointly applied by all before they participate in beneficial results. Nor should the idle and incompetent be permitted to hold it vacant and useless to the injury and ruin of the industrious and active.

Seaworthiness is a relative term. The ship must be fit in design, structure, condition and equipment to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage. She must have a competent master and a sufficient crew. Absolute perfection, of course, is not required; the real test is that the ship shall have that degree of fitness which the ordinary careful and prudent owner requires of his vessel at the commencement of the voyage in view of all the circumstances which may attend it.

The law does not insist that the shipowner shall in person attend to all his duties in respect of the ship. It recognizes that most of these must be met by agents. It contemplates that shipowners may avail themselves of the facilities common to business men and be relieved whenever they have properly employed competent agents to supervise the ship at sea and in port. In most instances where the maritime law may be applied the owner will not be responsible beyond his interest in the ship, for the acts or omissions of agents whom he has selected with due care.

An illustration of the liability of the owner for contract of the master within the scope of his employment is to be found in a case in which the master contracted for extra pilotage. As the United States District Court remarked in the Cervantes, 135 Fed. 573, "In pilotage cases resort may be had to the vessel or the owner or the master."

The case of Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 548, illustrates the liability of an owner for the tort of the master. It grew out of a collision in Lake Erie and was an action in admiralty brought in personam by the owners of one of the vessels against the owners of the other for damages, alleging the negligent operation of the respondents' vessel. The Supreme Court (Clifford, J.) held:

Owners of vessels, and especially those who own and employ steamships, whether propellers or sidewheel steamers, must see to it that the master and other officers intrusted with their control and management are skillful and competent to the discharge of their duties, as, in case of a disaster like the present, both the owners and the vessels are responsible for their acts, and must answer for the consequence of their want of skill and negligence; and this remark is just as applicable to the under officers, whether mate or second mate, as to the master, during all the time they have charge of the deck. That the mate in this case was substantially without experience in navigating steamers, and utterly destitute of the requisite information to fit him to determine the proper courses of the voyage, are facts so fully proved that it is difficult to regard them as the proper subjects for dispute; and what is more, the master knew his unfitness when he started on the voyage, and stated before the vessel left Cleveland, to the effect that he was afraid he was going to be sick, and that he had no confidence in the mate. Some of the owners also distrusted his fitness when they employed him, and made an effort to engage another person in his stead; and one of them, after having heard of the disaster, expressed his regret that the person to whom he first applied had not taken his place.

The case of Hough v. Western Trans. Co., 3 Wall. 20, was a libel in personam against the owners of the steamer Falcon. The vessel, while made fast to libellant's wharf, took fire through the negligence of the master and crew. The fire communicated to the wharf, which was destroyed with the buildings on it and those adjacent. While the court held that the tort was committed on land and, not being maritime, the admiralty court was without jurisdiction, it upheld the principle of the liability of owners for the negligence of the master and crew as follows:

The owner of a vessel is liable for injuries done to third persons or property by the negligence or malfeasance of the master and crew while in the discharge of their duties and acting within the scope of their authority. It is upon this principle that the defendants are liable, if at all, to the libellants for the damages sustained. The circumstance that the agents were in the employment of the owners on board the vessel, and that the negligence occurred while so employed, and which occasioned the damage, gives to the libellants the right of action.

This is, indeed, simply the general law of master and servant or principal and agent.

The temporary ownership of a vessel by a person other than the real owner does not relieve the ship herself from those liabilities which attach to her in any event: For example, her liability for damage caused others by her torts, as faulty navigation; or from liability under those contracts for which the ship itself is primarily responsible, such as contracts for bunkers and supplies and necessary repairs elsewhere than in the home port. This principle is laid down in the case of the Barnstable, 181 U.S. 464, as follows:

The law in this country is entirely well settled that the ship itself is to be treated in some sense as the principal and as personally liable for the negligence of any one who is lawfully in possession of her whether as owner or charterer.

And in the case of Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U.S. 99, where it was said:

By the maritime law the vessel, as well as owners, is liable to the party injured for damages caused by its torts. By that law the vessel is deemed to be an offending thing and may be prosecuted without any reference to the adjustment of responsibility between the owners and the employees for the negligence which resulted in the injury.

The claim of the true owner to his vessel will not, however, be defeated by fraudulent acts of the temporary owner to which the real owner was not privy, because in such a case the theory of the agency of the master or temporary owner for the real owner fails. This subject is discussed in the leading case of the Freeman, 18 How. 182. In that case the temporary owner caused the master to sign bills of lading, certifying that a quantity of flour had been shipped on board the schooner from Cleveland to Buffalo by the temporary owner consigned to the libellants. No such flour had in fact been shipped and the consignees, who had advanced money on the bills of lading, libeled the ship. The real owner filed a claim to the vessel. The Court (Curtis, J.) said:

It should be noted that the mere record title does not conclusively establish ownership. That title may be only security for the real owner out of control. The real facts may be shown when necessary (Davidson v. Baldwin, 79 Fed. 95).

In Woodall v. Dempsey, 100 Fed. 653, the Court found the facts to be as follows:

The suit is for $3,513, a balance due for repairs. The work was done at Baltimore costing $16,000. The home port of the vessel was Philadelphia, the owners being Patrick Dempsey and Henry Hess, who reside here; the former having four-fifths, the latter one. Dempsey, managing owner, ordered and superintended the repairs. Mr. Woodall sought the work for his company, and came to Philadelphia to obtain it. At that time it was supposed $5,500 would cover the cost. The vessel was subsequently taken to the libellants' place at Baltimore and the work commenced in pursuance of arrangements made here. It was afterwards found that much more must be done than had originally been contemplated, and a much larger bill incurred. On the completion of the work, notes (of Dempsey) were given for the $3,513 unpaid, and the vessel was delivered to the owners.

Woodall brought an action in personam against Dempsey and Hess for the $3,513. It appeared that plaintiff dealt with Dempsey alone and there was no evidence to show that he took any action or made any expenditure on the credit of Hess. The Court said:

The compensation of the managing owner or ship's husband depends upon contract, express or implied, with the owners. In some localities, usage may provide a commission on the amounts of money which he handles. Where he is not one of the owners, the law would doubtless imply a promise to pay him a reasonable compensation; where he is a part owner himself, it is doubtful if compensation could be recovered in the absence of a definite agreement; ordinarily tenants in common are not entitled to charge each other for services rendered in the care and management of the common property, in the absence of a statute or special contract. The managing owner is not entitled to a lien upon the ship for his compensation or disbursements but he may have a lien upon the profits of a voyage in his hands or upon the proceeds of the ship in the same situation.