A shipowner, found liable for the price of furnishings made to his vessel, by order of the master, at a home port.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Lindsay and Allan furnished a cable for a gabbart, while it lay in the harbour of Greenock, upon the order Daniel Clark the master. John Campbell, who resides in Greenock, was the owner of the vessel. Mr. Campbell, when he first sow the cable on board the vessel, found fault with the master for getting it, as being of too large a size, upon which the latter took it in shore, but it was not returned to the furnishers.
Some months after, Lindsay and Allan brought an action against Campbell for £12. 19s. as the price of the cable. ln defence, he
Pleaded: From obvious views of expediency, the owner of a vessel is liable for necessary furnishings made at a foreign port by order of the master. But the powers thus bestowed on shipmasters, being dangerous to the owners, and not sanctioned by common law, are circumscribed within as narrow limits as the ends for which they were bestowed will admit of. And accordingly, when the vessel is in a home port, as the furnishings requisite for her can with ease be ordered by the owner himself, so the law has wisely wichheld from the master the powers of binding his constiment.
Answered: Although the master's powers of binding the owners for money borrowed on account of the vessel, or of hypothecating her, cease when she is is a home port, 4th March 1761, Rope Work Company of Port-Glasgow, No. 68. p. 6288. 29th July 1788, Hamilton, No. 69. p. 6269; yet, as the præpositur a of the master continues, his power of binding the owners for ordinary furnishings is invariably the same, whether the ship be at home or abroad; Stair, B. 1 T. 12. § 18. Macdowall, Vol. p. 399. Ersk. B. 3 Tit. § 43. Molloy, vol. 1. p. 324, 329, 331. Strange's Reports, vol. 2 p. 816. Graham v. Burnett; Vernon, vol. 2, p. 643. Speering v. Degrave; Douglas's Reports, p. 101 Wilkins against Carmichael,
A majority of the Court, on the general doctrine pleaded by the pursuers, and also on the special ground, that Campbell, although he disapproved of the purchase of the cable, did not see it returned to the furnishers, “decerned in terms of the libel, and found the defender liable in expenses.”
After the reclaiming days had expired, the defender presented a reclaiming petition, in which he stated, as res noviter veniens ad notitiam, that Clark, soon after he removed the cable from the veesel, told the pursuers, that he alone was answerable for its price; on which specialty the defender craved that the judgment should be altered.
But the petition was refused without answers.
Lord Ordinary, Cullen.Act. Maccormick.Alt. Montgomery.Clerk, Sinclair.
Fac. Coll. No. 185. p. 423.
