페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

rupt, his assignees have only an equitable right against the trustee to compel an assignment of the shares, and, consequently, cannot maintain an action of trover for them (a).

IV. 2. In the case of an ordinary trading partnership, the law implies that one partner has authority to bind another by drawing and accepting bills, because the drawing and accepting of bills is necessary for the purpose of carrying on a trading partnership. But, as this power is not generally necessary for the purpose of carrying on the business of a mining company, the law will imply no authority in the directors of a company to bind the shareholders by bills of exchange (b). And, à fortiori, the agent of a mining company has no implied authority to bind the shareholders by bills drawn or accepted by him in the name of the company (c).

V. By several statutes in different Spanish Codes, and particularly by the Ordinances, chap. 7, sect. 1, foreigners are prohibited from acquiring or working and supplying mines. These disabling laws were repealed to a certain extent by a law of the Sovereign Congress of Mexico, in 1823. But it seems clear, from the argument of a learned writer (d), that the repeal of these disabilities does not extend to give foreigners a right of acquiring any absolute property in the Mexican mines. They stand, therefore, with respect to the native mine owner, in the situation of mine suppliers, or persons supplying capital for carrying on the mine, and taking a share of the metals as a remuneration. The 15th chapter of the Ordinances, just referred to, contains a great variety of provisions for the regulation of the contracts between mine owners and mine suppliers. Notwithstanding, however, these specific provisions, it seems clear that

(a) Dawson v. Rishworth, 1 Barn. & Adolph. 574.

(6) Dickinson v. Valpy, 10 Barn. & Cres, 128; Lloyd & Welsby, 6.

(c) Ducarry v. Gill, 1 Mood. & Malk. 450; 4 Car. & Payne, 120.

(d) Thomson on the Ordinances of the Mines of New Spain, p. 29, et seq. The learned writer, however, admits, that there are persons of

great intelligence and experience in the mines of Mexico, who think that they have a right of acquiring such absolute property. The author is informed, that where foreign adventurers intend to enjoy the absolute interest, it is frequently the custom to take the mines in the name of a native, as trustee for such adventurers.

the general laws of partnership must sometimes be resorted to, in order to adjust all differences between the parties. The laws which regulate mining partnerships are contained in the 11th chapter of the same Code (a).

Since the repeal of the disabling laws before mentioned, the Anglo-Mexican and other English companies have been established for the purpose of working the American mines.

(a) This code of laws was framed in the reign of Charles the Third, and during the ministry of Joseph de Galvez, in the year 1783. Mr. Heathfield remarks, that, in the regulations which concern the working of the mines, this code very closely

follows the former ordinances; but that, where alterations are made, they are not unfrequently adopted from the suggestions of Señor Gamboa. See Heathfield's preface to the Commentaries of Gamboa, p. 5.

[blocks in formation]

A SHIP is a chattel of which the owners are possessed as tenants in common; though if it be conveyed to them at one time, and by one instrument, they are more properly joint tenants, without benefit of survivorship (a).

It is the primary business of the owners to let the ship out to freight, freight being the consideration-money agreed to be paid for the use or hire of a ship, or, in a larger sense, for the burthen of such ship (6). However, it frequently happens, that the partowners work their own ship for the purposes of their own traffic, and, in such case, they are to be considered as partners in the adventure, though partowners of the ship.

We have seen that partners have a specific lien on the partnership stock, in respect of the balance due to them on the partnership account (c). In Doddington v. Hallet (d), Lord

(a) It is said, however, by a thus in the first edition of this work, learned writer, that if the entire The Author has since been happy to ship is granted to a number of per- find, that the doubt which is imsons generally, they become joint plied from the above observations, tenants at law, and that the rule jus as to the accuracy of the statement accrescendi inter mercatores locum in Abbott, is likewise entertained non habet, which is applicable to a by Mr. Justice Story. See that ship, is to be enforced only in a learned Judge's Edition of Abbott, Court of equity. See Abbott on

p. 68, n. Shipping, 59. No grounds, however, (6) Beawes, 34; Montefiore, are given for this opinion. See D. “Freight.” Scarlett, arguendo, Rex v. Collector (c) Ante, p. 77, art. II. of Customs at Liverpool, 2 Mau. & (d) 1 Vez. 407. Sel. 223. - N.B. The note stood

tween Foxton and Locking generally, there could be no question that the bankrupt was indebted to the other partowners; for they were ultimately obliged to pay the expense which had been incurred before the bankruptcy.

Owners are not bound to continue their paction or partnership longer than they please (a); and, accordingly, it will be seen at a future page, that one partowner may sell his share without the privity of the others. We will here, however, advert to an observation made by Molloy (6)—“If," he says, “a ship be broken up, or taken in pieces, with an intent to convert the same to other uses, and afterwards, on change of mind, she be rebuilt with the same materials, she is now another and not the same ship, especially if the keel be ript up or changed, and the whole ship be all at once taken asunder and rebuilt: there determines the partnership, quoad the ship. But if a ship be ripped up in parts, and taken asunder in parts, and repaired in parts, yet she remains still the same vessel, and not another; nay, though she hath been so often repaired, that there remains not one stick of the original fabrick."

SECTION II.

Of the Ship’s Registry.

It has been the policy of the British Legislature (c), to confine the privileges of our trade to ships built within the King's dominions. The various commercial privileges of British ships are stated in the statutes 6 Geo. 4, c. 109, and the 7 Geo. 4, c. 48, consolidated by the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 54, the present Navigation Act. By these statutes it is enacted, that the several sorts of goods therein enumerated, being the produce of Europe, shall not be imported into the United Kingdom, to be used therein, except in British ships, or in ships of the country

(a) Molloy, de Jur. Mar. 222.
(6) De Jur. Mar. 224.
(c) On the general policy of the

Navigation Laws, see Mr. Huskisson's Speech, May, 1826.

of which the goods are the produce, or in ships of the country from which the goods are imported.

It is evident, that, in order to enforce these enactments, it should be clearly understood what is, strictly and legally speaking, a British ship. Accordingly, by the 12th section of the Navigation Act, no ship shall be admitted to be a British ship, unless duly registered and navigated as such; and by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 55, the Registry Act, no ship or vessel shall be entitled to any of the privileges or advantages of a British registered ship, until the person or persons claiming property therein shall have caused the same to be registered in virtue of the previous Registry Acts, (the 6 Geo. 4, c. 110, and 4 Geo. 4, c. 41), or in manner thereinafter mentioned, and shall have obtained a certificate of such registry from the person or persons authorized to make such registry, and grant such certificate, as thereinafter directed.

Amongst the matters most worthy of consideration in the last-mentioned enactment, we shall direct our attention to the two following :-1. The circumstances and mode of registry; 2. The form of the certificate.

I. 1. Under the first head, the leading regulations are, that no ship shall be registered, except such as are wholly of the build of the United Kingdom, or of the Isle of Man, or of Guernsey, Jersey, or the colonies, or such as shall have been condemned in any Court of Admiralty as prize of war, or in any competent Court, for breach of the laws regulating the slave trade—that the owners must be subjects of Great Britain, and not more than thirty-two in number—that the registry be made in the United Kingdom, by the collector and comptroller of the customs in any port—that ships shall be registered at the port to which they belong, and that they shall be deemed to belong to some port, at or near which some or one of the owners,

who shall make and subscribe the declaration required by this act, shall reside—that at every port where registers shall be made, a book shall be kept, which shall contain the particulars of the certificate—and, lastly, that the owners, previous to registry, shall make and subscribe the declaration set forth in the act. Of these regulations, we shall consider somewhat more at length those which relate to the number of owners, and the declaration to be taken by them.

« 이전계속 »