I. 2. As to the number of the owners. By the 33rd section of the act it is enacted, that no greater number than thirtytwo persons shall be entitled to be legal owners, at one and the same time, of any ship, as tenants in common, or be registered as such.

It is provided by the same section, that nothing therein contained shall affect the equitable title of minors, heirs, legatees, creditors, or others, exceeding that number, duly represented by or holding from any of the persons within the said number, registered as legal owners of any share or shares of such ship.

It is further provided by the same section, that if it shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of his Majesty's Customs, that any number of persons have associated themselves as a joint stock company, for the purpose of owning any ship, or any number of ships, as the joint property of such company, and that such company have duly elected or appointed any number, not less than three of the members of the same, to be trustees of the property in such ship or ships so owned by such company, it shall be lawful for such trustees, or any three of them, with the permission of such Commissioners, to make and subscribe the declaration required by this act before the registry be made, except that, instead of stating therein the names and descriptions of the other owners, they shall state the name and description of the company to which such ship or ships shall in such manner belong.

By the 32nd section it is enacted, that the property in every ship, of which there are more than one owner, shall be taken and considered to be divided into sixty-four parts or shares, and the proportion held by each owner shall be described in the registry as being a certain number of sixty-fourth parts or shares; and that no person shall be entitled to be registered as an owner of any ship, in respect of any proportion of such ship, which shall not be an integral sixty-fourth part or share of the

same.

It is provided by the same section, that if it shall at any time happen that the property of any owner or owners in any ship, cannot be reduced by division into any number of integral sixtyfourth parts or shares, it shall be lawful for the owner or owners of such fractional parts as shall be over and above such number of integral sixty-fourth parts or shares, into which such property in any ship can be reduced by division, to transfer the

same one to another, or jointly to any new owner, by memorandum upon their respective bills of sale, or by fresh bill of sale, without such transfer being liable to any stamp duty; provided that the right of such owner or owners to such fractional parts shall not be affected by reason of the same not having been registered.

It is further provided by the same section, that it shall be lawful for any number of owners named in such registry, being partners, to hold any ship, or any share of any ship, in the name of such copartnership, as joint owners thereof, without distinguishing the proportionate interest of each of such owners; and that such ship, or the share or shares thereof so held in copartnership, shall be deemed and taken to be partnership property to all intents and purposes, and shall be governed by the same rules, both in law and equity, as relate to and govern all other partnership property in any other goods, chattels, and effects whatsoever.

Upon the construction of this section, it has been held, that although the respective shares in the ship to which the partners are individually entitled need not be defined, yet in order to maintain the interest of each partner against third persons, the names of all the partners must appear on the register, although the name of the partnership firm may also be added. On these grounds Lord Langdale decided the case of Slater v. Willis (a). There, the ship had been registered in the name of the partnership firm of A. & B., in which C. was a dormant partner. A. and B. sold and assigned the ship to certain persons, who, as it should seem, had no notice of C.'s partnership. C. afterwards becoming bankrupt, his assignees filed a bill against the vendees of the ship, praying a declaration that the assignment by A. and B. passed only what might be their interest in the ship, (exclusive of that of C.), after taking the partnership accounts; but Lord Langdale was of opinion that the plaintiffs had no equitable title, and dismissed the bill.

And it should seem, that even as between the partners themselves, the one whose name is not registered will not be allowed to claim an equitable interest against the other, who is possessed of the legal title by registry in his name. In Curtis v. Perry (b), Lord Eldon, after saying that he would give no opinion on the

(a) 1 Beav. 354.

(b) 6 Ves. 739. Sed qu.

effect of the registry acts on trusts implied by law, observed, that if the question before him was to be considered as one between the two partners, it was perfectly clear, that the partner whose name was not registered could not he heard to say that he had any interest in the ships. And in Battersby v. Smith (a), where three persons had agreed to purchase a ship, and that it should be registered in the name of two only, and the other filed a bill for an account of the profits, a general demurrer was allowed, the agreement being held illegal. So, likewise, in another case, the Court of Admiralty refused to give possession of a ship's register to a person whose legal title was doubtful; Lord Stowell observing, that he took the general rule to be, that the register and certificate are conclusive evidence of want of title as against those not named therein (b).

Where, however, the title to the freight and the title to the ship are separate, it seems clear, that the contracts as to freight, both as against third persons, and as between the partners themselves, will not be invalidated in equity by a breach of the laws of registration. Even where the ship and freight are comprised in one bill of sale, it has been thought that Courts of equity would sever the two parts of the transaction, and hold the contract good as to the freight, though invalid as to the ship (c). But whatever might be the decision of a Court of equity under such circumstances, it has lately been held by Lord Cottenham, in the case of Davenport v. Whitmore (d), that where the title to the ship and the title to the freight are expressly severed by the contract of the parties, there an account may be decreed as to the freight, in favour of a person, who, for want of proper registration, may have no legal interest in the ship itself. In the case before Lord Cottenham, A. being indebted to certain shipowners, it was agreed between the parties, that he should work the ship, and pay his debt out of the freight, and that, as a further remuneration for his services, he should, upon payment of the debt, be entitled to an interest in the ship. Lord Cottenham held, that a bill for an account of the freight was clearly sustainable by A. against the owners, although A. might not be

(a) 4 Madd. 110. See Thompson

v. Leake, 1 Madd. 39.

(b) The Frances, 2 Dods. 423.
(c) Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Ves.

261.

(d) 2 Myl. & C. 177. And see Douglas v. Russell, 4 Sim. 524.

able to set up a claim to the ship, which was not registered in his name. In this, the bill charged, that the defendant had given the plaintiff credit on account for the freight, though the account delivered was erroneous. "If a ship," said his Lordship, "be registered in the name of one, and he, admitting the ship to be the property of himself and another, places the freight to the joint account, and settles the account upon that footing, can he, at a future time, withdraw all such items from the joint account, because at law he alone can be recognised as owner of the ship?" And his Lordship distinguished this case from that of Battersby v. Smith (a), by observing, that in the latter case, there was no allegation of any contract as to the freight, or that the amount of it had been placed to the plaintiff's account by the defendant: the title to the account of the freight was made to depend upon and to grow out of the plaintiff's alleged title of partowner.

The rights of third persons as against persons really interested in a ship, cannot, it is conceived, be affected by the Registry Acts (b).

I. 3. Next as to the declaration. By the 13th section it is enacted, that no registry shall thenceforth be made, or certificate granted, until the following declaration be made and subscribed before the person or persons tǝчeinbefore authorized to make such registry, and grant such certificate respectively, by the owner of such ship, if such ship is owned by or belongs. to one person only; or, in case there shall be two joint owners, then by both of such joint owners, if both shall be resident within twenty miles of the port or place where such register is required, or by one of such owners, if one or both of them shall be resident at a greater distance from such port or place; or if the number of such owners or proprietors shall exceed two, then by the greater part of the number of such owners or proprietors, if the greater number of them shall be resident within twenty miles of such port or place as aforesaid, not in any case exceeding three of such owners or proprietors, unless a greater number shall be desirous to join in making and subscribing the

(a) Ante, p. 800.

(b) See post, p. 813; as to Bankruptcy, see ante, p. 602.

FFF

said declaration, or by one of such owners, if all, or all except one, shall be resident at a greater distance.

The declaration is then set forth, containing the name of the ship, her port and master, the description of the ship, the name, occupation, and residence of every partowner, with other particulars tending to prove them subjects of Great Britain, and concludes with a positive averment that no foreigner, directly or indirectly, hath any share or interest in the ship (a).

By the same section, if the ship belong to a corporate body, the oath is to be made by the secretary or other proper officer of such body, and instead of the names and descriptions of the owners, he is to state the name and description of the company or corporation to which the ship belongs.

By the 14th section it is enacted, that in case the required number of joint owners or proprietors of any ship shall not personally attend to make and subscribe the declaration thereinbefore directed to be taken and subscribed, then, and in such case, such owner or owners, proprietor or proprietors, as shall personally attend and make and subscribe the declaration aforesaid, shall further declare that the partowner or partowners of such ship then absent is or are not resident within twenty miles of such port or place, and hath or have not, to the best of his or their knowledge or belief, wilfully absented himself or themselves, in order to avoid the making the declaration thereinbefore directed to be made and subscribed, or is or are prevented by illness from attending to make and subscribe the said declaration.

By the 32nd section it is enacted, that, upon the first registry. of any ship, the owner or owners who shall make and subscribe the declaration required by this act before registry be made, shall also declare the number of such parts or shares then held by each owner, and the same shall be so registered accordingly.

At the time of obtaining the certificate, a bond must be executed by the master, and such of the owners as personally attend, to be approved of and taken by the person authorized to make the registry, in a penalty varying in proportion to the burthen of the ship, but never exceeding £1000; but if the master cannot attend at the time of the registry, by reason of

(a) Abbott, 41.