The law of the sea

by George L. Canfield; J. Y. Brinton; George W. Dalzell

2. Part-Owners.—

The ship may be owned in shares by any number of individuals. Such part-owners do not become partners by reason of such ownership. Each has a separate and distinct interest which he may sell or dispose of without the consent of the others. They are not partners in the absence of a special agreement to that effect. Each is liable for only his own proportion of the debts and none is responsible for the acts of the others beyond the amount of his interest in the ship, unless he has himself created such further liability directly or by reasonable implication.

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:

The burden of proof is upon Captain Cowan to establish the allegation contained in his petition, but which is denied in the answer thereto, that the shareholders in the Daniel Kaine were not tenants in common but partners in respect to the ownership of the vessel. Has he succeeded in this? The evidence bearing upon this point is as follows: The boat was built by James Lynn, George T. Miller, and R. W. Cowan, who from the first held her in defined shares,—Lynn and Miller each owning seven-eighteenths and Cowan owning four-eighteenths. Thus was the boat enrolled on February 8, 1882. Speaking of her enrollment, Captain Cowan testifies: "There was no other agreement among us than that the boat should be as set out in the registry." In April, 1886, George T. Miller transferred his seven-eighteenths in the boat to George B. Kaine. Captain Cowan further states that there was no written agreement between the owners of the boat as to how she was to be operated, nor any verbal agreement that she was to be run or operated in partnership. However, it seems that, by the tacit consent of all the owners, she was run on joint account. Her employment was in the towing of coal, and at first she was principally engaged in towing for two coal firms, in one of which Lynn was a member, and in the other Miller, viz., James Lynn & Sons, and George T. Miller, & Co. The bookkeeper who kept the books of the boat made out and furnished annually to the several owners balance sheets, in which the cost of the boat appeared as an item. Do these facts establish that the shareholders in the Daniel Kaine were partners in her ownership? I think not. That the cost of the boat appeared in the balance sheets which the bookkeeper made out is not a controlling circumstance, and, indeed, is a matter of little moment, when considered in connection with Captain Cowan's testimony, above quoted. According to the enrollment of the boat, her part owners were tenants in common, and there was no different or other agreement as to ownership. An agreement to run a ship on shares does not make the owners partners with respect to the vessel. Says Chief Justice Gibson in Hopkins v. Forsyth, 14 Pa. St. 38:

"Carriers may doubtless become partners, but not merely by becoming joint owners of a chattel, and using it for a common purpose. And the principle is peculiarly applicable to ships or other craft, the exceptions to it in respect to them being always founded in very special circumstances."

Now, where the vessel is not partnership property, according to the clear weight of authority in this country, one part owner has no lien for his advances and disbursements upon the share of his coöwner. Nor does it make any difference that the part owner making such advances was also the ship's husband. In treating of this subject, Mr. Justice Curtis, in the case of the Larch, 2 Curt. 434, State, after remarking that in England the law is now settled against the existence of the lien, said:

"There has been some diversity of decision in this country, but I think it has proceeded from diversity in the views taken of the particular facts of the cases, rather than from any real difference in principles. That the owners of a vessel may be copartners in respect to that, as well as any other property, and that, when they are so, each has a lien, can not be doubted. But where no such special relation exists, where they are merely part owners, and as such tenants in common, that one has no lien on the share of another for advances, I believe to be equally clear."