boson versus Sandford all mich W m B R Intr hill James rot overrule Gweth v  Radnidge east uphold Powell v Layton Bos p n r see Kendal v Hamilton App Cas  see Vaug lev lev S C d p p Mod show comb lev show Carth salk skin holt good be  spoil by the default of the master of a ship employ by owner the owner be  liable in respect of the fraught see lev Mod sand post action lie against the  owner sand for he that employ a servant undertake for he vide prox grammatical  case Mod Moll but the action must be bring against all the partowners salk  Bulst Mod Mod Mod ld raym Rep B R tempt hard case against a and b partowners  of a ship for that he put good on board and the defendant undertake to carry  they safe for hire but yet be so negligent that the good be spoil upon not  guilty plead in evidence it appear that c and d be also partowners and that  the ship be under the care of a master to who the good be deliver and this be  find special it be argue pro quer that the action be ground on the wrong and  may be against all or a of the proprietor there be also another doubt start  and that be whether the owner be liable when in truth they do not undertake  but in fact the master super see to take Eyre justice hold there be no  difference between a landcarrier and a watercarrier and that the master of a  ship be no more than a servant to the owner in the eye of the law and that the  power he have of hypothecation c be by the civil law et per holt c j the owner  be liable in respect of the fraught and as employ the master for whoever  employ another be answerable for he and undertake for his care to all that  make use of he dly the court hold that all the owner be liable for they be  charge in point of contract as employer and be all equal entitle to the  fraught either master or owner may bring a action for the fraught but if the  owner bring the action they must all join ergo they must all be join as the  fraught belong to all so all be equal undertake and a breach of trust in one  be a breach of trust in all as where two make one officer the act of one be  the act of the other dly the court hold this be not a action ex fault but ex  quasi shrinking and it be not the contract of one but of all that there be no  other tort but a breach of trust therefore the court give judgement for the  defendant because all the owner be not join a a but a defendant now must plead  in abatement that there be other who ought to be and be not join with he and  he will not be allow to give it in evidence and nonsuit the plaintiff rice v  shoot burr Bl Rep the same be also decide in Abbott v smith Bl Rep where this  case be commend upon and deny