Buxton v she Nov see James v southwestern railway   l r ex No lie on a ship or  proceed from sale of it for repair do except in course of a voyage liberty  give to bring a action as to the personal liability of the partowners who  receive the benefit Lord hardwicke decision in Doddington v Hallett post have  be overrule and now settle that partowners in a ship be not to be consider as  partner see supplement and the demand by the plaintiff be for work do in  repair a ship salk stram atk Douglas Cowper the defendant be partowners or  their representative who receive the benefit thereof and notwithstanding  insist that they shall not make a satisfaction Lord chancellor this be  undoubted a harsh defence their have receive the benefit be not sufficient to  make they liable f r the court will not do so if the court can come at it by  way of contract or consequential equity vesey senior the question on this case  be two first whether the partowners by the employment of the plaintiff either  by the master or the husband be become personal liable for the debt create and  contract for the repair the second suppose they be not whether the ship itself  have contract a lie by the admiralty law allow here and then whether the money  arise by the sale be answerable to the plaintiff I will consider the last  question first and be of opinion that the plaintiff be not entitle to follow  the money into the hand of the defendant certain by the maritime law the  master have power to hypothecate both ship and cargo for repair c during the  voyage which arise from his authority as master and the necessity thereof  during the voyage without which both ship and cargo will perish therefore both  that and the law of this country admit such a power but it be different where  the ship be in port infra corpus comitatus and the contract for repair c vesey  senior er p make on land in England then the rule of that law must prevail I  know no case where the repair c whether it be by partowners or sole owner  master or husband have be hold a charge or lie on the body of the ship  watkinson v Barnardiston wms be a direct authority to the contrary and if the  ship in the river infra corpus comitatus shall be proceed against and stop for  such debt the court of law will issue a prohibition the contract be at land  and not arise from necessity see salk send for if therefore the body of the  ship be not liable or hypothecate how can the money arise by sale be affect or  follow the one be consequential of the other so that the foundation of a  equity arise for the plaintiff fail but it be say that sound harsh in a court  of equity for even admit there be no lie on the body of the ship yet the  defendant have receive the benefit shall make satisfaction but that follow not  as a equitable consequence for suppose the owner of a house lie out a great  sum of money in re air upon its descend to his heir at law he can be affect  with the debt for these repair although he receive the benefit for though that  be the law of holland that it be a lie on the house it be not so here for if  whoever receive a casual benefit shall be liable to make satisfaction it will  extend to several case where it ought not the demand then must rest on the  first question whether the defendant or those in who place they stand be  personal liable for the debt of which I doubt but will give the plaintiff all  the assistance I can for it be just that if h can come at it he ought  undoubted in general whoever contract with another as factor or agent for a  three person it will bind his principal and see Cowp bull Ni Pri and there be  a election as in the case of blackwellhall and several other factor to be a  action against either and there be several case where a action may be bring  against a principal though not name at the time of the contract as among the  broker vesey senior who will not be allow as witness to prove the contract and  that it be make for the principal though they be not name it be no answer  therefore to say that the partowners be not name then how far the act of the  master can create a assumpsit between the plaintiff and the partowners have it  be in the course of the voyage it will have be another consideration but here  it seem the master do not act as agent for the partowners but the husband it  be true that be in the answer under the word hear and believe but not be reply  to it must be take as evidence because no opportunity be give to prove it then  the question which be very material and in respect of which I be not  sufficient inform of the course of trade be upon the husband whether the  partowners be bind by the contract with the husband he be general agent  suppose the principle upon which the plaintiff go be true the contract with  the husband be joint and will survive the most beneficial thing then that can  be do for he be to direct that he be at liberty to bring a action against the  survivor to restrain the defendant from plead the statLite of limitation or  from insist upon any discharge under a Commission of bankruptcy against one of  they but let the bill be dismiss so far as it seek any relief against the body  of the ship or the money arise by the sale thereof Reg lib b fol enter as  Buxton v Sidebotham it have be hold that where a captain contract for the use  of the ship credit be give he in respect of his contract also to the owner as  the contract be on their account and the creditor have a specific lie on the  ship also a captain not personal contract be not answerable personal for the  ship necessary per Lord Mansfield in farmer and Davies hill Geo b r report by  durnford and east see supplement to I pound Ves sen