case paul versus birch July stand for judgement where a factor make a  agreement for the hire of a ship with the master on his own account for pound  a month and not on the part of the merchant his principal they be not liable  nor their good put on board to satisfy the master demand but they be liable to  pay the factor the fraught for the cargo and as he be bind by the charterparty  which give the master a specific lie on the good he have a right to be pay in  the first place before the assignee of the factor under a commission of  bankruptcy against he who stand only in the place of the bankrupt two person  who be now bankrupt hire a ship of the plaintiff at the rate of pound a month  and execute a charterparty by which the good to be put on board be make liable  to the plaintiff some merchant who live in the west Indies load this ship with  good and allow the bankrupt their factor pound a tun for the carriage the  plaintiff insist that as the bankrupt be not able to satisfy he the whole hire  of the ship that the merchant be liable to do it in respect of their good  which be bind by the charterparty atkins Lord chancellor two question arise in  this case the first between the plaintiff and the assignee of the bankrupt and  the second between the plaintiff and the defendant the merchant as to the  assignee the question be whether the charterparty be such a specific lie on  the good as to pay the plaintiff or whether the right be in the assignee and  the plaintiff shall come in only as a creditor I be of opinion that the right  be in the plaintiff for as the bankrupt themselves be bind of consequence the  assignee be who stand in their place Jewson v Moulson ante but what seem to be  of great consequence to merchant in general be whether the cargo be further  liable to make up the deficiency to the plaintiff upon what be due to he for  fraught first whether it be liable under the general law of merchant as to the  general law the cargo be no doubt liable to pay the fraught or the expense of  carry the good atkins er p what occasion the difficult that be that the pound  a month be term for the fraught of the good but improper for it be rather for  the hire of the ship the bankrupt be at full liberty to put in what master  they please and also the mariner in Molloy de jure maritime sec it be say if a  factor enter into a charterparty with a master for freightment the contract  oblige he but if he lad aboard general the good the principal and the lade be  make liable and not the factor for the freightment now the present case be  strong the bankrupt the factor enter into the contract for the hire f the ship  and the merchant enter into a contract only for the fraught of the good and be  like the case of a common carrier where if a person load his wagon the good be  liable to pay he the next consideration be whether the bankrupt themselves by  virtue of the charterparty can bind the good of the merchant to answer the  fraught I think not atkins the merchant be no doubt liable to pay the bankrupt  the fraught but it will be very hard to make the good liable to satisfy the  plaintiff demand consider what a factor be Molloy in the book just now cite  page sec say a factor be a servant create by a merchant letter and take a kind  of provision call factorage such person be bind to answer the loss which  happen by overpassing or exceed their commission but a simple servant or  apprentice can only incur his master displeasure where a factor become  bankrupt it have be hold if the merchant good be not mix with his own they  shall go to the merchant the bankrupt make a agreement with the master on  their own account and not on the part of the merchant and therefore the  merchant be not liable otherwise they will be in the hard case imaginable for  they will be liable to any private agreement between the occupier of a ship  and the original owner of it a person that let we out his ship to hire ought  to take care that the hirer be a substantial man and sufficient to make good  the hire and it be his business to look into this and if the person who hire  be not competent the master must suffer for his neglect whatever hardship  therefore may be on one hand to the person who let we out to hire the hardship  be much great on the other side and what give a additional weight to the  merchant case be the great consequence this be to trade in general it be say  that some of the defendant the merchant be indebt to the bankrupt and  therefore they may detain the good to pay themselves and that by the charter  party the plaintiff stand in the place of the factor and have the same lie on  these good a factor may detain good to pay custom in any place or for savage  but more doubtful as to any other pretence vide wiseman versus vandeput vern