THE TWO MABTS. 92? �that purpose ; and the same possession is sufScienfc foi a common-Iaw lien. The Schooner Marion, 1 Story, 68, 75. �I do not think it requisite to determine in this case whether neces- sary repairs upon a domestic vessel in her home port can be made a lien or charge upon her as against the individual interest of an owner who gives express notice of dissent to the shipwright. Part owners of vessels are, for the most part, regarded as tenants in common of other chattels are regarded, neither of whom, at common law, can oind the others, or the others' interest in the property, except through their consent, expressed or implied. It seems to be settled that a part owner of a vessel who has not authorized repairs ia not person- ally liable for any part of the expense incurred therefor by the direc- tion of the other part owners. Stedman v. Fiedler, 20 N. Y. 437; Brodie v. Howard, 17 G. B. 109. The common law affords no remedy to one tenant in common of a single indivisible chattel against an- other part owner who retains it to his own exclusive use. Russell v. Allen, 13 N. Y. 173; Gilbert v. Dickerson, 7 Wend. 449. He is, there- fore, not liable for any part of the expense of keeping and repairing it while in the possession and use of the other part owner; nor does the latter have any lien for his charges and expenses. 1 Pars. Shipp. & Adm. 115. Only in case of a destruction of the property or a sale or secret removal of it by one part owner, the other may, at his option, recover in trover the value of his interest as for a conversion ; or, at his election, he may treat the vendee as only a co-tenant with him- self, and retake and use the property himself, if he can get it, with equal exemption from any liability to account for its use. Wilson v. Reed, S Johns. 175; Hyde v. Stone, 9 Cow. 230; White v. Osborne, 21 Wend. 72; Ficro v. Betts, 2 Barb. 633; Tyler v. Taylor, 8 Barb. 585 ; Dain v. Cowing, 22 Me. 347. �These rude and semi-barbarous incidents of the common law in regard to co-tenants of chattels have necessarily been much modified to meet the exigencies of commerce and the equitable rights of part owners of vessels. A managing owner, or a ship's husband, has a general implied authority to bind all the owners for necessary re- pairs, unless the party dealing with them have notice of dissent, (Story, Ag. § 40 ;) and in this country it may be deemed settled that necessary repairs or supplies furnished on the order of any one part owner will be deemed to have been furnished upon the implied au- thority of all the part owners, and all will be bound therefor, unless express dissent is proved, (3 Kent, Comm. *155; McCready y. 2'horn, ��� �
