844 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �it. Weeks must be presumed to have known that the legal right to the poss^sion and control of the vessel pertained to the majority interest in her, and that he could acquire the right to sail her only from this interest. He is not in a posi- tion, then, to invoke the doctrine of estoppel, because, if he bas made a futile contract, with his eyes wide open, he cannot secure indemnity for a consequent loss by an unauthorized retention of the vessel. �Indefinite as is the testimony of Weeks, I think that, when the whole of the evidence is considered, it imports only an agreement, at the time of the purehase by Weeks, that he should Bucceed Clayton in command of the vessel. Clayton 80 testifies, and it is not without support in the testimony of Weeks, when he says that Clayton agreed that he should "go in her," but did not recollect what he said. I think it is more than probable that the illusory "sailing right" hath this extent no more. Accordingly Clayton turned over the pos- session of the vessel to Weeks, who sailed her thereafter as master, with the acquiescence of the other ownera. He thus got ail that he bargained for, and is without justification for his detention of the vessel. �The absolute right of the owners of a vessel to displace the master, and so reclaim possession of it, is so well settled now as to be incontestable. It rests upon reasons of public pol- icy which are peculiarly applicable to that species of property. It may be exercised without cause, even against a master, in violation of the contract engaging him. Thus, in Montgom- ery v. The Owners of the Oeneral Greene, Bee's E. 388, Judge Hopkinson affirmed the right of the owners to dismiss, at their pleasure, a master who had been employed for a partic- nlar voyage, whose cargo was on board, for which he had signed bills of lading, and who was ail ready and just about to sail. In affirming the decree the high court of errors and appeals say, (Montgomery v. Henry, 1 Dali. 51 :) "As to the other point, the dismission of the captain, we are of the opin- ion that, upon a general retainer for no particular voyage, the captain may be dismissed at any time without cause assigned; ����
