THE NUBMAN. 4O9 �cannot alkge imposition; it was their duty to ascertain the purchaser's relation to.the ship. They knew he was not the master. This officer had nothing whatever to do with the transaction. He saw the coal coming on board, and knew that Murray, Ferris & Co. procured it, as they were bound to do. The purchase was made exclusively by these people, of their own motion, (so far as appears,) on their own acoount, and for their own use and benefit. Both the master and en- gineer say they had nothing whatever to do with it. They neither kept a tally of the coal, nor receipted for it, — the engineer saying that when asked to sign a receipt, he referred the individual to Murray, Ferris & Co. Not only was, the coal not purchased by the general owners' agent, but it was not even for their use or benefit. It waa not important to them whether the ship went on her voyage, or remained in port. The stipulated compensation for her use must have been paid, whether she sailed or remained idle. The char- terers could not complain that she was without coal; they were bound to furnish it. In short, the libellants, — if their view of the contract be adopted, — are not creditors of the general owners, sold them nothing, and have no claim what- ever on them, or their property in the ship. — Beinecke y; The Secret, 3 Fed. Eep. 665, and Coal Co. v. The Secret, U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., December 1, 1879 (not reported), closely re- semble the case before me. There, however, the terms of the contract were somewhat different, leaving no room to doubt that the eharterers were owners pro hoc vice; and the decis- ions might safely have been rested on this ground. The libel must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs. ��� �
