the owners;
As in England, the owners have the right of removing
a master, who is part owner of a vessel; but,
if he is removed without good cause, and while at the
same time specially engaged, they are liable to him
for damages. Where, however, he has only a general
engagement with a vessel, his relation to the owners
is scarcely more than a mere agency, revocable at any
time. On the other hand, the master cannot leave
the ship in which he has contracted to sail without
being himself answerable to the owners.
The authority of a master over his ship is in all essential particulars the same as that prescribed by British law. With regard to letting the ship, the same principles prevail on both sides of the Atlantic.[1]
In general the owners are responsible for injuries committed by the master in that capacity, as in cases of collision, discharges of mariners, damages to cargo from want of ordinary care, and embezzlement. The master is answerable for all contracts made by him in connexion with the navigation of a ship, as also for all damages arising from his want of skill or care, and for repairs and supplies, except when furnished on the exclusive credit of the owner.
and the masters or consignees. If the master of a ship is at the same time commander and consignee, he stands in the twofold relation of agent of the owner and consignor, and is invested with appropriate duties in both capacities. Inasmuch as the master and owner are in the eyes of the American law common carriers, it is the master's duty to see that his vessel is seaworthy and provided
- ↑ For some very nice points of distinction, the reader may consult 'Arnold's Marine Insurance,' Ed. 1857, where the decisions of Judge Story and Chancellor Kent are laid down with profound learning and judgment.
