It is common for ship chandlers and others furnishing supplies or articles of furniture or apparel by the order of a ship's husband * or of any part-owner, to charge the same in their books against the vessel by name, or against "the owners of such a vessel," or against such a ship and owners. This would not necessarily give them a right to hold all the owners. It might show that the credit was given to all the owners, but it would not show that this credit was justified by the owners. (w)

(t) Merrill v. Bartlett, 6 Pick. 46; Braden v. Gardner, 4 Pick. 456; Doddington v. Hallet, 1 Ves. Sen. 497; Ex parte Young, 2 Ves. & B. 242; Ex parte Harrison, 2 Rose, 76; Ex parte Parry, 5 Ves. 575; Nicoll v. Mumford, 20 Johns. 611.

(u) Holderness v. Shackels, 8 B. & C. 612; Gould v. Stanton, 16 Conn. 12, 28; Macy v. Be Wolf, 3 Woodb. & M. 123, 210.

(v) Jaggers v. Burnings, 1 Stark. 64.

(w) See Jones v. Blum, 2 Rich. 475; Miln v. Spinola, 4 Hill, 177; Scottin v. Stanley, 1 Dall. 129; Henderson v. Mayhew, 2 Gill, 393. If the creditor knew but one owner, and for that reason charged him only, this would not be deemed a discharge of the rest, provided the repairs were ordered by one authorized directly or by his position, to bind the others. Thomson v. Davenport, 9 B. & C. 78; Ta~ ber v. Cannon, 8 Met. 456.

• 272

But if, in addition to such charge, it could be shown that the owners in any way, by action or silence, had justified the credit, they would be held.

In courts of admiralty, actions may be and often are brought against the vessel directly, or, in the phrase of admiralty law, in rem, and this is both convenient and reasonable. For owners ought often to be held for repairs or supplies to a ship when they are unknown, or the ship is distant from them, and the same action is permitted in the common-law courts by statute in Georgia, (x) Florida, (y) Alabama, (z) Arkansas, (a) Kentucky, (b)

Ohio, (c) Michigan, (d) Indiana, (e) Illinois, (f) Missouri, (g) * Iowa, (h) Mississippi, (i) Wisconsin, (j) and

California. (k) But by the decisions in these States, it would seem that actions of this sort will not be sustained under these statutes, where the cause of action arose out of the States. (l)

(x) Dec. 11, 1851, Hotchkiss Stat. Law, 625; Robinson v. Steamer Lotus, 1 Kelly, 317; Butte v. Cuthbertson, 6 Ga. 159; Adkins v. Baker, 7 Ga. 56.

(y) 1847, Thomp. Dig. 414; Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Roberts, 2 Fla. 102.

(z) 1836, Clay's Dig. 139; Steamboat Robert Morris v. Williamson, 6 Ala. 50; George v. Skeates, 19 Ala. 738; Otis v. Thorn, 18 Ala. 395.

(a) Rev. Stat. c. 14; Holeman v. Steamboat F. H. White, 6 Eng. 237; Steamboat Napoleon v. Etter, 1 Eng. 103; Steamboat P. H. White v. Levy, 5 Eng. 411.

(b) 1839, 3 Stat. Law, 112; 1841, 3 Stat. Law, 113; Strother v. Lovejoy, 8 B. Mon. 135.

(c) Stat. Swan's ed. c 26, p. 185; Curwen's Stat, in force, 503; Keating v. Spink, 3 Ohio State, 105; Canal Boat Huron v. Simmons, 11 Ohio, 458; Young v. Steamboat Virginia, 1 Handy, 156; Scott v. The Plymouth, 1 Newb. Adm. 56 ; Wick v. The Samuel Strong, 1 Newb. Adm. 188; Jones v. Steamboat Commerce, 14 Ohio, 406; Steamboat Waverly v. Clements, 14 Ohio, 28; Kellogg v. Brennan, 14 Ohio, 72; Provost v. Wilcox, 17 Ohio, 359; Dewitt v. Sch. St. Lawrence, 2 Ohio State, 325; Boyd v. Steamboat Falcon, 1 Handy, 362; Lewis v. Sch. Cleveland, 12 Ohio, 341; Wayne v. Steamboat Gen. Pike, 16 Ohio, 421; Steamboat Albatross v. Wayne,

16 Ohio, 513; Sch. Argyle v. Worthington,

17 Ohio, 460.

(d) 1839, Sess. L. p. 70. This was repealed in 1846, R. S. c. 122. See Robinson v. Steamboat Red Jacket, 1 Mich. 171; Mores v. Steamboat Missouri, 1 Mich.

507; Truesdale v. Hatsard, 2 Mich. 844, Ward v. Wilton, 3 Mich. 1; Watkins v. Atkinson, 2 Mich. 151.

(e) 1838, Steamboat Rover v. Stiles, 5 Blackf. 483; Southwick v. Packet Boat Clyde, 6 Blackf. 148; Olmstead v. McNall,

7 Blackf. 387.

(f) Rev. Stat. 1845, p. 71, ed. 1856, p. 107; 8ch. Constitution v. Woodworth, 1 Scam. 511; Channcey v. Jackson, 4 Gilman, 435; Germain v. Steam Tug Indiana, 11 Ill. 535; Merriman v. Canal Boat Col. Butts, 15 Ill. 585.

(g) R. C. 1845; Williamson v. Steamboat Missouri, 17 Mo. 374; Jones v. Steamboat Morrisett, 21 Mo. 144; Ritter v. Steamboat Jamestown, 23 Mo. 348.

(h) Rev. Stat. 101; Code,c. 120; Steamboat Kentucky v. Brooks, 1 Greene, 398; Ham v. Steamboat Hamburg, 2 Clarke, 460; West v. Barge Lady Franklin, 2 Clarke 522.

(i) Acts of 1840, 1841, Hutch. Dig. 288, art. 6; id. 290, art. 8; Steamboat Gen. Worth v. Hopkins, 30 Missis. 703.

(j) Rev. Stat. 116; Rand v. The Barge, 4 Chand. 68.

(k) Laws, 1st Seas. 189, c. 75, § 2; Compiled Laws, 1853, 576, c. 6, § 318.

(l) Steamboat Champion v. Jantzen, 16 Ohio, 91; The Sch. Aurora Borealis v. Dobbie, 17 Ohio, 125; James v. Steamboat Pawnee, 19 Misso. 517; Prink v. King, 3 Scam. 144; Turner v. Lewis, 2 Mich. 350; Steamboat Kentucky v. Brooks, 1 Greene, Iowa, 398; Strother v. Lovejov,

8 B. Mon. 135; Merrick v. Avery, 14 Art 370.

Persona employed to repair a ship, or who furnish supplies necessary to her equipment and navigation, are called in the law of shipping, as we have said, material men. They have certain liens against the ship, which, with the method of enforcing them, have been considered in a previous section of this chapter.