A master of a ship has, by the policy of the law-merchant, some authority not usually implied in other cases of general agency. (y) Thus, he may borrow money, if the exigencies and necessities of his position require it, and make his owner liable, and pledge the ship (by bottomry for the most part) for the repayment. (z) But this authority does not usually extend to cases where the principal can personally act, as in the home port, (a) or in a port where the owner has a specific agent for this purpose, (b) and by parity of reason not in a port so near the owner's home that he may be consulted without inconvenience and injurious delay. (c) So, too, under such circumstances, he may, without any special authority, sell the property intrusted to him, in a case of extreme necessity, and in the exercise of a sound, discretion. Nor need this necessity be actual, in order to justify the master and make the sale valid. If the ship was in a peril, which, as estimated from all the facts then within his means of knowledge, was imminent, and made it the only prudent course to sell the ship as she was, without further endeavors to get her out of her dangerous position, this is enough, and the sale is justified and valid, although the purchasers succeed in saving her, and events prove that this might have been done by the master. But it must be a case where a sudden and entire change of wind or weather, or some other favorable circumstance which no one at the time could have rationally expected, became the means of her safety; for although the powers and duty of the master should not depend on matters which are alike beyond control and foresight, (d) * it is still certain that the sale of a ship by the master can be justified and made valid only by a strict necessity.

(y) Whether an action may be maintained against an owner, which is grounded on the exercise of this peculiar and extraordinary authority by one who was not the master on the register, but by appointment of the owner had virtually acted as master, quoere; see Stonehouse v. Gent, 2 Q. B. 431, n.; Smith v. Davenport, 34 Me. 520.

(z) Barnard v. Bridgeman, Moore, 918; Weston v. Wright, 7 M. & W. 396; Arthur v. Barton, 6 M. & W. 138; The Gratitudine, 3 Rob. Ad. 240; Stainbank v. Fenning, 11 C B. 51; 13 C. B. n. s.

418; The Fortitude, 3 Sumner, 228.

(a) Lister v. Baxter, Stra. 695; Patton v. The Randolph, Gilp. 457; Ship Lavinia v. Barclay, 1 Wash. C. C. 49; Lord Abin-ger, Arthur v. Barton, 6 M. & W. 138.

(b) Pritchard v. Schooner Lady Hora-tia, Bee, Ad. 167; Gunn v. Roberts, L. R. 9 C. P. 331.

(c) Johns v. Simons, 2 Q. B. 425; Arthur v. Barton, 6 M. & W. 138; Mackintosh v. Mitcheson, 4 Exch. 175; Beldon v. Campbell, 6 Exch. 886, where Robinson v. Lyall, 7 Price, 592, was questioned.

The general rights and duties of ship-masters are more fully considered in our chapter on the Law of Shipping.