Opinion
(April Term, 1796.)
Making a man master and giving him command of a ship is, ipso facto, giving him power to take a load for freight in a foreign port; and his contract in such case binds the owner.
BILL IN EQUITY and answer. Redding had recovered judgment against Murfree for a negro. Murfree complained, and stated in his bill that Redding had put one Scranton on board his brig, as master, and sent him with a load from New Bern to Murfreesboro, and that he had put the negro on board with him, and authorized Scranton to sell the negro. This the answer denied. The bill further stated that Scranton, whilst at Murfreesboro, took in for freight a load of tar for him, and a Mr. Figures, and had never accounted for it; and that Redding, as owner, ought to be liable. The answer denied that Scranton was appointed master for any other or further purpose than that of (277) navigating the vessel from New Bern to Murfreesboro, and back, and if he had taken in a load upon freight at Murfreesboro, he did it without any authority or permission from him.
A master has a right to make such contracts, and usually is the person who does actually make them. The owners cannot be in every port where the ship goes to make them. The very making a man master, and giving him the command of the ship, is a giving him power to take a load for freight in a foreign port, or in a port at a distance from the place of the owner's residence. His appearing as master is enough for any man to contract with him upon the credit of his employer; and as it appears in the present case by the statement of Redding himself that the cargo was lost by the attempt of Scranton to cross the bar without a pilot, and as the rule respondeat superior is here applicable with great propriety, therefore let the injunction be dissolved as to all but the value of the load of tar; and as to that, let it be continued until the hearing. Books cited: Moll. b. 2, ch. 1, secs. 5 and 6; Moll. b. 2, ch. 2, sec. 14; Term Rep., 75, 78; Lex. Merca., 95; Sid. 411; 2 Ch. C., 238.
See Howard v. Ross, 3 N.C. 333.