ovit V. raosT. 7e7 �of the vessel, and communicated such dissent to the master or ship's husband; and in every Buch oase it seems that hs will not be liable, unless, indeed, by some previous act, he bas misled the party furnishing the necessaries into the belief that he was liable. �The question is, was the master or part owner authorized by the defendants to make the contract for them ? Brodie v. Hoivard, 17 G. B. 109; Mitcheson v. Oliver, 5 E. & B. 419; Reeve v. Davis, 1 Adol. & Ellis, 315; Hackwood v. Lyall, 17 C. B. 124; 1 Parsons, Sh. and Adm. 101; Abbott on Ship- ping, (llth Ed.) TJpon the same principle, if the ship is char- tered upon terms which give the charterer the entire control of the ship, he is regarded as owner pro hoc vice, and the gen- erai owner is not liable. Nor does the exemption of the owner, or part owner, in the above cases, depend upon notice to the person supplying the necessaries or making the advances of the facts exempting him from liabUity. Same cases; also see Macy V. Wheeler, 30 N. Y. 231. Upon the principle of theso decisions, the executors of a deceased part owner, especially if they have done nothing to take the benefit of -the employ- ment of the vessel, nor given any authority to the master or ship's husband to act for them, cannot be charged for neces- saries supplied or money advanced after their testator's death, and in the course of a new adventure, for it cannot be pre- sumed as to them that they have, as executors, consented to the employment of the vessel, or the expenditure of the money, in prosecuting the voyage. As executors, to whoni falls the interest of their testator in the ship, they have no rightfu], authority to conduct a mercantile adventure for the purpose of making the property available or remunerative. Their power and duty is only to hold and sell and couvert the assets into money. Indeed, if they joined in the adventure, while they might make themselves individually responsible, they would have no power to charge the estate for any loss, nor would the assets in their hands be chargeable on account of the business. Lahouchere v. Tupper, 11 Mo. P. C. 221 ; Bacon V. Pomeroy, 104 Mass. 582; 3 Williams on Ex'rs, (6th Am. Ed.) 179, and notes. It follows that, as it would be ����
