
    Levi Dame versus Samuel Hadlock.
    
      March 20th
    
    Where a part-owner of a schooner, which had been furnished with supplies tor a fishing voyage, had parted with his interest before they were furnished, and had no concern in the voyage, it was held that he was not liable for the supplies, notwithstanding his name still remained in the enrolment as a part-owner.
    Assumpsit for supplies furnished to the master of the schooner Sea Flower for a fishing voyage, and charged to the owners. All the supposed owners were sued, but the writ was served only on the defendant. The plaintiff read m evidence a copy of the enrolment, by which it appeared, that at the time of enrolling the schooner, the defendant was one of the owners. The defendant proved, that before the enrolment, one eighth of the schooner was conveyed to him as security for a debt; that he never took possession, nor received any of the earnings of the schooner; and that at the time when the supplies were furnished, he had no interest in her, and was not concerned in the fishing voyage.
    The plaintiff objected to the admission of this evidence on the part of the defendant, and contended that the enrolment was conclusive evidence of ownership, so far as related to this action, as the plaintiff gave credit to those only whose names appeared in the enrolment. But Wilde J. overruled the objection, and instructed the jury, that if the defendant was not a part-owner at the time when the supplies were furnished, he was not liable in this action on an implied assumpsit, notwithstanding his name was still retained in the enrolment as an owner. A verdict was found for the defendant ; but if this direction to the jury was incorrect, a new trial was to be granted.
    
      Fletcher, for the plaintiff,
    cited 7 T. R. 306; 1 H. Bl. 114; Abbott, 20, 21; 3 Cranch, 140; 1 Com. Contr. 286, 289, 293; 1 Montag. on Partn. 16; Gow on Partn. 6; Watson on Partn. 6; Cowp. 636; 2 Connect. R. 215; 15 Johns. R. 298.
    
      Nichols, for the defendant,
    cited Hussey v. Allen, 6 Mass. R. 163; 13 East, 238; 15 Mass. R. 370.
    
      
      March 26th.
    
   Per Curiam.

We cannot distinguish this case from that of Hussey v. Mien, cited in the argument. The owners of vessels are answerable for expenses upon them, or supplies, because they receive the benefits; when they cease to be owners, there is no longer any reason to charge them. The defendant had made an absolute conveyance of his interest in the vessel, before the supplies were furnished, and therefore was not a debtor for them.

Judgment according to verdict. 
      
       See Abbott on Ship. (4th Amer. ed.) 18, 19, and n. (1.) The register or enrolment of a vessel at the custom-house is not conclusive evidence of ownership. Bixby v. Franklin Ins. Co. 8 Pick. 86; Colson v. Bondsey, 6 Greenl. 474; 3 Kent’s Comm. (3d ed.) 150, n. (b), and cases there cited; 3 Id. 136; Bas v. Steele, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 381; Abbott on Shipping (4th Amer. ed.) 63, n. (1); Sharp v. United Ins. Co. 14 Johns. R. 201, 1 Stark. Ev. (5th Amer. ed.) 210; Pearce v. Norton, 1 Fairfield, 252; Hacker v. Young, 6 N. Hamp. R. 95; Cox v. Reid, 1 Carr. & Payne, 602; S. C. Ryan & Moody, 199; Jennings v. Griffiths, Ryan & Moody, 42; Winsor v. Cutts, 7 Greenl. 261; Perry v. Osborne, 5 Pick. 422; Tucker v. Buffington, 15 Mass. R. (Rand’s ed.) 481, n. (a.) See Dowson v. Leake, Dowl. & Ryl. N. P. C. 52.
     