#### Murfree v. Redding.

Making a man master, and giving him command of a ship is, ipso fade, giving him power to take a load for freight in a foreign port's ;nd his contract in such case, binds the owner.

BiU b> Equity and answer. Bedding had recovered judgment against Murfree for a negro — Murfree com-*319plajfjp,]^ aJK] staled in ins bil], that Redding hut) put one Scranton on hoanl his brig. as master, and sent him viith a load from New hern to Murfreesborough, 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 Mur-freesborough, 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 ivas appointed master for any other or further purpose, than that of navigating the vessel from Newborn to Murfreesborough, and back, and if ho had taken in a load upon freight at Murfreesborough, he did it without, any authority or permission from him.

Per curiam

A master fias a right to make such contracts, and u'-ually is the person who does actually make them — the owners cannot be in every part 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 bedissolved as to all but the value of the load of tar ; and as to that, let it be continued until the bearing. Books cited—Moll. b. 2, c. 1, s. 5 and 6. Moll. b. 2, c. 2, s. 14. 1 Term Rep. 75, 78. Lex. Merca. 95. Sid. 411. 2 Ch. C. 238.

Note. — Vide Howard v. Ross, 2 Hay. 333.