proved by him that after the sale of the two-thirds of the vessel to him, he supplied the captain with the sum of $300 to pay for stores.

It was contended on behalf of the defendant, that if he had supplied the master with sufficient money with which to purchase stores, he was not liable for the goods supplied by the plaintiff upon the master’s order; and, further, that if the supplies were furnished before the sale to him, or ordered by the captain before the sale, though furnished after the sale, the defendant was not liable upon implied authority to the captain to pledge his credit.

The court, Sharswood, J., charged the jury as follows:—

The fact that Cflading resided here does not prevent his liability.

If the money was advanced to the captain to buy stores, the captain had no authority to buy on credit.

The owner of a vessel is liable for supplies ordered by the master in a home port, unless it be shown that the master had no authority to order them, and that the parties furnishing them had knowledge of their want of authority. Provost v. Patchin, 5 Selden’s Rep. 235; Blackstock v. Leidy, 7 Harris, 345; Lincoln v. Wright, 11 Harris, 76.

The master is the general agent of the owners for all purposes connected with the ordinary employment of the ship, and it matters not that the owners reside at the port where the supplies are ordered, nor does it matter that the master was furnished with money for the purpose of procuring the supplies, if the tradesman had no knowledge of that fact.

But the owner is not liable if it appears that the articles were furnished on the personal credit of the master. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that exclusive credit was given to the master, if the articles were delivered at the ship, and even such as were reasonable and proper for the ship’s uses on her intended voyage, the presumption of law is that they were furnished on the credit of the owners.

Was the defendant the owner of the ship at the time the stores in question were furnished? If he was, then he was liable for them, if the supplies were delivered at the ship and were reasonable and proper for the ship’s use for the voyage. If, however, they were contracted and furnished before he became the owner, he is not responsible, though they may have been ordered before by the captain, yet if in point of fact they were made up for and delivered at the ship afterwards, and accepted by the captain, after his employment by the defendant as captain, for the use of the ship, it is in point of law as if the captain had them ordered anew. If part had been delivered before, so that the liability of the former owners attached, then for so much defendant would not have been liable, so, also, if the whole had been delivered before.

The question, in fact, to be determined by you upon the evidence is whether the whole, or what part of the bill of January was delivered at the ship after the sale to defendant. If the contract was complete, so as to bind the former owner before the sale to defendant, defendant is not liable.

As-to the bill of March there seems .to be no question, except, whether in point of law the owner was responsible, and upon that point I have- already instructed you.

Verdict for plaintiff $483 38.

The charge of the court is assigned for error.