indeed we do not think, that the work derives its greatest value from what may be properly called its original matter. In chapter II. p. 98. he says,

Ship owners are tenants in common, and therefore cannot bring trover, one against another, for running away with, and converting the common property; because the poffeffion of one is the poffeffion of all, and therefore no converfion: but a special action in the cafe would lie and why, in cafe of an actual unverfion by a fale of the common property, trever might not be brought, I cannot rvell conceive. It is fettled that an ejectment may be maintained by one tenant in common, against another, after an ouster; and that though, in order to work this, a bare perception of profits is not fufficient, yet it need not be actual; for if, on demand by the co-tenant, of his moiety, the other refufe to pay it; and deny the title, faying he claims the whole and will not pay, and continue in poffeflion; it is an adverfe holding, and an oufter; fo in the cafe of a fhip, the mere receiving her freight might not amount to a converfion, but if this be accompanied with a denial of the joint owners right, and an exclusion from the poffeffion, it would, I prefume, be difficult to maintain there was not a converfion; the author is aware the actions of ejectment and trover are not exactly analogous; that in the former, poffeffion, in the latter, damages are recovered; and that detinue would, according to the phrafe of logicians, run more quatuor pedibus; but as the reafon affigned why trover cannot be fupported is, that the poffeffion of one tenant in common is the poffeffion of the other, and therefore no converfion: if, between fuch parties, an oufter can be effected, the principle of community of poffeffion is gone, and that being deftroyed, the poffibility of converfion inftantly arises. Equity exifts, as it is well faid, in the fictions of law, but in that combatted, it surely is not to be found.

In chattel interefts, like those of shipping, the means of recourse for one owner against another, ought, from the facility of alienation, rather to be multiplied than diminished. One tenant in common cannot transfer the land of his co-proprietor, because it must be con

veyed by deed; but as in perfonalties, a right of poffeflion is fufficient to pass the ownership, the difpofition by one jointholder of a fhip will be good against his affociates, if followed by delivery of poffeffion.

This opinion is imagined to be correct, notwithstanding the mode of conveyance pointed out by the register act; for though a bill of fale be neceffary under its provifions, that circumftance does not, it is conceived, alter the legal nature of the subject matter, which continues exwhich it was tranfmiffible before the law pofed to the fame exercife of power by

was ordained.

Therefore, the mode by which a fhip may be fet over, remains for the purpose of vesting the intereft, the fame as at common law, though certain formalities register. are requifite, in order to entitle to a

The action of trover would not lie in behalf of one ship owner, where the common property had been sold by another, because the sale would not amount to a conversion of the property, as nothing would be conveyed by the sale, but the share of the vendor. There is a distinction to be observed between joint owners and joint traders, or, as they are commonly called, copartners in trade, where each can by his act bind the society," where each has the entire possession as well of every parcel, as of the whole," and where therefore a sale or transfer by one will convey the interest of the whole. Mr. Cains has in another place (p. 423) noted this distinction, observing of proprietors of a ship, that they are "tenants in common, and not joint tenants," and wanting therefore "an essential characteristick in the constitution of a partnership concern." The possession of a ship is not considered as proof of ownership; and hence we infer, that when one ship owner undertakes to sell and transfer the common property, no more is conveyed than

the share of the vendor. The purchaser then becomes a tenant in common with the other owners for that share only, in the same manner as though the proportion had been expressed in the deed of Conveyance. If two have jointly by gift or by buying a horse or an oxe, &c. and the one grant that to him belongs of the same horse or oxe to another, the grantee, and the other which did not grant, shall have and possesse such chattels personals in common.' Lit. Tenures, sec. 321.

The provisions of law, relative to the evils which may arise among ship owners, are equal to any occasions, which may occur. If one, part owner, should run away with the whole property against the will, and without the knowledge of the rest, it would in moral contemplation be a fraud, though it might be impossible to pursue the actor as a felon. But as soon as he should come within the reach of the process of the admiralty, he might be compelled either to resign the property or to stipulate with his partners for their securi ty. If we are correct in this point, the remedy which the admiralty provides is far superiour to any which could be obtained by the action of trover, or by any other of the comparatively slow forms of the common law. Should this book ever come to a second edition, we recommend to the author a careful revisal of this chapter, and beg leave to refer him to the learned note of Serjeant Williams on the action of trover, 2 Saunder's Reports 47., from which we extract the following observation : If one joint tenant, tenant in common or parcener, destroy the thing in common, the other may bring trover. Co. Lit. 200 a. There fore where one tenant in common

of a ship took it away, and sent it to the West Indies, where it was lost in a storm, this was held by King C. I. of the C. B. to be evidence of a destruction, and the jury under his directions found it to be so. Bull. N. P. 34, 35.'

We sincerely regret, that the author was not more patient in digesting and arranging his materials into form and order. From the appearance of the work we are led to judge, that it is the juvenile production of a student, who mistook laborious compilation of notes for learning. Treatises of such magnitude are intended principally for reference and easy access; on which account a lucid division of the subject is essential. But the doctrines and principles, contained under many of the titles in this book, are blended together, without form or comeliness. They remind us of the primitive state of things, described by the poets, as

"rudis et sine imagine tellus." The reader will be convinced of this, without comparing it with the celebrated treatise of Abbot "on the Law relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen," a work of standard authority, and as admirable for its style and manner, as for its legal correctness.

The style of this work is by no means worthy of praise. The author sometimes affects uncommon elegance in his periods. In chap ter IV., speaking of a law of Virginia, which forbids masters of vessels to carry any person out of that commonwealth, unless such person shall have first published, for six months successively in the Virginia Gazette, his resolution to depart therefrom, the writer adds,

this publick advertisement of the Virginia code is hardly compatible with the locomotive rights of repub

the share of the vendor. The
purchaser then becomes a tenant
in common with the other owners
for that share only, in the same
manner as though the proportion
had been expressed in the deed of
If two have jointly
Conveyance.
by gift or by buying a horse or an
oxe, &c. and the one grant that to
him belongs of the same horse or
oxe to another, the grantee, and
the other which did not grant, shall
have and possesse such chatte
personals in common.' Lit. T
ures, sec. 321.

compiler of graphy is a Mr. The provisions of law, re who, we would into the evils which may arise readers, as otherwise ship owners, are equal to uld not probably know it, casions, which may occu Published some poems, and a part owner, should rur ume of travels through the U the whole property nited States. For what parts of will, and without t this work we are indebted to the of the rest, it woul and original genius of Mr. Davis, we templation be a en take are unable to discover, as he has might be imposs arreft the left us no criterion, by which we actor as a felets out fuch, can distinguish his own ingenuity he should corriminal, he may from that of his author. We must of the proce curiofity, and perut he does no good consider the whole, therefore, as might be is not evi- the work of Mr. Davis, since he ggeftion resign the the fuppofed perpe has most heroically taken its re with hisricted. If it was, no You perhaps be- sponsibility upon himself. But ty. If fafe. You perhaps bethe reuation, and you make let us hear Mr. Davis in person. But when the general "I am not the negative translator on an innocent man, in- of the book, that has been put inops; this innocent man fuf- to my hands. I have felt an arproach, and the really guilty dour to supply a work, that should ected, and efcapes unpunished. gratify inquiry, and where I found the original wanting in information, I have made up the deficiency by laborious, patient, and persevering research. Hence my volume will not suffer by a comparison with Judge Blackftone fays, that "pretending to tell fortunes, and to difcover ftolen the original, whose characteristick goods by fkill in the occult fciences, is a is detail." Again. "If the moral ifdemeanour, defervedly punished by law." The reafon why it deferves punithment is, because it not only tends to fubvert religion but alfo to difturb the peace of fociety, and deftroy the reputation and fecurity of every virtuous member.

a new mifchief happens, the
be acted over again.
ocial, therefore, as well as on re-
principles, thefe diviners ought
profecuted, rather than encouraged
be punished,rather than patronized.

character of the generals be developed, and the attractions of biography engrafted on history, the reader is indebted to the zeal, diligence, and inquiry of the transla tor."

This is modest, still to call himself a translator, after these high claims on the approbation of the

That the General is a great soldier, no one will deny, but, that his literary talents equal those of the all-accomplished Athenian, is an assertion, which requires better evidence, than the mere ipse dixit of Mr. Davis.

On the whole, this work is a catch-penny production, and adds com- nothing to the wealth of literature, or to the reputation of the writer.