1804. Scott contrà. 1ft, The mere order of the Lord Chancellor to an affignee to affign away the bankrupt's eftate cannot, without BLOXAM an actual re-affignment, operate to divest the property out of and Others against fuch aflignee. The Lord Chancellor has no other power over a HUBBARD. bankrupt's eftate than what is given to him by ftatute. The ftat 5 Geo. 2. c. 39. f. 26. first empowers the commiffioners to transfer the property from the bankrupt to his affignees. By 30. any affignee removed or difplaced by the creditors is required to affign the estate and effects to any other affignee chofen by them, under a penalty in cafe of refufal or neglect. Then as it may fometimes be neceffry to vacate the old and make a new aflignment, the Lord Chancellor has, by f. 31., a difcretionary power to make an order for that purpose upon petition of any creditors. But this must be done by an exprefs order of the Lord Chancellor to vacate the former appointment and to make a new alignment. The inconvenience which may enfue from the affignee being abroad is no other than what may [414] arife in every other cafe where a conveyance is neceffary. 2dly, The fale of the fhip by the defendant, not being tortious at the time and under the circumftances, is no converfion in law. There was a bonâ fide delivery of the fhip from Ward the then owner to the defendant, and if Ward could not have maintained trespass, neither could he have maintained trover. The defendant had at least a rightful poffeffion, though with a bad title. Then the affignees cannot convert that which was at first a lawful poffeffion into a tortious one, without a demand and refusal. In 5 Com. Dig. 541. Trespass D. it is faid, that "a man shall not be charged in trespass for goods which he had by the delivery of the party himself, except where by a wrongful act he makes himself a trefpaffer ab initio." So in Weymouth v. Boyer (a), Buller J., fitting for the Lord Chancellor, confidered that trover would not lie against one in poffeffion and making fale under the authority of the owner. And he faid, that if it were no converfion at the time of the fale, no refufal afterwards would do. So where one gives an authority for doing a thing, he cannot for any subsequent cause punish that which is done by his own authority. 8 Co. 146. b. 3dly, The plaintiffs as affignees are bound to make title to the fhip with all the formalities required by the register acts. They take the bankrupt's eftate by the conveyance of the commiffioners in the fame manner as pro (a) 1 Vef. jun. 416.424. perty 1804. BLOXAM and Others against [415] perty is conveyed to any other. By ftat. 13 Eliz. c. 7. perfons purchafing copyhold from the commissioners must compound with the lord like any other purchafers. And in Drury v. Man (a) it was ruled, that affignees of bankrupts stood in the fame relation to the lord of the copyhold as any other vendors. HUBBARD. Befides, if fuch affignees were not bound to take a conveyance of a ship under the register acts like others, the policy of the law would be greatly defeated; for many affignees are foreigners, who would by the medium of a bankruptcy become owners of Britifh fhips. But 4thly and principally, the defendant has done every thing required by the regifter laws to complete his title: and therefore the cafe of Heath v. Hubbard (b) proceeded on a mistake of thofe laws. The ftat. 12 Car. 2. c. 18. does not provide for any cafe of transfer of ships. The ftat. 7 & 8 W. 3. c. 22. is the first which regulates the transfer between individu. als and that requires (f. 21.) that " upon any transfer of property to another port" the fhip fhall be registered de novo, and the former certificate delivered up to be cancelled; and that upon any alteration of property in the fame port, by the fale of one or more fhares in any fhip after registering thereof, Juch fale fhall be acknowledged by indorsement on the certificate of the register." By "transfer of property to another port" must be understood to fome person reliding at another port, by which the home of the ship would be changed (c); and in this cafe the direction is exprefs that the ship shall be registered de novo, and that the certificate of the former registry fhall be cancelled, and therefore no indorsement can be made of it; but fuch indorfement is to be and can only be made upon any alteration of property, by the fale of one or more shares to persons in the fame port. The regulations were adopted to preferve the evidence of the ownership of British veffels remaining in British subjects with the least trouble, delay, and expence to individuals. It is evident in this ftatute that the word SUCH (i. e. “such sale fhall be acknowledged by indorsement on the certificate of the register”) is neceffarily confined to an alteration of property in the fame port. The 16th fect. of the 26 Geo. 3. c. 60. reciting that the provisions made in the last-mentioned act," touching the indorsement on certificates of registry, in cafe of any altera (a) 1 Atk. 95. (b) 4 Eaft, 110.. [416] tion 1804. BLOXAM and Others tion of property in any fhip in the fame port to which the be longs have been found infufficient," directs further regulations to be complied with befides the indorsement thereby required. against The fame words are again referred to in fect. 15. of the ftat. HUBBARD. 34 Geo. 3. c. 68. which gives a form of the indorsement required to be made on the certificate of registry, in cafe of any alteration of property in the fame port to which the fhip belongs. Then the 16th fection of the laft act provides, " that if any fhip fhall be at sea, or absent from the port to which the be"longs at the time when fuch alteration in the property thereof "fhall be made as aforefaid, fo that an indortement on (a) the "certificate cannot be immediately made, the sale, &c. fhall "notwithstanding be made by a bill of fale," &c. and a copy thereof shall be delivered, and an entry thereof indorfed on the oath or affidavit, and a memorandum thereof be made in the book of registry, and notice given to the commiffioners of the customs, &c. Now in commenting on the words of this laft clause the Lord C. J. in the cafe of Heath v. Hubbard, confidered that the word fuch (fuch alteration in the property) meant the fame as any alteration. But it must rather be taken to refer to fuch alteration as was mentioned in the preceding section, to [417] which it has evident relation; and the alteration there mentioned is an alteration of property in the fame port, the fame which was ftated in the ftat. 7 & 8 W. 3. which required an indorsement on the certificate of the former registry, and which is there plainly contradistinguished from a transfer of property to another port, which required a registering de novo and a deli very up of the old certificate to be cancelled. If the fhip had been in her proper port at the time of the fale, the cafe could not have been at all affected by the 16th fection, which is only applicable to transfers of property at fea or out of the proper port. Neither would it have fallen within the 15th fection, because that is exprefsly confined to any alteration of property in the fame port to which the fhip belongs. And the 16th fection only applies to the cafe of a fhip abfent from its own port, which, if at home at the time of the fale, would have fallen (a) In the case of Heath v. Hubbard, 4 Eaft, 120. an error was noticed in the printed ftatute 1. 3. of this clause, "indorsement or certificate," for "indorfement on the certificate." And vide the Lord C. J.'s reading of it in page 128. ib. within the 15th fection, and confequently cannot affect the Hall, in reply to the first objection to the plaintiff's action, as to the not joining the removed affignee, because the Ld. Chancellor had not pursued the 31ft fection of the ftat. 5 Geo. 2. c. 30. by vacating the former and appointing a new affignment to be made, obferved, that the power at first given to the Lord Chancellor, was general, "to make fuch order as he fhould think just and reasonable:" and then the claufe proceeds to ftate, that "in cafe a new affignment fhall be ordered to be made," the bankrupt's eftate" fhall be effectually and legally vested in such new affignee," &c. which affumes that a new affignment is not neceffary at all events to be made. And here it was not neceffary, because there were other affignees remaining in whom the whole legal estate was already vefted when Johnston was removed. To the fecond objection he answered, that however rightful a bare posfeffion might have been at firit, and until a demand and refusal, at any rate the defendant's taking upon himself to make sale of the fhip without title was an actual converfion. As to the third objection, it was before answered. As to the fourth, which went to the defendant's title, the preliminary objection grounded on the cafe of Mofs v. Charnock remains unanswered; for the due registering of the ship was as neceffary to complete the title to her, whether to be done by the vendor or vendee, as the bill of fale. And the only distinction taken in the cafe of Heath v. Hubbard was between fuch acts as were neceffary to be done (a) 2 Eaft, 399. 1804. BLOXHAM and Others. against HUBBARD. [ 418 ] by 1804. BLOXHAM by either of the parties, and fuch as were to be done by the officers or third perfons, which latter alone were confidered as directory, and not affecting the title. And here the ship was not and Others against registered de novo (even if that would otherwife have done) till HUBBARD. after the bankruptcy; and the bill of fale alone could not give *[49] the title. But in no inftance now can a register de novo be granted without fhewing a compliance with all the requifites of the 15th and 16th fections of the ftat. 34 Geo. 3. c. 68. For the 20th fection enacts, that when the property in any veffel shall be transferred to any other subject in whole or in part, and such veffel fhall be required to be registered de novo, the proper offi cer fhall require the bill of fale to be produced to him, &c. "Provided that all the other regulations required by the laws in force concerning the regiftry de novo of veffels be complied with." This prefames that there are other regulations befides the production of the bill of fale, and thefe are only to be found in the 15th and 16th fections. Cur, adv. vult. Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. now delivered judgment. There were three objections taken in this cafe to the plaintiff's right to recover, founded on a fuppofed defect in the title of the plaintiffs to the hip in question. The first objection was, that John Glen Johnston, one of the affignees, (in refpect to whom the Chancellor's order for removing him from being an affignee is within ftated,) ought, notwithstanding such order, to have been joined as a plaintiff, inafmuch as his intereft as affignee was not divefted by the mere operation of fuch order; but that a new affignment by the old to the new affignees, whereby the debts, effects, and estate of the bankrupt should be "effectually and legally vested in fuch new affignees," was neceffary for this [420] purpose. A fecond was, that there was no converfion of the ship in this cafe proved to have been committed by the defendant. The third objection was, that the plaintiffs, as affignees, ought to have derived a title to themselves, by fhewing a compliance with all fuch forms as are required by the feveral ftatutes on the fubject, to give effect to transfers of property in ships in other cafes. Suppofing however the plaintiffs' right to recover not to be defeated on any of these grounds, it was then further infifted, on the part of the defendant, that the defendant bimfelf had a good right to the fhip in question, in virtue of his purchase |