Summary

William Strong Morgan's Assignees v. Shinn — Opinion of the Court

There can, indeed, be no pretence that Morgan, Rhinehart & Co., did not know from the beginning that the bill of sale was a mere security for money advanced by Shinn.
If then Shinn was only a mortgagee of an undivided interest in the vessel, as we think he was, he is under no obligation to contribute for repairs which he did not order. A mortgagee out of possession is not liable for repairs. [3] The benefit of repairs enures primarily to the mortgagor. A mortgagee out of possession does not appoint the master, or the ship's agents.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature