This  distinction  between  transfers  which  have,  and  have  not,
been  registered  would  not  now  arise,  under  the  Merchant  Shipping
Act,  1894.  "For  though  a  purchaser  is  required,  by  s.  26  of  that
Act,  to  register  his  transfer,  its  validity  is  not  made  to  depend
upon  the  registration.  Nor,  generally,  would  the  neglect  to
register  give  a  subsequent  assignee  of  the  freight  any  equity  to
it,  as  against  the  transferee  of  the  ship.    And  that  is  so,  although

iff)  Oato  V.  Irving,  21  L.  J.,  Ch.  675;  v.  Davidson.    But  see  per  Brett,  M.  E.,

Alexander  v.  Simms,  23  L.  J.,  Ch.  721;  in  Sea  Insur.  Co.  v.  Hadden,  13  Q.  B.
'  Cf.  Jappii.Camphell,  57L.  J.,Q.  B.  79.  D.  706,  at  pp.  713,  716.    In  Stephenson

(A)  Greenj;.  Briggs,  17L.  J.,Ch.  323;  «.  Dawson,  3  Beav.  342,  it  was  held  that

Lindsay  v.  Gibbs,  22  Beav.  622.  the  right  to  the  freight  under  a  charter

(j)  Lindsay  v.  Gibbs,  22  Beav.  522  ;  party  did  not  pass  to  the  legatee  of  the

Morrison  v.  Parsons,  2  Tauu.  407;  Case  ship.    The  charter  party  had  been  made

V.  Davidson,  6,  M.  &  S.  79  ;  2  B.  &  B.  after  the  will,  and  the  voyage  was  not

379.  completed   until    after    the    testator's

(A)  See  per  Lord  Ellenborough  in  Case  death.
FREIGHT.  ;705

the  transfer  of  the  ship  be  to  a  mortgagee  only,  if  he  has  taken    Sect.  591.
possession  of  her  (l).
The  contract  to  pay  freight,  however,  is  not  transferred  to  the
new  owner  hy  the  sale  of  the  ship ;  so  that  he  could  not  formerly
sue  for  it  in  his  own  name  (m).
But  payment  to  the  person  henefioially  entitled  is  a  sufficient
discharge  to  the  consignee  (m).
