ABSTRACT A sample of 1090 admiralty instance decrees from across the seventeenth century includes 234 that concerned either the ownership or co-owner management of merchant vessels. Some of these rulings issued by the high court of admiralty and found at the National Archives indicate what was usually required to prove title to a ship or shares in it. Some suggest whether London's civilian judges favoured crown subjects who were quarrelling with foreigners over vessels and helped to enlarge England's commercial fleet by both their prize and instance decrees. Roughly two-thirds of the decisions define the duties and powers of shareholders in managing a ship. What were their obligations to maintain it or to recover it if it were captured? Could they dismiss the ship's master for incompetence or misconduct if he were a fellow owner? Which investors could choose the ship's voyages? The cases reveal costs to litigants in time and fees. And finally they indicate that common law prohibitions ended admiralty governance of most ownership matters late in the century, lending weight to suggestions by M.J. Prichard and D.E.C. Yale about the decline of the instance jurisdiction and the civilians’ reaction to their loss of authority.

中文翻译：

---

十七世纪海事法院的所有权

摘要 整个 17 世纪的 1090 份海事法令样本包括 234 份涉及商船所有权或共同所有人管理的法令。其中一些由海事高等法院发布并在国家档案馆找到的裁决表明，证明船舶所有权或股份的通常需要什么。一些人认为，伦敦的文职法官是否偏爱那些与外国人因船只争吵的王室臣民，并通过他们的奖励和审判法令帮助扩大了英格兰的商业船队。大约三分之二的决定定义了股东在管理船舶方面的职责和权力。如果它被捕获，他们有什么义务维护它或恢复它？他们可以解雇这艘船吗？如果他是其他业主，他的主人无能或行为不端？哪些投资者可以选择船舶的航程？这些案件及时披露了诉讼当事人的成本和费用。最后，他们指出，在本世纪后期，普通法禁令结束了对大多数所有权事务的海事治理，这为 MJ Prichard 和 DEC Yale 提出的关于审判管辖权下降和平民对失去权力的反应的建议提供了参考。