## Facts

- The brig *Amelia* was owned by four part owners.
- A majority in value (including Willings) sought to fit out the vessel and send it on a commercial voyage to Spain.
- Peter Blight, holding an undivided one-fourth interest, refused to consent to the voyage and did not contribute to outfit or expenses.
- The majority petitioned in admiralty for authorization to proceed without partition or sale, offering a stipulation securing the value of Blight’s share.
- The owners disputed whether Blight, as a nonconsenting and noncontributing owner, was entitled to any portion of freight or profits if the voyage succeeded.

## Issues

1. Whether an admiralty court has jurisdiction and authority to permit majority part owners to employ a vessel on a designated voyage over a minority owner’s objection, conditioned on security for the minority’s interest.
2. Whether a recusant part owner who refuses to sell at a reasonable appraisement and refuses to advance outfit funds is entitled to share in freight or profits from the voyage.
3. Whether a minority owner may be compelled to sell his share when he refuses to consent to or participate in the voyage.

## Decision

- The court held the dispute was within admiralty jurisdiction and authorized the majority owners to fit out and dispatch the vessel on the designated voyage upon giving a stipulation securing the value of the recusant owner’s share.
- On freight and profits, the court stated an opinion that a recusant owner who neither sells at a reasonable valuation nor advances funds for outfit has no legal claim to freight, while his ownership interest must be secured so that he bears no loss.
- The court declined to treat the proceeding as resolving whether the minority could be compelled to sell, stating that issue was not judicially determined.

## Legal Principles

- Federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to disputes among vessel part owners concerning employment of the vessel and permits equitable remedies, including authorizing a voyage with security for a dissenting owner’s share.
- The majority in value may employ the vessel on a voyage despite minority objection, provided the plan is communicated and the minority’s capital interest is protected.
- A part owner who refuses both (a) to sell at a reasonable appraisement and (b) to contribute to outfit and expenses may be denied any share of freight or profits from the voyage.
- Even when denied freight or profit participation, a recusant owner is entitled to protection of the value of his ownership interest so that he does not suffer loss from the voyage.

## Conclusion

The court authorized majority owners to send a jointly owned vessel on a voyage over a dissenting owner’s objection by requiring security for the dissenting owner’s share, and it indicated that a nonconsenting owner who neither sells at a fair valuation nor contributes to voyage expenses may be excluded from freight while remaining protected against loss of capital interest.


Willings v. Blight, 30 F. Cas. 50 (C.C.D. Pa. 1800)