Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/653

COINE V, CAPLB3. 639 �been emploj'ed, principally in carrying lumber and railway ties. The employr ment of the vessel by Caples appears to have been profitable, and she has been kept jn good condition, but not free from debt. The claims now existing against her, and ineurred since she came into his possession and control, amount to not less than $500 and probably more. �In his libel Coyne alleges that Caples was not onlj to give security as aforesaid, but also to account to him for half the prolits, if any; while in his answer, Caples claims that he was not bound to account for the profits, or even give security for any pui-pose, but that he obtained and was entitled indefinitely to the exclusive possession and uee oi the vessel, in consideration of the $509,60 paid by him to Coyne. But the evidence in my judguient does not support either of these allegations. And in coming to this conclusion, the conflicting evidence of the parties and their friends is controlled by the consider- ation that it is absurd to suppose that an equal part owner of a ves- sel would consent, without any corresponding consideration, that another equal owner might take her and employ her when and where and as long as he pleased, without giving security to safely retum or account for the interest entrusted to his use and care. �The payment of the $509.60 by Caples was no consideration for such use and possession, beeause in making the saiue he was only discharging his own debt to Bryant, and Coyne was not materially benefited thereby, as Bryant's interest was good security to him therefor. Indeed, if there had ever been such an understanding between the parties, under the circumstanees, Coyne might neverthe- less assert his right to security, and compel Caples to comply or give up the use of the vessel. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that such part owner in a vessel would agree to take her upon security to the other part owner and employ her at his own risk and expense, and share the profits, if any, with the latter. Such an arrangement is regarded as unjust, and therefore a part owner who refuses to join in or contribute to the employment of the vessel, is not entitled to a share of the profits. Willings v. Blight, 2 Pet. Ad. Dec. 288 ; The Marengo, 1 Low. Dec. 52 ; Story, Part. §§ 428, 431. Resides, it does not appear that Coyne ever demanded or sought to have an account from Caples, and in his letter to the latter of May llth, asking him in effect to purchase his interest in the vessel, or retum her to this port, beeause he had determined to sell and wanted "to avoid any f urther risk, " nothing is said or suggested on the subject. �There seems to be some doubt in the books as to the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty to compel a sale of a vessel on account of a ��� �