Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

jurisdiction so that each reads as follows: "saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it, and to claimants the rights and

[blocks in formation]

western Gas & Electric Co. V. Thomas, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 325. $4,500, negro, 29 years of age, married, the father of three small children, who worked steadily at his trade and earned $2.50 a day. The Barge No. 4, 248 Fed. 823. $4,000, trackman, 66 years of age, earning $300 a year, leaving widow. Kountz v. Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co., 189 Fed. 494. $4,000, sailor, 26 years of age, paying out of his earnings about $300 a year to his wife and children. Nickerson v. Bigelow, 62 Fed. 900. $3,500, bargemaster, 61 years of age, leaving widow. Egan v. Southern Towing Co., 189 Fed. 543. $2,500 (to which verdict for $3,500 was reduced), common laborer, 27 years of age, earning $1.50 a day, unmarried, left father 65 years of age, to whom he sent from $20 to $25 a month. Hirschkovitz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 138 Fed. 438. $2,500, deckhand, 38 years of age, leaving three minor children. Cheatham v. Red River Line, 56 Fed. 248; reversed on other grounds, Red River Line v. Cheatham, C. C. A., 60 Fed. 517, 9 C. C. A. 124. $2,500, healthy boy, five years of age, leaving parents. Ross v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. 44. $1,600, sailor, 18 years of age, earning $15, which was about to be advanced to $20, a month, unmarried, leaving several minor brothers and sisters in part dependent upon him for support. The Charlotte, 124 Fed. 989. $1,500 (to which verdict of $5,000 was reduced), woman, 23 years of age, domestic servant, unmarried, leaving father of 52 years

of age, to whom she sent about $3 a month. Lindstrom v. International Nav. Co., 117 Fed. 170. $1,500, stevedore's man, 50 years of age, paid 50 cents an hour when he worked, leaving widow and four children. Boden v. Demwolf, 56 Fed. 846. $1,500, real estate and employment broker, 34 years of age, earning about $100 a month, bad habits, left widow and three children. Ladd v. Foster, 31 Fed. 827. $1,500, negro nurse, about sixteen years old, earning $2.00 a week. The Barge No. 4, 248 Fed. 823. $1,200, colored farm laborer, 23 years of age, earning about $25 a month, left widow but no children. The Elizabeth, 114 Fed. 757. $1,000, girl, 42 years of age, in good health, leaving mother. The Oceanic, 61 Fed. 338, 364; aff'd Occidental & O. S. S. Co. v. Smith, C. C. A., 74 Fed. 261, 20 C. C. A. 419. $900, colored cabinboy, 15 years of age, earning $10 a month, leaving a father of 51 years of age. The Charlotte, 124 Fed. 989. $500, scowman, unmarried leaving two sisters, self-supporting, to whom he had promised to supply money for their return to Norway to live upon a farm owned by him. The O. L. Hallenbeck, 119 Fed. 468; aff'd C. C. A., 135 Fed. 1022, 68 C. C. A. 676. $500, bargeman, over 21 years of age, leaving a mother, for whose support he was not legally responsible. Eagan v. Southern Towing Co., 189 Fed. 543. $350, to which an award of $3,500 was reduced, for mental and physical suffering of seaman who remained in water one hour before he was drowned. The

remedies under the Workmen's Compensation Law of any State. 1 It has been held by a divided court that so much thereof as related to workmen's compensation laws is unconstitutional.2 According to the decision of the District Courts where a laborer has accepted compensation under a State statute of this character he cannot recover in admiralty for the same injury; but a libel in admiralty filed by a laborer to recover for an injury received in the course of his employment need not aver that he has received no compensation under the statute of the State.4

§ 560g. Concurrent jurisdiction of State courts over maritime matters. By the Judicial Code, the jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States is exclusive in "all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it, and to claimants the rights and remedies under the workman's compensation law of any State." 1 The invalidity of the clause concerning workman's compensation law is previously explained. By the Act of June 5, 1920, “Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law

Robert Graham Dun, C. C. A., 70 Fed. 270, 17 C. C. A. 90; modifying and affirming 63 Fed. 167.

The following verdict was held to be excessive: $1,750, bridge carpenter, earning about $2 a day, unmarried and childless, leaving a sister in Denmark, to whom he occasionally sent some money. Serensen v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 45 Fed. 407.

§ 560f. 140 St. at L. 395, Comp. St., $$ 991, 1233.

[blocks in formation]

Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 40 Sup. Ct.
524, 61 L. ed. -; Higgins v. Anglo-
Algerian S. S. Co., C. C. A., 248
Fed. 386; Barrett v. Macomber &
Nickerson Co., 253 Fed. 205.

3 The Fred E. Sander, 212 Fed. 545.

4 Hogan v. Buja, 262 Fed. 224.

$560g. 1 Jud. Code, § 256 Cl. 3, as amended by Act of October 6, 1917, ch. 97, 40 St. at L. 395.

2 Knickerbocker Ice Co. V. Stewart, 53 U. S. 149, supra, § 560f.

with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action. for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located." Actions in the State courts upon contracts or torts of a maritime nature are governed by the maritime law and not by the laws of the States where the suits are brought or such contracts made. The State statute of frauds does not apply to a maritime contract, such as a contract for the employment of the master of a vessel to sail upon the high seas. The State courts have jurisdiction of actions in personam upon maritime torts. In an action in personam a State court has jurisdiction to issue an auxiliary writ of attachment against the vessel, whether or not the contract in suit is of a maritime nature.9

§ 560h. Limitation of jurisdiction of admiralty by residence. The jurisdiction in admiralty of a District Court of the United States is not affected by the residence of parties, provided that, the respondent can be served with process within the district, either personally, or in the case of a foreign or alien corporation by service upon its agent duly authorized to represent it there for such purpose,1 or by attachment or garnishment of a debt or property there located; 2 or when a libel in rem is filed by seizure of the property. Such a court may libel a vessel within its jurisdiction upon a claim for damages caused by a tort, such as a collision, committed upon the high seas, although the ship, the libelant, and the tort feasors are aliens, when it occurred

3 Ch., § 33, Comp. St., § 8337a.

4 Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 248 U. S. 308.

5 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 566.

6 Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 248 U. S. 308.

7 Ibid.

8 Schuede v. Zenith S. S. Co., 216 Fed. 566.

9 Rounds v. Cloverport Foundry & Machine Co., 237 U. S. 303.

§ 560h. 1 Re Louisville Underwriters, 134 U. S. 488; Slocum v. Western Assured Co., 42 Fed. 235; supra, §§ 61-61b, supra, §§ 61-67a.

2 Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Chesbrough, C. C. A., 216 Fed. 121. Infra, §§ 567a, 567b.

3 The Noddleburn, 28 Fed. 855; S. C., 30 Fed. 142.

4 The Noddleburn, 28 Fed. 855; s. c., 30 Fed. 142. See The Troop, 118 Fed. 769; Pouppirt v. Elder

within a league of a foreign coast.5 Such a court entertained jurisdiction of a suit by an American citizen residing in another district to recover upon a policy or marine insurance executed in a foreign country by a foreign corporation. Such a court refused to take jurisdiction of a controversy between an alien corporation and a corporation incorporated in another district of the United States when the cause of action arose in the latter district. A court of admiralty may in its discretion refuse to take jurisdiction of a controversy between two aliens.

§ 5601. Jurisdiction over controversies between foreigners. Courts of admiralty have the power to take jurisdiction of controversies between foreigners and the claims of foreigners against foreign vessels.1 They usually do so in cases of collision,2 salvage and bottomry. When the cause of action arises beyond their territorial jurisdiction on a ship carrying a foreign flag 5

[ocr errors]

Dempster Shipping, 122 Fed. 983;
The Kaiser Wilhelm Der Grosse, 175
Fed. 215.

5 The Kaiser Wilhelm Der Grosse, 17 Fed. 215. Such a liability was enforced when the law of a foreign country gave no maritime lien in such a case. The Kongsli, 252 Fed. 267. Where a suit in personam, accompanied by an attachment, was pending in the foreign country because of a collision in a harbor there, a protective seizure at the request of the master had been there made and the boat released upon the giving of a letter of indemnity; but when a tort was committed upon a citizen of the United States upon a foreign ship in the harbor of another country it was held that the liability should be determined by the law of the latter country. The Cuzco, 225 Fed. 169.

6 Slocum v. Western Assur. Co., 42 Fed. 235, where the policy contained a stipulation that any suit thereupon should be brought in the place of the domicile of the corporation.

7 Neptune Steam Nav. Co. v. Sullivan Timber Co., 37 Fed. 159. See The Vestris, 252 Fed. 201.

8 Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca Di Navagazione, 224 Fed. 188; The Kaiser Wilhelm II, 230 Fed. 717; Aktieselskabet K. F. V. Rederiaktiebolaget Atlanten, 232 Fed. 403; Cunard S. S. Co. v. Smith, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 846.

§ 560i. 1 The Two Friends, 1 Ch. Rob. 271, 278; Mason v. The Blaireau, 2 Cranch 240; The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355, 5 Sup. Ct. 860, 29 L. ed. 152.

2 The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 355, 5 Sup. Ct. 860, 29 L. ed. 152.

8 The Two Friends, 1 Ch. Rob. 271, 278; Mason v. The Blaireau, 2 Cranch 240. But see One Hundred and Ninety-four Shawls, 1 Abb. Adm. 317.

4 The Jerusalem, 2 Gall. 191.

5 See The Belgenland, 114 U. S. 255, 365, 5 Sup. Ct. 860, 29 L. ed. 152.

or within a foreign territorial jurisdiction 6 and is one, the determination of which involves a consideration of the local law of such place, the court of admiralty may decline the jurisdiction. The court of admiralty may in its discretion refuse to take jurisdiction of a suit between alien corporations for the breech of a charter made in a foreign country,7 or of a suit in personam or in rem between the subjects of two foreign countries at war with each other to enforce the payment against a foreign vessel of a claim which arose in a foreign country. Jurisdiction over claims by foreign seamen against foreign vessels is discussed in the following section.9

§ 560j. Claims by foreign seamen against foreign vessels. Courts of admiralty will take no jurisdiction of claims by foreign seamen against foreign vessels upon which these are shipped, when, by treaty, as in the case of Germany, and Sweden and Norway, exclusive jurisdiction of such suits is vested in the consul of the country who objects to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. In such a case, an alien who has signed articles as seaman on a foreign ship, of a different country than that where he is born, is considered to be a subject of the latter kingdom. In such cases it is the proper practice to notify the consul in order that he may have an opportunity to object to the jurisdiction; 5 but such a notice is not indispensable. Where the consul knows of such proceeding and does not protest, the court may in its discretion take jurisdiction."

The Seamen's Act of March 4, 1915, provides for the payment of one half the wages earned to seamen on demand at every port. "And provided further, That this section shall apply to seamen on foreign vessels while in harbors of the United States, and the courts of the United States shall be open to such seamen

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »