From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borselli v. United States Lines Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Sep 10, 1947
74 F. Supp. 822 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)

Opinion

September 10, 1947.

Libel by Dominico Borselli against United States Lines Company for negligence. Motion by respondent that libelant give security for costs.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.

Nathan Baker, of Hoboken, N.J., for libellant.

Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox Keating, of New York City (Joseph M. Cunningham, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.


The plight of libellant would not seem to differ materially from that of many indigent and injured plaintiffs in the ordinary run of negligence cases in which, upon proof of non-residence, security for costs is ordered in this District almost as matter of course. The fundamental but not the only question is whether 28 U.S.C.A. § 837 in its reference to "seamen" was intended to include longshoremen such as libellant. Neither the language nor the background of this legislation affords the slightest basis for holding that there was such intent.

Furthermore, the action is not for wages or salvage or to enforce laws made for libellant's health and safety. Rokovich v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y., Conger, J., 1947 A.M.C. 493; Fine v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y., Byers, J., 66 F. Supp. 768; Raccuglia v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y., Byers, J., 66 F. Supp. 769; Di Stefano v. Ropner Co., Ltd., D.C.S.D.N.Y., Rifkind, J., 57 F. Supp. 517.

Motion granted.

Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Borselli v. United States Lines Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Sep 10, 1947
74 F. Supp. 822 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)
Case details for

Borselli v. United States Lines Co.

Case Details

Full title:BORSELLI v. UNITED STATES LINES CO

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Sep 10, 1947

Citations

74 F. Supp. 822 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)

Citing Cases

Lowicki v. Skibs A.S. Herstein

In a number of later cases in the two districts, the decisions have uniformly held that a longshoreman is not…

Howard v. Giuliano (In re Hosp. Partners of Am.)

The instant case, however, is a bankruptcy appeal and, thus, does fall within the purview of § 1916. See…