From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MAIA v. LAMPORT HOLT, LTD

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 24, 1931
141 Misc. 140 (N.Y. App. Term 1931)

Opinion

July 24, 1931.

Appeal from the City Court of New York, Richmond County.

Wollman Wollman [ Henry Wollman and Aaron B. Coleman of counsel], for the appellant.

Isador Leifer, for the respondent.


Judgment and order unanimously reversed upon the law, with costs and taxable disbursements, and complaint dismissed with appropriate costs in the court below.

Plaintiff has recovered a judgment based upon a tort which occurred on a British vessel in the territorial waters of Brazil. The recovery was predicated upon the negligence of a fellow-servant of the plaintiff. The "Jones Act" (U.S. Code, tit. 46, § 688) is inapplicable. There was neither allegation nor proof, and it may not be presumed, that a similar statute existed either in Great Britain or Brazil. The burden of establishing such laws was upon the plaintiff. ( Christie v. Cerro de Pasco Copper Corp., 214 A.D. 820; affd., 243 N.Y. 557; Cuba R.R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473; Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Chantry, 136 F. 316.)

All concur; present, CROPSEY, MacCRATE and LEWIS, JJ.


Summaries of

MAIA v. LAMPORT HOLT, LTD

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jul 24, 1931
141 Misc. 140 (N.Y. App. Term 1931)
Case details for

MAIA v. LAMPORT HOLT, LTD

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO MAIA, Respondent, v. LAMPORT HOLT, LTD., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jul 24, 1931

Citations

141 Misc. 140 (N.Y. App. Term 1931)
252 N.Y.S. 201

Citing Cases

Hogan v. Hamburg-American Line

That the articles were signed in the city of New York is immaterial. ( Oehler v. Hamburg-American Line, 84…

Arams v. Arams

There then came the well-known case of Cuba R.R. Co. v. Crosby ( 222 U.S. 473, supra) in which, reversing the…