From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mamat v. United Fruit Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 23, 1940
39 F. Supp. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)

Opinion

December 23, 1940.

Paul C. Matthews, of New York City, for plaintiff.

W. Dale Williams, of New York City (Thomas H. Walker, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.


Motion granted and complaint dismissed on authority of Kraft v. A.H. Bull S.S. Co., D.C., 28 F. Supp. 437. The within case differs from Hunt v. United States, D.C., 17 F. Supp. 578, affirmed, 2 Cir., 91 F.2d 1014, certiorari denied 302 U.S. 752, 58 S.Ct. 271, 82 L.Ed. 581, in that the seaman in the Hunt case was hired as a member of the crew, paid weekly on a monthly basis, slept and ate on the vessel and was subject to discipline of the master and chief officer. In the within case the seaman was discharged as a member of the crew and was hired as a member of a "shore gang" to effect repairs and was not under the direction of the master or any ship officer. The test is whether the seaman is a member of the crew. I think not in the instant case.

Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Mamat v. United Fruit Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 23, 1940
39 F. Supp. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)
Case details for

Mamat v. United Fruit Co.

Case Details

Full title:MAMAT v. UNITED FRUIT CO

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

Date published: Dec 23, 1940

Citations

39 F. Supp. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)

Citing Cases

Reyes v. A.H. Bull S.S. Co.

Reyes did not intend to go out on the next voyage of the ship. At the time of the accident he was not a…

Garland v. Alaska Steamship Company

This principle has also been clearly announced in decisions of the district courts upon facts similar to…