Barron v. Locke

2 F. Cas. 937
United States District Court·Decided July 1, 1864·Published

Opinion

The defense is that the seaman is not entitled to the small balance claimed, because he had not been discharged from the vessel, and that leaving without being discharged forfeited the wages due. On the other hand, it was in evidence that tbs seaman was sick, and'unable to be on board ship. It would be hard and unjust, the court contended, to hold him to a literal performance. His sickness is an excuse, and therefore the balance of wages must be decreed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barron v. Locke, 2 F. Cas. 937 (usdistct 1864).

2 F. Cas. 937 (Barron v. Locke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.