Gibson v. International Freighting Corp.

E.D. Pennsylvania

Gibson v. International Freighting Corp.

85 F. Supp. 562, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2504

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 11, 1949

DocketCiv. A. No. 6435

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 F. Supp. 562 (Gibson v. International Freighting Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibson v. International Freighting Corp., 85 F. Supp. 562, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2504 (E.D. Pa. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

McGRANERY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a seaman, brought suit against the International Freighting Corp. for damages and for maintenance and cure, alleging, inter alia, that he had suffered injuries while in the service of the vessel. The cause of action for maintenance and cure was separately argued before me on a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, it was decided in Gaynor v. Agwilines, Inc., D.C., 76 F.Supp. 617, affirmed 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 612, that a seaman, who was employed on a merchant vessel operated under a general agency agreement with the War Shipping Administration, must look to the United States for maintenance and not to the general agent shipping company. This defense was specifically raised by the answer to the complaint in the instant action, although not pressed at the argument on the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, on June 27, 1949, affirmed the Gaynor case, 69 S.Ct. 1330, Accordingly, therefore, an order will be entered denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and a motion to dismiss the complaint will be entertained. See Read v. Agwilines, No. 9654, order entered July 5, 1949, Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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

McGRANERY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a seaman, brought suit against the International Freighting Corp. for damages and for maintenance and cure, alleging, inter alia, that he had suffered injuries while in the service of the vessel. The cause of action for maintenance and cure was separately argued before me on a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, it was decided in Gaynor v. Agwilines, Inc., D.C., 76 F.Supp. 617, affirmed 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 612, that a seaman, who was employed on a merchant vessel operated under a general agency agreement with the War Shipping Administration, must look to the United States for maintenance and not to the general agent shipping company. This defense was specifically raised by the answer to the complaint in the instant action, although not pressed at the argument on the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, on June 27, 1949, affirmed the Gaynor case, 69 S.Ct. 1330, Accordingly, therefore, an order will be entered denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and a motion to dismiss the complaint will be entertained. See Read v. Agwilines, No. 9654, order entered July 5, 1949, Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F. Supp. 562, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-international-freighting-corp-paed-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack