Maia v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd.

141 Misc. 140, 252 N.Y.S. 201, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1614
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided July 24, 1931·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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 estabhshing such laws was upon the plaintiff. (Christie v. Cerro de Pasco Copper Corp., 214 App. Div. 820; affd., 243 N. Y. 557; Cuba R. R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U. S. 473; Mexican Cent. R. Co. v. Chantry, 136 Fed. 316.)

All concur; present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

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

Maia v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd., 141 Misc. 140, 252 N.Y.S. 201, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

141 Misc. 140 (Maia v. Lamport & Holt, Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arams v. Arams
182 Misc. 328 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Hogan v. Hamburg-American Line
152 Misc. 405 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1934)