Mamat v. United Fruit Co.

S.D. New York

Mamat v. United Fruit Co.

39 F. Supp. 103, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2100

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedDecember 23, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 39 F. Supp. 103 (Mamat v. United Fruit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mamat v. United Fruit Co., 39 F. Supp. 103, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2100 (S.D.N.Y. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

CONGER, District Judge.

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.

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

CONGER, District Judge.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 F. Supp. 103, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mamat-v-united-fruit-co-nysd-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack