Mauri v. S.S. SAG HARBOR

227 F. Supp. 661, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7220
CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedMarch 25, 1964
DocketAdmiralty No. 4346
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 F. Supp. 661 (Mauri v. S.S. SAG HARBOR) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mauri v. S.S. SAG HARBOR, 227 F. Supp. 661, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7220 (D. Md. 1964).

Opinion

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

The first cause of action alleged in the libel herein is a conventional claim for maintenance and cure. The second alleges that respondents have refused without sufficient cause to pay the maintenance and cure due libelant, and he claims two days maintenance and cure for each and every day during which payment thereof is delayed, “in accordance with the provisions of the United States Code, Title 46, Section 596”. That section provides:

“The master or owner of any vessel making coasting voyages shall pay to every seaman his wages within two days after the termination of the agreement under which he was shipped, or at the time such seaman is discharged, whichever first happens; and in case of vessels making foreign voyages, or from a port on the Atlantic to a port on the Pacific, or vice versa, within twenty-four hours after the cargo has been discharged, or within four days after the seaman has been discharged, whichever first happens ; and in all cases the seaman shall be entitled to be paid at the time of his discharge on account of wages a sum equal to one-third part of the balance due him. Every master or owner who refuses or neglects to make payment in the manner here-inbefore mentioned without sufficient cause shall pay to the seaman a sum equal to two days’ pay for each and every day during which payment is delayed beyond the respective periods, which sum shall be-recoverable as wages in any claim made before the court; but this; section shall not apply to masters- or owners of any vessel the seamen of which are entitled to share in the profits of the cruise or voyage. This section shall not apply to fishing or whaling vessels or yachts.”

The exceptions filed to the second cause of action must be sustained. Payments for maintenance and cure are not wages. Clinton v. Joshua Hendy Corp., 9 Cir., 277 F.2d 447 (1960), appeal dismissed, 364 U.S. 292, 81 S.Ct. 77, 5 L.Ed.2d 39; Norris, The Law of Seamen, 2d Ed., Vol. 1, § 576, p. 654.

The provisions in the Working Agreement between Various Companies and Agents and the National Maritime Union, cited by libelant, do not transform maintenance and cure into wages.1

Libelant’s motion to amend his libel to add a third cause of action claim[663]*663ing a reasonable counsel fee because of respondents’ alleged refusal, without sufficient cause, to pay the maintenance and cure due libelant, will be granted. Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962).

The exceptions to the second cause of action are hereby sustained. • Leave to amend as requested is hereby granted.

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

Related

Korinis v. Sealand Services, Inc.
490 F. Supp. 418 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Alier v. Sea Land Service, Inc.
465 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Puerto Rico, 1979)
Ladzinski v. Sperling Steamship and Trading Corp.
300 F. Supp. 947 (S.D. New York, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 F. Supp. 661, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauri-v-ss-sag-harbor-mdd-1964.