Neal v. Lykes Bros.-Ripley S. S. Co.
This text of 127 F.2d 879 (Neal v. Lykes Bros.-Ripley S. S. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The libel was for wages and for penalties for their withholding. The defense was that because of incompetence, neglect of duty, and insubordination, libellant had, with the authority and approval of the Vice-Consul of the United States in London, been disrated from steward to work-a-way, and his earned wages to date had been tendered and refused.
The district judge, finding that libellant was actually incompetent to perform the work of steward and was properly removed from that position, that he was in good faith disrated to work-a-way, that there was a good faith dispute as to whether he was due any wages, and that his wages cannot therefore be said to have been withheld without sufficient cause, denied the recovery of penalties. Holding however that instead of disrating libellant to work-a-way he should have been disrated to a lower position with pay, he awarded him $148.00 wages.
Libellant alone has appealed, insisting that the district judge was wrong, and that he should have both steward’s wages and penalties for their non-payment. Appellee, not appealing, yet insists that the whole case being before us, we should here enter judgment that libellant take nothing. We think it quite clear that the issue upon which the case went against libellant below, was one purely of fact; that while there was evidence from which the conclusion might have been drawn, as was done in Trent’s case (Trent v. Gulf Pac. Lines) 1 that the discharge was not warranted, there is abundant evidence to support the conclusion that it was; and that the decree should be affirmed throughout.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
127 F.2d 879, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 4015, 1942 A.M.C. 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-lykes-bros-ripley-s-s-co-ca5-1942.