Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Lucas

Supreme Court

Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Lucas

258 U.S. 266, 42 S. Ct. 308, 66 L. Ed. 614, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2268

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 27, 1922

Docket160

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 258 U.S. 266 (Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Lucas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Lucas, 258 U.S. 266, 42 S. Ct. 308, 66 L. Ed. 614, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2268 (1922).

Pincite

Opinion

*267 Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a.libel brought by the respondent to recover $219 for wages, subsistence and medical attendance, the libellant having been left at Honolulu, ill, in the course of a voyage from San Francisco to the Orient and return. The defence is that he was not ill, that ill or well he should have, remained upon the vessel, and further that he was discharged, and signed the mutual release required .by Rev. Stats., § 4552, and by that section made a bar. The Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the finding of the District Court that the libellant was not malingering, and, as we take it, although it is argued otherwise, also in finding that the doctor and master of the ship were willing that the libellant should go to the Marine Hospital. The only, question that we see reason for considering is whether the two Courts were right in holding that the libellant was not concluded by the release.

Both Courts have found that the respondent was only asked to sign for his wages, that a discharge was riot mentioned, and to put it in our own way, that the purport of the overt acts in the circumstances was not to release the libellant’s claim.- The petitioner cites the words of Rev. Stats., § 4552, and Rosenberg v. Doe, 146. Mass. 191, to show that such a position is impossible. But the same case at a later stage, 148 Mass. 560, admitted á. different result where the sailor knew too little English to understand the nature of the document and there was evidence that it was misstated to him. In the present case we have the further very important fact, which does not appear in the report of Rosenberg v. Doe, that the master did not give the'respondent a certificate .of discharge, as he was required to, under a penalty of fifty dollars, by Rev. Stats. § 4551, if,the; respondent really was discharged. Morer over, by a- statute later in its present form than Rosenberg v. Doe, it is provided that notwithstanding the statutory *268 release “ any court having jurisdiction may upon good cause shown set aside such release and take such action as justice' shall require.” Act of March 4, 1915, c. 153, § 4; 38 Stat. 1164, 1165. We are not prepared to say that the finding of the two Courts was wrong.

Decree affirmed.

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

*267 Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a.libel brought by the respondent to recover $219 for wages, subsistence and medical attendance, the libellant having been left at Honolulu, ill, in the course of a voyage from San Francisco to the Orient and return. The defence is that he was not ill, that ill or well he should have, remained upon the vessel, and further that he was discharged, and signed the mutual release required .by Rev. Stats., § 4552, and by that section made a bar. The Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the finding of the District Court that the libellant was not malingering, and, as we take it, although it is argued otherwise, also in finding that the doctor and master of the ship were willing that the libellant should go to the Marine Hospital. The only, question that we see reason for considering is whether the two Courts were right in holding that the libellant was not concluded by the release.

Both Courts have found that the respondent was only asked to sign for his wages, that a discharge was riot mentioned, and to put it in our own way, that the purport of the overt acts in the circumstances was not to release the libellant’s claim.- The petitioner cites the words of Rev. Stats., § 4552, and Rosenberg v. Doe, 146. Mass. 191, to show that such a position is impossible. But the same case at a later stage, 148 Mass. 560, admitted á. different result where the sailor knew too little English to understand the nature of the document and there was evidence that it was misstated to him. In the present case we have the further very important fact, which does not appear in the report of Rosenberg v. Doe, that the master did not give the'respondent a certificate .of discharge, as he was required to, under a penalty of fifty dollars, by Rev. Stats. § 4551, if,the; respondent really was discharged. Morer over, by a- statute later in its present form than Rosenberg v. Doe, it is provided that notwithstanding the statutory *268 release “ any court having jurisdiction may upon good cause shown set aside such release and take such action as justice' shall require.” Act of March 4, 1915, c. 153, § 4; 38 Stat. 1164, 1165. We are not prepared to say that the finding of the two Courts was wrong.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 U.S. 266, 42 S. Ct. 308, 66 L. Ed. 614, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-mail-steamship-co-v-lucas-scotus-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack