Pillsbury v. Pacific Steamship Co.

Ninth Circuit

Pillsbury v. Pacific Steamship Co.

56 F.2d 79, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2709, 1932 A.M.C. 316

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 1932

DocketNo. 6587

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 56 F.2d 79 (Pillsbury v. Pacific Steamship Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pillsbury v. Pacific Steamship Co., 56 F.2d 79, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2709, 1932 A.M.C. 316 (9th Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWTELLE, Circuit Judge.

This ease is affirmed, with modification as hereinafter noted, on authority of Marshall and Winkler v. Mahony Co. et al. (C. C. A.) 56 F.(2d) 74, decided this day, and for the additional reason that the facts in the instant suit disclose that there was no employee of the same “class” who had worked “substantially the whole” year, etc., whose earnings could be used as a standard for computing appellant’s compensation under 33 USCA § 910 (b). Accordingly, computation under subsection (b) was clearly “unfair” and “unreasonable,” if not mathematically impossible.

[80]*80The additional argument of the appellant herein, however, to the effect that the District Court erred in entering a decree for the refund of excess payments made to the applicant under the award of the deputy commissioner, is sound. There is nothing in the record, including the pleadings, to justify the court in entering that portion of the decree. We therefore hold that the last paragraph of the decree should be stricken.

With, this modification, the decree is affirmed.

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

SAWTELLE, Circuit Judge.

This ease is affirmed, with modification as hereinafter noted, on authority of Marshall and Winkler v. Mahony Co. et al. (C. C. A.) 56 F.(2d) 74, decided this day, and for the additional reason that the facts in the instant suit disclose that there was no employee of the same “class” who had worked “substantially the whole” year, etc., whose earnings could be used as a standard for computing appellant’s compensation under 33 USCA § 910 (b). Accordingly, computation under subsection (b) was clearly “unfair” and “unreasonable,” if not mathematically impossible.

[80]*80The additional argument of the appellant herein, however, to the effect that the District Court erred in entering a decree for the refund of excess payments made to the applicant under the award of the deputy commissioner, is sound. There is nothing in the record, including the pleadings, to justify the court in entering that portion of the decree. We therefore hold that the last paragraph of the decree should be stricken.

With, this modification, the decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 79, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2709, 1932 A.M.C. 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pillsbury-v-pacific-steamship-co-ca9-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack