The Mariner

D. Massachusetts

The Mariner

298 F. 108, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1608, 1924 A.M.C. 882

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedApril 10, 1924

DocketNo. 2351

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 298 F. 108 (The Mariner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Mariner, 298 F. 108, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1608, 1924 A.M.C. 882 (D. Mass. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

MORTON, District Judge.

These are two intervening petitions by Griffin and Shea, who were masters of the Mariner, asserting maritime liens for their wages. She was a beam trawler; the petitioners were hired by her owners at fixed wages plus a commission on the [109]*109catch. The masters had nothing to do with selling the catch or purchasing supplies, nor did they handle any of the money. All that work was done by representatives of the owners, under whose direction the fish were .sold and the voyages settled. The master had full, command of the vessel when at sea, and decided where she should go and on what grounds she 'should fish.

It is said for the plaintiffs that on such facts the old reasons for refusing a hen to the master for wages no longer apply. As an original question there would' be a good deal of force to this contention; but the law is settled .that, although his powers may be greatly restricted and he may have no control over the funds, a master who in fact exercises the ordinary duties of a master at sea has no lien for his wages. The Nebraska, 75 Fed. 598, 21 C. C. A. 448 (C. C. A. 7th) ; The Eugenia Emilia, 298 Fed. 340 (District Court, Mass., February 8, 1924). As applied to modern conditions, the rule is too strict, .and is often, as here, unjust; but a court of first instance must take the established law as it finds it.

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

MORTON, District Judge.

These are two intervening petitions by Griffin and Shea, who were masters of the Mariner, asserting maritime liens for their wages. She was a beam trawler; the petitioners were hired by her owners at fixed wages plus a commission on the [109]*109catch. The masters had nothing to do with selling the catch or purchasing supplies, nor did they handle any of the money. All that work was done by representatives of the owners, under whose direction the fish were .sold and the voyages settled. The master had full, command of the vessel when at sea, and decided where she should go and on what grounds she 'should fish.

It is said for the plaintiffs that on such facts the old reasons for refusing a hen to the master for wages no longer apply. As an original question there would' be a good deal of force to this contention; but the law is settled .that, although his powers may be greatly restricted and he may have no control over the funds, a master who in fact exercises the ordinary duties of a master at sea has no lien for his wages. The Nebraska, 75 Fed. 598, 21 C. C. A. 448 (C. C. A. 7th) ; The Eugenia Emilia, 298 Fed. 340 (District Court, Mass., February 8, 1924). As applied to modern conditions, the rule is too strict, .and is often, as here, unjust; but a court of first instance must take the established law as it finds it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 F. 108, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1608, 1924 A.M.C. 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-mariner-mad-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack