The Phoebe v. Dignum

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

The Phoebe v. Dignum

19 F. Cas. 530, 1 Wash. C. C. 48

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 15, 1803

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. Cas. 530 (The Phoebe v. Dignum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Phoebe v. Dignum, 19 F. Cas. 530, 1 Wash. C. C. 48 (circtdpa 1803).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

Absence for more than forty-eight hours from the vessel, without leave of the master or officer commanding on board, is a forfeiture of all the wages due to that time; provided the officer having charge of the log book, shall make an entry therein of the name of such seaman, on the day on which he shall so absent himself. The reason of this is obvious; if no such entry be made, it repels any presumption that such [531]*531•consent took place, or that the forfeiture was intended to be waived. If no such entry be made, it is to he presumed that the absence was not injurious, and was not objected to. As it does not appear in this case any such entry was made, the appellee is entitled to his wages, and therefore, let the sentence be affirmed, with costs.

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

BY THE COURT.

Absence for more than forty-eight hours from the vessel, without leave of the master or officer commanding on board, is a forfeiture of all the wages due to that time; provided the officer having charge of the log book, shall make an entry therein of the name of such seaman, on the day on which he shall so absent himself. The reason of this is obvious; if no such entry be made, it repels any presumption that such [531]*531•consent took place, or that the forfeiture was intended to be waived. If no such entry be made, it is to he presumed that the absence was not injurious, and was not objected to. As it does not appear in this case any such entry was made, the appellee is entitled to his wages, and therefore, let the sentence be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. Cas. 530, 1 Wash. C. C. 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-phoebe-v-dignum-circtdpa-1803.