Vidal v. American Scantic Lines, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Vidal v. American Scantic Lines, Inc.

47 F.2d 605, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3526, 1931 A.M.C. 485

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1931

DocketNo. 3065

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 F.2d 605 (Vidal v. American Scantic Lines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vidal v. American Scantic Lines, Inc., 47 F.2d 605, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3526, 1931 A.M.C. 485 (4th Cir. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from, a decree entered in the District Court of the United States for the'Eastern District of Virginia in a suit in admiralty brought by appellant claiming waiting time under section 596, title 46 US VCA, because of failure to pay wages due him, and also seeking to recover for value of effects alleged to have been left by him on board the steamer at the time he left it. The judge' below denied appellant waiting time, and no evidence was introduced with regard to the effects of appellant, and judgment was rendered in his favor for $15.04, fines assessed against him which had not been properly logged and were therefore not deductible from his pay.

Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Collie v. Fergusson et al., 281 U. S. 52, 50 S. Ct. 189, 74 L, Ed. 696, and of this court in the Lake Gaither, 40 F.(2d) 31; The Velma L. Hamlin, 40 F.(2d) 852, and The Corapeak, 46 F.(2d) 262, decided January 13, 1931, the rule is’ well established that, in order to permit the recovery of waiting time by a seaman, refusal to pay his wages must not have -been “in some reasonable degree morally justified.” An examination of the record here shows no arbitrary or unjust action on the part of the master, but on the contrary, shows that he acted in a reasonable manner throughout. If there was any conduct that could not be justified, it is the conduct of the appellant himself and not that of the master.

The decree of the court below will accordingly be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from, a decree entered in the District Court of the United States for the'Eastern District of Virginia in a suit in admiralty brought by appellant claiming waiting time under section 596, title 46 US VCA, because of failure to pay wages due him, and also seeking to recover for value of effects alleged to have been left by him on board the steamer at the time he left it. The judge' below denied appellant waiting time, and no evidence was introduced with regard to the effects of appellant, and judgment was rendered in his favor for $15.04, fines assessed against him which had not been properly logged and were therefore not deductible from his pay.

Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Collie v. Fergusson et al., 281 U. S. 52, 50 S. Ct. 189, 74 L, Ed. 696, and of this court in the Lake Gaither, 40 F.(2d) 31; The Velma L. Hamlin, 40 F.(2d) 852, and The Corapeak, 46 F.(2d) 262, decided January 13, 1931, the rule is’ well established that, in order to permit the recovery of waiting time by a seaman, refusal to pay his wages must not have -been “in some reasonable degree morally justified.” An examination of the record here shows no arbitrary or unjust action on the part of the master, but on the contrary, shows that he acted in a reasonable manner throughout. If there was any conduct that could not be justified, it is the conduct of the appellant himself and not that of the master.

The decree of the court below will accordingly be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 F.2d 605, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 3526, 1931 A.M.C. 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vidal-v-american-scantic-lines-inc-ca4-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack